Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

10K

like 0

"(i) On 11.08.2014 complainant Ms. Gulzar Begum along with her husband and daughter had lodged a complaint at PS: Malviya Nagar with regard to a quarrel taken place on 10.08.2014 in front of her residence i.e. H.No.21A, opposite Gandhi Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 2 of 13(ii) On the following facts and circumstances that accused Danish had wrongfully confined and restrained her and her daughter Zaheen Asraf by forcibly pushing her and inflicting simple injuries on them.The accused had also used abusive language while addressing the complainant and her daughter with the intent to insult and outrage their modesty and had threatened to kill her whole family.(iii) Based on her statement recorded by HC/IO Zaffrudin Khan (PW-6) FIR No. 1001/2014 U/s 323/341/506(II)/509 IPC was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.After the completion of investigating, charge sheet was filed on 18.11.2014 and after committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges U/s 323/341/506(II)/509 IPC were framed against the accused on 19.10.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."Hearing the noise, my husband came down from first floor, accused also started abusing my husband.Thereafter my husband stopped him.At that time my daughter came out from my house and she was standing near the gate and accused pushed my daughter.During her cross examination the complainant for the first time mentioned the presence of wife of the accused at the spot at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, which fact was neither mentioned in complaint nor did she mention her involvement in the FIR.She further in her cross examination admitted the fact that she was not the owner of the parking area and the same was used as a common place wherein any of the resident was allowed to park his/her vehicle.But I did not come out from my room at that time but just after 20-25 minutes I heard very big noise and I came out from my room.My mother was told from balcony to not park the vehicle and I came from my room to the main gate of our flat.When I came to the main gate then accused Danish was standing at the gate I front of my mother and was threathing her saying that he had many sources and he could do anything to harm us.When I saw all this I came forward and asked the accused why he was doing this.Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Rajender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar CORAM:HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J CRL.M.A. 49520/2018 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.Application stands disposed of.CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 1 of 13L. P. 827/2018Consequently, the present criminal leave petition is allowed.Registry is directed to register the present leave petition as appeal.Leave petition is disposed of.CRL.A. /2019 (To be numbered)No leave petition has been preferred by the state against the impugned order.On the request of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is set down for final hearing and disposal.This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitian Magistrate-02, South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi in case FIR No. 1001/2014 registered at Police Station- Malviya Nagar, filed on behalf of the victim whereby the accused Danish ('respondent no. 2 herein') was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 323/341/506(II)/509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under: -To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in all.Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife on 16.07.2014 and chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.After hearing the respective counsel and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences.Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2017 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial court has failed to CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 3 of 13 acknowledge the testimony of PW-1 Gulzar Begum, PW-2 Noorul Ain, PW-5 Ms. Zaheen in the correct perspective and has given undue weightage to the minor discrepancies which have occurred in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to which all the testimonies are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major omissions and contradictions in the aforesaid testimonies.Counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case; hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 3 of 13I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimonies of material witnesses, more particularly the testimonies of PW-1 Gulzar Begum, PW-2 Noorul Ain and PW-5 Ms. Zaheen, who has leveled the allegation against the accused Danish (respondent no. 2 herein).Smt. Gulzar Begum, the complainant, in this case, stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that:"I am housewife.On 10.08.2014, I along with my husband Mohair, my daughter Shania were present at my home.I was residing at H.No.121-A, First Floor, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi since 14 years from the incident and accused was residing on the second floor in said building, At that time I had parked my scooter in front of said building and accused removed my scooter.Thereafter, I stopped him and pulled down my scooter and started abusing me with filthy language and abuses that I cannot even CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 4 of 13 repeat and pushed me.Accused threatened me to kill me and my husband.Thereafter my husband called at 100 number and police reached the spot.Next day, I along with my husband went to the PS and police recorded my statement which is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A."CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 4 of 13Accordingly, as per the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Gulzar Begum, the quarrel began in front of her House No. 121-A, First Floor, Haus Rani, Malviya Nagar, wherein the accused was forcibly removing her scooter, which was parked by her in front of her building.On the intervention of the complainant, the accused person started abusing her with filthy language and purposely pushed her, with an intention of causing her injury.Consequently, on her hue and cry, her husband and her daughter had also arrived at the alleged place of the incident and on their arrival the accused person had also forcibly pushed her daughter and had threatened to kill them.During her cross examination she deposed as under: -"Vol.On the day of incidence was Roza Festival due to this I was unable for going the PS.It is correct that I had not got conducted the Medical Examination of myself.I sustained the injury on my right leg.I do not remember whether the day of incident was Roza festival or not.It is correct that I had told in my CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 5 of 13 chief examination me and my husband went to the PS for lodging the FIR.My daughter was also went to the PS with us.It is correct that I had not mentioned anywhere in the FIR or any statement that the wife of accused was present at the spot.I did not filed any case against the wife of accused because she was female entity although she was present at the spot.It is correct that my husband did not get his statement recorded anywhere from the day of registration of the FIR till the trial was commenced.It is wrong to suggest that I along with my husband and my daughter with accused were present at the spot and accused did not pushed my daughter at Ist floor.It is correct to say that the parking place is not owned by me as it is a common place where anywhere of the resident of the apartment where I live or anybody could park their respective vehicles without taking permission from anyone.There is a fixed place for parking for accused and another residents where vehicles are parked.However on that day accused tried to park his vehicle by removing my already park vehicle and did not park at the place where accused used to park their vehicle.It is correct to say that there is no such written mutual settlement/agreement with respect to the fixed place for parking the vehicles of the residents of the said building.It is correct to say that the key of the lock of terrace was handed over to my husband as well as Mr. Nurulain and Mr. Saxena by the IO of the present case to make access on the terrace.It is wrong to suggest that since there is a dispute between my husband and the accused with respect to the terrace of the building, I registered this false and after thought criminal case against the accused at the CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 6 of 13 instigation of my husband.It is correct to say that I am well aware of the pendency cases in the court.It is wrong to suggest that no such evidence ever occurred between me, my husband and accused.The presence of the alleged eye witness i.e. PW-2 Sh.Noorul Ain, at the spot is itself doubtful because none of the aforesaid witness has deposed regarding the presence of PW-2 at the spot.Further, she has categorically deposed that injuries were inflicted on her right leg, but in her intial complaint vide Ex.1/A she has stated that, "mai apna medical examination nahi karana chahti hun".The same fact is also corroborated with the cross examination of the Investigating officer Zaffrudin Khan (PW-6), wherein he has stated that "I advised for CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 7 of 13 conducting the medical examination of the complainant but she herself refused for the same".Therefore, the refusal to conduct medical examination leaves a suspicion on the story of the prosecution.CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 7 of 13Ms. Zaheen (daughter of the complainant) stepped into the witness box as PW-5 and deposed that:"On 10.08.2014 at about 7.30pm, I was present at my home in room and at that time I was not well.That time I heard a voice of my mother that she said to somebody for not parking the vehicle.Then the accused staring abusing me and my mother and was using filthy language and was using expletives against us which I cannot even repeat.When I came forward the accused pushed me and was looking very aggressive and then his wife had to pull him away and take him upstairs.Thereafter my father came and I saw that my father had sustained an injury on his leg and that is when I came to know about the entire incident which happened at the parking spot.On the next day, I along with my father and mother went to the PS for getting FIR lodged.IO recorded my statement at PS Malviya Nagar U/ 161 Cr.P.C.CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 8 of 13Ex. PW5/A bearing my signature at point A which I admitted today before the court.Earlier the accused had cordial relationship with my family.However one day accused started fighting with my father on the terrace and this happened a few months prior to the present incident and thereafter our relations with the accused turned sour."During her cross examination she deposed as under: -"It is correct to say that my mother was present in the balcony when I heard her voice and not at the ground/floor parking place.The accused Danish came upstairs and had abused and threatened me and my mother both exactly at the main door of our flat situated at the 1st floor.I do not remember whether my mother sustained injury anywhere in the body.It is correct that no MLC of my injured father was conducted before me by the police officers.It is correct to say that I was well acknowledged and aware about the entire incident occurred and no part is let without my knowledge.I do not remember whether my father gave his statement before the police authority or the honorable court.It is wrong to suggest that the accused wanted to construct or make usage of the terrace in any manner what soever bounded by laws and the complainant and her husband as a strong objection for the same due to which this false and after thought criminal case was filed against the accused.It is correct that the incidence at ground floor was not toll place in my present.At that time I was inside my room.It is wrong to suggest that since the relations between the complainant and her husband and the accused turned sour this present false and after CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 9 of 13 thought criminal case was filed against the accused at the instigation of her father."CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 9 of 13A conjoint reading of testimonies of PW-1(Gulzar Begum) and PW-5 (Ms. Zaheen) would show that there are various contradictions in their statements.PW-1(Gulzar Begum) in her initial complaint vide Ex.PW1/A has categorically stated that the incident had occurred at the parking spot; to the contrary however PW-5 (Ms. Zaheen) during her cross examination deposed that her mother was standing in the balcony at the time of the quarrel.Further PW-5(Ms. Zaheen) deposed that accused Danish came upstairs and had abused and threatened her and her mother outside her flat on the first floor, contrary to which PW-1 (Gulzar Begum) deposed that 'accused removed my scooter.Thereafter, I stopped him and pulled down my scooter and started abusing me with filthy language and abuses that I cannot even repeat and pushed me.Hearing the noise, my husband came down from first floor, accused also started abusing my husband.Thereafter my husband stopped him.At that time my daughter came out from my house and she was standing near the gate and accused pushed my daughter.'In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the evidences on record have been held to be unworthy of acceptance because the same are found to be replete with infirmities and not supported with medical evidence.Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MARCH 26, 2019 gr CRL.A. /2019(To be numbered) Page 13 of 13

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri D. Chaturvedi, P.L. for the State.Heard on the point of admission.Also heard on I.A. No.16529/2018, an application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant-Kamlesh.Appellant stands convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (dha) of IPC and under Section 5 (tha) and 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- in the first count, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- in the second count, RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in the third and fourth count respectively along with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident was more than 18 years, she was not minor and lived with the appellant as husband and wife.Appellant is in jail since 26.10.2016 i.e. more than two years.Learned counsel for the State submits that as per School certificate, the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years.She is a minor.Consent of the prosecutrix is not material and prayed for rejection of the aforesaid I.A.Perused the statement of the prosecutrix.She stated in para 2 that Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 26/03/2019 17:50:48 2 CRA-1967-2018 she lived with the appellant for two months in a Hut and she developed relations with the appellant as husband and wife, but the police caught hold her and took to Police Station Handiya where her father lodged missing report.In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the period of custody and the fact that final disposal of this appeal will take considerable long time, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the aforesaid I.A. is allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, if not deposited already and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, the appellant be released on bail with a further direction to mark their presence before the Registry of this Court o n 01.05.2019 and also on such other dates as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.List for final hearing in due course.C. C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE pb Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 26/03/2019 17:50:48

['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside First Information Report No.80 of 2015 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:41 ::: 3 apl387.15.odt for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A(1), 294, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:41 :::The application filed by applicant no.1 is rejected.First Information Report No.80 of 2015 registered at Police Station, Old City, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A(1), 294, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:41 ::: 4 apl387.15.odt and the consequent proceedings thereto, if any, as against the applicants herein except applicant no.1 stand quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:41 :::Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:26:41 :::

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

authorities to handover the matter to the Crime Branch.It is a case of the petitioner that in the year 2012 a theft was committed in his house by some unknown persons.An FIR in this regard was lodged at the police station Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal and vide Crime No. 231/2013 an offence punishable under Section 545/380 of the IPC was registered.In their memorandum, they admitted that they have committed the said theft.The grievance of the petitioner is that despite several complaints were made but no heed was paid by the higher authorities.

['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Respondent No. 1 has not challenged the decree of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, thus, same attended finality even then she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is living with her parents on her own will and she is spending adulterous life.Petitioner made all efforts to bring her back but she did not return back.(03.10.2019) Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.07.2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna (MP), in MJC No. 341/2014, whereby Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent and it is directed to the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents No. 2 and 3 each.After 2 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 making several efforts, petitioner was not ready to keep her.She further contended that respondents No. 2 and 3 are studying and she has no source of income to take care of them, whereas petitioner is playing a vehicle and he has two houses.He has also some shops which are running in rent and petitioner gets Rs. 15,000/- per months from it.The part of the house of petitioner is also in rent and he gets of Rs. 6,000/- per month from it.She further contended that in compliance of Court order, she went to the house of petitioner but they had not allowed her to enter into their house.The petitioner has performed second marriage, so she has also filed a complaint under Section 498-A/34 of IPC.The petitioner has filed a reply stating that respondent No. 3 is not his son and he and his family members never tortured her.In the year 2001, respondent went to her parental house on his own will.In proceeding under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No. 1 did not allege anything with regard to demand of dowry.He further contended that he is labour and he has no sufficient means to give the maintenance.Respondent No.1 is an educated lady and she does not want to live with him.She has also not complied the order passed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent No.1 is teacher in Shishu Bal Shiksha Mandir wherein, respondents No. 2 and 3 are studying without paying fee.Respondent No.1 is getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month.In proceeding of Section 9, respondent No. 1 has accepted the fact that the petitioner is not earning.He further stated that since 2001, he is continuously making efforts to live with respondent No.1 but she did not return back.In the 3 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 proceedings of "Paramarsh Kendra", she also refused to live with petitioner.After considering the evidence, the learned Principal Judge, came to the conclusion and awarded the maintenance amount as aforesaid.The respondent No.1 has deserted the petitioner without any reason and she has also ignored decree of restitution of conjugal right pass by the Lower Court.There is no marital co-habitation between the petitioner and respondent No.1, thus, she is not entitled to get any maintenance and order of learned Family Court is not sustainable.In the criminal case file by the complainant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, petitioner has been acquitted by the trial.So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, he is labour and he has no sufficient means to give such huge maintenance amount to the respondents.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the behavior of the petitioner and his family members was cruel against respondent No.1 and they 4 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 had thrown her out from their house.She has also filed criminal complaint against them.She has also made several efforts to make good their relation but petitioner did not take any steps in this regard even more he performed second marriage.Respondent has no sufficient means to survive with her two child who are studying.Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.Since, the petitioner has denied to give the maintenance with regard to respondent No. 3 saying that the respondent No. 3 is not his son, therefore, this Court shall first examine the evidence of the case to this context.On perusal of statement of the petitioner, it appears that in his cross examination he stated that he has no son but subsequently he stated that the respondent No.1 gave birth to son in her parental house.On perusal of Ex. P-22 (notice issued to the respondent), it appears that in para 3, the petitioner has contented the fact that from their wedlock they have blessed with two child, though, he has mentioned the different name of his child as mentioned in petition i.e. Uma and Rahul (In petition mentioned as Shriddha and Yogendra) but on perusal of statements of witnesses and document of Ex. D-4, it reveals that respondents 2 and 3 are Uma and Rahul, respectively.This fact has also been proved from cross examination of the petitioner.Further, on perusal of statements of respondent No.1, it seems that she stated 5 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 in her deposition that after their marriage, she delivered her daughter in her matrimonial house whereas when she was pregnant, she had thrown out from her matrimonial house.Munni Yadav (PW-2) mother of respondent No.1 has also supported this fact.Apart from that neither petitioner has produced any evidence nor made any effort to prove that the respondent no.3 not belongs to him.Therefore, respondent No.3 is also entitled to get the maintenance amount from the petitioner subject to consideration of merit of the case.On perusal of statement of the petitioner, it is found that he has accepted the suggestion that the respondent No. 1 was ready to go with him.It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed any execution for non compliance of order passed by the lower Court under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner has also made some allegation over the character of respondent No.1 and apart from that on perusal of statements of the witnesses as well as document of Ex. P-9, which is proved by Ram Prasad Yadav (PW-4), it seems that the petitioner has performed second marriage with one Saroj and he has also one daughter from her, though petitioner has denied the same.It is also appears from the record that negotiation proceeding in "Praivar Pramarsh Kendra" was also conducted, but no positive output comes from it.Respondent has also registered a criminal case under offence 498-A IPC against the petitioner, though, he has acquitted from the trial Court.Considering the above circumstances of case, this Court finds that respondent has sufficient reason not to live with the petitioner and she cannot be deprived from her right for getting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C merely non compliance of decree of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.So far as need of respondents to get the maintenance amount is concerned, it seems from the record that respondent No.1 is living in her parental house with her two child.Respondents No.2 and 3 are aged about 14 and 11 years, respectively.They are studying and certainly in current scenario, there is need of sufficient money to get good education and being 7 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 a father petitioner is responsible to do the needful for them.As far as respondent No.1 is concerned, according to petitioner she is working in private school and earns rupees 5,000/- per month but on perusal of statements of witnesses as well as certificate issued by School, it seems that respondent No.1 is not doing any teaching job as stated by the petitioner.Petitioner has also not proved any documentary evidence to rebut the same.On perusal of statements of witnesses, it reveals that petitioner plays vehicle and he has immovable property, received to him through inheritance, though, in his cross-examination, petitioner has denied both the fact.Considering, the statements of the witnesses, if it is presume that petitioner is skilled labour and he has some share over his father's property, his income may be assessed not more than rupees 10 to 15 thousand per month.Apart from above, it appears from the record that leg of petitioner got fracture which causes difficulty to him in playing the heavy vehicle.In this regard, he has produced the 8 Cr.R. No.1541/2014 documents.In such circumstances, awarded maintenance amount in respect to respondent No.1/wife is found excessive.

['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.

This petition has been filed to quash First Information Report in crime No.241 of 2018 dated 15.09.2018 on the file of the 1 st respondent for offences under Sections 448, 379, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and quash the same as illegal.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. 241 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 448, 379, 294(b) and 506(ii) 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 still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.O.P.(MD) No.18809 of 20189. 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.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."O.P.(MD) No.18809 of 2018

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & CRL.REV.P. 40/2015CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 1 of 8P. 40/2015 has been filed by the State impugning order dated 28.07.2014, whereby Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar has been discharged of all offences.Subject FIR No.672/2005, Police Station Hari Nagar, registered under Sections 147/148/149/307/365/380/120B IPC was registered on the complaint of one Mr. Bhimsen Ahuja alleging that he was the owner and in possession of a property in which certain people barged in with sticks and rods and attempted to evict him from the said property.It was alleged that those persons physically assaulted him and his wife and daughter.It was alleged that they even kidnapped his son for the purposes of evicting them from the said property.It was alleged that the household goods of the property were CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 2 of 8 CRL.REV.P. 40/2015 loaded in two tempo trucks and when the said persons were in the process of removing the goods and fleeing, public intervened and Police came and two of the accused were apprehended from the spot.CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 2 of 8As per the complainant, the attempt to evict the complainant and take forcible possession was at the behest of some property dealer with whom he had a dispute.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.860/2015 (for condonation of delay) in Crl.P.40/2015 CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 1 of 8 CRL.REV.P. 40/2015 For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.The case of the prosecution is that the two accused, who were apprehended from the spot, in their disclosure statements stated that they had been approached by the property dealer for evicting the complainant and they approached Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar, who assured them that on payment of money he would not intervene in the eviction process and rather would assist them in evicting the complainant.They in their disclosure statement further stated that they had taken the help of 4-5 people including Jai Bhagwan for the purposes of eviction.9. Trial Court in the impugned order on charge, inter alia, held as under:-"If contents of charge-sheet, statements of witnesses and documents attached with the charge sheet are perused.It CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 3 of 8 CRL.REV.P. 40/2015 is clear that basic ingredients of offences U/S 120- B/147/148/149/307/365 IPC are made out prima-facie against accused Jai Bhagwan as charges already framed qua other five accused persons.The complainant and other witnesses have described the incident in detail.The issues raised by Ld. Counsel accused Jai Bhagwan are subject matter of trial and no clean chit can be given to the accused Jai Bhagwan at this stage for any of the offences without entering into the trial.CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 3 of 8So far as case against accused Vinay Kumar is concerned, he is not a party to the actual dispute and allegations against him are that he helped one of the party i.e. the accused persons in commission of the alleged offence by misusing his authority as a police officer.It is alleged that he obtained Rs. 50,000/- in cash from the accused persons and helped them in vacating the premises.After carefully perusal of record, material contradictions and discrepancies are notices in the case of prosecution qua accused Vinay Kumar.It is case of the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from accused Vinay Kumar on 22-11-2005 being the amount obtained by him from the accused persons and that the same was deposited in the Malkhana.Statement of ASI Krishan Chander and Inspector Omvati Malik recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. on 23-11-2005 talks about such facts.Now to come up for framing of charge qua accused Jai Bhagwan on 16-8-2014."Insofar as Jai Bhagwan is concerned, The Trial Court in the impugned order noted that the contents of chargesheet, statement of witnesses and documents attached with the chargesheet had been perused and on perusal of the same, the Court was of the view that the ingredients of the subject offence were prima facie made out against Jai Bhagwan and, as such, charges were liable to be framed.It is an admitted case of the prosecution that apart from the disclosure statement of the two accused, who were apprehended from the spot, there is no material or evidence on record showing involvement of Jai Bhagwan in the subject offence.Coming to the role ascribed to Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar by the prosecution, once again it is noticed that apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused to connect Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar with the subject offence, there is no other corroborating incriminating material against him.The contention of Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar is that he was part of the Police team which had reached the spot and assisted in apprehending the two accused.The allegation of the two accused, who were apprehended from the spot, is that they had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar for his help.Rs.50,000/- was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar.Though the Trial Court has noticed that the amount is alleged to have been recovered on 22.11.2005 whereas the Malkhana entry of deposit of the said cash of Rs.50,000/- was dated 21.11.2005 prior to the alleged recovery from Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar.On that ground, the Trial Court found that since there were several discrepancies, no charge could be framed against Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar.It is not the case of the prosecution that the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was alleged to have been paid to Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar, was in currency which was either numbered or marked.Since the currency, which is alleged to have been recovered from Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar, was not identifiable or connectable to the amount of Rs.50,000/- allegedly paid by the two accused.Mere recovery of un-identifiable sum would not be sufficient to raise grave suspicion against Sub Inspector Vinay Kumar for the purposes of framing of charge against him.CRL.REV.P. 635/2014 & Page 7 of 8

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Sans unnecessary details prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:In the morning of 21-2-1978 the accused-respondent was found talking with Nuruddin (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') at about 9 '0' clock in front of his house where he was playing.The accused-respondent allegedly took him with him and thereafter Nuruddin was not seen and his dead body was recovered in the night from a well.Natthu Singh (PW-4) had allegedly seen in the same forenoon the deceased- Nuruddin going on a cycle with the accused-respondent.Smt. Khatoon (PW-3) mother of the deceased-Nuruddin had also seen Nuruddin with the accused-respondent outside her house at about 9 A.M. She had also seen him going with him.Thereafter, only his dead body could be recovered from a well.Amina (PW-8) had also seen Nuruddin talking with the accused-respondent outside her house in the morning of the day of the incident.J U D G M E N T Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Accused was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').He was awarded life imprisonment for each of the first two offences and five years RI for the last one.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Allahdin (PW-2) had gone to Hathras to sell iron nails and had returned home at about 5 P.M. His wife Smt. Khatoon (PW-3) had then told him that Nuruddin had not been seen since morning and that the accused-respondent had taken him.He was also informed by Natthu Singh (PW-4) and others that they had seen the deceased going on a cycle with the accused-respondent.He had then lodged the report the same night at 9.10 P.M.The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well of Raja Ram the same night at the instance of the accused-respondent who had allegedly been arrested by the SI Naresh Pal Yadav (PW-7) who had reached the village of the incident at about 10 P.M. Balbir (PW-6) was a witness of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the well at the instance of the accused and in consequence of the disclosure made by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act').The case was initially registered under Section 364 IPC but was subsequently converted additionally under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC on the recovery of the dead body.The dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted on 22-2-1978 at 3 P.M. by Dr. S.K. Saxena (PW-1).The deceased was aged about 7 years and about 1= day had passed since he died.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:Lacerated wound 1= " x 1" x bone deep on the scalp (L) side '/2" outer to midline, 1=" above (L) eyebrow.Three abrasions in an area of 2" x 2" on the (L) temple region varying from <" x <" to =' x 2/10".Skin of hands and feet was corrugated.Death had occurred due to coma and asphyxia owing to injury to brain and drowning.The investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed.As noted above, the Trial Court found the accused persons guilty.If the accused had the motive the scenario as described by the prosecution does not fit in.The High Court noted if the accused was harassing PW-3 and the deceased was asked to accompany her, it is highly improbable that mother of the deceased would like the deceased to go with the accused.So far as the evidence of PW-4 is concerned it was noted that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that the deceased was being carried by the accused at bicycle.Accordingly the High Court directed acquittal.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the motive was clearly established.The accused was having animosity towards the family of the deceased.Merely because PW-4 had not stated that during investigation the accused was carrying the deceased on a cycle, same cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version.None appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice.There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.It was also stated that on several occasions accused wanted to sexually assault PW-8 and to ensure that she is not left alone, the deceased was asked to accompany her.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The informant namely, Nishikant Mangesh Kakade, r/o.His daughters namely, Janhavi and Vaishnavi, aged about 11 years and 7 years, respectively, were studying in St. Aloysius Marathi Primary School, at Bhusawal, in 6th standard and 2nd standard, respectively.Their school hours were from ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 4 cri.appeal.147 and 1347.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.An auto-rickshaw was engaged to facilitate them to attend the school.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::On 18.06.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., when the informant went back to his house, his wife namely, Manisha informed that on that day at about 1.30 p.m., a boy aged about 20 to 22 years, having blackish complexion and who had worn a jeans pant and T-shirt, had been to their house to collect information of their daughters namely, Janhavi and Vaishnavi, on the say that the said information was necessary for drawing their insurance policies.However, she did not furnish any information to him.The said boy asked for drinking water.When she went to another room to bring water, the said boy asked the names of the daughters, who were in the front-side room.After drinking water, that boy went away.On 22.06.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., Janhavi and Vaishnavi went to their school by an auto-rickshaw.The informant also attended his office at ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 5 cri.appeal.147 and 134about 10.30 a.m. When he was sitting inside his cabin, a boy of the above-mentioned description came there at about 1.00 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. and asked the informant, whether he had received any phone call.When the informant answered him in the negative and further asked as to who had proposed to call him on phone, the said boy answered that he wanted to open a new account and went away.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::Then at about 2.15 p.m., the wife of the informant phoned him and informed that Janhavi and Vaishnavi had not come back from the school and the rickshaw driver told her that somebody had taken away both of the daughters from the school.The informant then started to go to the school.At that time, an unknown person called him through mobile no.9822876909 and informed him that both the daughters were with him and demanded Rs.25,00,000/-.He further informed that he would call after sometime and ended the call. ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::6 cri.appeal.147 and 134The informant went to the school to inquire about his daughters, whereon the Headmistress of the school informed him that sometime prior to the end of the school hours, two boys aged 20 to 22 years gave a written application informing that the mother of Janhavi and Vaishnavi had met with an accident and therefore, they wanted to take Janhavi and Vaishnavi to their house.After receiving that application, both the girls were given in the custody of those two boys.Both of them took away the two girls with them.Thereafter, the informant went back to his bank.He then received three phone calls from a person with the intervals of 15 to 20 minutes from phone no.02582225826 asking him whether he had arranged for money and informing that his daughters were safe with him.The informant expressed his inability to arrange for the amount demanded and on being asked by that person, stated that he had arranged for Rs.50,000/-.The informant then asked that person as to where he should hand over that ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 7 cri.appeal.147 and 134amount.The said person then told the informant that he would come to the bank and take away the amount.The said person again said that the question of payment of money would be considered lateron and that his daughters would reach his house within 5 to 10 minutes.It was the time of about 3.40 p.m. Thereafter, informant received a phone call at about 4.00 p.m. from his wife, who informed that both the daughters had come to the house.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The informant went to his house and asked Janhavi as to what had happened.She informed that the boy, who had been to their house before 3-4 days, had come to her school and informed that her mother had met with an accident and her father had called her to Jalgaon.The said person obtained permission from her teacher and took Vaishnavi and herself from the school to a petrol pump.He then made them to sit in a bus (Luxury) with his friend, who was of fair complexion, and he stayed there only.The friend of that boy then took both of them to Jalgaon and again ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 8 cri.appeal.147 and 134brought them to Bhusawal by S.T. Bus.Then, from S.T. bus - stand, they were made to sit in an auto-rickshaw with instructions to the rickshaw-driver to reach both of them to their house.It is, thus, clear that Janhavi (PW6) and Vaishnavi were much below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.Janhavi (PW 6) deposes that on 18.06.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., she was at her home with her mother.At that time, a boy of blackish complexion came there and asked her mother about their details for the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 17 cri.appeal.147 and 134purpose of getting them insured.The said boy asked for drinking water.When her mother went inside the other room, the said boy asked her about her name, phone number, school name and standard.After drinking water, he went away.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::Janhavi (PW 6) then states that on 22.06.2004, she had gone to school along with her younger sister - Vaishnavi.Some time prior to the closing hours of the school, a Peon came to her class and told the class-teacher that somebody had come to take her (Janhavi - PW 6).Therefore, she went to the office of the Headmistress.Her sister Vaishnavi also was there.Janhavi (PW 6) states that the boy, who had come to their house prior to about four days, was present there with his colleague.Her teacher asked, whether she was knowing the said boy of blackish complexion.Janhavi (PW 6) replied that she was knowing him.She states that the said boy told her that her mother had met with an accident and he had come to take her for going to Jalgaon.Thereafter, the boy of fair complexion brought them back to Bhusawal by bus.After alighting from the bus at bus-stand, Bhusawal, they found the boy of blackish complexion present there.He sent her sister and herself to their house in an auto-rickshaw.42 cri.appeal.147 and 134The record shows that the accused were aged 22 and 24 years respectively, at the time of the incident.Though they kidnapped the minor daughters of the informant, they did not take any disadvantage of their position.Criminal Appeal Nos.147 of 2006 and 134 of 2006 have been preferred by accused nos.1 and 2 ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 3 cri.appeal.147 and 134respectively assailing the judgment and order dated 06.02.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2004 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, whereby they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with default stipulation.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The informant went to Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal and lodged F.I.R. against unknown persons.On the basis of that F.I.R., Crime No.81 of 2004 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. A.P.I. Borse conducted investigation.He seized the chit/application given for the purpose of taking away Janhavi and Vaishnavi from the school.He recorded statements of witnesses.On the basis of the phone numbers given by the informant, through which the person kidnapping Janhavi and Vaishnavi had contacted the informant, A.P.I. Borse could connect accused no.1 with the said incident.On the basis of further investigation and interrogation with accused no.1, he found that accused no.2 was also involved in the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 9 cri.appeal.147 and 134incident of kidnapping.A note-book bearing the hand-writing of accused no.1 came to be seized.His specimen hand-writings were obtained.The said documents were subsequently sent to the hand-writing expert with the chit/application received from the Headmistress of the school.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::When accused no.1 was in the police custody on 29.06.2004, he gave a disclosure statement and offered to produce two SIM-cards of IDEA company, the bills under which they were purchased by him and two mobile hand-sets of Siemens company.Accordingly, the said SIM-cards, mobile hand-sets and the bills came to be seized on being produced by him from his house.The SIM-cards were in respect of the same mobile numbers on which the informant had received calls on the day of the incident in connection with kidnapping of Janhavi and Vaishnavi and demand of Rs.25,00,000/-.A.P.I. Borse collected the Call Details Record (C.D.R.) in respect of the SIM-cards.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::10 cri.appeal.147 and 134Test identification parade of accused nos.1 and 2 was conducted on 28.06.2004 through the Tahsildar.Accused nos.1 and 2 were identified by Janhavi as the same person, who had taken Vaishnavi and herself from the school on the day of the incident.Accused no.1 was identified by the informant and his wife Manisha as well.After completion of the investigation, accused nos.1 and 2 came to be charge-sheeted for the above-mentioned offence in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Bhusawal.The offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Jalgaon.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::11 cri.appeal.147 and 134The learned trial Judge framed Charge against both the accused for the above-mentioned offences vide Exh.15 and explained the contents thereof to them in vernacular.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence is that of total denial and false implication.The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to establish guilt of the accused for the above-mentioned offence.The learned trial Judge scrutinised the said evidence and came to hold that the prosecution established guilt of the accused for the above-mentioned offence beyond reasonable doubt.He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused for the above-mentioned offence, as stated above.The learned Counsel for accused no.1 submits that there are a number of deficiencies in the evidence of the prosecution, which make it unbelievable.According to him, the identity of accused no.1 itself has not been duly proved.He ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 12 cri.appeal.147 and 134submits that the wife of the informant namely, Manisha had seen accused no.1, however she has not been examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason.He then states that the description and features of accused no.1, as stated by the Headmistress of the school and Janhavi were not at all sufficient to connect accused no.1 with the incident in question.The Tahsildar has not followed the provisions of the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court in respect of test identification parade and therefore, the evidence of the informant and Janhavi about having identified accused no.1 in the T.I. Parade cannot be believed.He submits that if the evidence in respect of the T.I. parade is disregarded, there remains hardly any evidence to connect accused no.1 in question.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The learned Counsel for accused no.1 further submits that the C.D.R. has been wrongly admitted by the learned trial Judge.According to him, in the absence of the certificate under Section 65-B of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 13 cri.appeal.147 and 134Evidence Act, the evidence in respect of the C.D.R. was not at all admissible in view of the judgment in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs.P.K. Basheer and ors.The learned Counsel submits that the evidence on record falls short in establishing the ingredients of the offence under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. According to him, the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record correctly and properly.Accused no.1 has been wrongly held guilty for the above-mentioned offence.He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside and accused no.1 may be acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The learned Counsel for accused no.1, in the alternative, submits that from the facts of the case, at the most, the offence of kidnapping made punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. would be disclosed.If accused no.1 is held guilty for the said offence, it may be considered that the incident took place before about 13 years.At that time, accused no.1 was aged about 22 years.He has no ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 14 cri.appeal.147 and 134criminal antecedents.He has now got married and is having responsibility of his family.The daughters of the informant safely reached his house.Nothing objectionable was done with them.In the alternative, he submits that accused no.1 was behind the bars for about five months in respect of this crime.Therefore, if the benefit of probation could not be given to him, accused no.1 may be sentenced for the period, which he has already undergone.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The learned Senior Counsel for accused no.2 adopts the arguments advanced on behalf of accused no.1 in respect of merits of the case.In addition to that, he submits that the identity of accused no.2 is not at all established.He submits that the evidence connecting accused no.2 with the incident in question is not cogent, consistent and believable.He, therefore, prays that accused no.2 may be acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::15 cri.appeal.147 and 134In the alternative, he submits that accused no.2 filed an application stating therein that there has been amicable settlement between the informant and himself.The informant has filed an affidavit in support of that application stating that the incident has taken place before thirteen years.He intends to forgive accused no.2 since, at the relevant time, he was a young student and in the young age, he committed mistake, which resulted into present case.The learned Senior Counsel submits that accused no.2 has no criminal background.He is a young person having responsibility of his family.So far as accused no.1 is concerned, there is direct evidence ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 16 cri.appeal.147 and 134of Janhavi (PW 6)(Exh.34) and the Headmistress of the school - Sister Juvana (PW 9)(Exh.37).The evidence of the informant - Nishikant (PW 1)(Exh.23) also shows involvement of accused no.1 in the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::Janhavi (PW 6) deposes that she was aged about 11 years and was studying in 6th standard in St. Alies High School, Bhusawal when the incident took place.She further states that her younger sister Vaishnavi was studying in 2nd standard in the same school.The informant also states the same.This evidence has not been challenged on behalf of the accused persons.She then ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 18 cri.appeal.147 and 134states that the said boy of blackish complexion and his friend, having fair complexion, took her sister and herself to bus-stand, Bhusawal, in an auto-rickshaw.They were made to sit for sometime.Thereafter, they were taken to Jalgaon by S.T. bus by the boy who was of fair complexion.They were made to sit at the bus-stand, Jalgaon, for half an hour.Janhavi (PW 6) identifies accused no.1 as the boy of blackish complexion and accused no.2 as the boy of fair complexion.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The evidence of Janhavi (PW 6) about visit of accused no.1 to her house prior to about four days of the incident, has not been challenged in her cross-examination.Her further evidence, that on 22.06.2004, accused no.1, who had been to her house ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 19 cri.appeal.147 and 134about four days prior to the incident, had come to the school to take her and her sister and on being asked by her teacher, she replied that she was knowing accused no.1, also has not been challenged in her cross-examination.Whatever role has been attributed by Janhavi (PW 6) against accused no.1 in her examination-in-chief has not at all been challenged in her cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::As regards accused no.2 also, the evidence of Janhavi (PW 6) is very specific.From her evidence, it is clear that accused no.2 was with her right from her school to the bus-stand at Bhusawal.Thereafter, Vaishnavi and herself went with accused no.2 at Jalgaon.At Jalgaon also, they were with him for about half an hour.Thereafter, accused no.2 brought them back by bus from Bhusawal to Jalgaon.Thus, Janhavi (PW 6) was in the company of accused no.2 for sufficient time so as to remember his face and features.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::It is clear that Janhavi (PW 6), who was aged about 11 years and was quite a competent witness, as seen from the manner in which she has given the evidence before the Court, was knowing accused nos.1 and 2 by their faces and appearances.Her evidence shows that she had seen both the accused for sufficiently long a time.It is not that she had a passing glance of the accused for a few minutes and therefore, it was not possible for her to remember their faces and appearances so as to make her difficult to identify them.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::21 cri.appeal.147 and 134Her evidence is quite natural, cogent and dependable.There is no reason for her to falsely implicate accused nos.1 and 2 in the incident in question.There is absolutely no possibility of mistaken identity of accused nos.1 and 2 on the part of Janhavi (PW 6).She states that she received a phone call in the name of the father of Janhavi (PW6) and Vaishnavi, that their mother had met with an accident and was shifted to Jalgaon.She was asked to send both of them with a boy who was being sent by the informant i.e. Mr.Kakade (PW 1) to school.She states that thereafter the said boy came to the school.She asked for an application from the parents of Janhavi (PW 6) and Vaishnavi.Therefore, that boy again went back and came with an ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 22 cri.appeal.147 and 134application.After reading that application, she got called Janhavi (PW 6) and Vaishnavi from their class-rooms.She asked them, whether they were knowing that boy.Janhavi (PW 6) replied that she was knowing that boy since he had come to their house prior to about three days.Then, she [i.e. Sister Juvana (PW 9)] allowed both the girls to go with that boy.She identifies accused no.1 as the same boy.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::In her cross-examination, except putting a suggestion denying her evidence that she identified accused no.1, nothing concrete has been elicited to raise any suspicion about veracity about her evidence.Her evidence corroborates the version of Janhavi (PW 6) ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 23 cri.appeal.147 and 134about the role attributed against accused no.1 in the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::Sister Juvana (PW 9) states that accused no.1 had given an application for taking Janhavi (PW6) and Vaishnavi with him on the day of the incident.A.P.I. Borse (PW 12)(Exh.63) deposes that he seized that chit/application vide panchnama (Exh.64) The panchnama (Exh.64) shows that it was prepared on 23.06.2004, while seizing the application/chit from Sister Juvana (PW 9).The fact that the said application was handed over by Sister Juvana (PW 9) to the police has not been challenged in her cross-examination.The evidence of A.P.I. Borse (PW 12) that he seized that application/chit from the Sister Juvana (PW 9) under panchnama (Exh.64) also remained unchallenged in his cross-examination.Thus, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these two witnesses on the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 24 cri.appeal.147 and 134point of seizure of application/chit given by accused no.1 vide panchnama (Exh.64).::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::A.P.I. Borse (PW 12) states that he sent the application/chit seized vide panchnama (Exh.64) along with the specimen hand-writing of accused no.1 to the hand-writing expert vide letter (Exh.65).This evidence has not been challenged in his cross-examination.Kathar (PW 13)(Exh.74), who was working as Assistant State Examiner of Documents, deposes that he received one register and seven loose documents from Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal with letter (Exh.65).He states that the questioned writing was marked by him as Exh.A (Exh.25), the specimen writing as Exh.'B-1' to Exh.'B-6' and the natural writing from the note-book of accused no.1 as Exh.'C-1' to Exh.'C-6'.He examined those documents under various magnifications, such as simple lens, ultra lens, microscope, etc. He also examined those documents ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 25 cri.appeal.147 and 134under various lighting conditions such as, direct light, oblique light, transmitted light, etc. He examined the documents in various sittings.After thorough examination, he arrived at a conclusion that the red encircled writings marked by him as Exh.A was written by the person, who had written Exh.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of Kathar (PW 13) so as to throw doubt on his opinion.It is, thus, clear that accused no.1 alone had given application/chit (Exh.75) for taking away Janhavi (PW6) and Vaishnavi from their school on the day of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::Therefore, it cannot ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 26 cri.appeal.147 and 134be said to have been given by any person in the school of Janhavi (PW 6) as alleged by the prosecution.As such, the said application/chit (Exh.75) was with him until he gave his opinion.As such, the said application/chit was not before the Court on the date on which Sister Juvana (PW 9) was examined.It may be noted that the fact about receiving of the application/chit was stated by Juvana (PW 9) to the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 ::: 27 cri.appeal.147 and 134police on the next day of the incident and the said application/chit was seized by A.P.I. Borse (PW 12) vide panchnama (Exh.64) on 23.06.2004 itself.It is, thus, clear that even prior to the arrest of accused no.1, it was handed over by Sister Juvana (PW 9) to the police.It was most natural and probable on the part of Sister Juvana (PW 9) to ask for something in writing, while giving the daughters of the informant in the custody of some third person.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::The informant also identifies accused no.1 as the same person who had been to his cabin on 22.06.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. It is well settled that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.Considering this strong and dependable evidence to connect accused no.1 with the incident in question, non-examination of Manisha, i.e. the mother of Janhavi (PW 6), would have no adverse effect on the case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::It creates a great confidence.She has no reason to falsely implicate accused no.2 in the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:01 :::29 cri.appeal.147 and 134The learned A.P.P. submits that Darare (PW10)(Exh.38), the Tahsildar, conducted T.I. parade on 28.06.2004 and accused nos.1 and 2 were identified by the witnesses as accused persons.She submits that the this is an additional piece of evidence to corroborate the evidence of Janhavi (PW 6).She cited the case of Prakash Vs.The purpose of pre- trial identification evidence is to assure the investigating agency that the investigation is going on in the right direction and to provide corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness or victim later in court at the trial.If the suspect is a complete stranger to the witness or victim, then an identification parade is desirable unless the suspect has been seen by the witness or victim for some length of time."::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::30 cri.appeal.147 and 134The learned Counsel for the accused have challenged the evidence of Darare (PW 10) on various grounds.According to them, he prepared the memorandums Exhs.39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51 and 53 in respect of the T.I. parade when the identifying witnesses were called upon to identify accused nos.1 and 2 each.Darare (PW 10) has mentioned the duration of parade attended by all the identifying witnesses as "12.15 p.m. to 1.50 p.m." They submit that panchas were supposed to be called by Darare (PW 10), however, he clearly states that he had asked the police to bring two panchas and accordingly, they were produced by the police.If this version is accepted, it would through doubt on the fairness of the T.I. parade.The learned Counsel for accused no.1 has relied on the following judgments to challenge the evidentiary value of T.I. parade conducted by Darare (PW 10):-::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::of Maharashtra, 1996(1) Bom.Vilas Vasantrao Patil Vs.State of Maharashtra, 1997(Supp.) Bom.and anr.C.R. (Cri.) 684;The sum and substance of these rulings is that the Officer, who conducts T.I. parade has to strictly follow the provisions laid down in the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court for guidance of the Criminal Courts and Officers subordinate to them.There should not be inordinate delay in holding T.I. parade.There should not be interference by the police investigating the crime in the T.I. parade.The Officer holding T.I. parade has to call two ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 32 cri.appeal.147 and 134respectable persons as panchas.The chances of the suspects being shown to the witnesses prior to their test identification should be eliminated.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::In our view, even if the corroborative evidence pertaining to T.I. parade is kept out of consideration for the above-mentioned faults on the part of Darare (PW 10) in conducting T.I. parade, considering the strong and dependable substantive evidence of Janhavi (PW 6), Sister Juvana (PW 9) and that of Hand Writing Expert Kathar (PW 13), the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt identity of accused nos.1 and 2 as the persons involved in the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::The prosecution is relying on the evidence of Sachin Shinde (PW 11)(Exh.59), the Nodal Officer of IDEA Mobile Company.He produced C.D.R. (Exh.61) to establish that the informant received phone calls from mobile SIM-card numbers 9822876909 and 9822876706 which, allegedly, were purchased by accused no.1 from Nandan (PW 7)(Exh.35) and were produced by accused no.1 consequent upon his ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 34 cri.appeal.147 and 134disclosure statement (Exh.30) recorded on 29.06.2004 in the presence of Nilesh (PW 4).The learned Counsel for accused no.1 relies on the judgment in the case of Anvar P.V. (Supra), wherein it is held as under :-::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::It requires to be overruled and we do so.An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied.Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::Admittedly, Sachin Shinde (PW 11) has not produced the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act along with the C.D.R. In the absence of such certificate, the C.D.R. (Exh.61) would be inadmissible in evidence.If that be so, the evidence in respect of the seizure of the mobile hand-sets, SIM-cards and C.D.R. would not be of any help to the prosecution to connect accused no.1 with the incident in question and more particularly, with the alleged demand of money made by him from the informant, since his evidence that he received phone calls from any ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 36 cri.appeal.147 and 134particular mobile numbers at any point of time after his daughters were taken away from the school, would remain uncorroborated.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::From the above discussed evidence, it will be clear that accused nos.1 and 2 took away Janhavi (PW6) and Vaishnavi from their school on the pretext that their mother had met with an accident and therefore, they were required to be taken to their mother at Jalgaon.It is well settled that the guardianship of the parents does not cease while the minor is in the physical possession of any other person, who has been lawfully entrusted with care and custody of such minor by its parents.In the present case, the accused persons took away Janhavi (PW 6) and Vaishnavi without the consent of their parents from their school, where they were lawfully entrusted by their parents for care and custody.As such, they committed the offence of kidnapping, as defined under Section 361 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::37 cri.appeal.147 and 134The evidence of the informant that somebody phoned him and demanded Rs.25,00,000/- from him on saying that his daughters were in his custody and that he offered Rs.50,000/- to that person, does not find any corroboration, since the alleged C.D. Record has not been proved by the prosecution.The informant deposes that when he offered to pay Rs.50,000/- to the person who was talking on phone, the said person told him that he would drop his daughters within 5-10 minutes.The daughters of the informant had accordingly reached his house and his wife informed that fact to him after about 10-15 minutes.From this evidence, it does not appear that the daughters of the informant were detained by the accused persons for ransom.Here, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment in the case of Philips Fadrick D'souza and Ravindra @ Balu Pandurang Kambre Vs.The State of Maharashtra and anr., 2009 Cri.L.J.89 cited on behalf of accused no.1, wherein the essential ingredients of Section 364-A of the I.P.C. are dissected, as ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 38 cri.appeal.147 and 134under :-::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::(c) in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intergovernmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom."The evidence on record does not prove above-referred ingredients (b) and (c).As such, the offence under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. is not ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 39 cri.appeal.147 and 134established against the accused.In the circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. However, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the offence of kidnapping as defined under Section 361 punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution correctly and properly and wrongly held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. The said finding is not supported by the evidence on record.The learned Counsel for the accused cited the judgments in the cases of Surendra Kumar Vs.State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1048 and Ved Prakash Vs.State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 643, seeking ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 40 cri.appeal.147 and 134benefit of probation.In view of the peculiar facts of these cases, gravity of offences, the antecedents and character of the accused persons therein, the benefit of probation was extended to them.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::Since the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. is not compoundable, the application filed by the informant bearing Criminal Application No.6365 of 2017, seeking permission to compound the offence, cannot be considered and simply will have to be filed and is accordingly filed.The learned Senior Counsel for accused no.2 referred to the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty and anr.State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181, wherein it was observed as under :-::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::compoundable, considering the fact that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court, 10 years had elapsed from the date of the incident and accused had already undergone three months rigorous imprisonment, sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone."State of Karnataka and anr., 2009 AIR SCW 1744, wherein the offences were non-compoundable, but since the parties had reached at a compromise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while maintaining the conviction increased fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.On the strength of these rulings, the learned Senior Counsel prays that leniency may be shown to the accused in the matter of inflicting punishment.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::The daughters of the informant did not allege any indecent or objectionable behavior with them by the accused when they were in their custody.The accused did not insist for money for releasing the daughters of the informant from their custody.They safely reached the daughters of the informant to his house.The accused are having responsibilities of their family members including their aged parents.The period of thirteen years has been elapsed after the incident.Considering these mitigating circumstances, we are inclined to show leniency in the matter of inflicting punishment.As such, they were behind the bars for about five months in connection with this crime.In our view, instead of sending the accused persons behind the bars anymore, if they are asked to pay substantial fine amount, it would meet the ends of justice.In our view, the accused need to be sentenced to suffer the imprisonment, which they have already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, with default stipulation.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::The appeals are liable to be partly allowed.The impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is liable to be quashed and set aside.Instead, they are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C.In the result, we pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside.(3) The appellants/accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.Instead, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(4) Both the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them and to pay a fine of ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 ::: 45 cri.appeal.147 and 134 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each.::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::(5) The appellants shall surrender to their bail bonds before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today for depositing the amount of fine or to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed in default of payment of fine.(6) If the accused persons fail to appear before the trial Court within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall issue coercive process against them to secure their presence.(7) The appeals are accordingly disposed of.(8) Criminal Application No.6365 of 2017 is filed and disposed of.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:51:02 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On 2 July 2015, a news report appeared in the print media particularly in newspapers circulating in the district of Varanasi stating that a three year old daughter of a rickshaw puller had been brutally raped by unknown persons and had sustained grievous injuries.The incident is alleged to have taken place on 5 June 2015 when the child victim was asleep outside her house.The child was abducted in the night and was recovered from the banks of the Varuna river.The allegation in the petition is that the SHO of the police station at Jaitpura in district Varanasi was informed by the father and grand mother of the victim but neither was a first information report registered nor were any facilities provided for the immediate medical treatment of the child.The child was initially brought to the Bunkar Hospital, Jaitpura but due to the seriousness of her condition, she was not admitted.Thereafter the child was brought to the Shiv Prasad Gupt Divisional District Hospital, Kabir Chaura, Varanasi but the medical officer on duty declined to admit her.The child was then taken to the BHU Hospital where the Doctor at the emergency ward allegedly denied to admit her.The child was thereafter administered primary medical care at a private clinic by the name of Uma Pharmacy and the attendants were advised to take her to the Divisional District Hospital.The FIR which had been lodged by the grand mother of the victim stated that the child had been abducted at 3:00 a.m. on 5 June 2015 and the child was found at the banks of a river with grievous injuries including on her genitals.Surprisingly, an FIR was registered only under Sections 323 and 354 (A) of the Penal Code.The report of the medical examination which had been placed for the perusal of the Court by the learned Standing Counsel indicated a case of sexual assault.The injuries found on medical examination on the genitals of the child have been adverted to in the report.The medical report also indicates stitches present on the left side of the forehead above the left eye and lacerations present over the left side of the upper lip.On 22 June 2015, the child was brought for admission to the Sir Sunder Lal Hospital BHU, Varanasi where she was admitted.The medical report at the OPD section indicates that the child was referred for paediatric surgery.The injuries which were found in the genital area had been adverted to during the course of the medical examination which took place on 22 June 2015 at 9 pm.The in patient investigation record indicated that the case was one of sexual assault.The writ petition was filed in these circumstances, seeking various directions both in regard to lapses of a systemic nature and for directions that would ensure proper medical care for the child who was a victim of sexual violence as well as for the investigation of the offence.On 21 July 2015, this Court issued directions for the provision of proper medical care to the child at the Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi at the expense of the State.We directed that all required expenses shall be borne by the State and the child shall not be denied any treatment that is prescribed by the hospital on account of the inability of her attendants to bear the expenses.The second aspect of the matter, which was dealt with in the order, was that the instructions which were made available to the learned Standing Counsel by the SHO, Jaitpura, Varanasi indicated that on 6 June 2015, the child was admitted at the Divisional District Hospital at 6:30 am but it was stated that the child had sustained injuries due to a fall from the roof.The Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the investigation and to submit a status report before this Court within a period of two weeks.Subsequently, on 4 August 2015, the Court was apprised of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, which showed that investigation was in progress and one arrest had been made.The Committee has formulated a detailed protocol for handling matters of care and rehabilitation for survivors/victims of sexual violence.The State of Uttar Pradesh would do well to implement these guidelines after they are duly considered by the Principal Secretary in the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh.We, accordingly, deem it appropriate and proper to issue the following directions in the present proceedings:(i) The child in the present case, who has been a victim of sexual violence, shall continue to receive all medical care at the Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.(iii) The Senior Superintendent of Police shall ensure that necessary action both departmental and of a penal nature is pursued against any person who is found to be involved in dereliction of duties in extending proper medical care and in respect of any offence which, upon investigation, appears to have been prima facie committed in respect of the provisions of Sections 166-A and 166-B of the Penal Code.The investigation in that regard shall be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously.Since the Court has been informed that a charge-sheet has already been filed, as we have noted above, against the accused who is in custody, no further directions are necessary in that regard particularly, at the present stage.The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.There shall be no order as to cost.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

All the petitioners have preferred this petition against framing of charge under Section 307 IPC against them vide order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2018 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar.It is the case of the prosecution, that on 12.03.2018 on a petty issue during community dinner, all the petitioners armed with sword, battleaxe etc surrounded complainant-- Aziz and his brother Zafar and assaulted them with intent to kill them.They all assaulted with sword and battleaxe and caused injuries to as many as five persons namely Mohammad Rehman, Zafar, Aziz, Furkaan and Najmuddin.The matter was reported to the police.Incised wounds were found to the injured/victims.Specific allegations against the petitioners are that they were having sword during the scuffle and assaulted the same to the injured persons.Further, that the injuries of injured persons, particularly 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Mohammad Ali and others Vs.State of M.P.Cr. R. No.2312 of 2019 the injuries allegedly caused to Zafar were found simple in nature, therefore, the evidence available on record does not satisfy the elements required to constitute the charge under Section 307 IPC.Learned Trial Court, according to the petitioners, has committed error, therefore, it is prayed that they be discharged from the charge under Section 307 of IPC framed by the learned Trial Court.Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the petitioners are very well named in the FIR as offenders.Arms carried by them at the time of incident are also mentioned in the FIR.It is further mentioned that all the accused persons assaulted the victim/injured with intent to kill them and caused them multiple injuries.In the case of framing of charge, intention and not the result of the assault, matters and is the deciding factor.It is further pleaded that in the present case, in FIR itself and later in their police statements, all the witnesses have clearly stated that the intention of the offenders/ petitioners was to kill them.Even when they defended themselves, the petitioners have threatened to kill them in future, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 307 IPC.At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible.Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial."It is settled law that to constitute an offence under section 307 of IPC; intention and not the result is essential or important.The intention of the accused may be gathered from circumstances and not only from the consequences that ensue.The circumstance may be nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of body where the injury is inflicted or even utterances of the accused made at the time of the incident are some of the factors which may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.In State of M. P Vs.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 08/05/2019 23:43:52This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.194/2019 registered at Police Station Lalbag Distt.Burhanpur for the offence under Sections 354 and 354-A of IPC.As per the prosecution case that on 14.4.2019 at about 8.30 pm near Sindhi Basti Chouraha when the prosecutrix aged about 19 years had gone with her husband to participate in a rally regarding Ambedkar Jayanti, the applicant who is known to her has winked the prosecutrix and also taken hold of her hand.The prosecutrix made the noise, then her husband Ravi Ingle reached on the spot and seeing him, the applicant fled away from the spot.The complainant lodged the report on the next day of the incident.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the offence.It is urged that the applicant is permanent resident of the address described in the application and there is no possibility of his absconding.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.It is also submitted that some quarrel has taken place between the applicant and Ravi Ingle, who husband of the complainant.Only on that basis the prosecutrix has lodged a false report on the instance of her husband against the applicant.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.The applicant is a young youth of 25 years and has no criminal past.A counter case has also been registered against the husband of the complainant.Only allegation against the applicant is that he has winked the complainant and taken hold of her hand.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the facts pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court deems it proper to grant anticipatory bail to applicant.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when he is directed so and also appear before the concerned Court.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This appeal raises out of the judgment made in C.C. No. 3336 of 1974 on the file of the Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, convicting accused 1 and 2 therein under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months ad further convicting both of them under R. 126-P (2)(ii) of the Defence of India (Gold Control) Rules, 1962 for contravention of R. 126-E of the Rules, and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Before the trial Court, there were five accused, of whom accused 3 to 5 were acquitted.The gist of the accusation against the five accused was as follows : Accused No. 1 was a dealer at Pondicherry and he used to purchase gold bars of foreign origin from Messrs. Kanyalal and Co., at Chintadripet, Madras, of which accused 2 and 3 were partners and accused 4 and 5 were persons assisting accused 2 and 3 in the business.The Central Excise Officials arranged for the surveillance of Kanyalal and Co., and of the residential premises of the second accused.On 12-2-1968, the first accused was intercepted by the Central Excise officials on surveillance duty, on his being found moving in a suspicious manner in the premises of the said Kanyalal and co. A search of the person of the first accused, conducted by P.Ws. 1 and 7, the Inspector and Superintendent of Central excise, C.I.U. Madras, had resulted in the recovery of ten bars of gold of foreign origin (M.O. I series) which were found kept concealed in a paper packet tied to the dhothi of accused 1 in his waist.Accused No. 1 was taken to the nearby Tripurasundari Silk House where he was detained.He also recovered an aluminum box M.O. 4 containing new gold jewellery of different varieties in commercial quantities, weighing 3343 grams (M.O. 5 series) found kept in plastic boxes, 34 in number (M.O. 6 series) and a case of Rs. 18,162/-.According to the prosecution, neither of accused 1 to 5 had any permit, licence of any other document to prove the licit origin and legal acquisition of the said gold M.Os. 1, 2 and 5 series valued at Rs. 64,502/- in all, which were prohibited items of import and which were dutiable goods.Therefore, on the reasonable belief that the said gold items were smuggled, they were seized and accordingly, the accused, as per the prosecution case, were knowingly concerned in keeping, concealing, transporting or dealing with the said gold items, have reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.The first accused was taken to the Central Excise office where a statement was recorded from him under Ex. P. 4 on 13-2-1968, attested by witnesses.Show cause notices under the Gold Control Act were also issued to accused 1 to 5, and Ex. P. 24 is a copy of one such notice.The accusation against the accused in the said cases was that on or about 23-10-1974, at Door No. 10A Arali Amman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town, he was found in possession of 1415-500 grams of primary gold and old and new ornaments, not covered by the stock Register.To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2, the Inspectors of Central Excise.It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he, on the direction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore, inspected and checked the stock accounts of the accused and found the stock account of gold ornaments and gold tallying with the gold stock register.Then he checked the premises of the accused and found 3282-50 grams of primary gold and new and old gold ornaments not covered by the stock register.P.W. 1, the Inspector of Central Excise, on 28-6-1973, at 10 a.m., searched the house of the accused at Door No. 53, Ammapet Main Road, salem in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and others, on the strength of a search warrant Ex. P1 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Preventive, Madras.In the room adjoining the front hall, where the accused was doing business as broker, on the floor and in a steel almirah, new and old ornaments were found.In another steel bureau kept upstairs, there were primary gold and gold articles with new gold ornaments.M.O. 1 series are the two primary gold ingots; M.O. 2 series are three gold articles; M.O. 3 series are 33 new gold articles; M.O. 4 series are five gold ornaments.M.Os. 1 to 4 series were seized under the mahazar Ex. P2 attested by P.W. 3 and others.In the shirt pocket, some chits (Ex. P3 series) were found M. O. 5 series (8 hard-board boxes) were also found in the first room.JUDGMENT Ratnavel Pandian, J.All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J. in Crl.Appeal No. 688 of 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy J., in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ellore Division Vellore, V. R. Padmanabhan (Judgment of this Court in Crl.Appeal No. 808 of 1976, dated 20-12-1979), Reported in 1980 ELT 631 (Mad) on the question whether the officer of the Customs Department would be an agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Cr.P.C., and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such an officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable.Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated.C.A. 688 of 1976 :-Ex. P. 23 and Ex. P. 29 are the adjudication orders passed under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.Thereafter, on the strength of the sanction order Ex. P. 30, the Prosecution was launched.In support of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined, Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 31 were filed and M.O. I. series to M.O. 6 series were marked.Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 1976 :-He seized them under the mahazar Ex.P. 1 in the presence of one Kuppuraj.From the judgment, it is seen that the accused, during his examination under S. 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded guilty to the charge and it was only thereafter the trial Court convicted the accused, but passed the impugned judgment, though the trial Magistrate has observed that the offence is an anti-social one.Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1977 :The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem, through his counsel has directed this appeal against the judgment made by the learned judicial First Class Magistrate No. II, Salem in C.C. No. 828 of 1975 on his file, sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under S. 85(1)(b) read with S. 8(1) and (2) of the Gold Control Act, and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 16(1) read with Section 86 of the Gold Control Act, on the ground that the sentences imposed by the trial Court are inadequate.The brief facts of the case which led to this prosecution can be stated thus :-Subsequently, on 14-7-1973, the accused sent ex.P 5 a petition to the authorities.A show-cause notice under Ex. P6 was issued to the accused who replied under Ex. P7, Ex. P8 is the adjudication proceeding.After obtaining the sanction for prosecution under Ex. P9, the assistant Collector of Central Excise laid the complaint against the accused.The accused, when questioned, stated that he was not doing business in gold and that the ornaments found in the house belonged to him and his relatives.He would further add that the primary gold does not belong to him and that he has no licence for dealing in gold ornaments.In support of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined, Exts.P1 to P5 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 5 series were marked.On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted the accused under the first charge on the ground that the accused was found in possession of primary gold weighing 29,500 grams, without any permit, and under the second charge, the accused was indicted on the allegation that he was found in possession of 4244 grams of gold ornaments and 20 grams of gold articles, other than personal ornaments, and that he failed to make a declaration as required under the provisions of the gold Control Act.Criminal appeal No. 614 of 1977 :-The assistant Collector of Central excise, Madurai has directed this appeal against the judgment made in Crl.This appeal has been filed on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court.The brief facts of the case are as under : on 5-2-1974 P.W. 1, the Inspector of the central Intelligence Unit of central excise, along with the superintendent and party, searched the house of the first accused situate at Sathya Sai Nagar, Madurai, in the presence of the first accused's wife accused-2 (since acquitted) and some independent witnesses, and recovered 17 bars of primary gold (M.O. 1 series) weighing 4,946.00 grams, valued at Rs. 2,10,000/-.Voluntary statement under Ex. P2 was recorded from the second accused.The first accused was contacted on 16-4-1974 and he gave a statement Ex. P3 explaining that he was carrying on a business as broker in ornaments and that one Abdul Hassin gave him two paper packets which he had kept in his house under the bona fide belief that they contained only ornaments but he was shocked to realise that the packets contained gold pieces, only on reading the news item in the press that his house was searched and gold bars were recovered after completing the investigation, a show-cause notice Ex. P4 was issued to the accused, to which the first accused replied under Ex. P8 wherein also he has given an explanation similar to the one contained in Ex. P3 thereafter, the collector adjudicated the matter, Ex. P5 is the order of adjudication.P.W. 1 after obtaining sanction under Ex. P6, filed the complaint.When questioned, the case of the first accused before the trial Court was one of denial.The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents Exts.P1 to P8, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.The learned Sessions Judge, disagreeing with the view of the trial Magistrate that the facts of the case called for a deterrent sentence and relying on Exts.P3 and P8, took a lenient view and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine or Rs. 500/-, as aforementioned.Hence the appeal.The main point that arises for consideration from the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents in all these four appeals, is whether the appeal for the enhancement of the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, presented by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, through his counsel is maintainable under S. 377 of the Criminal P.C.On the analogy of the above principles, we hold that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act is also not an agency empowered to make investigation within the meaning of Section 377(2), Cr.P.C.In the result, we conclude that the appeals preferred by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants under Section 377(2), Criminal P.C. are not competent and accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.It is pleaded on behalf of the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976 that this Court be pleased to pass an order regarding the return of M.O. 5 series, the gold jewelleries, seized from him.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has directed M.O. 5 series to be returned to the second accused (second respondent).Appeal dismissed.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Since both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Both are the repeat bail applications whereas previous applications of the applicants have been dismissed being withdrawn.The applicants are in custody since 13.09.2016 relating to Crime No.556/2016 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 195( d), 506, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.It is alleged against Bhanupratap Singh that he was facing trial of Section 376 of IPC and he threatened the prosecutrix to change her evidence.However, according to him that incident had taken place on 10.09.2016 but the complainant did not lodge any FIR against the applicant Bhanupratap Singh Bhadoriya on the same very day.She had 2 Mcrc.87.2017 Bhanupratap Singh Bhadoriya Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Mcrc.14050.2016 Pooja @ Manjeet Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh lodged the FIR after two days when the mobile phone of the applicant was demanded by the applicant Pooja @ Manjeet.Looking to the delay in making FIR, it would be apparent that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present matter by the complainant.Role of applicant Pooja @ Manjeet is not grave.She had simply asked for the mobile phone of the co-accused Bhanupratap Singh without having any knowledge that mobile phone was with the complainant.The applicants are in custody since 13.09.2016 and the charge-sheet has already been filed.Under these circumstances, applicants pray for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer 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, Bhanupratap Singh Bhadoriya and Pooja @ Manjeet be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) each with a surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Gwalior, to appear before the committal Court and 3 Mcrc.87.2017 Bhanupratap Singh Bhadoriya Vs.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Let the revisionist, Shintu @ Shahil Harijan through his natural guardian/mother Nirmala Devi be released on bail in Case Crime No.33 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376, 342, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3 /4 POCSO Act Police Station Saidpur District Ghazipur upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur subject to the following conditions:This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge 1st Ghazipur dismissing Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2019 ( Shintu @ Shahil Harijan vs State) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming the order 20.11.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.33 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376, 342, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3 /4 POCSO Act Police Station Saidpur District Ghazipur.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that the daughter of the informant namely Kajal was enticed away by the revisionist and thereafter rape was committed with her by the revisionist without her consent.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she herself has admitted that she was in love with the revisionist for the last one year and she stayed with him in Bombay for 25 days.The conduct of the victim clearly shows that she was a consenting party.It is further submitted that the victim was not medically examined, therefore the factum of rape and age of the victim has not been proved.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The mother of the revisionist is giving her undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, she will keep him under her custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 17 years and 24 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 18 years of age.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(ii) That the revisionist, who is juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated by the first informant in the present case.(iii) That the courts below have not appreciated the report of the District Probation Officer in its right perspective.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.(vi) That the courts have erred in law in not considering the true import of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffer from manifest error of law apparent on the face of record.(vii) That the courts below have acted quite illegally and with material irregularity in not properly considering the case of juvenile in proper and correct perspective which makes the impugned orders passed by the courts below non est and bad in law.(viii) That bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same have been passed on flimsy grounds which have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit.No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in spite of time granted to him.Both the courts below have committed manifest error of law while passing the impugned orders., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge 1st Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2019 ( Shintu @ Shahil Harijan vs State) and the order 20.11.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No.33 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376, 342, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3 /4 POCSO Act Police Station Saidpur District Ghazipur, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.

A. No.549 of 2009 Page 1 of 8The case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2000 a dead body was found lying in Telephone Exchange Wali Galinear New Telephone Exchange, Badli Extension and the information about the same was conveyed by Ct Prakash Singh to police station SP Badli.which was recorded vide DD No 7A and was entrusted to SI Sanjiv Kumar.On reaching the spot he found a dead body was lying in a naked condition with injuries on both sides of the body.Since the dead body could not be identified, the SI put the said body in a tempo and was taken to the nearby jhuggies in S.P Badli.On reaching one of the jhuggies, one Gangaram identified the dead body to be that of his son Puran.The said body was also identified by Mohal Lal and Kali Charan to be that of his nephew Puran.Insp Balbir Singh who had taken over the investigation of the matter recorded the statement of these three witneses in which they stated that the deceased was sitting outside his jhuggi, when his two of his friends namely Kuldeep Pandey and Amarjeet Mishra came and took the deceased on the pretext that they were going to attend a party one of their common friends in Jahangir puri.They left at around 8 p.m. and the deceased took the wallet of his father and a wrist watch along with him.Since he did not return the night and they all had also made efforts to trace him, but since now they have seen his body they now know that he was murdered.On 23-12-00 SI Niraj Kumar apprehended the accused Kuldeep pandey from near his house upon a secret ___________________________________________________________________________________ CRL.The appellant, Kuldeep Pandey, has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.21/2008 arising out of FIR No.819/2000 registered at P.S. SP Badli for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the convict person shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.___________________________________________________________________________________ CRL.A. No.549 of 2009 Page 1 of 8A. No.549 of 2009 Page 2 of 8 information which was received and upon the information then given by Kuldeep Pandey, the other accused Amarjeet Mishra was also been arrested.Thereafter they stated to have murdered the deceased because on an earlier occasion he had misbehaved with the sister of Kuldeep Pandey and when they confronted him as to why he did it, he stated that it was the other way round, it was she who was attracted to him.On hearing this they both got furious and murdered Puran upon hitting him with stones and bricks.Also the wrist watch and the purse of the deceased was recovered from their possession.A. No.549 of 2009 Page 2 of 8The appellant aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.1.2009 and order of sentence of 30.01.2009, has preferred the present appeal.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, has not pressed the grounds of appeal against conviction.He, however, has submitted that the appellant was a juvenile in terms of Section 2 (k) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, wherein it is provided that a juvenile or a child means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.On 28.7.2009 an application was moved by the appellant for determining his age as he stated that he was a minor at the ___________________________________________________________________________________ CRL.A. No.549 of 2009 Page 3 of 8 time of commission of the offence on which notice was issued.On the next date of hearing i.e 14.09.2009 the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has studied in a "Nagar Nigam School at Molarband and was admitted in the year of 1988-89 and we directed the IO to verify the same.On the next date the counsel for the appellant also stated that he was younger to his two married sisters and has studied in the same school as the younger sister, and the age of the younger sister can be taken help of, in determining the age of the appellant.A. No.549 of 2009 Page 3 of 8Subsequently on 25.11.2009 a verification report was submitted in terms of which it was stated that Kuldeep Pandey was a student of Jai Bharti Public School and according to the principal of the school who gave a statement to the effect that the date of birth of Kuldeep Pandey is 17-11-1984 and also further stated that there was no documentary proof since the parents of the appellant only gave a oral statement regarding his date of birth when they got him admitted to the said school.The verification report is supported by the statement of the principal of the said school, the attested photocopy of the admission form and the school leaving certificate along with attested photocopy of admission register of schoolSince the incident is of 22.10.2000, the appellant would be of age 16+ and thus would definitely be under 18 years of age on the date of the incident ___________________________________________________________________________________ CRL.A. No.549 of 2009 Page 4 of 8A copy of this Order be expeditiously sent to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Mr. Vivek Chaudhry, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and the same is placed on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5564 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Railway Road, district Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Meerut.The applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Sakshi Singhal respectively.The marriage of applicant No. 1, Adeep Singhal was solemnized on 20.1.2014 with opposite party No. 2, but their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party No. 2 lodged first information report dated 23.8.2018 against the applicants, in which the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 19.5.2019, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 10.6.2019, and thereafter, the parties concerned have amicably settled their dispute on 10.7.2019 outside the court.Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28659 of 2019, whereby upon being informed about the factum of inter-se compromise in between the parties concerned, the concerned court below was directed to verify the factum of compromise between the parties concerned.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that pursuant to aforesaid order dated 30.7.2019, the parties concerned appeared before the trial court for getting their compromise verified.The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Meerut on appearing the parties concerned before him verified the compromise in their presence and order dated 16.8.2019 has been passed verifying the said compromise in terms of order dated 23.7.2019 passed by this Court.The certified copies of the said order dated 16.8.2019 has been appended as annexure No. 8 to the application."It is also submitted that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day on his surrender in Crime No.88 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police,F-2, SIPCOT Police Station, Gummudipoondi.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC, 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Protection Act, 1989 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer.P.N.PRAKASH,Jajr3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case and in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in Crime No.88 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law on the same day.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.The Principal Sessions Judge Tiruvallur.The Sub Inspector of Police F-2, SIPCOT Police Station Gummudipoondi.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P. No.9649 of 2015

['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.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while working as Duty Officer, P.S. Gandhi Nagar on February 14, 1989 SI Satya Singh PW 8 at about 8.30 a.m. received information on telephone from Lady Constable Rekha Rani of PCR in regard to a dead body kept in gunny bag lying in front of house No. 9/23, Kailash Nagar, near Yamuna Pushta.This information was recorded by PW 8 in Daily Diary A at serial No. 3 and a copy thereof Ex. PW 8/A was made over to SI Devi Dayal PW 16 for inquiry.On receipt of PW 8/A, PW 16 along with Constables Om Vir Singh PW 6 and Ram Hari Pathak PW 12 reached the said place and found a dead body there having injuries on the throat and the other parts of the body contained in a gunny bag.Autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. L. T. Ramani PW 4 on February 15, 1989 and Ex. PW 4/A is the post-mortem report.In the opinion of Dr. L. T. Ramani PW 4 death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.PW 16 recorded the statement of Smt. Om Vati PW 2, wife of the deceased.On February 16, 1989 PW 13 arrested accused Sunder Kumar (since dead) and Nissar.While in police custody on February 16, 1989, Nissar made a disclosure statement Ex. PW 13/C and pursuant thereto be got recovered a wrist watch (make HMT) Ex. P-2 from a box kept in the tea shop.This ring also after converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of 'DDS' was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 13/H. Wrist watch Ex. P-2 and the silver ring Ex. P-3 came to be identified that of the deceased.She has deposed that she along with her husband Inderjit had been running a tea stall in a portion of their house and about two years back at 6 or 6.30 p.m. when both of them were present at the tea stall.She knew Sunder and Ram Kishan as they had been coming to their tea stall and Ram Kishan also resided in their locality.Accused called her husband and had conversation with him.Her husband accompanied the accused persons and he also took along a cycle which was parked outside the tea stall.Thereafter her husband did not return.He was wearing a watch (make HMT) and a ring of silver.On the following day in noon time she came to know that the dead body of her husband kept in a gunny bag was recovered by the police and she also identified the same.Ex. P-2 is the watch while Ex. P-3 is the ring belonging to her husband.When cross-examined on behalf of accused Nissar, she has deposed that her husband left at about 8 a.m.; that they generally open the tea stall at about 5 or 6 a.m. and on that date customers did not visit the tea stall for taking tea up to 8 a.m. It was suggested to her that her husband did not leave the tea stall at 8 a.m. along with accused persons which she denied emphatically.It may be noticed that in her examination-in-chief PW 2 gave the time of her husband leaving in the company of the accused persons as 6 or 6.30 p.m. while in her cross-examination she asserted that the deceased left with them at about 8 a.m. Had the deceased left with the accused persons in the presence of PW 2 she must not have committed the mistake in telling if the deceased left either in the evening or morning.JUDGMENT K.S. Gupta, J.Material exhibits were sent to CFSL and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against both the said accused and Sunder Kumar.In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. plea taken by both the accused Nissar and Ram Kishan is of plain denial.Case of the prosecution is that both the said accused were apprehended by PW 13 on the dates the recoveries of the said articles were got made by them.Rattan Lal, who is the cousin of deceased Inderjit, as PW 1 in cross-examination has stated that on February 14, 1989 he saw all the three accused persons in police custody and he was also shown the recovered cycle, watch and the silver ring by the police at the Police Station.Smt. Om Vati PW 2 in cross-examination has deposed that on the following day of the recovery of the dead body, wrist watch recovered from accused Nissar was shown to ber at the Police Station and she identified the same.Wrist watch Ex. P-2 was, thus, shown by the police to PW 2 on February 15, 1989 on which date same was identified by her as belonging to the deceased.If the wrist watch Ex. P-2 was seen by PW 1 on February 14, 1989 and by PW 2 on February 15, 1989 at the Police Station, how could that have been got recovered by accused Nissar, who was apprehended on February 16, 1989, pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex. PW 13/C as alleged by the prosecution.Stage of making disclosure statement would come only after the personal search of an accused is taken.Further in the seizure memo Ex. PW 13/H weight of the silver ring Ex. P-3 has been shown equivalent to 8 annas.Estimated market value of the ring in question as on date may be approximately Rs. 50/-.It does not appeal to reasons that an accused committing heinous offence of murder would continue to keep a ring of the value of even less than Rs. 50/- even after ten days of the commission of the offence so as to create evidence against him.That be so, how could the silver ring Ex. P-3 could have been produced by the said accused from the pocket of his pant on February 24, 1989 as alleged.It is in the cross-examination of PW 13 that the said accused along with Sunder Kumar was apprehended while sitting on a rickshaw at the rickshaw stand, Vikas Marg, near Swarn Cinema.However, according to PW 13, both of them were apprehended from near the Tanki where one of the accused, namely, Nissar was running a tea shop.Apart from that inconsistency, as per the depositions of both PWs 13 and 16 at the time wrist watch Ex. P-2 and the silver ring Ex. P-3 were recovered, letters 'IJ' were inscribed on them but while recording statement of Smt. Om Vati PW 2 trial Court observed that letters 'IS' instead of 'IJ' were inscribed thereon.How that change in one of those letters came to occur is still shrouded in mystery.From the foregoing discussion it must follow that neither wrist watch Ex. P-2 was recovered at the instance of accused Nissar on February 16, 1989 nor silver ring Ex. P-3 was produced by accused Ram Kishan to PW 13 on February 24, 1989 and the recoveries of both these articles have been falsely attributed to them.There is, thus, absolutely no material to record the finding of guilt under Section 302/34, IPC against both the said accused and the impugned judgment and order, therefore, cannot be legally sustained.Both the appeals are, therefore, allowed.Appeal allowed.

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned Authority, after appreciating the aforesaid facts, duly selected him under UR Category and appointed him in the Police Department on the post of Constable (GD) in the recruitment year 2013 (Second).During employment, his character -4- was verified from District Indore.";g fd] eSa ,d 'kkafrfiz; ukxfjd gwW rFkk esjs fo:} iwoZ esa iqfyl Fkkuk ,jksMe] bankSj e-iz- esa ,d vijkf/kd izdj.k iathc} gqvk Fkk tks Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku dh /kkjk 323] 325] 427 34] 294] 506 ds rgr iathc} gqvk Fkk] ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk eq>s fnukad 25-06-2002 dks nks"keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk ftldk QkStnkjh izdj.k dzekad 1393@98 gSA vc bl izdj.k ds vykok esjs f[kykQ vU; dksbZ izdj.k u rks fdlh Fkkusa esa vkSj uk gh U;k;ky; esa iathc} ugh gS vkSj uk gh fdlh U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfrfyih layXu izLrqr gSA"Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dt. 13/7/12 by which the Inspector General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner.The petitioner by virtue of his merit was selected for the post of Constable, however, the appointing Authority as well as the Inspector General of Police have rejected the petitioner's claim for appointment even though he is more -8- meritorious and persons who are less meritorious have been appointed to the post of Constable General Duty.Mehar Singh in Civil Appeal No.4842/2013 decided on 2.7.2013 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents was relating to appointment under the Delhi Police Establishment and there was a Standing Order i.e. Standing Order 398, which was applicable in the aforesaid case, whereas in the present case there is no such Standing Order in existence, on the contrary the Madhya Pradesh Manual and Regulations under the regulation-54, even provides for appointment of a person, who has been convicted with the approval of Inspector General of Police on the post of Constable and therefore, in light of the aforesaid Regulations and also in light of the fact that there is no such Standing Order in existence in the present case, which has been considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.11.13 is hereby quashed.The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order keeping in view his placement in the merit list.The petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages, however he shall be entitled for seniority and all other consequential benefits."registration of any criminal case against him, his selection was cancelled on the ground of concealing the facts and filing of wrong affidavit, his termination was upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench of Allahabad High Court.The Apex Court considering the fact that as the matter was of the year 2002 and he was acquitted of all the charges on 18.07.2002, allowed the civil appeal and directed the Superintendent of Police Gazaibad that the appellant be taken back in service within a period of two months from the date of order passed by the Court, but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period, he has remained out of service; paragraphs No.7.1, 9 and 11 of the judgment is relevant, which reads, as under:"7.1 It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor that the object of the verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a government servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant- 12 -was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case.Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad.The appellant will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service.There shall be no order as to costs."In the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 664, respondent's candidature for the post of Head Constable was cancelled on the ground that he has concealed his involvement in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when he was aged about 20 years.indiscretions rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives; besides, it was not a serious offence and hence, more lenient view should be taken and dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Police and others.In the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), a show cause notice was issued as to why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled, because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and had made wrong statement in his application form.Paragraphs No.8, 9 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) is relevant, which reads, as under: -He has also given all the details in paragraph No.2 of his affidavit and thus, it cannot be said that he has suppressed any fact to his employer.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, on the- 14 -basis of instructions received from his client, very categorically stated that in case writ appeal of Sandeep Pandey is allowed, he will not claim any back wages from the appellants.On due consideration of the aforesaid and considering the fact that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in violation to the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to allow the writ appeal and, therefore, we set aside the impugned order judgment and direct the respondents in W.A. No.367/2015 to consider the case of the appellant - Sandeep Pandey in terms of the direction issued by the learned writ court, but he shall be granted no monetary benefits i.e. back wages because during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant- Sandeep Pandey on the basis of instructions received from appellant Sandeep Pandey made a statement at bar that he will not claim any back wages.No costs."- 15 -date other batch members have been appointed.No order as to costs.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Rashmi

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.849 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.852 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.853 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.854 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.855 OF 2018 Indore, Dated 19.09.2019 Mr. L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the applicants.During the aforesaid submission, it transpired that the allegations against the applicants are that they being the members of screening committee had interpolated and fabricated certain documents for making some candidates as eligible candidates for the post of Female Health Worker.It was apprised to this Court that considering the role of the applicants, the questioned documents have been sent to the hand writing expert and the report has not been submitted.It 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.849 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.852 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.853 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.854 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.855 OF 2018 would be appropriate to obtain the report of hand writing expert in this matter.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court for leading prosecution evidence on 17.10.2019 and prays that proceedings before the Trial Court be stayed.His prayer is allowed.Matter be listed on 04.11.2019 as prayed for and report of hand writing expert be procured and placed for perusal.Certified copy as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2019.09.20 10:16:37 +05'30'

['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The admitted case of the parties was that on 19th September, 1969 Amar Singh was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, and he remanded him to the custody till 2nd October.JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J.This criminal reference has come up before us in the circumstances set out below:On the 14th September, 1969, P.C. Gupta, Principal of a college at Khurja forwarded a report against Amar Singh alleging commission by him of an offence-under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.The report was lodged by P.C. Gupta as a result of information furnished to him by M. L. Mittal, Accountant of the college.Consequent on the first information report, a case was registered against Amar Singh at Police Station Khuria and he was taken into custody by the police.On the 19th September, 1969, Amar Singh was produced before the Judicial Officer Khurja and on that date the Officer passed an order under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- hereinafter referred to as the Code -- remanding him to custody upto the 2nd October.On the-20th September, 1969, Amar Singh applied for bail under Section 497 of the Code and was ordered to be released on bail.On the 30th January, 1970 Amar Singh filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Officer, Khuria, accusing P. C Gupta and M. L. Mittal of offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.The complaint filed by Amar Singh was transferred to the Court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Khurja, who, after recording the statement of Amar Singh and examining one Jagdish Prasad produced in support of the complaint and P. N. Tewari the Sub-Inspector attached to Police Station Khurja, framed charges against P.C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal under Sections 211 and 109/211 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.P.C. Gupta applied for stay of proceedings before the learned Magistrate but he refused to do so.Against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate framing charges against them.P. C Gupta filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr.On the 25th July, 1959 the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent for his trial for various offences.There was no material before the Court showing that at any stage between the 10th December, 1958 and 25th July, 1959 any orders had been passed by the Court in connection with the investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent.In the meanwhile on the 11th April, 1959 the respondent filed a complaint in the Court of a learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Chandigarh, against the appellant for offences under Sections 204, 211' and 385 of the Indian Penal Code.On the 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 two applications made by the appellant for dismissing the complaint filed against him under Section 211, I.P. C. and for other offences were rejected by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur.A revision filed by the appellant against the orders of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, dated 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.The appellant came up in revision to this Court but it was dismissed by C B. Capoor.On 20th September, 1969, Amar Singh, on his own application, was directed to be released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate.On 30th January.1970, Amar Singh filed the complaint involved in the present proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, against P.C. Gupta and M. L. Mittal the informants at whose instance the criminal case was initiated against Amar Singh.

['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam is the wife of deceased-Murugan.P.W.5-Kadirvel Kounder is the father of Murugan.P.W.5-Kadirvel Kounder has two wives and through the first wife, he got a son by name Thangaraj and through his second wife, he got two sons by name Murugan and Ramakrishnan and three daughters by name Shanthi, Lakshmi and Mallika.Ramakrishnan eloped Accused No.1-Sivagami and married her and they were living for about two years in Thayumanavar street, Villupuram.The marriage was not accepted by P.W.5-Kadirvel Kounder and he settled four acres of land in favour of children of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam by name Thilagan and Tamilkumaran and he also gave one acre of land to Ramakrishnan.Ramakrishnan was electrician by profession and Accused No.3-Azhagar was his friend and there was illicit intimacy between Accused No.3-Azhagar and Accused No.1-Sivagami and Ramakrishnan died of electric shock.Accused No.1-Sivagami used to bring Accused No.3-Azhagar to one acre of land for cultivation and that was objected by Murugan and there was quarrel between them and Murugan issued Advocate notice.On 6.3.2005, at about 9.30 pm, Murugan drove the Suzuki motorcycle and P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam was in the pillion and they were returning from Villupuram to their native village and when they were proceeding near Mandakulam, Accused Nos.1 to 5, armed with billhooks, restrained them and Accused No.1 instigated the other accused to attack and murder Murugan and Accused No.5 caught hold Murugan and Accused No.2-Devanathan cut Murugan with billhook on the left side forehead and Accused No.4-Ratchakan cut Murugan on the eyebrow with billhook and Accused No.3-Azhagar cut Murugan on the right knee.The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3-Sundaram and the injured-Murugan ran to nearby Ramaraj Reddiar's house and P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam followed him and swooned there.P.W.2-Narayanan took injured-Murugan to Government Hospital, Villupuram in a car.On 6.3.2005, at 10.20 pm, Dr.Amudha examined Murugan and declared him dead and Ex.P6 is the Accident Register extract issued by her.P.W.13-Sub Inspector Mohan, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, on 7.3.2005 at 9 am, received Ex.P1-complaint from P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam and registered a case in Crime No.253/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P11-printed FIR and despatched the copies to higher officers and Court by Express report.P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu received the Express report and took up the investigation and went to the occurrence place and prepared Ex.P2-Observation mahazar in the presence of Kumaran and another and Ex.P12 is the Rough sketch prepared by him.He also seized M.O.4-Blood stained earth, M.O.5-Ordinary earth and M.O.6-Hand grip of motorcycle under Ex.P3-mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses.He went to Villupuram Government Hospital and conducted inquest at 12 noon on the body of Murugan and examined witnesses and prepared Ex.P13-Inquest report.He gave Ex.P14-requisition to conduct post-mortem on the body of the deceased Murugan.Thangaraj conducted post-mortem on the body of Murugan on 7.3.2005 at about 4 pm and found the following." R.M present in all the four limbs.A contusion right wrist 5x4 cm.A cut injury left upper arm 1x1x1 cm blackish red.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Head injury and other injuries sustained 16-20 hours prior to post-mortem and issued Ex.P7-Post-mortem Certificate.P.W.11-Head Constable Sivaramakrishnan seized M.Os.7 to 10-clothes from the dead body and handed over the same to P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu under Ex.P10-Special Report.P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu, on 8.3.2005 at 4 pm, arrested Accused No.1-Sivagami and Accused No.3-Azhagar near Serndhanur Railway Station and enquired them in the presence of witnesses and recorded the confession statement given by Accused No.1-Sivagami.Accused No.1 took them to her house and took and produced M.Os.1 to 3-Billhooks from the backyard of her house and P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu recovered the same in the presence of witnesses P.W.7-Selvaraj and P.W.9-Rasu and he gave Ex.Criminal Appeal No.171/2008Azhagar .. Appellant/Accused No.3Vs.State, represented byInspector of Police,Villupuram Taluk Police Station,Villupuram.(Crime No.253/2005) .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: Appeals against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in S.C.No.116 of 2005, dated 18.2.2008, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.2. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge under Section 302 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence under Section 148 IPC;Accused Nos.1 and 5 were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 147 IPC;Accused Nos.1 to 5 were convicted under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and the learned Principal Sessions Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.Accused No.2-Devanathan and Accused No.4-Ratchakan are the brothers of Accused No.1-Sivagami.Accused No.3-Azhagar is the paramour of Accused No.1-Sivagami.Eyes partially opened.Mouth partially opened, tongue inside the mouth.A cut injury center of the forehead 6x2xbone depth black.A cut injury left temple area 4x2x bone depth blackish red.A cut injury right side of the forehead 5x2x bone depth.A cut injury on the vertex 2 x 1/2 cm x bone depth.A lacerated injury 2.5 cm above the right eyebrow 3x1x bone depth blackish red.Signs of bleeding from both nostrils and ear.A cut injury right elbow 1 x 1 cm x bone depth.A cut injury right forearm 1x1 cm x bone depth.P15-requisition to send the properties for chemical analysis and they were sent through Ex.P16-letter of the Judicial Magistrate.P17 is the Chemical Analyst's report received in the Court.P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu examined some more witnesses and completed the investigation and filed final report against the accused.The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied complicity.They did not adduce any evidence on their side.The learned Principal Sessions Judge convicted the accused under the charges and sentenced them as stated earlier.Challenging the same, the accused have preferred the present appeals.Murugan died of homicidal violence is established by the testimony of P.W.7-Dr.A.Thangaraju, who conducted post-mortem and according to him, 14 external injuries were found and among them, 10 are cut injuries, 2 are lacerated injuries and the others are contusions.On internal examination, he found fracture of frontal bone and blood clots in the surface of brain.He has further testified that the head injuries are sufficient to cause death and he has also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries in his Ex.P7-Post-mortem Certificate.Hence the medical evidence would amply show that it is a homicidal death.The prosecution case is that on account of enmity, at the time of occurrence, all the accused assembled together and some of them armed with billhooks, wrongfully restrained Murugan, who was proceeding in the motorcycle and at the instigation of Accused No.1-Sivagami, Accused No.5-Rajendran caught hold of Murugan and Accused Nos.2 to 4 cut Murugan indiscriminately with billhooks, resulting in his death.P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.12 were examined as having witnessed the occurrence.P.Ws.2, 4 and 12 did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared as hostile.Thus we are left with the ocular testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 alone with regard to the occurrence.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.Per contra, Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle driven by her husband Murugan and she had witnessed the occurrence and P.W.3-Sundaram happened to witness the occurrence while returning from his land and his testimony corroborates the testimony of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam and the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and the delay in lodging the complaint has been explained by the prosecution and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court are sustainable.P.Ws.1 and 3, in their chief-examination, have stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused armed with billhooks, wrongfully restrained Murugan who was coming on his motorcycle and Accused No.1 instigated the other accused to attack and murder Murugan and Accused No.5 caught hold Murugan and Accused No.2-Devanathan cut Murugan with billhook on the left side forehead and Accused No.4-Ratchakan cut Murugan on the eyebrow with billhook and Accused No.3-Azhagar cut Murugan on the right knee and the accused ran away and the injured-Murugan went to nearby Ramaraj Reddiar's house and P.W.2-Narayanan took the injured-Murugan to Villupuram Government Hospital in a car.Having said so in the chief-examination, P.W.3-Sundaram, in his cross-examination, has stated that Accused No.4-Ratchakan and Accused No.5-Rajendran came to the place in a two-wheeler and other three accused were found sitting near Mandaivai pond and he returned to his home and thereafter Ramaraj Reddiar telephoned to P.W.2-Narayanan's house and informed him that Murugan was attacked by unknown persons and on hearing the same, he along with P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam and P.W.2-Narayanan went and saw injured-Murugan in the house of Ramaraj Reddiar and the injured Murugan was taken to Villupuram Government Hospital in a car.P.W.3-Sundaram is a chance witness and no doubt, he was not treated as hostile, but still, his testimony has no probative value.As already seen, in the chief-examination, P.W.3-Sundaram claimed to have witnessed the entire occurrence, but in the cross-examination, he has denied the same and has stated that he only heard about the occurrence.In short, the testimony of P.W.3-Sundaram is liable to be rejected as not trustworthy.The remaining is the sole testimony of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, wife of deceased Murugan.She claimed to have returned to the native village along with her husband Murugan in the motorcycle when the accused waylaid them and witnessed the attack made on Murugan by the accused.In her oral testimony as P.W.1, she has testified that her husband Murugan, who got injured in the attack made by the accused, ran to nearby Ramaraj Reddiar's house and she followed him and she swooned in the house of Ramaraj Reddiar and P.W.2-Narayanan took the injured Murugan to Villupuram Government Hospital and she was taken to her house and after regaining consciousness, the next day morning she lodged Ex.P1-complaint with her signature in Villupuram Police Station.In the averments in Ex.P1-complaint, she has stated that after the attack made by the accused on her husband Murugan, the injured Murugan ran to nearby Ramaraj Reddiar's house and she followed him and she and P.W.2-Narayanan took Murugan to Villupuram Government Hospital at 10.20 pm on the same night and the doctor declared him dead and out of shock, she returned to her house and fell unconscious and on the next day morning, she lodged the complaint.There is a vital contradiction as to whether P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam accompanied injured-Murugan to the hospital after the occurrence.According to P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, the clothes owned by her at the time of occurrence were stained with blood of her injured husband and with the same clothes, she went to the hospital and Police Station and she handed over the clothes also.P.W.13-Sub Inspector Mohan, who received the Ex.P1-complaint, has stated in the cross-examination that the clothes of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam were not stained with blood when she handed over the complaint and the Investigation Officer P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu has stated that P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam did not hand over any blood-stained clothes of her during investigation.The blood-stained clothes of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, if any, may probablise her presence along with her husband at the time of occurrence and that is absent.Moreover the testimony of P.W.3-Sundaram that they got information about the attack made on Murugan through telephone message and he along with P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Ramaraj Reddiar's house and saw injured Murugan there, destroys the testimony of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam of having witnessed the occurrence.The occurrence took place at about 9.30 pm on 6.3.2005 and Ex.P1-complaint was lodged by P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam at about 9 am on 7.3.2005 and there is a delay of about 11 hours.Though First Information Report was registered at about 9 am, it reached the Court only at about 3 pm.The only reason given for the delay in lodging Ex.P1-complaint is that after the occurrence, P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam returned home and fell unconscious and after recovery from the same, she lodged the complaint on the next day morning.The explanation cannot be accepted on the face of it.If really, P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, the wife of injured Murugan, had witnessed the occurrence and taken her injured husband to the hospital, she would not have ventured to return home and wait till the next day to lodge the complaint.Amudha that Murugan was attacked by unknown persons and the same was recorded in Ex.P6-Accident Register.If really, P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam accompanied injured Murugan and P.W.2-Narayanan to the hospital, she would have informed the doctor about the attack made by the accused on her husband during the occurrence and would have lodged the complaint immediately in the Police out-post attached to the hospital.Though Ex.P1-complaint contained the signature of P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, she does not appear to be the author of the same.According to P.W.14-Inspector Mathiyarasu, Accused No.1-Sivagami was arrested at 4 pm on 8.3.2005 in Sernathur Railway Station and she gave a confession in the presence of P.W.7-Selvaraj and P.W.9-Rasu and she took them to her house and she took M.Os.1 to 3-Billhooks from the backyard of her house and produced the same and he recovered the same under Ex.P4-mahazar in the presence of witnesses.The witnesses viz., P.W.7-Selvaraj and P.W.9-Rasu did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared as hostile.Moreover, P.W.1-Dhanabakkiyam, in her cross-examination, has stated that she saw Accused No.1-Sivagami in the Police Station even before her lodging the complaint.The prosecution case is that Murugan was brutally attacked by the accused during the occurrence and he ran to nearby Ramaraj Reddiar's house and after some time, he was taken to Villupuram Government Hospital by P.W.2-Narayanan.P.W.3-Sundaram has stated that Ramaraj Reddiar telephoned to P.W.2-Narayanan's house and informed him that Murugan was attacked by unknown persons and on hearing the same, he along with P.Ws.1 and 2 met the injured Murugan in the house of Ramaraj Reddiar and took him to hospital.Immediately after the occurrence, the injured Murugan met Ramaraj Reddiar and if he has been examined, he would have thrown much light upon the occurrence and that has not been done.During investigation, Ramaraj Reddiar was not examined and no steps appeared to have been taken to examine him in the case.The failure to examine him affects the prosecution case.We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled for the benefit of doubt.In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5 are set aside and the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted of all the charges and the fine amount paid, is to be refunded to them.The Bail bonds executed by Accused No.3-Azhagar shall stand cancelled.The appellants/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are directed to be released forthwith if their custody is not required in any other case.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-27732-2020 (VISHAL @ AKASH SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.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 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The concurrent finding of the courts below is that the victim Nisar P.W. 1 at the time of the incident, was residing in "Masoom Bibi Chawl".The three applicants are very closely related in as much as the applicant Ismail Latif Shaikh is the father of other two applicants.After the incident, Nisar was first taken by his parents to police station Virar but the concerned officer referred him to Municipal Hospital, Virar (West) for treatment.There first aid was given to him and he was referred to Sanjeevani Hospital for further treatment.At Sanjeevani Hospital, on the basis of the statement made by Nisar, police recorded the F.I.R. Since blood was constantly oozing out from the injuries of Nisar and immediate surgery was needed, he was referred to Bhagwati Hospital at Borivali.The A.P.P. waives service.Through this Criminal revision, the applicants impugn the judgment and order dated 20-10-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Thane, in Criminal Appeal No. 48/93 maintaining the judgment and order dated 17-3-1993 passed by 5th Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane, in Session Case No. 98/91, convicting and sentencing each one of them to undergo seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i/d to suffer three months RI, under section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.On 13-6-1990 at about 9.30 p.m., the applicants came in front of the house of Nisar and started abusing him.Thereafter, applicant Karim Ismail Shaikh caught hold of Nisar and on the instigation of applicant Ismail Latif Shaikh, to assault Nisar with a knife, applicant Rehman Ismail Shaikh (Rahim) inflicted a knife blow on the abdomen of Nisar.On sustaining the aforesaid blow, Nisar fell down on the ground.Blood started profusely oozing out from his injuries.Applicant Karim Ismail Shaikh and Rehman Ismail Shaikh were apprehended on the spot by persons who had gathered there and taken to police station.The motive for the assault alleged by the prosecution is that two days earlier i.e. on 11-6-1990, applicant Karim Ismail Shaikh had extended a threat to Nisar's brother that he would assault him with a gupti.In the aforesaid hospital, he was treated till he finally recovered.The medical evidence indicates that Nisar had sustained one stab injury in the epigastric region 2" x 11/2" which extended to peritoneum.It also revealed three perforations on the anterior surface of the stomach region.Medical evidence also revealed that the aforesaid injury sustained by Nisar was grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.After the usual investigation, the applicants were charge-sheeted for an offence under section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where after a full fledged trial, the applicants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above.Hence, this revision.I have heard Mr. S.R. Chitnis for the applicants and Mr. D.T. Palekar, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.I have also gone through the impugned judgments.From a perusal of the impugned judgments, I find that the conviction of the applicants is based on cogent and unimpeachable ocular account.That has been furnished by a large number of eye witnesses namely Nisar, Mohammed Isaq, Raees Ahmed, Suraiyabai and Shereunissar, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 respectively.That ocular account which is to the effect that applicant Karim Ismail Shaikh caught hold of Nisar and thereafter on the instigation of applicant Ismail Latif Shaikh, to assault Nisar with a knife, applicant Rehman Ismail Shaikh (Rahim) assaulted Nisar with a knife is corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence.As mentioned above, the medical evidence reveals that Nisar had sustained a stab wound on his abdomen region.That injury was attributable to a knife.Further, participation of applicant Karim Ismail Shaikh and Rehman Ismail Shaikh (Rahim) is also clinched by the fact that they were apprehended on the spot.There is some other evidence, like that of recovery of blood-stained clothes etc. from the applicants which also clinches their participation in the incident.In the instant case, the prosecution examined Dr. Ajit Maruti Pawar P.W. 11 who at the time of the incident was attached as Registrar in General Surgery in Bhagwati Hospital, Borivali.He deposed that he had examined the victim Nisar and found that the latter had sustained a stab wound over abdomen, above the umbilicals in the epigastric region, which was of the dimensions of 2" X 11/2" going deep into the peritoneum.He also found two perforations on the surface of gall bladder.Mr. Palekar learned A.P.P. on the otherhand urged that looking to the calculated manner in which the victim was attacked by the three applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, it is not a fit case for reducing their sentence.As I see it, it would hardly be any consolation to the victim that the applicants are serving seven years R.I. each.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The next submission is that during her treatment, deceased took her last breath.She was suffering from tuberculosis and she was at high risk case and admitted in the local hospital of Indore by her mausa.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.The next submission is that one Siyaram has lodged the FIR on 24.12.2018 roping the entire family of Jagdish who is husband and all his family members cooking up the story of dowry harassment and killing.It is mentioned in the FIR that on 18.12.2018, after brutally assaulting the deceased, the husband and in-laws has thrown her to Indore at her parent's place where she died.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE 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.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Sumit S

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Prosecution case is that there were repeated quarrels between appellant/daughter-in-law and deceased/mother-in-law.Hence, appellant and her husband and deceased/mother-in-law lived apart.Deceased used to work on fields belonging to her and she was assisted in doing so by her son and daughters.Appellant was unhappy with such position.On 26.11.2015, at about 5.15 p.m., appellant found deceased/mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law as also one another in conversation on the lane leading to the fields.Appellant questioned the presence of PWs-1 and 2, her sisters-in-laws/daughters of deceased, upon which the deceased retorted angrily.Thereupon, appellant stated that if the deceased was done to death, there would be no occasion for her daughters to frequent the place and dealt a forcible blow to the back of the deceased using both hands whereupon the deceased fell down and sustained injuries, resulting in bleeding of the mouth and nose.The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, where she was proclaimed dead.A case was registered in Crime No.434 of 2015 on the file of respondent for offence u/s.302 IPC.Pursuant to preference of charge sheet informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC and upon committal, appellant faced trial in S.C.No.54 of 2016 on the file of Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode District.Before trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P18 and 5 Material Objects.P1, complaint.PW-4, husband of PW-1, has spoken to coming to know of the occurrence and death of deceased through PW-1 and of informing the same to relatives.4.3. PW-5, brother-in-law of deceased, has spoken to accompanying the deceased to hospital and of Doctor informing that she had died.4.4. PW-6, brother of deceased, has spoken to attesting Ex.P2, observation mahazar and Ex.P3, seizure mahazar.4.5. PW-7, driver of the Omni Van in which the deceased was taken to hospital, has spoken to dropping the deceased and others at Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam.4.6. PW-8, a resident of the village, has been treated hostile as he has denied the occurrence .PW-9 also deposed to forwarding such statements to Judicial Magistrate I, Gobichettipalayam, under Ex.P8, letter.4.8. PW-10, Assistant Doctor, Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam, has spoken to examining the deceased and declaring her 'dead' and of issuing Ex.P9, Accident Register.PW-10 also deposed to informing the police under Ex.Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and seven exhibits were marked.5 Court exhibits were marked as Exs.On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied charges.4.1. PW-1, elder daughter of deceased, has spoken to the accused being her brother's wife, of her frequently quarrelling with her mother and on 26.11.2015, when she, the deceased, PW-2 - sister and PW-3, brother were talking, accused questioned them 'on why they all came there' to which the deceased replied that they have come to see her and questioned appellants right to question.Angered thereby, accused pushed the deceased owing to which she sustained bleeding injuries and was declared dead at the hospital.PW-1 also deposed to preference of Ex.4.9. PW-11, Assistant Doctor, Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased, has opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to head injury under Ex.P12, Post-mortem Certificate.PW-12, Head Constable, has spoken to submitting First Information Report to Court and higher officials.PW-13, Sub-Inspector of Police, Arachalur, has spoken to registering a case in Crime No.434 of 2015 on the file of respondent for offence u/s.302 IPC on the basis of Ex.P1, complaint.The Printed First Information Report is Ex.4.12. PW-14, Inspector of Police, who conducted initial investigation in the case, has spoken to visiting the scene of crime, preparation of mahazars, conduct of inquest in the presence of witnesses, examining witnesses, recording their statements, seizure of articles, arrest of accused and of handing over the case papers to PW-15, Inspector of Police, for further investigation.PW-15, Inspector Police, has spoken to examination of witnesses, recording of their statements and upon completion of investigation, filing of charge sheet informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC.DW-1, Inspector of Police, has spoken to receipt of a complaint preferred by accused informing that her husband was having illicit relationship with one Geetha and requesting to take action against him.DW-1 has also spoken to her husband's undertaking to lead a congenial life with accused and not to have any relationship with the said Geetha.Complaint preferred by accused is Ex.C1, statement of PW-3 is Ex.C2, statement of Geetha is Ex.DW-2, a resident in the village, has spoken to accompanying the deceased to hospital, of Doctor declaring her 'dead' and of PW-4, husband of PW-1 instructing him to inform the police that the deceased had died owing to assault by the accused.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 19.12.2016, convicted appellant/accused for offence u/s.304(ii) IPC and sentenced her to 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.4,000/- i/d 1 year S.I. There against, the present appeal has been filed.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent as also perused the materials on record.Given the admitted nature of the prosecution case as informed herein, this Court would do no more than to inform that in the circumstances of the case, the observations of this Court in judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1099 of 2006 dated 30.06.2008 stands clearly attracted.We re-produce paragraphs 17 and 18 of such judgment:-That apart, even according to the evidence of the eye witnesses, the second overt act of kicking of the deceased by the accused with his leg is only on the stomach or abdomen and not on the testicles.Therefore, it is clear that at the moment of commission of the crime, the accused could not have had any intention to kill the deceased or had the knowledge that his act of kicking in the lower abdomen may accidentally fall on the private parts, and in consequence of that, even accepting the medical opinion, the deceased, who was aged 65 years, would die due to neurogenic shock.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, by no stretch of imagination, the accused could be imputed with intention or knowledge of causing the death of the deceased and at the worst, his act would fall only under Section 323 IPC.Therefore, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that the act of the accused would clearly fall under Section 323 IPC for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified to that of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Further, we are of the considered view that the accused/appellant shall pay compensation to the family members of the deceased.In the instant case, though imputations have been made of the appellant/accused stating that it was only the death of the deceased, which would result in her sisters-in-laws/PWs-1 and 2 avoiding visiting the place, it can by no stretch of imagination be accepted that through causing blows to the deceased using her hands the appellant intended that the deceased meet her death by falling to the ground and suffering such injuries as would result therein.It is brought to notice that the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 3 = months.This Court is of the view that interests of justice would be met by confirming the finding of conviction arrived at by the trial Court, but altering the same to one u/s.323 IPC instead of 304(ii) IPC and by restricting the sentence as period already undergone.The Criminal Appeal is ordered accordingly.04.01.2018Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nobri/gm To1.The Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode District.2.The Inspector of Police, Bangalapudur Police Station, Erode District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T.SELVAM, J bri/gmCrl.A.No.5 of 2017 04.01.2018

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

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

/120B of the Indian Penal Code and adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount 2 each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Mednipur, subject to condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It may be recorded that the convict Munir and Viplav have not filed any appeal against their conviction/sentence.The case of the prosecution, as reflected from the records is as follows:Informant Rakesh Mohan Bakshi on 13th February, 2006 lodged a first information report at police station-Sector 49 NOIDA, District-Gautambudh Nagar.It was mentioned that in the night between 12/13.02.2006 while the informant was sleeping in his house and the guard was on duty, at 2.45 a.m. about 9-10 persons caught hold of the guard and, after tying him, took the guard to third story of the building.After breaking the lock of the main door, six of these persons entered into the house.On the opening of the main door the alarm started ringing.After putting of the alarm the informant came out of his room, simultaneously his mother-in-law, who was occupying a room below, also came out.The intruders caught hold of the mother-in-law and two of them having a knife and country made pistol in their hand reached the first floor and by that time the informant and his wife were out of their room.When the informant and his wife made an attempt to put on the alarm, they were threatened and were warned not to put on the alarm.All the residents of the house were taken in to one room.Their hands and feet were tied together.The residents were threatened with death in case of an alarm being raised.The intruders thereafter started looting the goods available in the house.The intruders also threatened the son of the informant and directed that they must provide more money after withdrawing the same from the bank.Before leaving the house they closed the door and put a cloth on the eyes of the informant and other family members.The looting in the house of the informant continued for nearly one hour.The intruders left from the first door.It was also stated in the first information report that at the time of incident the informant, his wife Jaypee, his son Ainesh and mother-in-law Swarn Kawatara and father-in-law A.K. Kawatara were present.The first information report records that there was sufficient light and they could see the culprits.The informant can identify the goods as well as the miscreants if they are brought before him.On the basis of the said first information report, Case Crime No. 30/06 under Sections 395, 397, 506 and 412 IPC was registered against 9 to 10 unknown persons.The investigation of the crime was done by the Station House Officer Vishwajeet Singh.He prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses (Exhibits Ka-3 and Ka-4).On 19th February, 2006 the S.O. Vishwajeet Singh along with other police personnels is stated to have received information that the culprits, who had committed the dacoity at house at Sector 49, NOIDA, are present in the house of one Dharmendra Veer Singh at village Aagahpur and they are likely to leave the house along with the looted property.On the said information, the S.O. informed the S.O.G. Incharge Sri Jaspal Singh on mobile phone as well as other police personnels.All the aforesaid persons reached the residence of Dharmendra Veer Singh and encircled the same.Five persons came out from the house with bags in their hand and other goods.Ramesh Sinha, J.These four criminal appeals are directed against one common judgment of the Fast Track Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar dated 06.11.2007 made in Sessions Trial Nos. 639/06 and 639A/06 arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2006, Police Station Sector 49, NOIDA, District-Ghaziabad.Under the judgment in appeal the Sessions Court has convicted the four appellants as well as one Munir and Viplav under Sections 395, 397, 506, 412 IPC.The convicts have been sentenced with life imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in case of default in payment of fine one year additional imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 IPC.For the offence under Section 397 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment has been imposed upon each.For the offence under Section 412 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 5000/- upon each, in case of default in the payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment.For the offence under Section 506 IPC the accused have been sentenced one year's imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 2000/- each.Four of them were arrested while one of them made an attempt to flee away from the place by jumping from the roof, however he was also arrested.All the five arrested were searched.They disclosed their identity, which was duly recorded.From the possession of the accused Munir a country made pistol of 315 bore was recovered along with one live cartridge of 315 bore and from the bag, which he was carrying one C.D. Player Phillips India Ltd., Serial No. 1L01-0434-045993 Silver Colour, one brass idol of approximately 2 k.g.with broken hands was recovered.From accused Faraim @ Irfan one country made pistol of 12 bore along with one live cartridge of 12 bore was recovered.In his left hand one wrist watch Logens Swiss made, gold colour No. 3135048 in running condition with black strap was found.From the third accused Kamal one knife and from the bag, which he was carrying, one Sony Digital Video Camera Recorder, Handicam-Vision No. 1059777 M 50 made in Japan and two batteries, one charger, two leads one additional lead, one Recorded C.D. Sony HMV 60 were recovered.From the fourth accused Farukh @ Gaffar one knife and from the bag, which he was carrying in his left hand, one Laptop Tosiba Tecra M 4 Model No. PTM 40L-0 EZ00C Serial No. 85094997 H made in China silver colour was recovered.From the fifth accused Rafiqul one knife was recovered and from the black bag of raxine one Digital Video Camera recorder, one Digital Camera Samsung with cover F.I. No. 25 DLX with three leads and one charger, one remote, make Sony and one battery make Sony made in Japan, one Tagri of silver, two bracelet and two artificial bangles of yellow metal, from the white plastic bag one Car Stereo silver colour, one chargeable emergency light with two tubes, one gents watch stainless steel, one watch golden colour Henry Sandoz Swiss made etc. were recovered.The statement of all the accused was recorded on the spot wherein they confessed that they had committed the crime.It was stated by them that the goods, which are in their possession were the looted property and that they were proceeding for disposing off the said goods.The goods recovered along with illegal arms were sealed.After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 395, 397, 506 & 412 IPC.The charges were framed against all the accused on 02.01.2007 by the trial court under the aforesaid sections.The accused made their statement under Section 313 IPC.They denied the prosecution story and stated that they have been falsely implicated.However, the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.The trial court, after considering the evidence brought on record and after examining the material evidence, held that the accused were guilty of offence under Sections 395, 397, 506 and 412 IPC.They were accordingly convicted and sentenced on all the four counts, as already noticed herein above by us.It is against this order of the trial court that the present appeals have been filed.We have heard Sri Sunil Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State in all the four appeals.However, he admitted that except for statement of PW-1 and PW-2 there is no other evidence to implicate the appellants, for the offence under Section 395/397 IPC.We have considered the submissions made and have examined the records.At least the learned A.G.A. could not refer to any exhibit from the records of the Sessions trial before us for the purpose.For the said offence they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each.In case of default in payment of the fine, they shall be required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months.In view of the aforesaid, the four appeals are allowed in part.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2004, made in C.A.No.188 of 2004, on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.51 of 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :As per the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1, after inspecting Aanaimalai sandal wood godown, on 05.12.1994 at about 10 p.m, gave his usual instructions to the forest guards / watchmen and went to his residence and that the door of the godown, where sandal woods were kept in was under lock and key.On 06.12.1994, at about 4 a.m, the forest guards / watchmen of the godown Duraiyan and Kaliyappan, P.W.2 found that the lock was broke open and thereby sandal woods were stolen, a burning 200 watts bulb was also found missing.Immediately, it was informed to the Forest Ranger, P.W.1, who came to the scene of occurrence, inspected the godown and the premises and found few human foot prints nearby the godown and some of the stored sandal wood pieces were also found dislocated and also found tyre marking of a lorry or tempo, nearby the road, and upto the end, the said human foot prints were found.Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, Ex.P.9, FIR was registered and the Investigating Officer, P.W.14 rushed to the said scene of occurrence on the said date and inspected the forest godown and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.10, in the presence of witnesses.Sketch, Ex.P.11 was also prepared by him.Then the Divisional Forest Officer, P.W.8 along with P.W.6 and others had intercepted the vehicles plying on the road.While intercepting, they found a sunny scooter proceeding at the said place from Aanaimalai towards Pollachi in a suspicious manner.On seeing the same, the Forest Ranger and others stopped the vehicle, but the persons proceeding on the vehicle left the vehicle and took their heals, however, one of them, the first petitioner herein was caught hold of and on the confession statement given by the said person, the first petition herein, a white bag containing 15 Kgs of sandal wood loaded in the sunny scooter was recovered, under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses.As per the prosecution case, while the first petitioner was intercepted, he informed that the sandal wood pieces were taken to Pattatchi sandal wood oil factory in Kerala State.On 13.01.1995, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kandasamy, P.W.8 along with Forest Rangers, Nagarajan, P.W.1, Angusamy, P.W.9, inspected the said Elapalli Essential Oil Industries in Kerala state in the presence of one Muneer, P.W.10 and found 5 tins of sandal wood oil, which could have been prepared out of 120.5 Kgs of sandal wood chips, apart from the same, 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips were also recovered there, on the confession statement given by the first revision petitioner and samples each 200 ml were taken out of the seized sandal wood oil and sent for chemical examination.It has been established that the case properties were seized under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses.The confession statement given by the first revision petitioner was leading to the recovery of material objects.Based on the complaint and the materials produced before the trial court, charges were framed under Section 457 (B) and 380 IPC.On the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were examined, 29 Exhibits were marked, apart from 3 items of material objects.According to the learned Government Advocate, the complaint given by P.W.1, and the evidence of P.W.6, Forest Ranger, P.W.8, Divisional Forest Officer, who seized the sandal wood from the accused and subsequent recovery of sandal wood oil and sandal wood chips from the sandal wood oil factory in Kerala, based on the confession statement given by the first petitioner herein, would clearly establish the complicity of the first revision petitioner in the alleged offence.The evidence of the Supervisor in the Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, an independent witness is also supporting the prosecution case, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13, Forest Officer.Pursuant to the confession statement of the first petitioner, huge quantity of unauthorized sandal wood oil and sandal wood chips kept in the said factory were recovered.Mr. S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would vehemently argued that though there is a concurrent finding by the courts below, there is no evidence to substantiate the finding of the courts below.According to him, no offence punishable under Section 457 (B) and 380 IPC has been established by the prosecution against the petitioners and according to him, there is no evidence available on record for convicting the second petitioner herein.As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, to attract Section 457 (B) there should be offence made out for house trespass or house breaking and similarly committing theft in any building or dwelling house should have been made out to attract Section 380 IPC.Here in the instant case, there is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to establish that the petitioners have committed offence of lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night, in order to commit offence and that there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution for convicting the revision petitioners under Section 380 IPC for committing theft in dwelling house.Per contra, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) contended that after the occurrence, that had taken place on 06.12.1994 during night hours, while the vehicles were intercepted, the first petitioner and another who were proceeding in sunny scooter from Aanaimalai to Pollachi was found in a suspicious manner and that on seeing the forest officers, they left the scooter and took their heals, but the first petitioner was caught hold of and he gave confession statement.Pursuant to the confession statement given by the first petitioner, 15 Kgs of sandal wood pieces loaded in the scooter in a white bag was recovered under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses and the same has been established by the prosecution.The admissible portion of the confession statement leading to the recovery of the said material object has also been proved by the prosecution.Subsequently, huge quantity of 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips and 5 sandal wood oil tins were seized from Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, sandal wood oil factory in Kerala, only on the confession statement given by the first petitioner.Therefore, the prosecution has established the guilt against the first petitioner, in order to punish him under Section 411 IPC.As far as the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the first petitioner, material objects have been recovered and the concurrent finding of the courts below is supported by evidence.The said finding cannot be construed as perverse, but the courts below could have convicted the first revision petitioner under Section 411 IPC, since 15 Kgs of sandal wood pieces and also 5 tins of sandal wood oil and 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips have been recovered, pursuant to the confession statement given by the first petitioner.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel contended that there is no evidence to show that the sandal wood, sandal wood chips used for preparing sandal wood oils were stolen from the godown belongs to the forest department of Aanaimalai Division.The learned senior counsel further contended that the authorities have not produced their stock register, in order to establish the theft of sandal wood from the godown.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Government Advocate contended that before entries were made in the stock register, sandal woods were being kept in the godown room, under lock and key, at that stage by break opening the lock, the theft has been committed during night hours and therefore, the non-production of the stock register would no way affect the prosecution case.In the instance case, the prosecution has established that 15 Kgs of sandal wood was recovered on the confession statement given by the first petitioner herein.Similarly, 5 tins of sandal wood oil, which could have been prepared from and out of 120.5 Kgs of sandal wood chips and also 1388 Kgs of sandal wood chips were seized, based on the confession statement given by the first petitioner.Admittedly, he had no valid license to deal with the bulk quantity of sandal wood.The evidence of P.W.10, Muneer, Manager of Elapalli Essential Oil Industries, Kerala would also support the prosecution case.It is not in dispute that the sandal wood chips and the sandal wood oil seized from the aforesaid sandal wood oil factory had been kept in an illegal and unauthorized manner and subsequently, they were sold, as per the orders of the Court.From the aforesaid circumstances, the offence under Section 411 IPC has been established against the first petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.As per the evidence of P.W.16, on the confession statement given by the second petitioner / A2, 45 Kgs of sandal woods were recovered.P.23 is said to be the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the second revision petitioner.In order to establish the confession statement and the recovery of the alleged 45 Kgs of sandal wood, pursuant to the confession statement, there is no corroborative evidence, except the evidence of P.W.16, Inspector of Police.Hence, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution has not established any offence against the second petitioner either under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC or under Section 411 IPC.I am of the considered view that here in this case, the prosecution has established guilt against the first revision petitioner / A1, punishable under Section 411 IPC and not under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC.Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below has to be modified accordingly.In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed, the first revision petitioner / A1 is convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- , instead of the conviction and sentence, imposed by the court below under Sections 457 (B) and 380 IPC.As far as it relates to the second revision petitioner / A2 is concerned, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence, imposed on him by the court below is set aside.As the first revision petitioner / A1 is on bail, the trial court is directed to secure the first revision petitioner / A1 to under go the remaining period of sentence.The fine amount, if any paid by the second revision petitioner / A2 shall be refunded to him forthwith.With the above modification, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.The District and Sessions Judge, CoimbatoreThe Judicial Magistrate No.I, PollachiThe Sub-Inspector of Police Anaimalai Police Station, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai.

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The applicant is permanent resident of Narsinghpur district and therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.sh This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest, in e ad connection with Crime No.22/2018 registered at Police Station Themi, District Narsinghpur (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A & 506 of IPC.Pr a As per prosecution, on 10.1.2018, at about 8:00 P.M., hy complainant was returning with her two children to her home and in ad the way, applicant, carrying his tractor & trolley met her, and thereafter, he asked her to sit in his tractor.Thereafter, she herself M along with her children sat on the said trolley.After some time, of applicant stopped the tractor saying that there is some problem in the tractor and then he came into the trolley and with ill-intention caught rt hold of her, then she retaliated the same and cried.After that incident, ou by leaving the complainant and her children he went away from the C spot carrying with said tractor & trolley.He further submits that after the incident, applicant made an application before the Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for anticipatory bail.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the anticipatory bail application.After hearing arguments of 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 the applicant has a good case for grant of anticipatory bail.sh It is directed that applicant will surrender himself before e Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of ad certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest, present Pr applicant, namely, Dillipat Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty a Thousand) only with a solvent surety in the like amount to the hy satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.ad The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a M police officer as and when required.he shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.of Certified copy as per rules.rt (H.P. SINGH) ou JUDGE C Digitally signed by ASHWANI h PRAJAPATI ig Date: 2018.04.20 03:29:59 -07'00' H A.Praj.

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

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

ORDER K.S. Gupta, J.In this petition filed under sections 482/483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22nd December 1994 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Megistrate, New Delhi and quashment of proceedings pending before him.Respondent No.2 A.K.Roy filed a complaint against the petitioner before A.C.M.M. New Delhi on 27th January 1993, interalia, alleging that on the basis of reliable information that Pardeep Chand was indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign exchange a search was conducted at his house bearing No.E-5, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi on 2nd Janaury 1992 and certain incriminating documents were recovered from there by the officers of Enforcement Directorate.Upon further investigation, involvement of Ajay Bakliwal, petitioner came to light and hence, his presence was considered necessary.The petitioner was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') vide summons/notices dated 9th November and 11th December, 1992 which were duly received by him.However, he deliberately failed to appear before the concerned officer of Directorate on one pretext or the other.The petitioner had thus rendered himself liable to be prosecuted under section 56 of the Act.The petitioner thereafter filed application for discharge/dropping the proceedings.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Present criminal application has been filedunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure forquashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.78 of 2016 beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naigaon(Bz), Dist.Out of 34 original accusedpersons, 33 have filed the present application.Present respondent had filed the saidcomplaint alleging that original respondent-accusedNo.1 has committed offence punishable under Section 494of Indian Penal Code and accused Nos.2 to 34 havecommitted offence punishable under Section 494 read- 1 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::11-appln-625-2019.odtwith Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.Their marriage was performed about 15years ago and the relationship is still legal andintact.She has two daughters and one son.It wascontended that thereafter, she was harassed by accusedNo.1 and his father by making demand of Rs.50,000/- topurchase a motor cycle.She could not fulfill it.Thereafter, all the accused persons drove her out ofthe house.Accused No.1 gave threat that he wouldperform second marriage.Complainant has made allegation that the saidmarriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was performed atabout 9.00 a.m on 15-08-2015 at Vasantwadi, Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.All the accused persons werepresent at the time of marriage and therefore, shecontends that all of them have committed aforesaidoffence.- 2 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::The complaint was supported by affidavit.Verification of complainant was taken by the learnedMagistrate and it appears that after hearing thecomplainant and perusing the documents on record, thelearned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated30-07-2018 for issuing process against accused No.1under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code and underSection 494 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Codeagainst other accused persons.As the true copies of record which have beenproduced on record and the impugned order show that thelearned Magistrate had considered only the contents ofthe complaint, verification, affidavit supporting thecomplaint and documents on record, however, it appears- 3 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::11-appln-625-2019.odtthat the learned Magistrate had not considered theprovisions of Section 202, especially, as amended byAmendment Act, 2005 before the impugned order waspassed.Perusal of the complaint would show thataccused Nos.1 to 13, 22 to 25, 27 to 29 and 32 areresidents of Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Accused Nos.14to 20 are residents of Tq.Vasmat Dist.Accused Nos.21, 30, 31 and 34 are residents of Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Accused No.26 resides at Tq.Bhokar, Dist.As regards all these Talukas areconcerned, viz., Mudkhed, Dharmabad, Bhokar, Dist.- 4 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::The notes on clauses for the above- mentioned amendment read as follow:.False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them.In order to see that the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend subsection (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.- 5 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::Thus, when the above said mandatory provisionhas not been adhered to, the matter is required to beremitted back to the learned Magistrate.Hence, the following order :-- 8 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::11-appln-625-2019.odt ORDER I) Criminal application stands partly allowed.II) Order of issuing process against all the accused persons in R.C.C. No.76 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naigaon (Bz), Dist.Nanded dated 30-07-2018 is hereby set aside.III) The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate.[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]SCM- 9 -::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 22:53:50 :::

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Raj Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar R/o E-134, 135, Mangol Puri, Delhi.According to the complainant he lives with his family at the above mentioned address and deals in the business of T.V. and Fridge Covers at Karol Bagh, Delhi.According to the complainant on 01- 08-2012, he came to his home after his work and before taking the dinner he went to buy butter from his neighbourhood shop, i.e. Himanshu General Store, situated at E-148, Mangol Puri.According to the complainant he reached at the said shop at about 10:30 p.m and saw that in front of gali No. 4 near E Block Park Gate, accused persons were quarrelling with one Sunil s/o Suresh resident of the same block as that of the complainant.According to the complainant Sunil was demanding his Rs. 150/- from Narender @ Badal and Akash @ Patta but they Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 2 of 18 were refusing to pay the money.On this pretext a quarrel had taken place between them.According to the complainant Narender @ Badal said to his brother Akash @ Patta that today, they would teach a lesson to Sunil and then he would not demand money again from them.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 2 of 18According to the complainant thereafter Akash @ Patta caught hold of Sunil and Narender @ Badal stabbed him on his chest and stomach as a result of which blood started oozing from the body of Sunil and he fell down near the Gate of E Block Park.After stabbing Sunil, both Narender @ Badal and Akash @ Patta ran away from there.According to the complainant in the meantime Jaggi brother of Sunil reached there.Some public persons also gathered there and somebody informed the police.PCR came and removed Sunil to the hospital alongwith his brother Jaggi.According to the complainant later on he came to know that Sunil had expired in the hospital.FIR No. 277/12 was registered at PS Mangol Puri and investigation went underway.He further deposed that the unknown boy who was accompanying the deceased had left the park by that time and appellant Akash started quarrelling with the deceased.He further deposed that at that time, appellant Narender, who is the elder brother of appellant Akash, also joined in the quarrel.He further deposed that he saw the deceased falling down and when he went towards him he saw that deceased was bleeding from the stomach.He further deposed that he had seen the appellants leaving the park after the deceased had fallen down.On the next day he was called by the police and he saw both the appellants sitting in the police station.PW-1 further deposed that he told the police officials that he had seen the appellants and the deceased quarrelling.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 5 of 18This witness was cross-examined by Addl.PP for the State wherein he denied stating in his statement to the police that accused persons were quarrelling with the deceased on some money matters.He admitted that he had stated to the police in his statement (Ex.PW-1/C) that appellant Akash had caught hold of the deceased.This witness was then cross-examined by the defence when he stated that he closes his shop at about 10:30 PM.He knew accused persons prior to the incident as they are the residents of the same gali/lane.He had not seen the deceased prior to the date of the incident.Another eye-witness was Raj Kumar (PW-2), who deposed that on 01.08.2012, he had gone to the nearby shop namely Himanshu General Store at about 10:30 PM to fetch butter.He deposed that appellant Akash caught hold of him and appellant Narender was grappling with him.He further deposed appellant Narender gave a blow with something to the deceased because of which he fell down and both the appellants ran away.When he went near the deceased, he saw that he was bleeding from his chest and in the meanwhile many persons gathered at the spot and the police also arrived there.The witness was then cross-examined by the Addl.PP before the Trial Court wherein he stated that both the appellants reside in his neighbourhood in the back lane of his house.The appellants have filed the present appeals under Section 374 (2) read with Sections 383 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 18.10.2014 and the order on sentence dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case 75/2012 arising out of FIR 277/2012 PS Mangol Puri by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 1 of 18 1860 (IPC).Both the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default, further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.Additionally, appellant Narender has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offences under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 1 of 182. Learned counsel for the appellants and the State have addressed arguments.Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, the same are being disposed of by a common order.During the course of investigation accused persons were arrested.After completion of investigation final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial."Charges were framed by the Trial Court against the appellants under the Section 302/34 IPC and against the appellant Narender, a separate charge under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was framed.Both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses in all.The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication.No evidence was led by the defence.After analysing the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 and the medical evidence [postmortem report (Ex.PW-20/A)], the Trial Court held Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 3 of 18 that the prosecution was able to prove that both the accused/appellants had shared a common intention, in furtherance of which they quarrelled with Sunil (deceased) and in the quarrel, the deceased received injuries and died.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 3 of 18Mr.Chhabra and Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that appellant Akash was 19 years of age at the time of the offence, while appellant Narender was 20 years of age.Neither do both the appellants have any past history of criminality or case, complaint or kalandara of any nature.It is also submitted that both the appellants are real brothers and post their arrest, their father expired.During the pendency of the appeal, even the mother of the appellants has expired.Learned counsel contend that, even as per the case of the prosecution, there was no past enmity between the deceased and the appellants.They belonged to the same area and were known to each other.It is during the chanced meeting, that a quarrel erupted between appellant Narender and the deceased, when Sunil demanded return of Rs.150/-.Learned counsels further contend that the testimony of PW-4 would show that, initially the quarrel was between appellant Narender and the deceased and appellant Akash reached the place of the incident subsequently.Attention is drawn to the cross-examination of PW-4, where on a suggestion made by the Addl.PP to PW-4, he stated that when deceased demanded return of Rs.150/-, the quarrel intensified and on the spur of the moment and the heat of passion, four knife blows were inflicted on the deceased, out of which three were fatal, which resulted in his death.Learned counsel submit that, even as per the Trial Court, the motive was return of Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 4 of 18 money, there was no premeditation and there is no evidence on record to show that appellant Narender was carrying a knife with him.Also, there is no evidence on record to show how the knife was procured, except the sketch of the knife, which showed that it was an unusual knife, having blades on both the sides and not a lethal weapon.It is also submitted that appellant Narender had only exhorted that he would teach the deceased a lesson and had not exhorted that he would kill.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 4 of 18Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment and the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.The present case would fall within the provisions of Section 302 IPC as rightly recorded by the Trial Court.The testimonies of three eye-witnesses would leave no room for doubt that appellant Akash had caught hold of the deceased, while appellant Narender had inflicted four stab injuries on the deceased.The attention of the Court is drawn to the post-mortem report, which prescribes the nature of the injuries and also shows that injury nos.1, 2 and 3 were fatal, which resulted in the death of the deceased.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to examine the testimonies of the eye-witnesses.Sumit (PW-1) deposed that he is running a grocery shop at E-148, Mangol Puri, Delhi under the name and style of Himanshu General Store and on 01.08.2012 at about 10:30 PM, the deceased came alongwith one boy to purchase cigarette from Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 5 of 18 his shop.After taking cigarette, the deceased alongwith that boy went towards E-Block Park.He went on to depose that the younger of the two accused, i.e. appellant Akash, came to his shop and had purchased a cigarette from him and then went towards the deceased who was standing inside the park.One boy whose name he came to know later on was standing in front of lane near gate of C-Block park and Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 6 of 18 both the appellants were quarrelling with the deceased.He admitted that deceased Sunil was asking for Rs.150/- from both the appellants and because of this, both the appellants were quarrelling with the deceased.He denied the suggestion that appellant Narender had given knife blow on the chest and stomach of the deceased.He further stated that appellant Akash had caught hold of the deceased and appellant Narender had given blow on the chest of the Sunil with something.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 6 of 18During cross-examination by the counsel for the defence, PW-2 stated that the place of incident is situated in a thickly populated area.He stated that both the appellants are residing in the back lane of the house and he had seen them prior to the incident.He denied having any enmity with the appellants.He stated that he had not heard the exact conversation made between the deceased and the accused as he was standing at the shop which is at a distance of 10-15 steps from the place of incident.He stated that besides both the appellants and the deceased, one other person was there at the place of the incident and the said person was with the deceased.Subhash (PW-4) deposed that about 3 years prior to the date of the incident he was residing at E-Block Mangol Puri, where his sister Veena Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 7 of 18 resides.On 01.08.2012, one day prior to Raksha Bandhan, he visited the house of his sister and in the evening he went to meet his friend Sunil.At about 10:30 PM, he alongwith the deceased were present at E-Block park where appellants quarrelled with the deceased for Rs.150/- as the deceased was asking his Rs.150/- from appellant Narender and in that quarrel, deceased received knife injury at the hands of the appellants.He further deposed that he cannot tell which of the appellants had inflicted knife injury.He further deposed that at the time of quarrel both the appellants were grappling with the deceased and at that time, a knife injury was inflicted to him.Deceased suffered injuries on his chest and stomach.He then rushed to the house of the deceased to inform his relatives.PW-4 was also cross- examined by the Addl.PP before the Trial Court wherein he stated that both the appellants refused to return the money of deceased, so quarrel intensified between them.He further deposed that appellant had told that "aaj sunil ko sabak sikha dete hai jis se sunil hamse dubara paise nahi mangega" (Lets teach Sunil a lesson, so he does not ask for money again).He admitted that appellant Akash caught hold of the deceased and appellant Narender gave knife blow on the chest and stomach of the deceased.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 7 of 18PW-4 was then cross-examined by the defence, when he stated that the appellants were not known to him personally but once he had seen appellant Akash when he was with the deceased.He stated that when the quarrel started, appellant Akash was not present at the spot.He cannot say which of the two appellants had stabbed the deceased and further stated that when appellant Akash came to the spot and joined appellant Narender, it was then deceased received stab wounds.He stated that he could not tell if any person known to him was present amongst public persons who gathered there as he was perturbed and immediately left for the house of the deceased.He further Crl.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 8 of 18 stated that the appellants fled from the spot.This witness was re-examined by the Addl.PP for the State and he stated that his version that out of the two appellants, one of them had inflicted knife injury to Sunil is correct.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 8 of 18We may also notice the medical evidence.Manoj Dhingra (PW-20) had conducted the postmortem of the deceased alongwith Dr.Vivek Rawat and as per the postmortem report (Ex.PW-20/A), following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:(a) Stab wound 3 cm X 1.8 cm X 6 cm, obliquely placed in right axillary fossa along the anterior axillary line, 123 cm from right heel & 9 cm lateral to right nipple with tailing seen at lower angle of the wound.(b) Stab wound 3.5 cm X 1 cm X cavity deep (up to heart) obliquely placed over lower front of chest, 115 cm from the heel along the midline of body with tailing seen at lower angle of the wound.(c) Stab wound 3.5 cm X 1.5 cm.X cavity deep (up to lung) obliquely placed over left mammary (precordial) area, 117 cm from the heel & 12 cm from the midline of the body with tailing seen at lower angle of the wound.(d) Stab wound 3.6 cm X 2 cm X 6 cm obliquely placed over right loin area, 93 cm from the heel & 10 cm from the midline of body with tailing seen at lower angle of the wound.A. 461/2015 & 481/2015 Page 9 of 18The coordinate bench, of which one of us (G.S. Sistani, J.) was a member, in Harender Singh (Supra) was faced with a situation wherein the appellant had inflicted two stab injuries on the body of the deceased during the course of a fight between the hockey team and boxing team of Aurobindo College and had converted the conviction from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I. The relevant portion reads as under:The conviction deserves to be converted.

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

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

This criminal appeal filed by convict/appellant Lotan Yadav is directed against his conviction and sentence whereby he was convicted under sections 395/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 100/- and to undergo further R.I. for two months in default of payment of fine.The aforesaid judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were both passed on 20-2-1980 by Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge.The initial charges against appellant had been framed under sections.The first information report in this case was lodged by one Chhotey Lal who gave a detailed account of the commission of the dacoity at the brick kiln of Devendra & Company in village Matiala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Janakpuri.The prosecution case, in brief is that on the intervening night of 19th and 20th July, 1979 Chhotey Lal who was employed as Munshi on the aforesaid brick kiln, was present there along with Chowkidar Mohan Singh, Budh Singh Munshi and labourers Santokh and Gaja Dhar and they were having talk among themselves, at about 12.00 in the night, when 7/8 persons came towards them flashing torches on their enquiry Chhotey Lal stood up and told them that it was the brick kiln of one Amar Jyoti.They were armed with Khukhris, iron rods, lathis and a country made revolver.Immediately thereupon one of the dacoits robbed Chhotey Lal of his wrist watch "Henri Sandoz" and also forcibly snatched a cash amount of Rs. 11/- from his pocket.Mohan Singh was also robbed of a cash amount of Rs. 13/- from his pocket.Labourer Santokh who was lying in a truck nearby was also robbed by the dacoits of a cash amount of Rs. 100/-.Dacoits also snatched a sum of Rs. 65/- from the pocket of Gaja Dhar.They also forcibly broke open the almirah lying in the office and took out there from a cash amount of Rs. 600/- one Henri Sandoz watch and another H.M.T. watch belonging to Budh Singh, All the aforesaid victims were forcibly confined in the said office.After robbing the aforesaid persons the dacoits went into the nearby labour camp and snatched H.M.T. watch from the wrist of Ram Dev labourer.The aforesaid victims of the brick kiln came out of the grilled ventilator of the office and raised alarm.One of the dacoits fired a shot in the air and all of them made good their escape.Chhotey Lal had given the description of some of the dacoits in the first information report and had told the police that he would be able to identify them if shown to him.Two months after the aforesaid occurrence, i.e. on 20-9-1979 Inspector Chetan Dass, then S.H.O. Police Station Janakpuri received a wireless message from P.S. Tilak Nagar conveying that the accused persons had been arrested by them who were making disclosures about the occurrence of this case.Those accused persons were arrested in another case FIR No. 795/79 of P.S. Tilak Nagar by Special Staff.Inspector Chetan Dass thereupon arrested accused persons Kalicharan, Jagan Nath, Suraj Bali and Hari alias Khakhnu.Subsequently, Inspector Chetan Dass arrested accused Sahadur.The test identification parade for him was fixed for 19-11-1979 but it could not be held on that day.Thereafter, the same was to take place on 23-11-1979 on which day appellant Lotan refused to participate in the test identification parade on the plea that he had been shown to four witnesses by the police when he was produced in court for purposes of remand.During trial the prosecution examined a number of witnesses.The eye witnesses amongst them were Chhotey Lal (P.W. 10), Mohan Singh (P.W. 11) and Budh Singh (P.W. 12).Chhotey Lal and Mohan Singh identified in the dock two dacoits namely, Lotan appellant and co-accused Kalicharan only and not the remaining three.Budh Singh (P.W. 12) had identified all the five accused standing trial as being amongst the dacoits.Chhotey Lal and Mohan Singh had also deposed that the fateful night of the occurrence was a moon-lit night, even though there was no electric light on the spot.The learned trial court was of the view that all the above mentioned three eye witnesses corroborated one another in all material particulars and nothing material had been extracted from the cross-examination of any one of them.The learned trial court was satisfied with the truthfulness of the witnesses Chhotey Lal and Mohan Singh especially for the reason that they had not falsely implicated the remaining three accused facing trial and had been content only with identifying two accused persons, namely, Kalicharan and appellant Lotan.The refusal statements of the accused persons including that of appellant Lotan to participate in the test identification parade did not find favor with the learned trial court and consequently the learned trial court drew adverse inference against them to the affect that had they participated in the test identification parade, they would have been correctly identified by the witnesses who had during the trial correctly identified both them.In this criminal appeal Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate, was appointed amices curiae for the appellant.In this appeal we are not concerned with accused Kalicharan but only with appellant Lotan.The perusal of the cross-examination of Inspector Chetan Dass (PW 13) shows that while he was cross-examined regarding the other co-accused Kali Charan, Sahadur, Jagan Nath and Suraj Bali as having been shown to the witnesses, such cross-examination was not directed for appellant Lotan, inasmuch as the dates 28-9-1979 of their refusal to participate in the test identification parade and 5-10-1979 on which their police remand was taken and which dates were put to this witness regarding the question of their having been shown to the witnesses, relate only to Kalicharan, Sahadur, Jagan Nath and Suraj Bali and not to appellant Lotan.Shri A. K. Garg (PW 6), Metropolitan Magistrate, is not the material witness to whom the plea of appellant Lotan regarding his refusal to participate in the test identification parade could have been put in his cross-examination, because after the appellant had been remanded to judicial custody on 16-11-1979 uptill 26-11-79, the intervening application D/- 21-11-1979 made by Inspector Chetan Dass to Shri A. K. Garg and the order passed thereon for holding the identification parade on 23-11-1979, (vide Exts.PW 6/A and PW 6/B) had been made in the absence of the appellant.In the face of the plea of the appellant that he had been shown to the witnesses at the time of the grant of judicial remand to him, looking true and his consequent refusal to participate in the test identification parade during investigation of the case, his identification in the dock of the trial court by the eye witnesses, namely, Chhotey Lal (PW 10), Mohan Singh (PW 11) and Budh Singh (PW 12) about 2 1/2 years after the occurrence loses much of its credibility.It is also a matter worthy of note that in his cross-examination D/- 11-1-1982 Chhotey Lal (PW 10) conceded that appellant Lotan was shown to him out side the court by the Inspector, that he was the robber.Mohan Singh (PW 11) has also conceded in his cross-examination that appellant Lotan was shown to him at the Police Station when he was not in muffled face.No other point was urged at the Bar and in view of the above discussion, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against appellant Lotan and consequently accepting his appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the appellant is acquitted.The appellant is in jail in this case and he be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to registerthe complaint dated 09.04.2014 preferred by the petitioner for the offencepunishable under Sections 120-B, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and to take actionagainst the accused in accordance with law.A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counselfor the petitioner.In view of the above submission, this petition is closed withliberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the appropriate forumin the manner known to law.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nager Police Station, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It appears that after the F.I.R. was lodged, the police investigated the case under Section 395 of the IPC.against the applicants and submitted a final report.Thereafter a protest petition was filed and some witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.Apart from other witnesses, principally three witnesses, ilel(sic) Bishambhar Singh, Sahab Singh and Danodar Singh supported the complainant case and they had also earlier filed affidavits.Against that order the present revision has been filed.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that as it was a case triable exclusively by the court of Session and was covered by the provisions of U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1973, (for short the Act), hence all the prosecution witnesses must have been examined and the Second Proviso to Section 202 was mandatory, which was to the effect that the Magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

SETHI,J.iii) direct any judicial officer to hold inquiry/investigation in the aforesaid case in view of the seriousallegations levelled by the petitioner against senior PoliceOfficer of District Roopnagar.iv) direct the respondent NO.2 (DGP Punjab) toimmediately transfer the respondent No.4, 5 and InspectorJasdev Singh, who is presently posted as SHO of PoliceStation Kharar, District Roopnagar, so that free, fair andimpartial investigation/ inquiry may be conducted by somejudicial officer in view of the peculiar facts of the caseunder reference."In his petition the respondent No.1 contended that hewas conducting several civil/criminal cases filed byM/s.It was allegedthat with a motive to compel the respondent No.1-Advocate towithdraw as counsel of the said company and its Directors,the appellant and respondent NO.8 hatched a criminalconspiracy to implicate him in false and fabricated criminalcases.They were alleged to have mixed up with one RanjitSingh, Deputy District Attorney (Legal) attached with theoffice of Senior Superintendent of Police, DistrictRoopnagar, Punjab and managed the registration of a caseagainst the respondent No.1 and his clients being FIR No.151dated 10.12.1988 at Police Station Kharar for variousoffences under the Indian Penal Code.In furtherance of thealleged conspiracy a raid was conducted on 11.10.1988 in thehouse of one Ravnit Singh, a client of the respondent No.1.The respondent No.1 reached at the house of Ravnit Singh,when called, and found there a contingent of police.It isalleged that the moment the respondent No.1 came out of hiscar, he was roughed up and thrown in an open truck.He wastaken to Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh where DDRNo.24 dated 11.10.1988 was registered.He further allegedthat thereafter he was whisked away to Police Station,Kharar.His arms were tied behind his back and a piece ofcloth was tied around his eyes.He was thereafter taken toan unknown destination and was pushed in an isolated roomwhere the appellant herein and respondent No.8 were alreadywaiting.He was subjected to criminal torture by usingthird degree methods for about 2-3 hours.The respondentNo.6 was also alleged to have caused injuries upon the saidAdvocate with a sharp knife below the knees, withoutprovocation.Red chillies are stated to have been sprinkledon his fresh wounds with the object to harm, injure andterrorise him.He was threatened to be eliminated by thepolice personnel and the appellant.Leave granted.L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J Respondent No.1 who is a practising Advocate filed apetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurein the High Court of Punjab and Haryana with prayers:"i) Call for the records of the case for the purpose ofperusal,ii) direct the respondent No.6 i.e. Station HouseOfficer of Police Station, Kharar, District Roopnagar aswell as Senior Superintendent of Police, Roopnagar(respondent No.3) to register a case on the basis ofcomplaint dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) lodged by thepetitioner as well as MLR dated 11.12.1998 (Annexure P-4)lodged by the petitioner as well as MLR dated 11.12.1998(Annexure P-3) of the petitioner without any further delay.After the tortureprocess, the eyes of the respondent No.1 were againblind-folded and he was brought back to Police Station,Kharar where his wife Mrs.Gursharan Kaur had reached by thattime.Upon her raising hue and cry he was sent to CivilHospital, Kharar for conduct of his medical examinationwhere he was examined by Dr.Balwinder Singh.He was statedto have been released on 11.10.1998 after about 3 hours bythe orders of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kharar.He claimed to have filed a written complaint in PoliceStation, Kharar for registration of FIR against the allegedculprits.The copies of the complaint are stated to havebeen sent to Chief Minister, Punjab, Chief Secretary,Punjab, Principal Secretary, Punjab, the Director General ofPolice, Police SSP, Roopnagar Chief Justice of India and theHome Minister of India.As no action was taken on hiscomplaint, he filed a petition in the High Court withprayers as noted hereinabove.After hearing the respondent No.1, who appeared inperson, the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposedof his petition on 7.1.1999 with directions:If the allegations of the petitioner are found to befalse, the petitioner shall be prosecuted u/s 182 IPC.Thepetitioner can lead such evidence in support of his casebefore the SSP who shall conclude the investigation within 3months from the receipt of the copy of the order."After the disposal of the petition filed by therespondent No.1 and consequently action taken in pursuance@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJto the directions issued against the SSP, Roopnagar, the@@JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJrespondent No.1 again filed a Miscellaneous Petition whichwas registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-15 of 1999 anddisposed of on 30.4.1999 by the same learned Single Judge,apparently without notice to the appellant herein or anyother respondent in that petition, with directions: "Thepetitioner submits that he has filed a Criminal Complaint on9.3.1999 in the court of Mrs.Neelam Arora JMIC, Kharar andshe has taken cognizance and in this view of the matter hedoes want to prosecute his allegations with the SSP, who maybe directed not to take any action because the matter isalready subjudice before the competent court ofjurisdiction.Therefore, now directions are given to SSPRoopnagar not to comply with directions dated 7.1.1999 andnot to file any calendra under Section 182 IPC against thepetitioner".The appellant herein also filed a CriminalMiscellaneous No.20653 of 1999 on 31st May, 1999 with prayerfor quashing the Court order dated 30th April, 1999 on theground of its being illegal, against the well establishedprinciples of law and being a review of order dated 7.1.1999not permissible under the criminal law.The present appeals have been filed withprayer for quashing the orders passed by the learned SingleJudge on 30th April, 1999 and 21st July, 1999 mainly on theground of the orders being without jurisdiction.

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Sheshrao Sathe and another appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2020 has been preferred by accused nos.2 & 3 namely Sham s/o.Vishwanath Shinde and Sandeep @ Timepass Saudagar Bhojuane, juointly.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::Heard Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, advocate representing the appellant / applicant and Shri R.B. Bagul, Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State.Facts of the case, in brief, are as under : .Balbhim Ramdas Kaswid (PW-3), resident of village Tembhurni, Tal.Madha, Dist.Oun 04-03-2014 Kirti::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 4 CrimAppln.1572.2020 Agrotech Ltd., Latur hired his tanker for transportation of 15990 kg refned edible oil to Kirti Agrotech Ltd., Boramani, Dist.After flling edible oil in the tanker, he left Latur on very day at about 10:00 p.m., for proceeding to Solapur.He was alone in the tanker.Oun the way to the Solapur, during midnight at about 12:30 a.m. to 01:00 a.m. after crossing limits of village Ashiv, one tempo popularly known as 'Chota Hatti' suddenly came from back side.Oun his halting the tanker, out of the three accused, one boarded from driver side and remaining two boarded in cabin from cleaner side.They were armed with hockey stick and iron rods.After entering into the cabin of the tanker, they gagged his mouth with adhesive tape and tied his hands and legs by rope.Then they assaulted him with hockey stick, snatched cash of Rs.5,500/- and cell phone from his person and fed away with tanker flled with edible oil, after leaving him in a feld situated within the limits of Barshi, Tal.After loosening the knot of the rope and removing adhesive tape, by which his mouth was gagged, at about 11:00 a.m. on 06-03-2014 he reached to Bhada Police Station, Dist.This is an application fled by the appellant / applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail pending the appeal.In all two appeals with applications for suspension of substantive sentence and bail, have been fled against the impugned juudgment and order.Ouut of the two, one bearing Criminal Appeal No.481 of 2020 has been::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 2 CrimAppln.1572.2020 preferred by accused no.1 Suresh s/o.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::juudgment and order dated 20-08-2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.96 of 2014 whereby he along with two other accused have been convicted for the ofences punishable under Sections 394, 365, 342 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced them to sufer imprisonment for life and to pay fne of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the ofence punishable under Section 394 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fne of Rs.5000/- each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the ofence punishable under Section 365 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fne of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the ofence punishable under Section 342 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.Solapur was owner-cum-driver of the tanker bearing registration no.MH-04/DD-6176 (hereinafter referred to as the 'tanker').Latur and lodged the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::Oun the basis of aforesaid, FIR lodged by Balbhim::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 5 CrimAppln.1572.2020 Ramdas Kaswid - the complainant crime bearing no.30 of 2014 for the ofences punishable under Sections 394, 364, 341, 342 read with 34 of the I.P.C. came to be registered against unknown robbers.Investigation of the said crime was carried by two Police Oufcers, one was Police Inspector - Usman Chand Shaikh (PW-10) and another was Satyawan Madhukar Hake (PW-11), Police Oufcer attached to Special Crime Branch, Latur.During the course of investigation, panchanama of the place (feld) where the complainant Balbhim was left after gagging his mouth with adhesive tape and tying his legs and hands by rope was drawn.Empty tanker was seized from Lonand to Khandala road near Dhom Balkawadi canal situated within the limits of village Aahire where it was lying unclaimed.Then the accused were traced out and arrested.Thereafter at the instance of the accused cash of Rs.11,00,000/- which they had collected by selling refned edible oil flled in a tanker robbed by them was recovered.During further investigation, tempo (Chota Hatti) and mobile handset used in crime was seized at the instance of the appellant / applicant - Suresh from his house situated at village Nandurga, Tal.Ausa, Dist.After completion of investigation as there found sufcient evidence, all the three accused came to be charge-sheeted::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 6 CrimAppln.1572.2020 for the aforesaid ofences and ofence under Section 420 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::Conducted the trial and held all the three accused guilty for the ofences under Sections 394, 365, 342 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to sufer imprisonment and fne as referred above and acquitted them for the ofences under Sections 341 and 420 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C.While taking us through the evidence on record, Shri Jamalpurkar, Advocate representing the appellant/ applicant vehemently argued that, though the evidence adduced by the prosecution was highly insufcient to prove the complicity of the appellant / applicant, in the alleged crime, the learned Sessions Judge, Latur held him guilty for aforesaid ofences and arbitrarily sentenced him to sufer life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment of one year and rigorous imprisonment of one month for the ofences under Sections 394, 365 and 342 r.w. 34 of I.P.C., respectively.The evidence of PW-3 Balbhim, who is a star witness, is full of::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 7 CrimAppln.1572.2020 omissions and contradictions.In spite of that the learned Sessions Judge, Latur convicted the appellant / applicant keeping implicit reliance on his evidence and recovery of an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant / applicant and co-accused.According to Shri Jamalpurkar, Advocate, PW-3 Balbhim was not acquainted with the appellant/ applicant.Alleged incident of robbery took place during midnight on road leading to Solapur.FIR lodged by PW-3 Balbhim is against unknown robbers.Detailed description of robbers does not fnd place in the FIR.No identifcation parade to identify the robbers, was conducted after arresting the accused.In spite of all these shortcomings, learned Sessions Judge, Latur, only relying on evidence of PW-3 Balbhim falsely identifying the appellant / applicant in the Court during the course of evidence recorded, after about four years of incident, held the appellant / applicant along with other accused guilty for the alleged robbery.Lastly Shri Jamalpurkar, Advocate representing the appellant/ applicant submitted that, the impugned juudgment is incorrect and improper.The appellant / applicant has every hope of success in appeal.The ofences for which the appellant / applicant has been convicted, are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::8 CrimAppln.1572.2020 Though the charge for the ofence under Section 364 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. framed which was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, Latur did not hold the accused guilty for the said charge, however held them guilty for the lesser ofence under Section 365 r.w.34 of the I.P.C. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded for the ofence under Section 394 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. is highly disproportionate.Reasons for awarding life imprisonment for the ofence of robbery are not cogent.The appellant / applicant was on bail during the trial.He never juumped the bail.He is ready to furnish the bail to the satisfaction of this Court and also abide by the conditions that shall be imposed.Per contra, Shri R.B. Bagul, Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that, the impugned juudgment and order is correct, proper and legal in all respects.The evidence of PW-3 Balbhim, a star witness, is clear, cogent and sufcient to connect the appellant / applicant with the incident of robbery.He was in the company of the appellant / applicant for sufcient period.Therefore, he has rightly identifed him in the Court during the course of evidence.There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW-3 Balbhim on the point of identifcation, only for the reason that no::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 9 CrimAppln.1572.2020 identifcation parade was conducted.Nothing is brought on record through his cross-examination on the basis of which his evidence supported by recovery of huge cash, at the instance of the appellant / applicant and the co-accused establishes beyond doubt that, none other than all three accused committed the ofence of robbery.According to Shri R.B. Bagul, Additional Public Prosecutor Section 394 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to 10 years.Having considered the fact that, the appellant/ applicant committed ofence of robbery of tanker flled with huge edible refned oil during midnight at Highway, learned Sessions Judge, Latur rightly awarded maximum punishment of life imprisonment, which cannot be said to be disproportionate.There is no merit in the appeal, therefore, the appellant / applicant does not deserve to be released on bail by suspending the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::In the light of aforesaid submissions made at bar, we have carefully gone through ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.Ouut of 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, Balbhim (PW-3), Dattaprasad (PW-9), Usman Chand Shaikh, Investigating Oufcer (PW-10)::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 10 CrimAppln.1572.2020 and Satyawan Madhukar Hake, Second Investigating Oufcer (PW-11) are material witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::Herein this case, serious dispute is not about recovery of aforesaid amount, but serious dispute is about identifcation of appellant / applicant by Balbhim (PW-3).The evidence on record demonstrates that,(i) Incident of road robbery took place during midnight on the road leading to Solapur from Latur,(ii) Detailed description of robbers does not fnd place in FIR,(iii) Balbhim (PW-3) was not acquainted with the appellant / applicant.(iv) Identifcation parade to identify the appellant / applicant after his arrest was not conducted.(v) Balbhim (PW-3) during the course of his evidence, which was recorded after about 3 years and 10 months of the incident frst time in the Court identifed the appellant / applicant.Having regard to the aforesaid evidence, fnding::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 11 CrimAppln.1572.2020 of learned Sessions Judge, Latur about complicity of appellant / applicant with the incident of robbery, prima facie, not appears to be correct.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::Moreover, punishment of life imprisonment for the ofence of voluntarily causing hurt and committing robbery under Section 394 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. appears to be disproportionate.Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances and the facts that, the appellant/ applicant was on bail during the trial, he never juumped the bail, he has deposited the fne amount, we inclined to bail him out during the pendency of appeal by suspending substantive sentence, subjuect to certain conditions.With this, we pass the following order :-(i) The appellant / applicant is released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 ::: 12 CrimAppln.1572.2020 Thousand Ounly) with one solvent surety of like amount, subjuect to following conditions, by suspending the substantive sentence, during pendency of the appeal :-::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::(a) He shall attend Ausa Police Station, Ausa, Dist.Latur on every Monday and Saturday, during 01:00 p.m. to 04:00 p.m. till the appeal is fnally decided.(b) Police Station Oufcer Ausa, Dist.Latur shall record his attendance in Station Diary and obtain his signature.(c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activity.(d) Breach of any of the aforesaid conditions would be a good ground for cancellation of bail.(ii) Criminal Application is accordingly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 04:27:58 :::

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

“P.W.9 is presently working as a Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O) at Anupankulam.While he was working as V.A.O at Thiruthangal, on 27.06.2003, during the morning hours at about 6:00 a.m. he along with the V.A.O of Keela Thiruthangal, Mr.Murugesan (P.W.8) were travelling together near Sivakasi Viruthunagar road for performing an official work, during which they noticed the Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East police Station along with his police party who caught hold of two accused namely Pulipandi(A3) and Karthik(A4).When the accused were examined, they gave their voluntary confession statements that on 12.12.2002, Pulipandi(A3) along with his associates committed dacoity at a pawn broker shop at Thiruthangal by break opening the shop and had stolen gold jewels and 10/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 later divided the same into equivalent shares among themselves.A3 took his share of gold jewels and sold some of the gold jewels to one Srinivasan of Srivilliputhur and had kept the remaining gold jewels in Karthik's(A4) house and when A3 tried to sell the gold jewels, he was arrested by the police.The voluntary confession statement of A4 was recorded as Ex.P.14 wherein he had stated that he sold his share to one Paulraj of Srivilliputhur.COMMON ORDER Since the issued involved in all these criminal revision cases are one and the same, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.These Criminal Revision Cases are filed to set aside the judgment passed by Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in C.A.Nos.191, 188 & 190 of 2008 dated 03.07.2015 made in C.C.No.908/2003 dated 26.09.2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.2/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015For the sake of convenience, the petitioners herein are referred as A2, A3 and A4 and the respondent is referred as complainant.A2 to A4 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:-Provisions under which S.No the petitioners A1 to A4 Imprisonment Fine were convicted Rs.50/-Aggrieved over the above said order of conviction, the petitioners herein, A2 to A4 preferred Appeals before the lower Appellate Court in Appeal nos.191, 188 & 190 of 2008 and the lower Appellate Court modified the period of sentence to run 'concurrently' instead of 'consequently'.Aggrieved over such concurrent findings, the present criminal revision cases have been filed.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was running a pawn broker shop at Thiruthangal.On 12.12.2002, P.W.2, wife of P.W.1 opened the pawn broker 3/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 shop and found that the shop was broke opened and up to 35 sovereign of gold jewels were stolen.Again on 11.02.2003, P.W.2 gave another complaint that on the earlier date of occurrence (i.e) on 12.12.2002, about 218 sovereign of gold jewels were also stolen.On receipt of the information given by P.W.2, the Law Enforcing Agency took up the investigation of the case.During the investigation, on 25.06.2003, one of the co-accused Karuthapandi (A1) was arrested and based on his confession statement, A2 to A4 along with some other accused were also arrested and some stolen articles were recovered from them.After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer/P.W.18 filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 were marked and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.28 were also marked.After conducting elaborate trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused A1 to A4 as stated supra, who were found guilty for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. in CC.No.908 of 2003 dated 29.06.2008 and directed the accused to suffer the said punishment 4/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 'consequently'.Aggrieved over the said order of conviction, the accused herein, viz. A2, A3 and A4 filed appeals before the lower Appellate Court in C.A.Nos.191, 188 and 190 of 2008 and the said appeals were clubbed together and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the sentence of conviction ordered by the trial Court on 03.07.2015 and modified the trial Court's order, thereby directing the accused to suffer the period of punishment 'concurrently'.In the present case, admittedly, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18, out of which P.W.'s 7 , 8, 10 to 14 have turned hostile.Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the revision petitions.In their evidence, they have clearly deposed that though two complaints were lodged, one complaint was made on 12.12.2002 and another complaint was registered on 11.02.2003, the Law Enforcing Agency conducted investigation by clubbing the two complaints together and investigation was conducted.After investigation, the accused were snapped by the Law Enforcing Agency.In respect of A3, no previous case has been registered and in respect of A4, prior to the incident, 20 cases of similar nature were registered and subsequent to the incident, nine cases were registered.7/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 P.W.7 had stated that on 26.06.2003, at about 2:00 p.m. on seeing the Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station along with other police officials, when the accused Karuppasamy / A2 tried to escape from the spot, he was surrounded by the police party and was arrested by them.On enquiry, A2 Karuppasamy gave his voluntary confessional statement in which he had stated that he along with other accused committed dacoity at the pawn broker shop situated at Thiruthangal and he had pledged 15 gold rings at Muthoot Bank stolen from that said shop.Thereafter, the police party took the accused person A2 to Muthoot Bank for further investigation and seized the 15 gold rings and the same was recorded in Ex.On 27.06.2003, A3 and A4 were arrested near the Thiruthangal chariot at about 6:00 a.m and their voluntary confession statements were recorded in the presence of P.W.9Considering the above facts and circumstance of these cases, the issue framed in the revision case is that, “whether the order of the trial Court/ inferior Courts can be interfered by exercising power under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code?” 8/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, is the owner of pawn broker shop at Thiruthangal.On 12.12.2002, P.W.2, wife of P.W.1 opened the pawn broker shop and found that the shop was broke opened and up to 35 sovereign gold jewels were stolen.Further on 11.02.2003, she gave another complaint that on the earlier date of occurrence (i.e) on 12.12.2002, about 218 sovereign of gold jewels were also found to be stolen.On receipt of information given by P.W.2, the Law Enforcing Agency conducted the investigation of the case and on 26.06.2003, one of the co-accused Karuppasamy(A1) was arrested and based on his confession statement, the petitioners A3 and A4 and some other accused were also arrested and stolen articles were recovered.After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer P.W.18 filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly all the 4 accused were punished for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. sentencing to undergo a period of three years Rigorous Imprisonment under each section and pay a fine Rs.50/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under each section.A1 did not file any revision as against the conviction.However, A2, A3 & A4 filed appeals before the lower Appellate Court and during the pendency 9/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 of the same, A2 passed away.Hence, this Court dismisses the criminal revision case filed in Cr.R.C.(MD) No.442 of 2015, dated 03.03.2020, as abated and the revision petitions viz. Crl.P.W.9 along with V.A.O Murugesan attested the confession statements.Later the police party went to the house of Karthik and confiscated the stolen gold jewels and the recovery also took place in the presence of P.W.9 and they attested their signatures and the same was marked as Ex.Thereafter, the police party took the accused to Srivilliputhur to identify Srinivasan to whom the stolen jewels were sold and they seized 431 grams of gold bar and 24 gms gold jewels and the seizure mahazar was marked a Ex.Paulraj was identified by A4 and about 560 grams of gold bar was seized and it was marked as Ex.All the seized objects were attested by P.W.'s 8 & 9.”Hence, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court.Hence, the 11/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed confirming the conviction made in the judgment, dated 03.07.2015 rendered in C.A.Nos.191, 188 and 190 of 2008 by the Principal District and Sessions Court Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.However, the sentences of imprisonment of three years rigourous imprisonment awarded each for the commission of offences under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C, remains the same and the period of sentence shall run concurrently.The period of incarceration already undergone by the revision petitioners / A3 and A4 during the course of the investigation and trial, is to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 is closed.03.03.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sts 12/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC(MD) Nos.442, 353 & 360 of 2015 ToThe Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, SrivilliputturThe Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.The Inspector of Police, Tiruthangal Police Station, Virudhunagar District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 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 learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission.The revision seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for final hearing.Also heard on IA No.791/2019, which is first application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant - Devalal @ Dev Singh.The applicant has been convicted for offences under Section 425 (452) of IPC and sentenced to 6 months' RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months' RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty so granted to him.However, subject to final outcome of this revision, jail sentence of the applicant may be ordered to be suspended.List for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.[ Miss Vandana Kasrekar ] JUDGE (AKS) Digitally signed by Anl Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.02.01 15:22:04 +05'30'

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Totally there are three accused (A-1 to A-3) in the case.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and A-3 is their mother.The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, is as under.(a) Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Palaniammal.P.W.1is the younger brother of the deceased and P.W.5 is the father of the deceased.The marriage between the deceased and Accused No.1 took place 16 years prior tothe occurrence.At that time, 3 marakkal (a measurement) Nanja land was givento the deceased as "Sridhana" and Accused No.1 was cultivating that land.(b) On the occurrence day, i.e. 30.11.1997, at about 3.30 p.m., byinforming to P.W.1 that peacocks are causing damage to the crops, the deceasedwent to the land to chase away the peacocks.P.W.1 followed the deceased.Atthat time, Accused Nos.2 and 3 waylaid the deceased.Accused No.1 attacked thedeceased with a stick and that injury landed on her left eye brow.Her upperlip also got injured.Accused No.1 ran way with the stick.Hearing the hue andcry, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the scene of occurrence and found Palaniammal dead.P.W.1 went to the police station.He sent a message to his mother through oneBoomi.Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by him.(c) P.Ws.2 and 3 are owning lands next to the land of the deceased.On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1 and the deceased, they rushed to the sceneand found Accused No.1 running with a stick in his hand.They also sawPalaniammal dead with injuries.P.W.4 is the father of the deceased and he cameto the scene village on hearing about the occurrence.P.W.5 is the mediator,who speaks about the land dispute between the deceased and the accused.(d) P.W.9 was the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigatingpolice station during the relevant time.Healso drew Ex.P-8, rough sketch.He conducted inquest over the dead body andprepared Ex.P-9, inquest report.He sent the dead body for postmortem throughP.W.8, Police Constable 1060, with Ex.P-5, requisition.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J) The appellant is the first accused in Sessions Case No.44/1998 onthe file of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ramanathapuram.He was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life.He challenges the said conviction and sentence in thisappeal.The charge againstAccused No.1, the present appellant, was under Section 302 IPC and the chargeagainst Accused Nos.2 and 3 were under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section34 IPC.On the side of defence, the brother of A-3 was examined as D.W.1.However, no documentary evidence was brought before the court at the instance ofthe accused.At the end of trial, the trial court, while acquitting AccusedNos.2 and 3, found Accused No.1 guilty under section 302 IPC, convicted himthereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, against which AccusedNo.1 has preferred the above appeal.He, on receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint,registered a case in Crime No.156/1997 under Sections 341 and 302 IPC andprepared Ex.P-7, printed First Information Report.He sent the material recordsto the Inspector of Police.(e) P.W.10, Inspector of Police, on receipt of First InformationReport took up the investigation.He reached the scene of occurrence at 8.30p.m.on 30.11.1997, observed it and prepared Ex.P-2, observation mahazar.He enquired P.Ws.1 to 3and others and recorded their statements.(f) P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased.She found the following three external injuries on the body of thedeceased."1.A lacerated injury of above 4x2cm x bone depth joint above left eyebrow.2.Contusion 6x6 cm over left forehead on exploration fractured left frontalbone.3.Lacerated injury about 3x2x2 cm over left side of upper lip."On completion of postmortem, she gave Ex.P-6, postmortem certificate.Thedoctor was of the opinion that the deceased would have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to head injury.After postmortem, P.W.8, constable, recoveredM.O.s.2 to 4, personal wearing apparels of the deceased, from the body andhanded over the same to the Investigating Officer.He handed over the body tothe relatives.(g) P.W.10 continued the investigation.At 4.00 p.m. on01.12.1997, he arrested Accused No.1 and enquired him in the presence of P.W.6,Village Administrative Officer.He sent Accused No.1 tothe Court for judicial remand.AccusedNo.3 surrendered before Court.He examined the postmortem doctor and recordedher statement.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, they denied their involvement in the crime.On the side ofdefence, D.W.1 was examined.On appreciation of the oral and documentaryevidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced Accused No.1, butacquitted Accused Nos.2 and 3, as referred to earlier.Hence the above appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he is notdisputing neither the occurrence nor the motive behind the attack made byAccused No.1 on his wife, which resulted in her death.On the other hand,taking advantage of the findings on motive aspect and the weapon used byAccused No.1 and the single blow inflicted by him on the deceased, the learnedcounsel attempts to bring the act of Accused No.1 punishable under Section304(ii) IPC.We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissionsof the learned counsel on either side.The evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, is that atthe time of occurrence Accused No.1 attacked his sister with M.O.1 stick on herleft eye brow and on receiving such injury she fell down.It is his furtherevidence that on hearing their hue and cry, P.Ws.2 and 3, who were in theirnearby lands, came to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased dead.P.Ws.2and 3 would depose that they saw Accused No.1 was running away with the weaponM.O.1, stick, from the scene of occurrence.The collective evidence of P.Ws.1to 3 substantiates that Accused No.1 attacked the deceased and caused injury onher left eye brow, which later proved to be fatal.P.W.7, the doctor whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased wouldhave died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury as recorded in Ex.P-6,postmortem certificate.Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 corroborates withthat of the medical evidence.From the above discussion, we have no hesitationto conclude that Accused No.1 caused bodily injury on the deceased, which causedher death.Onthe other hand, P.W.1 himself clearly states that there was a wordy quarrelbetween Accused No.1 and his wife.The quarrel is related to the 'Sridhana'land given to the deceased by her father (P.W.4), which was an embarrassment forAccused No.1 (husband) and the deceased (wife) to carry on cultivationactivities in the said 'Sridhana' land on account of menace caused by peacocks.Accused No.1 never demanded anything more.Just immediately before the occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between thehusband and wife (Accused No.1 and the deceased) criticizing the 'Sridhana' landand in the heat of passion upon such a sudden quarrel, Accused No.1 gave oneblow with a stick on the deceased, which unfortunately landed on the left eye-brow to the deceased.However, AccusedNo.1 gave only one blow in the spur of the moment in the heat of passion upon asudden quarrel, but not acted in a cruel manner.At the same time, it cannot beruled out that Accused No.1 had the knowledge that the single blow inflicted byhim on the deceased was likely to cause death, attracting conviction underSection 304(ii) IPC.If on the other hand this ingredient of 'intention' is notestablished or if a reasonable doubt arises in this regard then only it would bereasonable to infer that Clause Thirdly is not attracted and that the accusedmust be attributed knowledge that in inflicting the injury he was likely tocause death in which case it will be culpable homicide punishable under Section304 Part II IPC."In Mavila Thamban Nambiar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC687, where the accused gave one blow on the chest of the deceased and the deathwas on account of such one blow by the accused, the Apex Court held that theintention to cause death cannot be imputed to him but it would be reasonable toinfer that he had knowledge that any injury on the vital part of the body of thedeceased would cause death and so he can be convicted under Section 304 Part IIIPC.In the instant case, we have already discussed that the act ofAccused No.1 had occurred in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel betweenthe husband (Accused No.1) and the husband (Accused No.1) gave a single blowcausing one injury on his wife (deceased) using a wooden stick, which cannot besaid as a deadly weapon in common parlance and therefore the ratio laid down bythe Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra squarely applies to the factsof the case to modify the offence as one punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC.In the result, the conviction and sentence of theappellant/Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, he isconvicted under Section 304 (ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for five years.The sentence already served by the appellant shallbe given set off.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.39/2017, registered at Police Station Rawanvada, District Chhindwara for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 307of the IPC.The allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the victim with intention to kill him and caused grievous injury to him.Charge sheet has been filed.The trial will take time to conclude.This application is allowed.It is ordered that the applicant-accused Raju Kaithwas (Correct Name Raj Kaithwas) be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/-[Rs fifty thousand only] with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub- section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Amjad

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

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

DATE : 23-01-2020ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) :While he had been working asGramsevak at village Rui, Taluka - Georai, District - Beed from19-07-1989 to 01-11-1990, the work of construction of Anganwadiat Kajalyachi Wadi and construction of road of village Rui had beensanctioned by Panchayat Samiti, Georai.The estimates for theconstruction of Anganwadi and the road were Rs. 27,450/- andRs.17,540/-, respectively.Those funds were being disbursed undertwo different schemes under 'Jawahar Rojgar Yojana' and 'NationalRural Employment Programme'.For expenses incurred overconstruction work, petitioner had been required to withdrawamount.Withdrawal for the same had been jointly made bySarpanch and petitioner and even disbursements of amounts weredone under the joint signatures of Sarpanch and Gramsevak.Petitioner had also maintained the account of expenses of villagepanchayat, however, since Sarpanch had grudge against petitioner,Junior Engineer of Panchayat Samiti carried out valuation of thework of road and Anganwadi and issued certificate valuing the workdone to be to the tune of Rs.9,219/- and Rs.5,715/- showing deficitof Rs.18,231/- and Rs.11,765/- in the work.Accountsin respect of expenses incurred till March, 1990 along with receiptshad also been maintained by village panchayat.The amounts of Rs.4,500/- and Rs.7,260/- are shown to have been withdrawn on 30-1-1990 and 30-3-1990 respectively.It will have to be seen as to whether there was progress even after 30-1-1990 or not.If it is found that the said work was in progress even after 30-1-1990, then the notes of valuation Exh.54 which relate to the valuation of the previous work cannot be attached any importance.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::With reference to the same, two proceedings,departmental and criminal were initiated.Criminal prosecution hadbeen launched against the petitioner bearing Regular Criminal CaseNo.64 of 1992, in which petitioner had been convicted under ordersof Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed under section 409 of Indian PenalCode and had been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for oneyear and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for six months.In the appeal taken up by the petitioner, the AppellateCourt has observed thus:As seen from the documents seized by Investigating Officer vide Panchanama Exh.61 on 4-12-90 the Village panchayat, Rui had opened account No.C&I/15067 in the State Bank Of India, Agril, Development Branch, Gevrai.The following amounts are shown to have been deposited in the said account.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::Thus, the amount of Rs.49,745/- has been withdrawn from that account from time to time.According to the prosecution, out of the amount of Rs.27,450/- the actual work found to have been done by the appellant was worth Rs.9,219/- and as such the appellant has misappropriated the amount of Rs.18,231/-.To substantiate this allegation, prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of Narayan Audhut P.W.8 (Exh.56) and Iftekhar Ahmed Khan P.W.9 (Exh.62) who are the Junior Engineers attached to Panchayat Samiti, Gevrai and Zilla Parishad, Irrigation Department, Gevrai respectively.This witness does not state as to when he had inspected and measured the work of road at Rui.The entries in Exh.57 are not in his hand writing.The said entries do not bear his signatures.Iftekhar Ahmedkhan P.W.9 states that he visited the work of road of Rui on 6-11-1989 and found that it was worth Rs.9,219-50 ps.As stated that the entries of Exh.57 are in his hand writing.The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the certificate Exh.59 which is in the hand writing and under the signature of Iftekhar Ahmedkhan P.W.9 wherein the cost of the road prepared was shown as Rs.10,500/-.In fact from the evidence of Audhut P.W.8 a grave doubt is created about his actual visit, measurement and valuation of the land in question since the entries at Exh.57 are not in his hand writing nor he has signed it.The evidence of Iftekhar P.W.9 also becomes doubtful since as per the entries at Exh.57 he has shown the valuation of the road as Rs.9,219-50 ps.However, in the certificate Exh.51 he himself has mentioned cost of that road at Rs.10,500/-.Considering certificate Exh.59 at the most it can be said that the amount of Rs.500/-only was balance outstanding out of the amount withdrawn from the bank till 9-11-1989, though the work was done thereafter also and therefore, measurement notes Exh.57 would not be helpful to the prosecution to show that there was any misappropriation on the part of the appellant.The cash Book maintained by the appellant contains the entry in respect of said payment by cheque.It was necessary for the prosecution to have valued the work of road afresh after it was completely stopped or at least during the course of investigation so as to show positively and clinchingly what amount was withdrawn by the appellant and to what extent it was actually utilized by him.There is no evidence collected by the investigating Officer to that effect.It is only on the basis of previous report that an attempt has been made by the prosecution to establish that there is misappropriation of the funds on the part of the appellant in respect of the work of road.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::10-B) The learned Magistrate has not believed the evidence of Muktabai P.W.2, Vithal P.W.3 and Sampat P.W.4 recorded at Exhs.37, 39 and 40 respectively on the point of non-receipt of any amount from the appellant on account of construction of road.As seen from the contents of report Exh.33 the actual amount of Rs.16,260/- was withdrawn from the account No.9 maintained by the village Panchayat, Rui Beed district Central Co.Twenty Cement bags worth Rs.1,280/- are shown to have been given for the work of construction of Anganwadi.Thus, the total amount of Rs.17,540/- was not entrusted to the appellant.According to the prosecution, Gitaram Mune P.W.7 the Junior Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Gevrai measured the work of Anganwadi on 30-1-1990 and valued at Rs.5,775/-.It is noted at Exh.54 that the cost of 20 cement bags was Rs.1,280/- and the total cost of work was found to be Rs.5,775/-.It is noted that the total amount of Rs.5,780/- was granted for the work including the cost of 20 cement bags i.e. Rs.1,280/- and the value of the work done was found to be Rs.5,775/-.It is then noted that the amount of Rs.5/- only is outstanding balance with the village Panchayat.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::The ledger book maintained by the appellant also has been seized by the Investigating Officer.There are number of vouchers and bills seized by Investigating Officer.As seen from the entry in the cash book dated 12-2-90 the amount of Rs.300/- has been paid vide cheque No.382568 to Babasaheb Roman P.W.5 for payment of sand.From the entry dated 4-4-90 in the cash book it would be seen that the amount of Rs.855/- was paid to one Nandkumar Jadhav vide Cheque No.382881 for bringing rubble.Therefore, in order to establish that there was any misappropriation of funds, it was necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence to show that the measurement of the work of Anganwadi was taken even after 30-1-1990 when the said work was totally stopped and that it was valued less than the amount which was withdrawn for its completion.The prosecution has totally failed to adduce such evidence.As stated earlier, the prosecution has not valued the work of road and Anganwadi on the last dates on which it was being looked after by the appellant.Such last valuation only would have shown that there was any misappropriation on the part of the appellant or not.The Investigating Officer also has not taken pains to get the valuation of the road and Anganwadi made afresh through the authorised valuer of the::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 ::: 7 WP/5067/2000 Panchayat Samiti.The Investigating Officer did not consider the account books, vouchers and bills seized from the possession of the appellant.The Investigation appears to be rather perfunctory and casual.The learned Magistrate has disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the appellant prepared false accounts and cheated the Panchayat Samiti.Therefore, he should have given due weightage to the account books, bills and vouchers produced by the prosecution vide panchanama Exh.61 at least to hold that the defence of the appellant was probable.There is absolutely no clinching evidence to show that the appellant misappropriated the amount of Rs.18,231/- and Rs.11,765/- out of the amount allotted for the construction of road and Anganwadi respectively.The findings of the are contradictory and not reconcilable.I am not inclined to endorse the finding of the learned Magistrate holding the appellant guilty for the offence U/sec.409 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not appreciated the facts of the case and the evidence on record correctly and properly.The prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant misappropriated amount of Rs.29,996/- as alleged.Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::The prosecution has failed to produce positive and dependable evidence to show that the appellant misappropriated the amount of Rs.29,996/-.The appellant is liable to be acquitted.In the circumstances the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative."Having regard to aforesaid observations in paragraphs no.10, 10A,10B, 12, 13, 17 and 18, the Appellate Court had acquitted thepetitioner.Learned counsel for respondent has produced a photocopy of the enquiry report.The Enquiry Report is solely based onthe certificate of Junior Engineer.It appears from the report that,neither any other evidence was adduced by department or any ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 ::: 8 WP/5067/2000witness had been examined nor proper opportunity had been madeavailable to the petitioner to have advice and guidance to supporthis case.Lot of aspects go unexplained in the enquiry report.Thedecision of criminal appellate court discusses evidence threadbarefinding alleged misappropriation has not been proved at all.Besidesfinding on alleged negligence also is cursory without reference tocharge on its basis.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::Even otherwise, the order passed bythe disciplinary authority, impugned in the present matter, alsodepicts a similar cursory approach and entirely bases its decision onthe report of the enquiry officer.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::The situation, thus, emerges that the departmentalproceedings were carried out haphazardly, without reference tofactual aspects as have been observed by the Criminal AppellateCourt and why the Criminal Appellate Court has acquitted thepetitioner with reference to the same facts, which formed basis fordisciplinary proceedings.The departmental proceedings as well asthe orders therein have been rendered untenable and deserve to beset aside, in the facts and circumstances.Having regard to aforesaid, impunged order dated11-8-1992 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed isquahsed and set aside.The petition is allowed in terms of prayerclause 'B'.In the circumstances, all the necessary, ancillary,consequential and incidental benefits, as would be available wouldfollow.The writ petition is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:37:56 :::

['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:(a) Deceased Afzal was the father of PW 1 Arif.Three months prior to the incident, appellant Noor Pathan was making demand of four stalls and ransom to Afzal (deceased).Afzal refused to do so, hence, appellant Noor Pathan was threatening Afzal.(b) On 10.5.2008 at about 8.30 p.m., the incident occurred in the market which was known as Gulab Park Market.PW 1 Arif who is the son of deceased Afzal, Afzal and sister of Afzal had gone to Gulabjfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.doc Park Market.Afzal was talking to PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla who was his brother.PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla was hawking some articles from his cart.At that time, appellant Noor Pathan assaulted Afzal with chopper.Afzal ran towards Daru Fallah Masjid.PW 1 Arif and PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla ran behind Afzal.There they saw appellant Noor Pathan assaulting Afzal with chopper on the head and the appellant Sajid Khan assaulting Afzal on the left shoulder with chopper.Thereafter, again these appellants along with other accused assaulted Afzal with choppers.Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away.(c) PW 1 Arif and PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla took Afzal to hospital.PW 1 Arif lodged his FIR at 11.15 p.m. Thereafter, investigation commenced.Meanwhile, Afzal expired on account of assault.His body was sent for post mortem.PW 9 Dr. Ghadgejfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.doc conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Afzal.He found 16 injuries on the body of Afzal out of which 9 were chop wounds on the head and other parts of the body.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on theevidence of PW 1 Arif, PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla and PW 12Taushik who are all eye witnesses to the incident.PW 1 Arifhas stated that deceased Afzal was his father.He, hisfather Afzal and sister of his father had gone to Gulab ParkMarket.His father was talking to Mohd. Abdulla who was thebrother of his father.Mohd. Abdulla was hawking somearticles from his cart.At that time, appellant Noor Pathanassaulted his father with chopper.ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2012 is preferred by theappellant-original accused No. 1 Noor Mohamad Sayed Mohd.Pathan and Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015 is preferred bythe appellant-original accused No. 2 Sajid Abdul Latif Khan @Sajid Avali.By the said Judgment &Order, both the appellants have been convicted underSection 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default,jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.docR.I. for six months.In addition, appellant - accused No. 1Noor Pathan has also been convicted under Section 385 ofIPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year.Thelearned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences ofimprisonment of accused No. 1 Noor Pathan shall runconcurrently.Charge came to be framed against the appellants -original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 7 other accused under S.147 of IPC, S. 148 of IPC, S. 302, 385 r/w 149 of IPC in thealternative S. 302 r/w 34 of IPC, S. 385 r/w 34 of IPC, Section3 punishable u/S 25(1) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and u/S135 of the Bombay Police Act. All the accused pleaded notguilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.Theirdefence was that of total denial and false implication.Aftergoing through the evidence adduced in this case, thelearned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 9 of allthe charges, however, convicted and sentenced theappellants as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, theseappeals against their conviction and sentence.::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::Advocate for appellant Noor Pathan, Ms. Rohini Dandekar -learned Advocate (appointed) for appellant Sajid Khan andMr.Arfan Sait, learned APP for the State.After giving ouranxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of thecase, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for theparties, the judgment delivered by the learned SessionsJudge and the evidence on record, for the reasons statedbelow, we are of the opinion that both the appellantsassaulted Afzal with choppers which led to his death.Three monthsprior to the incident, appellant Noor Pathan was makingdemand of four stalls and ransom to his father.His fatherrefused to do so, hence, appellant Noor Pathan wasthreatening his father.PW 1 Arif has further stated that onjfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.doc10.5.2008 at about 8.30 p.m., the incident occurred in themarket which was known as Gulab Park Market.His father ran towardsDaru Fallah Masjid.Arif and Mohd. Abdulla ran behind Afzal.There they saw appellant Noor Pathan assaulting Afzal with achopper on the head and the appellant Sajid Khan assaultingAfzal on the left shoulder with chopper.Thereafter, againthese appellants along with other accused assaulted Afzalwith choppers.Thereafter, all the accused persons ranaway.Arif has further stated that he and Mohd. Abdullatook Afzal to hospital.Arif then lodged his FIR at 11.15 p.m.The evidence of PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla in relation to the assaultis similar to that of PW 1 Arif.jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.docPW 12 Taushik is an independent witness.He hasstated that on 10.5.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., there was aquarrel between the sister of Kashim and appellant NoorPathan on the issue of water.On account of this quarrel, acomplaint was lodged by Afzal, the sister of Kashim and thebrother of Kashim.Taushik has further stated that on11.5.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., Afzal was standing in themarket known as Gulab Park Market.There appellant NoorPathan and other five to six persons assaulted Afzal with choppers.As far as the evidence of PW 5 Mohd. Abdulla and PW12 Taushik are concerned, learned counsel for both theappellants have submitted that the statement of PW 5 Mohd.The learnedAdvocates for the appellants submitted that the incident hasoccurred on 11.5.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. Both thesewitnesses were very much available, however, theirstatements were recorded belatedly.They submitted that injfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.docview of the fact that the statements of these witnesses wererecorded belatedly and there is no explanation for the delayin recording the statements, the evidence of these twowitnesses cannot be relied upon.On going through the evidence, it is noticed that thesetwo witnesses are not the only eye witnesses to the incidentand PW 1 Arif is also an eye witness to the incident.Theincident has taken place on 11.5.2008 at 8.30 p.m.Thereafter, PW 1 Arif rushed his father to Rahmani Hospital,however, the doctor at Rahmani Hospital did not admit hisfather, hence, he moved his father in an ambulance toChhatrapati Shivaji Hospital, Kalwa for medical treatment,however, his father died during the treatment at ChhatrapatiShivaji Hospital, Kalwa at 10.00 p.m. Thereafter, PW 1 Arifwent to the Police Station and lodged his FIR.The recordshows that the FIR was registered at 11.15 p.m. Thus, it isseen that the FIR was lodged as promptly as possible in thecircumstances of this case.In the FIR, both the appellantshave been named.So also, in the FIR, PW 1 Arif has statedjfoanz vkacsjdj 9 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.docabout the weapons held by both the appellants and the roleplayed by them.Thus, even if the statements of PW 5 Mohd.However, as far as PW 1 Arif andPW 5 Mohd. Abdulla are concerned, they have stated thatthe appellant Noor Pathan has assaulted Afzal on the headwith chopper and appellant No. 2 Sajid Khan has assaultedAfzal with chopper on the upper left hand / shoulder.Hesubmitted that these two injuries cannot be said to besufficient to cause the death of Afzal in the ordinary courseof nature, hence, the appellants cannot be held to be guiltyof an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.jfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.doc As far as this submission is concerned, it is noticed thatboth the witnesses have stated that thereafter both theappellants and other accused have assaulted Afzal withchoppers.The record shows that both the appellants havedealt more than one blow on Afzal with choppers.In anyevent, both the appellants have been convicted for theoffence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC i.e the offence ofmurder was committed by them pursuant to the commonintention shared by them.In such case, both the appellantswould be liable for the offence punishable under Section 302of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.It is the prosecution case that both the appellants withcommon intention assaulted Afzal with choppers and causedhis death.The medical evidence corroborates this aspect.PW 9 Dr. Ghadge conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of Afzal.He found 16 injuries on the body of Afzal outof which 9 were chop wounds on the head and other parts ofthe body.Dr. Ghadge found chop wounds on the head.Hejfoanz vkacsjdj 11 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::cri apeals 128-12 142-15.docalso found chop wounds over the left forearm and chopwounds on the left side near scapula region and otherinjuries.The injuries are consistent with the prosecutioncase.They are also consistent with the assault by choppers.There is also other evidence on record which implicatesboth the appellants, however, we are of the opinion that theevidence which we have discussed above in detail issufficient to sustain the conviction, hence, we do not feel itnecessary to deal with other evidence in this case.On going through the record, we are of the opinion thatthere is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonabledoubt that both the appellants assaulted Afzal with chopperswhich led to his death.. Thus, we find no merit in the appeals.Both the appeals are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 01:37:15 :::

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

When he was running away appellant no.2 Nasiruddin Mondal threatened him that they would kill him.He ran away taking advantage of the dark night and proceeded to call local people.On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the presence of P.W. 8, the wife of the victim, was most natural at the place of occurrence.He further submitted that there was sufficient light from a burning lamp inside the room.He argued that the presence of the appellants had not only been noted by P.W. 8 while assaulting the victim but immediately prior to the incident the other prosecution witnesses had seen them at the place of occurrence thereby eliminating any chance of false implication.She was the wife of the victim and had witnessed the murderous assault on her husband.She deposed that in the midnight of 30/31.01.1992 she heard an explosion of bomb when she was sleeping with her husband in their room.They woke up, closed the door and concealed themselves inside the room out of fear.4/5 miscreants entered the house and started searching for them.The miscreants caught hold of her hair and separated her from husband.Thereafter, the appellants started assaulting her husband and cut his throat.With the help of torch she recognized them.A lamp was also burning in the room at that time.In cross-examination, she stated that she had made a statement to the police denying that that she had not named the aforesaid appellants.She further clarified that with the help of lamp she had identified the accused persons.P.W. 1, the de facto complainant and the brother of the victim, stated that he was sleeping in his room and woke up upon hearing the explosion of bombs.He saw through the hole in his door there was a scuffling between his aunt, Hamida Bibi, (P.W. 2) and appellant no. 1, Nazrul Islam (since deceased).They were trying to enter his room but his aunts were trying to resist them.On seeing the situation, he tried to flee away through the rear door of the room.While he was running away, appellant no.2 threatened him that he would be killed.P.W. 1 fled away from his room.They were living in the same house.passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in Sessions Trial No. 3(2) 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 5(3) 1999 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more.It was further directed that the amount of fine, if paid, shall be paid to P.W. 8, the wife of the deceased by way of compensation.The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that in the midnight of 30/31.01.1992 when Liakat Ali Mallick (P.W. 1) was asleep in his room he heard a sound of explosion of bomb and upon wakening he saw that a scuffling was going on between Hamida Khatoon (P.W. 2) and appellant no. 1, Nazrul Islam.Four or five miscreants were focussing torch and had hansua, bhojali and daa in their hands.The miscreants tried to enter his house and his aunt was trying to resist them.He saw the incident through a hole of his door.As the miscreants started banging on his door he tried to flee away from the rear door.Subsequently, he along with para people rushed to the house and found that his brother Asraf Ali Mallick lying inside his room in a pool of blood with incised injuries on his hand, head and neck.He also found Rokeya Bibi (P.W.8) and his younger brother who were weeping loudly as Asraf was murdered by the accused persons.He lodged written complaint with S.I. A. Banerjee resulting in registration of Amdanga P.S. Case No.17 dated 21.01.1992 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants as well as one Abadin Mondal and Golam Mondal under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) for trial and disposal.Charges were framed against the appellants and one Golam Mondal under Section 147/148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.In the conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.However, by the selfsame judgment and order co-accused Golam Mondal was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel with Mr. Mitter, learned counsel submits that charge framed in the instant case is defective as only four accused persons had been charged of forming an unlawful assembly for committing murder of the victim Asraf Ali Mallick punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Moreover, the consistent ocular evidence of the appellants assaulting the victim is supported by medical evidence.In this factual backdrop, failure to examine the investigating officer has not caused prejudice to the appellants.Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Let me consider the rival submissions of the parties.P.W. 8 is the star witness for the prosecution.When he returned with the local people, he found his brother Asraf was lying dead in a pool of blood and with injuries on his neck.Rokeya Bibi, P.W. 8, Romjan Ali Mallick and other persons present in his brother's room.He could not say the motive behind the murder.He identified the appellant nos.1 and 2 in court.In cross-examination, he stated that it was a dark night and after putting off the light he had gone to sleep.She deposed that on the fateful night she heard a sound of explosion of bomb.P.W. 1 fled away.Thereafter, the miscreants rushed to the room of Asraf and killed him.She, however, could not state who committed the murder of Asraf.She identified the appellants in court.In cross-examination, she stated that on the next day she was interrogated by police.She deposed that there was a courtyard between the room of P.W. 1 and that of Asraf.Due to darkness one could not see the room of Asraf.P.W. 3, Ramjan Ali Mallick is the brother of the P.W. 1 and Asraf.Thereafter, the accused persons rushed to the house of Asraf.The miscreants had torches in their hands and there was a lamp in the room of Asraf.They entered the room of Asraf with daa.After a while they came out from the room of Asraf raising cry that their mission had been accomplished.In cross- examination, she stated that police interrogated her.They have spoken that there was sound of explosion of bomb and miscreants had attacked the house of P.W. 1 but none of them had identified the miscreants.P.W. 1 fled away.Thereafter, they murdered Asraf.P.W. 12 is the signatory to the Inquest Report prepared over the dead body of Asraf.He is a reported witness and had not seen the incident.P.W. 14 is the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the victim on 31-01-1992 and he had found the following injuries:Bleeding both ear;Sharp cut looking wound over upper part of neck in the region Thyroid Cartilage at its upper part; more towards left 3" X 2" directed down wards and towards left including Thyroid cartilage, trachea, muscles and vessels of left side of neck;Sharp cut wound over front of left shoulder extending to left arm directed downwards 4''X2'' into part of muscle deep i.e. '';Abrasion middle of left shoulder 1'' X ";Sharp cut wound over vault of scalp right side 1'' above hair margin (lowest limit), directed downwards 2''X1/2''X Perioeseum of bone;Intra Cerebral haemorrahage present over brain surface more on right occipitoparietal region;"He opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to above noted injuries, which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.P.W.15 was the S.I. of Police who received the written complaint from P.W. 1 and drew up the First Information Report.From the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that P.W. 8 was the sole witness of the murderer assault on her husband inside their room.In addition thereto, there is ample evidence on record of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 that immediately prior to the incident the appellants had come in a body being variously armed with including sharp cutting weapons and had tried to attack P.W. 1 who fortunately escaped.In fact, P.W. 2 had scuffled with one of the appellants and could identify all of them.These circumstances immediately prior to the incident of assault upon the victim in his house in the presence of his wife (P.W.8) clearly corroborate and probabilise her version as to the role of the appellants in the merciless assault upon the victim resulting in his instantaneous death.Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on IA.No.19535/15 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections, 419, 120- B, 420, 120-B, 467, 120-B, 468, 120-B of IPC and Section 3(gha) (2)/4 of MP Recognized Examination Act, 1937 and has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default clause.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, looking to the short sentence awarded by the trial court and as there is no likelihood of this appeal of the year 2015 to be heard finally in near future, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be suspended.On appellant's furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-[Fifty Thousand] with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23.2.2016 and on such other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, his jail sentence shall remain suspended and he be released on bail.C.c. today.

['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(19.04.2017) Applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') against the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 47/2015, whereby the charges under Sections 148, 307/149 (two counts) and 323/149 (four counts) of IPC have been framed against the applicants.2. Facts giving rise to present revision are that the applicants are accused of inflicting injuries on the skull of Ramveer, Deshraj, Ramkumar and Munesh, due to which an FIR was registered bearing crime No. 724/14 at Police Station Ambah District Morena against the present applicants for the commission of aforesaid offences.The order of framing the charge under Section 307/149 of IPC regarding the injuries sustained by the injured persons, is the subject-( 2 )- CRR.No. 360/2015 matter of present revision petition.Apart from it, there is a cross case and a FIR was got registered by the applicants against the complainant and other persons for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant.In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into-( 4 )- CRR.

['Section 149 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.

Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete the nameof petitioner No.1 from the array of parties.Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 hasprayed for and is allowed one week's time to file counter affidavit.One week thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the FirstInformation Report dated 10.6.2010 registered as Case Crime No.447 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, I.P.C., Police Station LesariGate District Meerut.Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that petitioner and Smt.Order Date :- 30.7.2010Shiraz

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

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

The applicant has prepared forged documents and cheated the complainant.To be precise, the subject matter of dispute relates to the land falling in Survey No.119/1 admeasuring total area 0.027 hectare and 120/1 admeasuring area 0.727 hectare.relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: the FIR was lodged on 10.01.2016 with the allegation that the applicant has transferred part of land sold to the complainant vide sale deed dated 13.12.2011 in favour of one Nipun Real Build Private Limited vide sale deed dated 14.06.2013, playing fraud upon the complainant.The sale deed dated 13.12.2011 though refers to Survey Nos.119/1 and 120/1 total area 0.112 hectare but, does not spell out the specific area sold to the complainant in each of survey numbers.As a matter of fact,, the sale deed in favour of Nipun Real Build.Private Limited specifies total area 0.841 hectare out of land falling in three khasra numbers; namely; 118/1 - 0.207 hactare, 119/1 - 0.027 hactare and 120/1 - 0.607 hactare.There is an amendment/ correction deed executed by the applicant in favour of Nipun Real Build Private Limited on 26.12.2015 whereunder the sale deed was amended and substituted land as under:-As such, if both the sale deeds are read together, out of total area of 0.841 hectare transferred on 14.06.2013 was reduced to 0.729 hectare by the amended sale deed.It further appears that the complainant had filed Civil Suit No.2/16 against the applicant for the irregularity/ illegality in both sale deeds seeking declaration that land shown to have been sold to the complainant be restored to him.The trial Court decreed the suit on 11.04.2016 with a direction that the entire land sold to the complainant be mutated in the revenue record on which he is found in possession.Tehsildar vide order dated 28.06.2016 under Sections 109 and 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 had mutated the entire area of 0.112 hectare falling in Survey Nos.119/1 and 120/1 in favour of the Complainant with the observation that the complainant is in possession thereof.Shri Chhabra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that in the back drop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as a matter of fact, the mistake committed while executing the sale deed on 26.12.2015 in favour of Nipun Real Build Private Limited was rectified and the corrected deed was also executed.The area sold to the complainant had been restored to him and the same was recorded in the revenue record.In the light of the aforesaid, there was no circumstances for filing of an FIR against the applicant."1- ;g fd fnukad 13@12@2011 dks iathd`r fodz; i= ds THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.4848/2018 (Tapan Khandelwal Vs.However, order so passed today shall have no bearing on any other matter except the impugned charge under challenge.In the light of the finding so recorded as regards the title of the complainant over the land in issue, in the opinion of this Court, the charge so framed against the applicant cannot be said to be made out under Sections 467, 468 471 and 506-II IPC.Consequently, the proceeding against the applicant arising out of Crime No.12/2016 registered at Police Station Kshipra, Tehsil Sanwer, District- Indore are hereby quashed.Revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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 criminal appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence, dated 01-04-2015 passed in Sessions Case No.434 of 2013 by the Mahalir Neethi Manram, Chennai.The prosecutrix has studied upto sixth standard.Both the prosecutrix and accused have acquainted themselves in workplace and due to that prior to seven months from 17-03-2012, the accused has directed the prosecutrix to come to his house and accordingly, she has gone there.The accused has given a promise of marrying her and subsequently, raped her.Due to overtacts alleged to have been committed by the accused, the prosecutrix has become pregnant.On receipt of Ex-P1, the Investigating Officer viz., P.W.7, has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting medical test, both to the accused and prosecutrix and accordingly, Dr.Balasubramaniam, P.W.5 has conducted potential test to the accused and Dr. Anitavirginkumari (P.W.6) has examined the prosecutrix.The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed a charge under Section 376, IPC and the same have been read over and explained to him.The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 have been examined and Exs-P1 to P11 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides and after contemplating the evidence available on record has found the accused guilty under Sections 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' RI and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with usual default clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused, as appellant.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points so as to set aside the conviction and sentence found against the appellant/accused:(a) The specific case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix has not attained majority and for the purpose of proving the same, her alleged birth certificate has been marked as Ex-P2 and in order to prove the same, no further evidence has been given on the side of the prosecution and therefore, no credence can be attached to Ex-P2;(b) The specific contention put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused, but the prosecuting agency has not prepared any Mahazar nor rough plan for the purpose of showing the place of occurrence;(c) It is seen from the evidence that the prosecutrix has studied upto sixth standard and for the purpose of proving her age, concerned school authority has not been examined on the side of the prosecution;(d) For the purpose of proving paternity of the child of the prosecutrix, DNA test has not been conducted on the side of the prosecution.The Trial Court after considering the overall evidence available on record has given a specific finding to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the accused has raped the victim and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court need not be set aside.The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that during the relevant period, the prosecutrix has attained only 14 years of age.Both the prosecutrix and accused have acquainted with each other and due to that, prior to seven months from 17-03-2012, the accused has directed her to come to his house and accordingly, she has gone there and by way of giving false promise of marrying her, he deflowered her.The prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.2 and her specific evidence is that she and accused are acquainted with each other and due to that, he directed her to come to his house and accordingly, she has gone there and he promised to marry her and subsequently, raped her.She further adduced to the effect that she has become pregnant.Further, she would say that for Ex-P2, necessary information might have been given by her parents.Therefore, at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix has attained only thirteen years of age.The main argument put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that for proving Ex-P2, no further evidence has been adduced on the side of the prosecution.Further, for disproving Ex-P2, on the side of the accused, contra-evidence is not available.Since contra-evidence is not available, for the purpose of disbelieving Ex-P2, the Court can necessarily accept the same.Therefore, the first and foremost contention put forth on the side of the accused is sans merit.The second contention put forth on the side of the accused is that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused, but the Investigating Officers have not prepared any Mahazar or rough plan.It is true that the Investigating Officers for the purpose of showing the place of occurrence have not prepared Mahazar or rough plan and the same is nothing but an omission on the part of the Investigating Officer and that itself would not affect the case of the prosecution, since in the instant case, the prosecutrix has given clear evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the accused has raped her by way of giving false promise of marrying her.Therefore, the second point urged on the side of the accused also goes out without merit.The third point put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that for the purpose of proving the date of birth of the prosecutrix, the concerned school authority has not been examined.It has already been pointed out that Ex-P2 can very well be relied upon, since contra-evidence is not available on the side of the accused.Under the said circumstances, examination of school authority for the purpose of proving the said aspect is unwarranted and therefore, the third contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be accepted.The last contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is for the purpose of proving the paternity of the child of the prosecutrix, DNA test has not been conducted.It is also nothing but an omission on the part of the prosecution.Since an omission has occurred on the part of the prosecution for conducting such test, concrete as well as acceptable evidence given by the prosecutrix cannot be rejected.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/accused are not having merits.The Trial Court after considering the evidence given by the prosecutrix meticulously, has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 376, IPC.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has not suffered from any infirmity or illegality and altogether, the present criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.In fine, this criminal appeal is dismissed.The conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Court Judge, Chennai dated 01-04-2015 in S.C.No.434 of 2013 are confirmed.06-11-2015Index: yes/noglpToInspector of Police, W.18, All Women Police StationMKB Nagar, Chennai - 600 039A.SELVAM,J.A.No.207 of 201506-11-2015

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003between the appellant and complainant Jaya Bai about 15 days prior to main incident when complainant Jaya Bai's he-goat died.Appellant came to her for taking meat but when Jaya Bai asked for payment, he got annoyed and abused her.3 On 10.11.2001 at about 8:00 p.m. when Jaya Bai was cooking food at her residence in village Brijpuri, her son Mouji (deceased) was also present there, appellant came over there with Sabbal (a solid iron rod used for excavation) and abused Jaya Bai.Jaya Bai came out and asked why he was abusing her.Appellant asked Mouji to come out.When Mouji came out, the appellant gave a Sabbal blow on the left side of his head.A spurt bleeding started and Mouji fell down.Jaya Bai when tried to save Mouji, appellant inflicted Sabbal blows to her also.She raised alarm hearing which neighbours viz. Shanti Bai, Bhuri Bai, Santosh and Tularam came there, but by then the appellant ran away from the scene.After some time Mouji died on the spot.Complainant Jaya Bai tendered Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 in village when police reached there.The Investigating Officer went to the place of incident and held inquest of the dead body of Mouji in the presence of Panchas.He also made arrangement for sending the dead body to the Primary Health Centre Rahatgarh for post mortem examination.Injured Jaya Bai also was referred to hospital for treatment.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses.Accused Pappu alias Anantram was arrested and a Sabbal was seized from him.From the aforesaid evidence, we find it established that Mouji died a homicidal death on account of coma as a result of head injury duration within 24 hours since P.M. done.At Primary Health Centre Rahatgarh.Shanti Bai (PW-2), Santosh (PW-4) and Tularam (PW-5) were declared hostile because, they admitted that they did not see the occurrence.Bhuri Bai (PW-3) also admitted that she did not see the occurrence.But, these neighbours proved the facts that when they heard noise of altercation between the appellant and Jaya Bai, they rushed to Jaya Bai's courtyard where they found that Mouji (victim) had sustained injuries on his head and had fallen down on the earth, and Jaya Bai was also injured.Witness Dayalu (PW/5) brother of deceased Mouji and elder son of complainant Jaya Bai denied that any articles or material objects were seized in their presence from his mother Jaya Bai.In presence of Basant (PW/13) Sabbal was seized on information of the appellant.Investigation Officer ASI Police Station Rahatgarh Shri Lakhan Tiwari (PW/14) deposed all the facts which were part of his investigation.(J U D G M E N T) The appellant Pappu @ Anantram being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th September 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sagar under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act in Sessions Trial No.72/2002 (State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Rahatgarh, District Sagar Vs.Pappu @ Anantram) has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, convicting and sentencing him as below:-After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.Appellant pleaded not guilty.During trial prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents.3 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003During the statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the appellant pleaded that he is innocent and further that Jaya Bai was having illicit relation with him and on the date of incident when he was with Jaya Bai, Mouji saw him therefore, to prove herself innocent she gave a blow of rod to him which he saved but, that blow hit Mouji who succumbed to his injuries.Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence arrived at conclusion that the prosecution successfully anointed the guilt of the appellant of committing murder of Mouji and causing simple injuries to complainant Jaya Bai and convicted appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and awarded sentence as above.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the evidence and material on record.The learned trial Judge held that it was proved by the prosecution that the deceased Mouji died a homicidal death.Post mortem examination of the body of deceased was performed by Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW/18) Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Rahatgarh who deposed that on dated 11.11.2001 dead body of Mouji son of Panchu aged 15 years was brought to hospital by Constable Sushil Kumar No.584 of Police Station Rahatgarh.On postmortem examination as per report Ex.P-17 he found following injuries on the body of Mouji:-(i) Depressed left forehead with reddish stain bleeding present left ear and nose on dissection deep tissue congested on removing facia Haematoma 4x4 cm.skull bone frontal fractured in triangular shape.Depressed on brain matter underneath of fractured bone Haematoma 4x4 cms.(ii) Haematoma 6x3 cms.on medulla oblongata.(iii) Haematoma 3x2 cms left side of brain with multiple lacerations.(iv) Left Temporo Mandibular joint swelling.On disscetion deep tissue congested with Temporo Mandibular joint fractured.(v) All injuries caused by hard and heavy object Ante mortem in nature.4 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW/18) on 11.11.2001 also examined Jaya Bai who was brought to hospital in injured condition.On examination, as per MLC report Ex.P/24 he found following injuries on the body of Jaya Bai:-(i) Lacerated wound 6x2x1 cms right side of scalp.(ii) Swelling with diffuse nature and tenderness right Temporo Mandibular joint.(iii) Tenderness left knee joint.(iv) Abrasion with Tenderness left upper chest.(v) Tenderness right shoulder joint.Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW/18) opined that the injury No.1 and 2 required X-ray skull T.M. joint therefore she was referred to District Hospital Sagar and rest of injuries were found to the caused by hard and blunt object within 6 hours.Dr. Subhash Jain (PW/8) Medical Officer and Incharge X-ray Department of District Hospital Sagar deposed that on dated 13.11.2001 X-ray of head and joint of jaws of Jaya Bai were taken but there was no fracture.From the aforesaid evidence we find it established that Jaya Bai suffered injuries during the incident but, of simple nature.Now it has to be seen whether appellant Pappu alias Anantram caused:-(i) injuries to deceased which resulted into his death?(ii) injuries to Jaya Bai?The learned trial Judge considered the eye-witness account as narrated by injured Jaya Bai (PW/1) as well as witness Satyanarayan (PW/12) and found their evidence reliable.Injured eye-witness Jaya Bai (PW/1) has specifically stated that accused Pappu alias Anantram came to her residence and challenged Mouji to come out 5 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003 from the residence.When Mouji came out the appellant inflicted a blow of Sabbal on the left side of his head.Her evidence shows that on receipt of the Sabbal blow on his head bleeding started Mouji fell down and after some time died on the spot.Jaya Bai (PW/1) categorically stated when she tried to save her son the appellant also injured her with the Sabbal.On careful examination of the testimony of Jaya Bai (PW/1) we find that the version of the incident presented by her before the Court is reliable and inspires confidence.5 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003It is relevant to notice that Jaya Bai (PW/1) is an injured eye-witness.She being mother of the deceased and she herself having received injuries, would not allow the real culprit to go scot free and involve any other innocent person falsely.Jaya Bai (PW/1) was subjected to searching cross-examination but, nothing could be brought on record to impeach her credibility.The evidence of the eye-witness Jaya Bai (PW/1) further makes it clear that there are no major contradictions or omissions in her evidence.Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court did not commit any error in placing reliance on the testimony of the eye-witness Jaya Bai (PW/1) for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased and injured Jaya Bai.The evidence of second eye-witness namely Satyanarayan (PW-12) indicates that when Jaya Bai raised alarm he came out from his house.He specifically stated that appellant gave Iron Rod blow to Mouji.His evidence further shows that on receipt of the blow deceased fell down on the ground and after some squirming died on spot.Satyanarayan's evidence further established that when Jaya Bai tried to save her son, the appellant also injured her with Iron Rod.The evidence of Satyanarayan (PW-12) reveals no major contradictions or omissions.6 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003It is pertinent to note that 'Sabbal' is a type of Iron Rod.During cross examination suggestions were made to Satyanarayan (PW-12) that due to darkness of night he was not able to see the occurrence, but he firmly denied all such suggestions.Satyanarayan (PW-12) submitted that there was no much darkness as it was only 7-8 p.m. and since appellant belonged to his village, he identified him.We after scrutiny, find the evidence of Satyanarayan (PW-12) reliable.Constable Sushil Kumar (PW/15) received two sealed packets from Primary Health Centre Rahatgarh and deposited in the Police Station as per Memo Ex.Head Constable Rajendra Prasad (PW/16) recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1, First information report Ex.P/19 and also marg Report Ex.DSP Shri Prakash Singh Parihar (PW/17) recorded statement of Shanti Bai, arrested appellant and on his information, as per seizure memo Ex.P/23 seized a Sabbal.7 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003Now coming to the defence taken by the appellant, during cross examination suggestions were put to Jaya Bai (PW/1) but, she firmly denied that she was in illegal relation with the appellant.Such suggestions were also put to other witnesses in various forms but Shanti Bai (PW/2), Bhuri Bai (PW/3) and Satyanarayan (PW/12) also rejected these suggestions.Evidence of injured eye-witness Jaya Bai (PW-1) as well as eye-witness Satyanarayan (PW-2) regarding the occurrence and the manner of assault is cogent, consistent and seems to us trustworthy.Evidence of these two witnesses remained unshaken in cross-examination and nothing appeared therein to discredit their testimony.Evidence of these witnesses coupled with the recovery of Sabbal from appellant and the medical evidence given by Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW-18) unmistakably indicates that appellant assaulted deceased with Sabbal which resulted in his death and also caused injuries to Jaya Bai (PW/1).Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the evidence and over all circumstances of the case, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was not justified.Thus, the question is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, the offence committed by the appellant is covered under Section 300 "thirdly" IPC, i.e. whether the appellant committed the act with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.For establishing the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, IPC, the following two circumstances must be proved.On examining the facts of the present case, we find that the occurrence took place due to sudden quarrel between Jaya Bai, the mother of the deceased 8 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003 and the appellant on the trifle issue of payment of price of meat therefore, the appellant had been to the house of the deceased on the night of the occurrence.It is no doubt true that the appellant assaulted the deceased when he intervened, in such a manner that the deceased suffered head injury which caused his death but it cannot be held that the appellant intended to cause such injury on the head which ought to have proved fatal.8 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and analyzing them on the touchstone principles set out in the above paragraphs, the inevitable conclusion is that the offence committed by the appellant is not under Section 302, IPC but the same falls under Section 304, Part I, IPC.We, accordingly, alter the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part I, IPC.From the evidence of eye-witnesses, it is also proved that the appellant inflicted injuries, but of simple nature to Jaya Bai (PW-1) therefore, the conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 323 of IPC deserves to be affirmed.Appeal partly allowed.

['Section 302 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.

The facts in brief as given in the petition are as follows.After few days of marriage when she went home, she started making complaint about quality of food and furniture used by the family of petitioner.The parents of the petitioner had apprised the petitioner that his wife used to leave home without informing and would return quite late at night, and would not reply when asked as to where had she gone, instead she would quarrel with his parents.She lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner and his family members under sections 498 A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC at PS Sikandra, District Agra, which was investigated and a final report was submitted.On 26/7/2004 when his wife was admitted in hospital for delivery, respondent no. 2 reached the hospital and started misbehaving with his parents and due to manhandling, the gun of his father, which was loaded, got fired accidentally.The respondent no. 2, with an ulterior motive, lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner on 26/07/2004 stating therein that when the first informant along with his son, Neeraj and Jitendra went to military hospital to visit Smt. Asha (his daughter), the family members of the petitioner did not allow them to meet her.The first informant came out of the hospital and at the same time, the father of the petitioner also came behind him and called petitioner on phone.After some time the petitioner along with another person reached hospital with a gun and fired upon the first informant, but he survived.It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that two military personnel, who were present at the gate, also sustained pellet injuries along with the son of the first informant, Jitendra.Injury reports dated 26/07/2004 and 27/07/2004 were also annexed.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sujan Singh and learned Senior counsel, Sri A.B.L. Gaur assisted by Sri Saurabh Gaur, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A.This criminal writ petition has been filed with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 02/05/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2008 (Netra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and another), whereby allowing the revision, the order dated 14/10/2008 passed by the trial Court in criminal Case No. 1832 of 2004 (State vs Harvir Singh), under Section 286 IPC was set aside and a direction was given to the lower Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions according to law.After investigation the police submitted charge sheet under Section 285 IPC.The first informant as well as the two army personnel had filed affidavits before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agra stating therein that the alleged fire had happened accidentally without any intention to kill anyone and that the parties had entered into a compromise.The petitioner had surrendered before the lower Court even before submission of charge- sheet and was enlarged on bail under Section 307 IPC, with an observation that "no firearm injury received in the incident which took place between the members themselves".The petitioner filed an application before learned ACJM, Court No. 35, Agra for discharging the petitioner, as there was no ample evidence against him to frame charge.The learned trial Court framed charges vide order dated 6.4.2008 under section 286 IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act only.Against the said order dated 06/04/2006, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2006, but the same was rejected.After framing of charge against the petitioner, two witnesses from the side of prosecution namely Neeraj Singh (PW 1) and first informant, Nathan Pal Singh (PW 2) were produced, on the basis of whose statements an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant before learned C.J.M., Agra for alteration of charge, which was rejected, and it was held that no offence was found to have been made out under section 307 IPC.Aggrieved by that order, a Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2008 was preferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Agra by respondent no. 2, and the said Court, without looking into the contradictions in the statements and the contents of F.I.R., illegally allowed the revision and directed the lower Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.The said order is bad in law, against the material available on record.The Court did not consider that the first informant and two army personnel had filed affidavits during investigation, stating clearly that gunshot had got accidentally fired without intention to kill anyone, nor did the Court consider the medical report of the injured, in which no opinion was given that injuries were caused by fire arm.There were contradictions in the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 and the F.I.R. version.On a bare perusal of statements of PW 1 and PW 2, no offence under section 307 IPC was made out against the petitioner, but the learned revisional Court solely on the basis of the examination-in-chief of these witnesses, altered the charge from Section 286 IPC to Section 307 IPC and directed that the case be committed to the Court of Sessions, which is bad in law.The revisional Court ought to have taken the opinion of expert doctors who had prepared the injury memo, before passing the impugned order.The said order deserves to be set aside.In counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 dated 21st of August 2009, the impugned order has been prayed to be upheld and that the said writ petition be dismissed.Supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 19th of September 2017 stating therein that after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 307 IPC was made on 31/05/2017 in ST No. 439 of 2017, (State vs Harvir Singh Parihar).Thereafter the statement of PW 1 and PW 2 have been recorded, in which no cogent evidence has emerged of offence under Section 307 IPC so as to make it triable by the Court of Sessions, hence the said case is liable to be remanded to the Court of Magistrate for trial.The entire story revealed by these witnesses is fabricated and the averments made in the affidavits submitted by the injured persons, were repeated.The son of respondent number 2, Netra Pal Singh has filed affidavit/ counter affidavit, in which allegation of harassment of his daughter by the revisionist for demand of dowry has been made as well as it has been stated that pressure from the side of petitioner and his family was exerted upon his daughter to get the female child aborted.It is also stated that when the respondent no. 2 went to the military hospital, the petitioner had reached there and fired upon opposite party no. 2 and others, which caused injuries to Neeraj, Jitendra and two army personnel.Against that order, the proper remedy was to file a revision and not a writ petition.It is further mentioned that there was a stay order in operation in the writ petition, which was vacated by Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03/01/2017, pursuant to which, respondent no. 2 moved an application before the lower Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge under section 307 IPC was framed against the petitioner.Thereafter two witnesses namely, Nathan Pal Singh as PW 1 and Neeraj as PW 2 were recorded.After their statements, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the father of the petitioner, Surendra Pal Singh to face trial under Section 307 IPC and section 25/27 of the Arms Act including other sections.On the basis of said application Surendra Pal Singh was also summoned to face trial under aforesaid sections.Against the summoning order under section 319 Cr. P.C., Surendra Pal Singh had preferred an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. - 30481 of 2017, (Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and another), wherein this Court dismissed the said petition and upheld the order dated 20.09.2017, whereby offence of under section 307 IPC was found to have made out against him .The present writ petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the charge had already been framed against the petitioner as well as co-accused Surendra Pal Singh.Evidence had been led and the statements of eye-witnesses had already been recorded.In F.I.R., there was charge noted under Section 417 IPC, but when the charge came to be framed against R-1, it was confined to Section 376 IPC.The appellant then filed an application invoking Section 216 Cr.P.C., wherein a prayer was made to add an additional charge for offence under Section 417 IPC along with charge under Section 376 IPC and to treat the additional charge as one of the original charges as provided under Section 216 (3) Cr.P.C.. The trial Court rejected the said prayer.In the case at hand it is apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent number 2, Netra Pal Singh against the petitioner and his father under sections 307 IPC registered as crime number 413 of 2004 and under sections 25/27 of Arms Act registered as crime number 414 of 2004 against Harveer Singh Parihar only and after investigation the police filed charge sheet under section 285 IPC in crime number 413/2004 against Harveer Singh Parihar.Complainant, and thereafter moved an application dated 12/05/2008 before the trial Court is for amendment in charge after the Court had recorded statements of PW 1 and PW 2 because on the basis of their statements, an offence under section 307 IPC was made out.Against that order revision was preferred by the respondent number 2 which was allowed vide order dated 02/05/2009 and setting aside the trial Court's order it was directed that since the case under section 307 IPC was primafacie made out, the file shall be committed to the Court of Sessions.Against this order the present writ petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the revisional Court's order dated 02/05/2009 and quashing of the proceedings of criminal case number 1832 of 2004 under section 307 IPC.Thereafter respondent number 2 moved an application before concerned Court to proceed with the trial and accordingly charge was framed against the petitioner under section 307 IPC.Thereafter two witnesses were recorded as PW 1 and PW 2, whereafter the respondent No. 2 moved an application under section 319 Cr.After consideration of the said application Surendra Pal Singh was summoned.Against the said summoning order, an application under 482 Cr.P.C. was moved registered as 30481 of 2017, which was dismissed on 20/09/2017, holding that offence under section 307 IPC was made out.Perusal of the impugned order and the evidence on record makes it clear that it has been recorded in the impugned order that F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under section 307 IPC alleging that Jitendra Singh, Neeraj Singh, Dharam Singh and Bhim Singh had received injuries in this occurrence, who were medically examined.Ordinary injuries were found on their bodies.During investigation, from the side of respondent No. 2 an affidavit was submitted to the effect that SP Singh and Harvir Singh did not intend to commit murder and that the occurrence had happened unfortunately, but the revisional Court concluded from this that it could not be held in the light of that affidavit that the occurrence did not happen.The affidavit has no significance, because in statement given on oath he had clearly stated that Harvir had fired upon him with an intention to kill, pallets of which hit Jitendra and two Army personnel.Under such circumstances it would be held prima facie established on the basis of evidence that the injured were caused injuries by the fire made by the accused.Both PW 1 and PW 2 have stated that the fire was made by the accused with an intention to kill, therefore the case was found made out under section 307 IPC.The revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed Order Date :- 28.03.2018 A.Mandhani

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER T.S. Arunachatam, J.After the supply of the records contemplated under Section 173, Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed an application before the trial Magistrate seeking discharge on the ground that the entire material placed before the Court did not disclose an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. The trial Magistrate heard both the parties and dismissed the application.The order of the learned Magistrate refusing to act, holding in favour of the petitioner under Section 239, Cr.P.C., is challenged in this revision.2. Let us now look into the facts which led to this prosecution: It appears that in Cr.It is also not known if the petitioner was cited as a witness in the earlier prosecution against Munusami.The petitioner is now sought to be prosecuted on the ground that Arumugham had sold the gold ingot to the petitioner.The statement of Arumugham, who is stated to have aided the accused Munusami in the earlier crime to dispose of the property indicates that his son-in-law is a jail warden.His son-in-law brought to him the accused in the earlier crime and wanted his help to sell the three-row chain.Arumugham, for reasons best known to him, melted the gold chain and made it into a gold ingot.Though the chain is said to have weighed approximately 128g.As far as the thief is concerned, he does not appear to have any contact whatsoever with the petitioner.The two witnesses, whose statements form part of the record, and who were present when the accused in the earlier crime was arrested, do not also implicate the petitioner in any manner.They only seek to implicate Arumugham, who had helped Munusami in the disposal of the gold jewel.It is not made clear as to why the prosecution has chosen to file a final report against the, petition exonerating Arumugham, the person who aided the thief in disposing of the stolen property.I directed the learned Government Advocate to get the material regarding the prior prosecution and the reasons for not proceeding against Arumugham.In spite of the message sent by from the Government Advocate, it appears that the prosecuting agency has exhibited the callous in-difference in not having chosen to instruct him with relevant records.

['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The matrimonial family of Geeta had a house described as No.1/6806, Lahoriya Gali, East Rohtash Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shahdara.Her parental family, i.e. Krishna Rani (mother) and her siblings, on the other hand, would live in Dilshad Garden, close to Delhi-U.P. border.The matrimonial home comprised of two storied Crl.A 456/2002 Page 1 of 19 structure, one room and a kitchen on the first floor being in the use and occupation of the Geeta Rani, her husband Rakesh Sharma and their child, the portion at the ground floor being in use of the rest of the family.On 28.06.1998, a Sunday, sometime around 10:00 a.m., Geeta Rani suffered burn injuries.There is evidence to show that she was put in a three wheeler scooter (TSR) by her mother-in-law i.e. Janak Rani (A1) and jeth (elder brother of the husband) Harish Sharma (A3) and taken to the house of her mother in Dilshad Garden from where she was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (the hospital) and admitted there, she having been examined against medico-legal certificate (MLC), recorded by Dr. B.D. Singh (PW-7), the injuries assessed at that stage to be 100%.Geeta remained in the hospital under treatment over the next few days.There is irrefutable evidence in the form inclusive of death summary (Ex.PW-13/A), prepared by Dr. Anand Prakash (PW-13) showing that at about 7 o'clock in the evening of 01.07.1998, she suffered respiratory distress and despite efforts she went into septicemic shock and had respiratory arrest, to be declared dead at 07:45 p.m., this event having been affirmed by death certificate (Ex.PW-13/B).A 456/2002 Page 1 of 19During the treatment in the hospital, upon input being received in the local Police Station vide DD No.4-A (Ex.PW-8/A), at about 09:20 a.m. on 28.06.1998, the sub divisional magistrate (SDM) Mr. Binay Bhushan (PW-11) was informed.It is stated that the SDM went to the hospital and upon it being certified by the attending doctor, at about 12:05 p.m. on 28.06.1998, that she was fit for statement, the Crl.A 456/2002 Page 2 of 19 SDM examined the victim Geeta Rani recording her statement (Ex.PW-11/B), this eventually becoming her dying declaration on which the prosecution would rest its case.The SDM, having recorded the said statement (Ex.PW-11/B), by his endorsement (Ex.PW-11/D) at 12:55 p.m. on 28.06.1998, called upon the SHO of Police Station Shahdara to register a case as per law.The said direction of the SDM resulted in further endorsement (Ex.PW-15/A) by ASI Jai Pal Singh (PW-15) who got a case registered vide first information report (FIR) (Ex.It may be noted here that besides mother-in-law Janak Rani (A1), the case included other two persons as accused being members of the close family of the husband of the deceased viz. Mamta (A2) being the nanad (sister of the husband) and Harish Sharma (A3) being the jeth (elder brother of the husband).A 456/2002 Page 3 of 19The prosecution led evidence by examining, in all, fifteen witnesses.They included Devender Kumar (PW-1), a relative of the deceased who had identified and taken over the body of the deceased after postmortem examination; Krishna Rani (PW-2), mother of the deceased; Constable Omvir Singh (PW-3); Raj Kumar (PW-4), brother of the deceased; Constable Ved Prakash (PW-5), who had taken photographs of the spot; Head Constable Ami Chand (PW-6), moharrar malkhana (MHCM) posted at Shahdara Police Station at the Crl.A 456/2002 Page 4 of 19 relevant time; Dr. B.D. Singh (PW-7), who had medically examined the deceased and prepared her MLC (Ex.PW-7/A); Sub Inspector Ved Prakash (PW-8), who had recorded DD No.4A; Head Constable Gyan Amba (PW-9), who had conducted personal search of the appellants at the time of their arrest; Constable Subhash Chand (PW-10); Vinay Bhushan, (PW-11), the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) who had recorded the statement of the deceased; Dr. K.K. Banerjee, (PW-12), who had conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased; Dr. Anand Prakash, (PW-13), who had prepared death summary of the deceased; Dr. Atul Jain, (PW-14), who identified the signature and writing of Dr. Pankaj Malhotra in an endorsement on the MLC (Ex.PW-7/A); and Sub-Inspector Jai Pal Singh, (PW-15), the investigating officer of the case.The prosecution, however, could not produce Dr. Crl.A 456/2002 Page 5 of 19 Pankaj Malhotra at the earlier stages of the trial.It appears that on 30.07.2001, a wrong witness having been served appeared before the trial court.The error was noted and fresh notice was issued.The evidence for the prosecution clearly brings out that Tilak Raj, father of Geeta Rani, was alive at the time of her marriage.The prosecution also relied upon dying declarations which included one recorded by the SDM (vide Ex.PW-11/B) in the afternoon of 28.06.1998 and two oral ones made to PW-2 and PW-4, one statedly during the journey from the parental home in Dilshad Garden to the hospital in the TSR and the other later during the course of treatment.One of the said dying declarations (i.e. the one made during the journey in the TSR to the hospital) was referred to by PW-2 in the statement (Ex.In fact, the possibility of such statement having been made just prior to the death is too remote.The Crl.Strangely, the further endorsement (ExPW-11/A), purportedly under the signatures of Dr. Pankaj indicates she to have become fit for statement at about 12:05 p.m. The confirmation about her fitness could have been secured by the prosecution only through the mouthpiece of Dr. Pankaj Malhotra, the author of the said certificate.As noted earlier, the prosecution did not produce Dr. Pankaj Malhotra.She testified that Geeta's husband had constructed a room on the upper floor and had then started residing with the deceased there.That, it may be recalled, is the portion where the incident took place in which the deceased suffered the burn injuries.PW-2 testified further that in April, 1997, A3 had filthily abused Geeta telling her that he would not permit her to stay there.She spoke about Geeta apprehending assaults from A3, she being occasionally beaten and always living in fear.Her husband had earlier agreed to take her away and live in a rented accommodation.On account of his poor financial resources, he was unable to make two ends meet.He, thus, had no option but to request his mother to accommodate him again.The version of PW-2 itself shows that, with the assistance of the parental family, Geeta Rani's husband raised some construction on the first floor of the house of his mother where he had started living separately, having his own independent kitchen.PW-8/B) at 2:00 p.m. on the said date, taking note of the offence under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).A 456/2002 Page 2 of 19During the course of investigation, Geeta Rani having died, necessary steps for further investigation were taken, this inclusive of inquest proceedings on the basis of death report (Ex.PW-17/A) and post-mortem examination of the dead body, the report (Ex.PW-12/A) issued by Dr. K.K. Banerjee (PW-12) confirming death to be on account of septicemia as a result of deep superficial infected burns involving 99% of body surface likely to be produced by flames.The SDM, in the course of his inquiry, had also recorded the statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of Krishna Rani (PW-2).In the said statement before the SDM, and also in the statement made before the investigating officer of the police, allegations were made to the effect that Geeta Rani had been intentionally put on fire and, therefore, it was a case of murder.Upon conclusion of the investigation, report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted seeking prosecution of Janak Rani (A1), Mamta (A2) Crl.A 456/2002 Page 3 of 19 and Harish Sharma @ Kala (A3) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC.After the metropolitan magistrate had taken cognizance and had secured the presence of the accused persons who were summoned, the case was committed to the court of sessions.A 456/2002 Page 4 of 19The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. by which they denied the evidence of the prosecution as incorrect.Opportunity was sought for defence evidence to be produced.The same was granted.The matter remained pending at that stage for quite some time.Eventually, on 18.12.2000 the defence informed the trial judge that no defence evidence was to be adduced.It may be noted here that the prosecution had relied, inter alia, on the evidence of Dr. Pankaj Malhotra, the medical officer attending on the victim at the time of visit to the hospital by the SDM around noon time on 28.06.1998, he purportedly having certified her to be fit for statement.The opportunity was enlarged on 28.09.2001 at the request of the prosecution.Eventually, on 06.11.2001 the prosecution conceded that it was unable to produce Dr. Pankaj Malhotra, he being not available or traceable.A 456/2002 Page 5 of 19The trial court, vide its judgment dated 08.05.2002, held that the alternative charge under Section 302 IPC, as also the charge under Section 304-B IPC, had not been proved, it, however, found all the three persons (who stood trial) guilty and convicted them on the charge for offences under Section 498-A and 306 read with section 34 IPC.By order dated 09.05.2002, the trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each under section 498-A read with section 34 IPC; with rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence under Section 306 read with section 34 IPC.The appeal at hand was filed assailing the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence.The turn of this appeal for hearing has come up almost seventeen years thereafter.A 456/2002 Page 6 of 19It appears that Tilak Raj having died in May, 1997 his son Raj Kumar (PW-4) has continued with the said business.From the side of the parental family of Geeta Rani, the prosecution rested its case on the word of Krishna Rani (PW-2) and Raj Kumar (PW-4), this primarily with the objective of highlighting the conduct attributed to the appellants, they statedly having been guilty of making illicit demands for dowry or precious gifts and on account of their dissatisfaction due to non compliance they having subjected her to harassment and cruelty, this being the gravamen of the accusations which formed the basis of the charges under section 304-B and 498-A IPC.From the narration, and the sequence of events, indicated in the said document (Ex.A 456/2002 Page 7 of 19The mother (PW-2), and the brother (PW-4), during their court depositions stated that the deceased had confided in them that the mother-in-law (A1), the sister-in-law (A2) and jeth (A3) had been subjecting her to cruelty in the matrimonial home on account of demands for dowry.During the journey in the TSR to the hospital, the victim had told them that A3 had poured kerosene on her while A1 and A2 had caught hold of her, A2 having lit a matchstick to set her afire.PW-2 would add that, during the period of treatment, Geeta had again told her that she had been burnt inside the kitchen, kerosene oil having been poured on her by the three accused persons, explaining that she had earlier stated (presumably to the SDM) about she having burnt herself because she had the apprehension and fear as to safety and welfare of her daughter Tanvi, who was then in the custody of the accused persons.The trial Judge was not impressed with the prosecution case about it being a matter involving the offence of culpable homicide.The statements of PW-2 and PW-4, to above effect, were rejected as incredible.It appears from the trial court's judgment that the case of charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC was trashed primarily on account of dying declaration (Ex.PW-11/B) recorded by the SDM.Noticeably, in the said statement the deceased had categorically told the SDM that she had poured kerosene and set herself afire, it resultantly being a case of suicide.The acquittal of the appellants on the charge for offences under sections 302 and 304-B IPC has not been challenged by the State.The Crl.A 456/2002 Page 8 of 19 said result has attained finality.In the considered view of this court, the conclusions reached by the trial court were appropriate and do not even otherwise call for any interference.There is not even a whisper of reference to such information having been shared at that early stage by the victim.If the victim had given such information at that stage, the parental family would have been crying foul from day one.The case was registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PW-11/B) recorded by the SDM in the afternoon of 28.06.1998, it being the version of the victim herself that she had poured kerosene setting herself afire, immediately following which she had tried to put out the fire by pouring water from a bucket she being assisted by her mother-in-law (A1) and devar (Sanjay) to be taken to the house of her mother from where her brother (PW-4) took her to the hospital for treatment.A 456/2002 Page 8 of 19The oral dying declarations to which reference is made by PW- 2 and PW-4 cannot be acted upon also for the reason that there is no confirmation as to the fitness of the deceased at the time when such statements are stated to have been made.A 456/2002 Page 9 of 19 burn injuries suffered were almost all over the body, assessed at the initial stage to be 100%.The endorsement on the MLC by PW-7, the then examining medical officer, reveals that she was not in a fit state to be subjected to any questioning at the time of admission (at 10:30 a.m.).PW-7 during his testimony confirmed that the treatment which was administered included some pain killers being injected which had the effect of sedating her.Instead, it examined Dr. Atul Jain (PW-14), who was able to confirm only the fact of endorsement to be in the writing of Dr. Pankaj Malhotra.Obviously, PW-14 would not be able to verify the facts on the basis of which such subjective satisfaction had been reached by the author, i.e., Dr. Pankaj Malhotra.In the consequence, the defence has been deprived to the valuable opportunity of questioning Dr. Pankaj Malhotra as to the accuracy of his assessment.A 456/2002 Page 9 of 19Be that as it may, the dying declaration (Ex.PW-11/B) purportedly made by the victim to the SDM may be examined for its Crl.A 456/2002 Page 10 of 19 worth in the light, and contrast, of the court depositions of PW-2 and PW-4 to find out as to whether the same is sufficient to bring home the charge for offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC on which the findings of guilty have been returned by the trial court.A 456/2002 Page 10 of 19She deposed about some demands of dowry having been made prior to the solemnization of the marriage, but she would not specify as to who were the members of the matrimonial family who had raised such demands.She spoke about the harassment and torture of Geeta after she had become pregnant with a child and she being subjected to beatings in the wake of the birth of a female child.She deposed that Geeta had been thrown out of the house along with her newly born daughter, but added that her husband had come on the same day and assured that he would start living separately in some rented accommodation.She testified that Geeta's husband had taken a rented house in Ram Nagar area, but she was beaten by the accused persons again.PW-2 testified that Geeta's husband was earning Rs.2,500/- approximately and was finding it difficult to bear the expenses and had requested his mother (A1) to accommodate him back in her house.She deposed that A1 had demanded that Geeta's husband raise finance from his in-laws and could construct a room on the upper floor.PW-2 stated that against that backdrop Geeta's husband had come to her husband and had requested for about Rs.1,00,000/- to be arranged for such purposes, her husband having given Rs.25,000/- only as he was Crl.A 456/2002 Page 11 of 19 able to muster.PW-2, however, conceded that such request for monetary help was a version which was coming up for the first time in the court, there being no reference to it in the earlier statement with which she was confronted.He would not speak about Geeta's husband having come with request for Rs.1,00,000/- to be given for raising of construction on the first floor of the house of his mother.A 456/2002 Page 11 of 19It has been explained at the hearing that A2 was the married sister of the husband of the deceased, she having separated from her husband and was living in her parental home, i.e., with her mother A1, during the relevant period.The deceased Geeta Rani, in her statement (Ex.PW-11/B), had also told the SDM that while she was soothing her child (who had been beaten up by the other child), A1 and A2 had come up and started quarrelling becoming abusive asking her to go away.It was at that stage, as per the deceased (to the SDM) that A3 had come on the scene, hurling filthy abuses, asking her to kill herself.A 456/2002 Page 12 of 19She (the victim) stated that in the wake of such conduct of A1, A2 and A3, she (the victim) had gone to the kitchen, poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself afire.Geeta was questioned by the SDM as to the presence of her husband and conduct of her husband towards her.She confirmed that her husband was away because there was some marriage function to be attended.She would not accuse the husband of any illicit demands or harassment, the only accusation made against him being that he was fearful of his mother, and, therefore, would not say anything.The victim, on being pointedly asked, as to whether there was any demand of dowry answered in the affirmative and stated that since gold was not given (in the wedding) and good clothes were not offered, she was always subjected to taunts and abuses.From the language used, it is clear that she was referring to some female relative on the matrimonial side in the context of taunts and abusive conduct connected to the dowry demands.General statements made about illicit demands for dowry in the statement (Ex.PW-11/B) attributed to the victim, and in the statements of PW-2 and PW-4, cannot be acted upon so as to hold the appellants guilty of such conduct vis-a-vis the charge under section 498-A IPC.If there was no sufficient evidence to raise such presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is doubtful if on the same facts and evidence finding of guilty can be returned on the charge under Section 498-A IPC.A 456/2002 Page 13 of 19From the dying declaration (Ex.PW-11/B) to the SDM, it boils down that the deceased was upset because her child had been beaten by the child of her sister-in-law.A 456/2002 Page 18 of 19 interaction.A 456/2002 Page 18 of 19The case at hand does not pass the muster of any of the aforementioned parameters.The quarrel of children was too petty an issue.There is no live link or nexus between the acts attributed to the appellants and the self-immolation by the deceased in their wake.The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Said FIRs are FIRs/Non Cognizable Reports on the complaint of the Petitioners in W.P. Crl.Subject FIRs/NCRs emanate out of a family disputes and the petitioners and the respective complainants are members of the extended family.Since parties are members of the extended family, they were referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and conciliation Centre.This undertaking is also accepted.The plants/trees shall be of deciduous indigenous variety with a nursery age of three and a half years, and a height of at least six feet.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)Petitioners, in W.P. (Crl.) 2627/2018, seek quashing of FIR No. 14/2018 under Sections 387/454/427/354-D506/509/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Special Cell.subject FIR was registered on the complaint of Ms. Deepa Arya against the petitioners as also against SI Naresh Kumar alleging house-breaking, assault, abduction, threatening and intimidation on the ground that the petitioners had at the instigation of her brother entered into a conspiracy to interfere in her ownership rights in a property gifted to her by her mother.W.P. (CRL) 2627/2018 & other connected matters Page 2 of 7Ms. Deepa Arya Petitioner, in W.P. (Crl.) 1545/2019, seeks quashing of FIR No. 82/2017 under Sections 387/509 IPC registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave.She in W.P. (Crl.) 1546/2019, seeks quashing of NCR No. 55/2018 under Section 500 IPC registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi.In W.P. (Crl.) 1548/2019, she seeks quashing of FIR No. 242/2018 under Section 379 IPC registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi and further in W.P. (Crl.) 1550/2019, she seeks quashing of NCR No. 90/2017 under Section 506 IPC registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave.Parties have entered into settlement dated 15.05.2019, whereby all disputes inter-se the parties have been resolved.Petitioners as also complainant - Ms. Deepa Arya are present in Court in person.They confirm the settlement agreement dated 15.05.2019 and undertake that they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the said settlement agreement.The undertaking is accepted.W.P. (CRL) 2627/2018 & other connected matters Page 3 of 7Ms. Deepa Arya further submits that since she has settled with the petitioners she does not wish to prosecute and charges or the allegations against the petitioners and also Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar.As per the settlement agreement, a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs is to be paid to Ms. Deepa Arya, complainant in the first installment.Said settlement amount of Rs. 15 lakhs has been paid in Court today by way of Pay Orders bearing Nos. 334508 dated 07.07.2019 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, 655898 dated 11.07.2019 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs issued by Allahabad Bank and 655897 dated 11.07.2019 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs issued by Allahabad Bank favouring Ms. Deepa Arya.It is undertaken by the petitioners in W.P. Crl.2627/2018 that as per the settlement agreement, the guards placed by the petitioners in premises No. 3/5 Rani Jhansi Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi shall be removed during the course of the day and the vacant peaceful possession of the premises, presently under their lock and key, shall be handed over to Ms. Deepa Arya on the conclusion of terms and conditions of this settlement.In view of the fact that the parties are family members and have resolved their disputes and the respective complainants do not wish to press their complaints, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute W.P. (CRL) 2627/2018 & other connected matters Page 4 of 7 between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.W.P. (CRL) 2627/2018 & other connected matters Page 4 of 7Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.The appellant had been tried and held guilty for the murder of Sanjay Jagannath Khobragade under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses in support of the said charge, out of which, four prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case, three of the said witnesses are panchas and one of them namely, P.W. 1 Ganesh Dadarao Kamble was an eye-witness.The trial Court, however, has accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure, P.W. 6 Usha Vishwanath Ramteke and P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Sarjuprasad, Gautam.The prosecution case mainly rests on the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Sarjuprasad Gautam in the presence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkantrao Bhure, as also oral dying declaration made to P.W. 6 Usha Vishwanath Ramteke,The case of the appellant is that before the date of the incident there was quarrel between him and Sanjay Khobragade when he had come to his house and abused his sister and on the date of the incident he was demanding money from him, as he was owing some amount to him but they did not assault him.Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure has not certified that the deceased was conscious and in mentally fit condition at the time of recording of dying declaration; that the dying declaration has been recorded by Police Officer even though two Executive Magistrates were available at the station and even though the Police Officer had asked P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure to record the dying declaration, but he did not do so.According to him, the dying declaration cannot be accepted nor oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased to P.W. 6 Usha Ramteke, who is related to the appellant.Alternatively, it was argued that only one fatal injury was inflicted in a scuffle and that the appellant had no intention to kill, on account of which, the offence would fall under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto.In support of his submission he relied upon in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, and Bhera v. State of Rajasthan, .Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has urged before us that P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure has categorically stated that he had examined the deceased who was conscious and mentally fit to record dying declaration; that , the Police Officer tried to obtain the presence of the Executive Magistrate did not come and that the Police Officer had also made request to P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure to record the dying declaration, who declined and in the circumstances the dying declaration was recorded by the Police Officer P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Gautam in presence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure.There is absolutely no reason to discard the same.He also states that the prosecution case is further corroborated by oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W. 6 Usha Ramteke.On the alternate submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is urged that there was no scuffle and the deceased was only demanding money given by him to the appellant and the appellant repeatedly stabbed him with knife resulting in four injuries on his person.He, therefore, contends that the appellant killed the deceased and the question of single blow, as argued by learned Advocate for the appellant, does not arise.He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P., .He, therefore, contends that the appeal be dismissed.We have already pointed out that the prosecution case rests upon the dying declaration as well as oral dying declaration.In respect of the written dying declaration the prosecution has examined P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure and P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Gautam.Therefore, we shall now refer to the evidence of these witnesses.The P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Sarjuprasad Gautam has stated that on 8-7-96 at about 8.45 p.m. Sanjay Khobragade was brought by autorickshaw to Police Station by Usha and one Vishwanath.The condition of Sanjay was very much critical and therefore, he took Sanjay to hospital immediately.Sanjay was taken to the hospital and P.W. 7 Gangaprasad also immediately went to the hospital.He made enquiries with Medical Officer Bhure, as to whether Sanjay was in a condition to make a statement.P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure examined Sanjay and he found that he was in a fit condition; to give statement.P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure advised him to record the dying declaration of Sanjay immediately as his condition was serious.Accordingly, P.S.I. P.W: 7 Gangaprasad Gautam recorded dying declaration of Sanjay in questions and answers form in the presence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure.In this dying declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant stabbed with knife on abdomen and Other parts of the body and the reason for assault was in respect of amount due.PSI Gangaprasad Gautam obtained certificate from Dr. Arvind Bhure that the patient was conscious during recording of dying declaration.To a Court question, he stated that he had orally instructed Police Head Constable to arrange for Executive Magistrate to record dying declaration.When he reached the Hospital, he found that the condition of Sanjay was very critical.Till that time Executive Magistrate had not reached the hospital, on account of which, he recorded the dying declaration of Sanjay.He admits that this fact is not mentioned in the station diary and mere fact that the name was not mentioned in the station diary is not sufficient to discard his testimony that he did make an attempt to requisition the Executive Magistrate for the purpose of recording dying declaration, but in view of the critical condition of the deceased, he had no other option but to record the dying declaration.He also stated in cross-examination that he had requested Medical Officer to record dying declaration of Sanjay, but in turn, he requested him only to record the dying declaration.P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.1) Stab wound over left abdominal flank in left renal area, 3 cms x 1 1/2 cms x cavity deep.2) Incised wound over left arm ovel shaped middle l/3rd 2 1/2 cms x 1 cm, muscle.3) Incised wound on left axilla pit verticle 2 1/2 cms x 1 cm, muscle deep.According to him the injuries in question were possible by weapon Article 1 namely 'knife'.He has further stated that at about 8.55 p.m. P.S.O. Mr. Gautam came to Hospital to record dying declaration of Sanjay Khobragade and he certified that he was in a fit condition for recording dying declaration.He further stated that he thoroughly examined Sanjay Khobragade and found that he was fit to record statement.He also stated that the patient was conscious and mentally fit to record dying declaration.He further clarified that fit means he was conscious and mentally fit.He also confirms that the dying declaration was recorded in his presence and that Sanjay Khobragade had stated that Pramod Shendre (accused) assaulted him by knife on his abdomen and hand half before an hour as he was demanding due amount.He also stated that the thumb impression of Sanjay was obtained by P.S.I. on the dying declaration.He further states that at the end of dying declaration, he made endorsement that Sanjay was fit during and after recording statement.In view of the above, there is absolutely no reason to discard the testimony of PS1 P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Gautam or P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Bhure.The dying declaration, therefore, stands proved.In addition there is oral dying declaration which is made by the deceased before P.W. 6 Usha Ramteke, who is related to the deceased.She has stated that her son Atish came and informed that Sanjay had been assaulted.He went to the spot where Sanjay was lying injured, said Sanjay told her that Pramod Shendre (accused) stabbed him by knife and that the assault was on account of point of money.There was no challenge that no such statement was made by the deceased to P.W. 6 Usha Ramteke.There is no reason whatsoever to discard her statement which stands proved inasmuch as the deceased had made oral statement to P.W. 6 Usha Ramteke informing her that Pramod Shendre (appellant) had stabbed by knife on account of money.The appellant has, in fact, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to question No. 45, stated that on the date of the incident deceased Sanjay was demanding money from him but he denied to have assaulted him.The presence of the appellant is thus admitted as also that the deceased was demanding money from him.The prosecution case is that the deceased had given money to the appellant which he was demanding and on account of the same appellant gave him four knife blows.The appellant has nowhere stated nor it was suggested to anyone that there was any scuffle.The appellant speaks about a scuffle of some other day when Sanjay came to his house.The story of scuffle put forth by the learned Advocate for the appellant has no foundation whatsoever.Coming to the alternate plea put up by the learned Advocate for the appellant, learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon Masumsha's case (AIR 2000 SC 1876) (cited supra).In this case, the appellant is said to have inflicted three incised wound with jambiya, out of which one blow was fatal, as also number of abrasions.The Apex Court found that the trial Court has taken the view that the other injuries could have been caused during the scuffle.In the case before us no scuffle had taken place and the appellant straightway inflicted four knife blows on the person of the deceased who demanded his money back.The appellant was carrying his knife with him and upon demand of money instead of returning the money, he inflicted four knife blows on the person of the deceased to silence him for ever, so that he cannot in future make any demand for money.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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 petitioner had completed his tenure of service.The petitioner, at the relevant time holding the post of Inspector of Police filed O.A.No.2816 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge an order dated 06.02.2001 passed by the Additional Director General of Police cum Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.The petitioner was convicted for a criminal offence of demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- for deleting the name of an accused Shanmugasundaram from a case registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station in Crime No.45/87 and accepting the first instalment of Rs.5,000/- on 02.03.1987 from the said accused.He was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under each count for Section 161 IPC r/w Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentences were directed to be run concurrently.The petitioner paid the total fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in the Court on the same day.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2001 and this Court on noticing that the fine amount had already been paid suspended the sentence of the Trial Court on furnishing sureties.When the fact of the petitioner's conviction came to the knowledge of the respondents, he was given a show cause notice dated 10.01.2001 by the respondent.By the impugned order, it was informed that the petitioner had been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude and hence, he had arrived at the provisional conclusion of dismissing the petitioner as per the provisions of Police Standing Order 59(1) of Vol.I. It was recorded by the officer that he had considered all aspects of his conviction and he was of the opinion that it was not desirable to retain him in service.The petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty.The petitioner sent a reply dated 22.01.2001 requesting to grant extension of time for submitting his explanation.He had also stated that the case was registered in the year 1987 and he was facing trial from the year 1989 and since his health condition was not good, he was under medical leave.Apart from contending that he had meritorious service, he also submitted that he had challenged the suspension order which was made pending criminal trial.He had also moved this Court in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2001 and the sentence made against him was suspended as noted above.However, the respondent rejected the petitioner's case and by an order dated 06.02.2001, he was dismissed from service with effect from 29.12.2000 the day on which he was found convicted.It was also noted that this Court had granted only suspension of sentence.The petitioner, as a responsible officer in a disciplined force had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and he was caught in a trap case where he was convicted and therefore, the only punishment that has to be awarded is dismissal from service.The petitioner in his reply sent to the respondent dated 29.01.2001 as against the second show cause notice did not mention about his moving the Tribunal challenging the show cause notice.Therefore, when the impugned order came to be passed on 06.02.2001, the Tribunal is yet to grant any interim order.The second Original Application (O.A.2816 of 2001) was admitted on 23.04.2001 and once again the Tribunal granted interim stay.However, the respondent issued an order of suspension on 29.07.2006 placing the petitioner under suspension and he was not allowed to retire from service pending further orders on the Original Application.In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner while he was working in the Prohibition Exercise Wing at Tirunelveli Unit had involved in a criminal case.The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police caught him in a trap case and he was charge sheeted before the Special Court at Tirunelveli in S.C.No.1/89 and he was convicted on two counts.However, when the matter came up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that subsequently this Court by a judgment dated 04.12.2008 disposed of the criminal appeal and interfered with the sentenced made by the learned Special Judge.A copy of the said judgment dated 04.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal (MD)No.25 of 2001 was also produced for perusal by this Court.In paragraphs 12 and 13, it was observed as follows:-The appellant/accused is directed to pay the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is disposed of."In the light of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions.However, there will be no order as to costs.svkiToThe Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Chennai 8

['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Imprisonment of life, it is clarified, would mean the remainder of the natural life of the convict.70% of the fine, if realized, it is directed would be paid to the injured Heena (PW2), and the legal heirs of the deceased Anisha and Pappu, while 15% was to be defrayed as costs and paid to the State.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 2 of 34Substantive punishments are to run concurrently.The impugned judgment arises from the charge-sheet filed in FIR No.136/2006, P.S. Welcome.On 27th March, 2006, DD Entry 24A (Ex.PW22/X) regarding trespass and quarrel and DD Entry 25A (Ex.Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi were recorded.Ved Bhushan (PW22), who was entrusted with the task to verify and ascertain, reached the spot and found Pappu, Anisha and Heena (PW2) in an injured condition.They were taken to the GTB Hospital where Pappu and Anisha were declared brought dead vide MLCs marked Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/B, respectively.Heena (PW2) who had multiple incised wounds on her neck,was admitted for treatment vide MLC marked Ex.PW11/A, but was declared unfit for statement.Ved Bhushan (PW22) met Mohd. Imran, who has appeared as PW3, and recorded his statement (Ex.PW3/A).Thereafter, PW22 had sent rukka via Ct.Naushad-1 was having blood-stained ustra (razor) in his hand."All the accused persons" had entered the house of Shamim and, thereafter, came out, entered a gali and ran away.On seeing "all the accused", PW3 became perplexed as his family was not on visiting terms with Shamims family due to the love marriage between Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4).He entered his house, and noticed that the light on the first floor was switched off.Using the light of his mobile phone, PW3 saw his mother in a pool of blood.The police van arrived and, thereafter, PW3 along with police went to the first floor.Hands of Heena (PW2) were found tied to a takhat.They untied Heenas (PW2) hands and legs.Neck of Heena (PW2) had been slit.Heena (PW2) had then pointed towards the house of accused persons by making gestures with her hand.The police had removed his mother Anisha, brother Pappu and Heena (PW2) to the hospital.PW3, Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4) had also accompanied the police to the hospital.On the way to the hospital, Heena (PW2) who was unable to speak, had gesticulated that one of the perpetrators had small hair.In the hospital, Pappu and Anisha were declared as brought dead.Heena (PW2), PW3 accepted, could not speak after the occurrence.On cross- examination by counsel for Israr and Naushad-2, PW3 accepted that at the time of incident, it was not in his knowledge at the time of incident that Israr and Naushad-1 were step brothers.PW3 had also professed that he did not know that Israr was living in village Bhopa, Distt.Muzaffarnagar and claimed that he had seen him residing in Delhi.However, PW3 did not remember the date, month or year when he had seen Israr living in Delhi.PW3 in his cross-examination had asserted that Heena (PW2) was in her senses when she was taken to the vehicle but after pointing out by gestures, she became unconscious.At this stage, we would like to refer to the statement of Mohd. Imran (Ex.PW3/A) which became the substratum of the FIR (Ex.PW5/A).In the statement (Ex.PW3/A), Imran (PW3) had stated that at 10.45 PM, when he returned to his house after visiting the house of his brother and sister-in-law (Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4)), he had seen Shamim (acquitted) standing in front of their house and Naushad 1, Dilshad, Israr, I (juvenile), Hasin Haider and Naushad 2, coming out of his house.Their clothes were blood- stained.He had suspected foul play and when he went upstairs, he noticed that his mother Anisha had been murdered and was tied to the Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 7 of 34 cot.Her left temple was torn and a cloth was tied along her neck.Neck of his sister, Heena (PW2) had been slit and she was crying, lying on the bed.His brother Pappu had sustained bullet injury on his temple and he was lying on the cot.He informed the Police Control Room from his mobile phone.Mohd. Imran (PW3) was in the PCR van along with his brother and sister-in-law when Heena (PW2) had narrated that Naushad-1, Dilshad, Israr, I (juvenile) Hasin Haider and Naushad-2, had committed the offence by firing bullets and using knives.Shamim had helped and instigated them to commit the murders.Witness pointed out towards a person who is present in the court and has not been challaned by the police and stated that he tied my hands and legs.(Court has inquired from that person present in the court to whom the witness is pointed out regarding his name and address.When accused Shamim was going (Us Ke Pair Mere Pair Mein Atak Gaya and WO Mere Upar Gir Gaye).Thereafter all the accused persons ran away from there.My mother Anisa and my brother Pappu had died.Before two days of 27.3.06 I saw Ranu, Dilshad and Hasin Haider in street.After about 10 minutes my brother Imran came.He informed to police on phone.She acknowledged that Israr (acquitted) was step-brother of Dilshad and Naushad-1, but Israr was not residing in the house of Shamim (acquitted).In her cross- examination, PW2 reiterated that the appellant Dilshad had caused injuries to Anisha and the said appellant and Hasin Haider were carrying pistols.She asserted that Naushad 1 had an ustra (razor).It would be incongruous to accept the said statement, for as per the prosecution version, both Ranu and Hasin Haider were present at the place of occurrence when fire-arm and knife wounds were inflicted on Anisha, Pappu and Heena (PW2).There was no cause or reason for anyone to state and inform Ranu and Hasin Haider about facts which were already known to them or about an offence in which they had participated.Ishrat Ali (PW1), in his examination-in-chief, has accepted that he could not identify Ranu and Hasin Haider because he did not know them.He, however, claimed that he knew them by face.He voluntarily added that he came to know Ranu Kumar and Hasin Haider when he had overheard the conversation near the toilet and they were being addressed as Hasin Haider and Ranu Kumar.The public or the police would not have allowed Shamim (acquitted) to utter the said words without any immediate reaction.PW4, in her cross-examination, has accepted that she had not informed the police who had arrived, about the purported conversation between her and her mother.In her cross- examination, PW4 accepted that Naushad 2s name was not recorded or mentioned in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW4/DA).A.1110/2013 + connected Page 12 of 34ASI Vijay Pal Singh (PW15) has stated that he was on PCR duty between 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM on 27 th March, 2006 and on receiving the information, had reached C-389, Gali No.11, Indira Gali, Janta Colony and had taken Heena (PW2) and Pappu (who had died) in his PCR van to the GTB hospital.One relative, i.e. the Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 13 of 34 brother of the injured also accompanied them to the GTB hospital.The third injured was shifted to the GTB hospital in the vehicle of the SHO Ved Bhushan (PW22).PW15 in his cross- examination, has accepted that he did not tell the Investigating Officer that Heena (PW2) had informed or revealed to Imran (PW3) that the appellants Naushad-1 and Naushad-2, Dilshad, Israr and Hasin Haider had fired at her and given her the injuries, though this fact is mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW15/A).He also denied as incorrect that he had stated to the IO that Heena (PW2) had told Imran (PW3) that Shamim (acquitted) had helped them, though this is recorded in Ex.PW15/A.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 13 of 34ASI Vijay Pal Singh (PW15) also denied various other suggestions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor referring to his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., marked Ex.PW15/A. However, he has accepted as correct that the doctor concerned had declared that Pappu was brought dead to the hospital and that Heena (PW2) was unconscious at the GTB Hospital.In his cross-examination, PW15 affirmed that 100-150 people were present at the spot.He had seen Anisha, Pappu and Heena lying on the floor in an unconscious condition in different directions, but he had not seen whether the hands and legs of the injured were tied and the mouths gagged.A photographer had reached at the spot at about 11.14 PM and had taken photographs in his presence.The SHO and the Additional SHO were also present.Sushil Kumar (PW6) had reached the spot at about 11.30 PM on 27th March, 2006 along with Crime Team In-charge.He had taken photographs of the bed on which the blood-stained clothes were Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 14 of 34 lying and also of one khokha (empty cartridge) and one sikka (lead) (Ex.PX9).He proved photographs marked Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/6 and negatives as Ex.PW6/1A to Ex.PW6/6A. A large crowd had gathered there and SHO Ved Bhushan (PW22) was also present there.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 14 of 34Ved Bhushan (PW22) was posted as the SHO, Police Station Welcome and had conducted investigation upon receipt of the DD entries 24A (Ex.PW22/X) and 25A (Ex.PW22/X-1).PW22 had reached the place of occurrence with the staff and noticed the three injured persons, namely, Anisha, Pappu and Heena (PW2).Two were removed to the GTB Hospital in a PCR van and one was taken to the hospital by PW22 in his official vehicle.In the hospital, PW22 met one Mohd. Imran (PW3) and after inquiries, his statement (Ex.PW3/A) was recorded, and PW22 had prepared the rukka.PW22 had sent the papers for registration of the FIR (Ex.PW5/A).He had obtained the MLCs marked Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C of Anisha and Pappu, respectively, who were declared brought dead and Ex.PW11/A of Heena (PW2), who was at that time unfit for statement.He returned to the spot where the crime team was already present and had seized one blood-stained pellet (Ex.PX7), one empty cartridge (Ex.PX8), one slipper of plastic (black and sky blue colour) (Ex.PX3), blood-stained mattress (Ex.PX1) and bed sheet (Ex.PX2).These were seized and duly sealed as recorded in the seizure memo (Ex.PW19/C).Site plan was also prepared at the instance of Mohd. Imran (PW3) marked Ex.PW22/B. On 28th March, 2006, PW22 had arrested Shamim (acquitted) and Naushad-2 from Idgah Road, Janta Colony, Welcome and had recorded disclosure statement of Shamim (acquitted) marked Ex.PW8/B and, thereupon, recovered one blood- stained chunni (Ex.PX10), one lock (Ex.PX15) and key (Ex.PX16) from a gunny bag from house No. D-272, Indira Gali, Janta Colony.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 15 of 34Seizure memo (Ex.PW19/D) was accordingly recorded.Naushad-2 had taken them to his house at E-222, Indira Gali No. 11, Janta Colony and from his room on the first floor, they had recovered a blood-stained shirt (Ex.PX14), which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW19/B).PW22 claimed that Israr was arrested on 29 th March, 2006 from Theka Sharab, Loni, Ghaziabad and, thereafter, disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/F) was recorded.Israr had then taken them to his house at D-272, Indira Gali No.11, Janta Colony and from the first floor room, one blood-stained shirt (Ex.PX13) kept in an iron box was recovered and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW19/G).At this stage, we would like to record and observe that Israr was not a permanent resident of D-272, Indira Gali No.11, Janta Colony, but resident of village Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. He is not the son of the Shamim (acquitted) but step-brother of Dilshad, Naudhad-1, etc. We shall be subsequently referring to the contention raised on behalf of Israr that he was arrested on 29th March, 2006 from his village and not in the manner as indicated above.On 4th April, 2006, Dilshad was arrested from Karawal Nagar area by PW22 and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/I) was recorded.Dilshad had taken them to his house at B-272, Janta Colony and from his room behind the iron box, a blood-stained shirt (Ex.PX12) of kathai colour was recovered.On checking the shirt, one desi katta (country-made pistol) (Ex.P4) with four live cartridges (Ex.PX5/1 to Ex.PX5/4) were found and seized.A private photographer was called to the spot and photographs of the shirt along with the country-made pistol and cartridges were taken and seizure memo (Ex.PW19/C) was prepared.Ranu was arrested on 7th April, 2006 from Idgah Road, Janta Colony on the basis of information given by a secret informer and after interrogation disclosure statement Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 16 of 34 (Ex.PW9/E) was recorded.However, as nothing was recovered, the said disclosure statement is of no relevance.Naushad-1, Haseen Haider and I (juvenile) were arrested on 26th April, 2006, and disclosure statements of Naushad-1 and Haseen Haider, Ex.PW19/M and Ex.PW19/N, respectively, were recorded.On the basis of disclosure statement by Naushad-1, one blood-stained ustra (razor) (Ex.PX11), wrapped in a polythene bag, was recovered from the roof of the Sulabh Shauchalya, and seized on 26th April, 2006 by memo (Ex.PW19/Q).Sketch of the ustra (Ex.PX11) was prepared and marked (Ex.PW19/P).Pursuant to the disclosure statement by Haseen Haider (Ex.PW19/N), a polythene bag containing desi katta (country-made pistol) (Ex.PX17), four live cartridges (Ex.PX18 and Ex.PX19/1 to 3) and one empty cartridge (Ex.PX19) were recovered from the roof of Sulabh Shauchalya and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW19/T).Sketch of the said pistol, four live cartridges and an empty cartridge was prepared and marked Ex.PW19/S. PW22 also proved the FSL report (Ex.PW22/Y) dated 29th August, 2006, and two other FSL reports, both dated 16th January, 2007 (Ex.PW22/Y1 and Y2).As per the FSL reports, human blood was detected on the full- sleeve T-shirt, lock-and-key, chunni, full-sleeve shirt and the razor with a plastic handle.The blood-soaked gauze of the deceased Anisha and the deceased Pappu was of group B. Blood of group B was found on the full-sleeve T-shirt (Ex.9) and blood group could not be ascertained on the other articles due to disintegration of blood specific substances.The ballistic report confirms that the two fire-arms recovered pursuant to disclosure statements, Ex.PW19/I of Dilshad and Ex.PW19/N of Haseen Haider, were in working order and fire-arms could fire 8 mm calibre cartridges.She has not given and assigned any specific role to Israr.In her cross-examination, she has oscillated and accepted that she did not recognize Israr and she did not know any person by this name before or at the time of incident.Public had gathered and had protested.Photographers were present and had taken photographs one of which is marked Ex.DW20/DA.In this photograph, DW2 and another person Hazi Shamshad and Insp.Ran Singh could be seen.In his cross-examination, DW2 deposed that he was ex-pradhan of the village and had good relations with Israr and his family.Believing that his family members might have gone to meet Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4) at Idgah Road, Mohd. Imran (PW3) proceeded to their house and had enquired about his mother and others.PW3 was informed that they had not come there.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 34 of 34Dilshad, Naushad s/o Kamaluddin (hereinafter referred to as Naushad-1) Naushad s/o Mohd. Rafiq (hereinafter referred to as Naushad-2), and Hasin Hussan (also referred to as Hasin Haider) assail the judgment dated 26th July, 2013, convicting them under Sections 302/307/449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).The State has preferred a cross appeal against the impugned judgment dated 26th July, 2013 acquitting Ranu Kumar @ Prashant Kumar, Shamim and Israr.The four appellants, i.e. Dilshad, Naushad-1, Naushad-2 and Hasin Hussan, vide order dated 29th July, 2013 have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 IPC; imprisonment for life under Section 307 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.30,000/- each for the offence under Section 449 IPC.The sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 2 of 34 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) shall apply.Arun Kumar Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 3 of 34 pursuant to which FIR No.136/2006 (Ex.PW5/A) was registered at 2.00 AM on 28th March, 2006 by HC Bijender Singh (PW5).A.1110/2013 + connected Page 3 of 34Dr. Banarsi (PW11), Chief Medical Officer, GTB Hospital, had appeared and proved the MLCs of Heena (Ex.PW11/A),the deceased Anisha (Ex.PW11/B) and Pappu (Ex.PW11/C).Heena was referred to Sr.Resident ENT and Surgery as she had multiple incised wounds in front of neck which were horizontally placed with tracheal cut.PW11 has deposed that Heena (PW2) was discharged on 10th April, 2006 as per the discharge report (Ex.PW24/A).Dr. K.K. Banerjee (PW12) had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Pappu on 28th March, 2006 and vide report Ex.PW12/A, opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to the brain and skull caused by a missile from a fire-arm fired from a contact range.The injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW16) had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Anisha and has deposed that she died as a result of shock due to ante-mortem injuries to the head produced by a projectile from a fire-arm fired from a contact range.The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Post-mortem report of Anisha is marked Ex.PW16/A.In addition to the aforesaid medical evidence, we have testimonies of Insp.Ved Bhushan (PW22), Heena (PW2), Mohd. Imran (PW3) and Shabnam (PW4) on the question of injuries suffered by Heena (PW2) and fire-arm injuries suffered by Pappu and Anisha.We will elaborate on their testimonies at a later stage.However, we have no doubt in view of the aforesaid evidence that the deceased Pappu and Anisha had met homicidal deaths due to fire-arm injuries Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 4 of 34 and Heena (PW2) had suffered injuries by way of multiple incised wounds on her neck.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 4 of 34The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present appeals relates to the question whether the four appellants herein are perpetrators who had committed the said offences and the second question which arises for consideration is whether the trial court was right in acquitting Ranu Kumar, Shamim and Israr.We begin with the undisputed facts or facts proved beyond pale of any doubt; (a) The place of occurrence, i.e. house no. C-389, Gali No.11, Indira Gali, Janta colony, Welcome, Delhi was the place of residence where Heena (PW2), the deceased Pappu and Anisha used to reside; (b) Shabnam (PW4) is daughter of Shamim (acquitted) and sister of Dilshad, Naushad-1 and I (name withheld.I being a minor was tried as a juvenile).Israr (acquitted) is step-son of Shamim; (c) There is also ample evidence to show and establish the cause or the motive behind the said offences, which was the love marriage between Shabnam (PW4) and Ishrat Ali (PW1), which was fumed and objected to by Shamim (acquitted) and her family.The said fact is deposed and established from the testimonies of Ishrat Ali (PW1), Shabnam (PW4), Mohd. Imran (PW3) and Heena (PW2); (d) Aforesaid witnesses have also proved beyond doubt that Shamim (acquitted) and her family used to reside in front of house No. C-389, Gali No.11, Janta Colony, Welcome, the place of incident.In his examination-in- chief, he identified the appellants and also Shamim, Israr and Ranu Kumar who have been acquitted.Ranu Kumar, he deposed, was a friend of the appellant Dilshad.On 27th March, 2006, at about 10.30 PM, while returning home after visiting Ishrat Ali (PW1), PW3 had Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 5 of 34 seen "all the accused persons" coming out of his house with blood- stained clothes.Heena slowly began to speak 2/4 days after her operation and had remained in the hospital for about a month.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 5 of 34Mohd. Imran (PW3) was subjected to extensive cross- examination and confronted with his statement (Ex.PW3/A), on the following facts:A.1110/2013 + connected Page 6 of 34(a) The clothes of Shamim were blood-stained (this aspect is examined below in paragraph 42);(b) The perpetrators had entered the house of Shamim;(c) Thereafter, they came out of the house of Shamim and entered the gali and ran away.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 7 of 34Ranu Kumar has not been named in Ex.PW3/A, as one of the persons seen by Mohd. Imran (PW3), either standing with Shamim or coming out with Naushad-1, Naushad-2, Dilshad, Israr, Hasin Haider and I (juvenile).Heena (PW2) was about 12 years of age on the date of occurrence.Her testimony is crucial and pivotal, for she had suffered incised wounds on her neck and as per the prosecution had seen the perpetrators using the firearms to kill Anisha and Pappu.Relevant portion of PW2s testimony reads as under:-"On 27.3.06 at about 10.30 p.m I was standing at Chajja of my house.Accused Shamim and Naushad her neighbour were standing out side our house.When I went in side our house all the accused persons present in the court alongwithIrshad (facing trial in juvenile court) entered in our house at first floor.They bolted the door from in side.Accused Dilshad then asked my mother about my brother Ishrat @ Guddo.My mother replied that she did not know about Ishrat.Accused Dilshad then asked co accused persons "IN KE HATH PAUV BANDHO AUR KHATAM KAR DO".Then Irshad (Juvenile) tied hand and leg of my mother Anisha.Then accused Dilshad fired a shot on the head of my mother with gun.Then accused Naushadneighbour tied hand and legs of my brother Pappu.Then accused Hasin Haider fired a shot on his temple with a gun.At this stage witness started weeping.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 8 of 34When my brother Pappu was crying in pain (TarapRahaTha), the accused Ganja @ Ranu gagged the mouth of my brother with his hand as a result of which my brother Pappu died.He has given his name as Raju @ Hasim son of Shafiq r/o village Alahapur District Bidayu UP) objected to by counsel for accused persons Sh.R.K. Kochhar and Sh.A.K. Singal.Then accused Naushad brother of Shabnam inflicted injuries on my neck with a raizer (Ustre se gala kat diya).Then accused Shamim came up stair and told to her co accused (Iss Ko Bhi Thanda Kar Do).Then accused Naushad brother of Shabnam again inflicted raizer injury on my neck.Police reached there and police released our hands and legs.PCR van came there and removed me to hospital where I was medically examined."We have reproduced relevant portion of the examination-in- chief of Heena (PW2) for the reason that she has attributed specific roles to the appellant Dilshad, Naushad-2, Hasin Haider and Naushad-She did identify Ganja @ Ranu as the person who gagged the mouth of her brother Pappu with his hands, and had pointed towards a person standing in the court but had not been charge-sheeted.On court questioning, the said person had given his name as Raju @ Hasim, s/o Shafiq.In her cross-examination, Heena (PW2) accepted as correct that Imran (PW3) and Shabnam (PW4) Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 9 of 34 were present with her in the PCR Van when she was taken to the hospital and she had gesticulated with hands to reveal the identity of the assailants.She had, at one stage, claimed that Israr was having an ustra (razor), but subsequently on the same day, i.e. 22nd August, 2007 when cross- examined by the counsel for Ranu and others, asserted that she did not tell the police in her statement that Ishrar (sic, Israr) was having an ustra (razor).Thus, on the aspect whether Israr was present or had an ustra (razor) in his hand, there is ambiguity and contradiction.In her cross-examination, PW2 also accepted that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW2/DA), she had not mentioned/stated to the police that two days before occurrence, she had seen Ranu (acquitted) and the appellants Dilshad and Hasin Haider in the street.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 9 of 34Irshat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4) had reached the spot only after they were informed by Mohd. Imran (PW3).Therefore, they are not eye-witnesses to the offence.While we accept that PW3 and PW4, had within 10-20 minutes reached the place of occurrence, we have grave doubt on whether they were eye-witnesses who had seen any of the appellants or Shamim, Israr or Ranu Kumar after the occurrence.PW1 has testified that Imran (PW3) had called on his mobile phone to inform that his mother Anisha, brother Pappu and Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 10 of 34 sister Heena had been murdered and, thereafter, he had reached the spot.PW1, however, claimed that on the way near a toilet, he had seen the appellants Dilshad, Naushad-1 and Naushad-2, Israr, I (juvenile) and Shamim, talking to Ranu and Hasin Haider, whom he did not identify.He had overheard them talking that they had murdered Anisha, Heena (PW2) and Pappu and they would kill Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Shabnam (PW4) too.He got perplexed, nervous and sat there.Subsequently, he reached C-389, Indira Gali No.11, Janta Colony, Welcome.This portion of testimony of PW1 deserves rejection and complete elimination.PW1 was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/DA) where it is not recorded that he came to know the names of Hasin Haider and Ranu Kumar when he overheard the conversation between them and others.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 10 of 34A.1110/2013 + connected Page 11 of 34Ishrat Alis (PW1) assertion that the appellants and Israr, Shamim and Ranu Kumar (all acquitted) had stopped near the toilet and recapitulated what had happened, is thus unnatural and unfathomable.The said version is imaginary and it does not appeal to reason, for the perpetrator after committing an offence would not wait and narrate the occurrence, rather would normally flee or run away from the spot after they had seen Mohd. Imran (PW3) at the spot.We, thus, disbelieve and do not accept the prosecution version that PW1 had overheard the conversation near the toilet.We, however, notice that Ishrat Ali (PW1) in his cross-examination on 28th May, 2008 had stated that it was correct that he had not seen Shamim (acquitted) standing near the toilet.Further, he did not know the house number, or whether Naushad-2 had sold their earlier house.He volunteered that Naushad-2 was living at his in-laws house which was 2-3 houses away from his house.Israr (acquitted) used to live in village Bhopa, Distt.Shabnam (PW4) is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence.Her testimony is about the injuries suffered by the victims and to this extent, she has corroborated the testimony of Heena (PW2), the injured eye-witness and also Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Mohd Imran (PW3).Shabnam (PW4) asserts that on 27th March, 2006, Imran (PW3) had informed her husband about the murders on telephone.They then left, but she had reached the place of occurrence before Ishrat Ali (PW1) as she had taken a short-cut.Several persons had collected in the gali.She went to the first floor, which was dark and from the balcony she saw Shamim (acquitted).Shamim (acquitted) had then stated that because of PW4, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law had been killed and her (PW4s) brothers and friends were now looking for PW4 and her husband (PW1).She Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 12 of 34 (Shamim) would see how PW4 would live with her husband (PW1).PW4 has accepted that the police had reached the spot.This part of the aforesaid testimony of PW4, reflects an attempt by PW4 to invigorate and proliferate her version as an eye-witness to implicate and attribute specific statements to her mother.PW4 had suffered and seen tragic and piteous loss of her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and near fatal injuries on her sister-in-law caused by her mother, brothers, others, all because she had married Ishrat Ali (PW1).This explains her exhortation and, therefore, we would not rely upon her version as to the statements made by Shamim (acquitted).PW4 has accepted that the police had reached the spot and several persons had gathered in the gali.Two Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 17 of 34 deformed bullets were examined and were found not to be having rifling marks and, therefore, it could not be ascertained whether deformed bullets were fired from the country-made pistols.Firing pin impression on the empty cartridge case, found at the place of occurrence, was compared with characteristic firing pin impression present on test fired cartridge cases of the two country made pistols.Based upon microscopic examination, the FSL report opines that the empty cartridge case was fired from country-made pistol (Exhibit 16), i.e. the pistol recovered at the behest and on the disclosure statement of Dilshad.However, for the purpose of record, we also note that blood was found on the two pellets and the blank cartridge case as per the FSL report.On 4th April, 2006, photographs were taken showing location of a box at the house of Dilshad (Ex.PW22/23), recovery of the shirt at the instance of the appellant Dilshad (Ex.PW22/22), and recovery of the blood-stained shirt, country-made pistol and four cartridges from the house of Dilshad (Ex.PW22/24).Another photograph (Ex.PW22/25) shows location of the box in the house of Dilshad behind which, the shirt containing the country-made pistol and the cartridges was kept.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 16 of 34A.1110/2013 + connected Page 17 of 34Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that PW22 has accepted that he had met Mohd. Imran (PW3) for the first time in the hospital and, thereafter, he was with them till 2.30 A.M. He did not notice any blood on the clothes of Mohd. Imran (PW3) and his statement was recorded between 1 to 1:30 AM.The aforesaid contention is raised to assert that Mohd. Imrans (PW3) statement (Ex.PW3/A) is false and dubious, as PW3 was not present at the spot when the police had arrived and, therefore, he would not have seen the appellants or Shamim, Israr and Ranu.The said contention has to be rejected for the reason that the injured were taken to the hospital in Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 18 of 34 two separate vehicles.Mohd. Imran (PW3), it is apparent, had gone to the hospital in the PCR van and not in the vehicle in which PW22 was sitting.PW22, in his testimony, has repeatedly asserted that when he had reached the spot he had seen that the injured were bleeding.Heena (PW2) was bleeding profusely and was not in a position to speak.He had, therefore, rushed the injured to the hospital and one of the injured was taken in his own vehicle.They had reached the hospital by 11:45 and, thereafter, PW22 started ascertaining the facts to identify the perpetrators.PW22 has stated that Shamim (acquitted) was arrested at about 7.30 A.M, next morning.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 18 of 34Learned counsel for the appellants, have submitted that Shabnam (PW4) in her cross-examination has accepted that Imran (PW3) was not present when she reached the spot/place of occurrence.Thus, it should be assumed that Imran (PW3) was not present and his deposition is untrustworthy and not reliable.This, to our mind, is a mistake and an inadvertent error.It was Imran (PW3) who had informed Ishrat Ali (PW1) on the telephone and PW3 had called the police.He was the first person to reach the place of occurrence and notice the crime.Shabnam (PW4) in subsequent portion of her examination has accepted that Imran (PW3) was present when the police reached the spot.This portion of her testimony is correct and is the true version.Another contention raised on behalf of the appellants and Shamim, Israr and Ranu Kumar (all acquitted) is that details of mobile phone and call record details of Mohd. Imran (PW3) and Ishrat Ali (PW1) have not been brought on record.This is factually correct but we do not think that it is good and sound reason to Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 19 of 34 disbelieve either Ishrat Ali (PW1) or Mohd. Imran (PW3).Presence of Mohd. Imran (PW3) at the spot is natural as he used to reside in property number C-389, Indira Gali, Janta Colony, Welcome, where the offence had taken place.Both of them had left the place of the occurrence along with the two deceased persons and injured Heena (PW2), and had proceeded to the hospital.He asserted that before making a call to the police at 10.30 PM, he had made a call to his brother Ishrat Ali (PW1) on his mobile phone.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 19 of 34Ishrat Ali (PW1) and his wife Shabnam (PW4),after information that Anisha, Pappu and Heena (PW2) had been brutally attacked, had reached the spot almost simultaneously with the police.This is an indicative and establishes that somebody had informed them.Thus, the version given by Mohd. Imran (PW3) and Ishrat Ali (PW1) that the former had called latter, is duly corroborated and finds affirmation on the basis of incontrovertible facts.Another contention raised is that the rukka (Ex.PW3/A) does not mention or record the presence of Ishrat Ali (PW1).This is correct, but would not constitute good and sufficient reason to disbelieve testimony of Ishrat Ali (PW1) to the effect that he had reached the spot after the occurrence and had proceeded to the hospital along with deceased Anisha and Pappu and injured Heena (PW2).Ishrat Ali (PW1) is not an eye witness and was not present at the time of occurrence.We have already rejected as unacceptable, the deposition of Ishrat Ali (PW1) that he had overheard conversation between some of the assailants near the toilet.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 20 of 34The contention that ASI Vijay Pal Singh (PW15) has not accepted and deposed that Ishrat Ali (PW1) and Mohd. Imran (PW3) were present at the spot, does not affect the core of the prosecution case.At that time, the police team was in the process of shifting Anisha, Pappu and Heena (PW2) to the hospital to try and save their lives.Anisha and Pappu, however, were declared brought dead.Heena (PW2) because of timely response and treatment survived.One of the contentions raised by the appellants and also on behalf of Shamim, Israr and Ranu is that Heena (PW2) was seriously injured as her throat was slit.Heena (PW2) was not in a position to speak, when she was taken to the hospital.She was operated and, thereafter, discharged on 10th April, 2006 as per record (Ex.PW24/A (colly) and Ex.PW11/P1).However, even after discharge she was not in a position to speak because of the injuries, surgeries, etc. which is established beyond doubt vide documents; application dated 12th May, 2006 by Insp.Ran Singh (PW20), Additional SHO, PS Welcome requesting the Metropolitan Magistrate to record statement of Heena (PW2) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and noting dated 15thMay, 2006 to the effect that brother of Heena (PW2) had stated that she was not well and notice dated 21st May, 2006, under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Mohd. Imran (PW3) by Insp.Ran Singh, Additional SHO, PS Welcome, wherein Ishrat Ali (PW1) had noted in his handwriting that his sister Heena (PW2) had suffered a neck injury and as a nail had been fixed on her tongue, she was not in a position to speak.There is merit in the contention of the appellants, Crl.The appellants and Shamim, Israr and Ranu have also drawn our attention to the testimony of Heena (PW2) wherein she had initially accepted that the police had not recorded her statement.Our attention was specifically drawn to the court observations recorded on 22nd August, 2007, whereby the statement of Heena (PW2) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not allowed to be confronted, for she had stated on oath before the court that no such statement was recorded by the police.Subsequently, during the course of Heenas cross-examination on the same day, PW3 had testified that the police had recorded her statement and her earlier version to the contrary was incorrect.Be that as it may, even if we accept and agree that Heena (PW2) had not made any statement to the police on 17th April, 2006, it would be incongruous and illogical to not rely upon her court deposition.She is certainly an injured witness, who had knowledge about the perpetrators, who had committed the said crime.Having suffered a slit-throat and, thereafter, having undergone surgical procedure, she could not speak.Possibly, charge-sheet had to be filed within the period stipulated.However, as recorded, it would be a perversion and distortion to erase and ignore her court testimony.Appropriate in this regard would be reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Debbarma versus State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747 wherein it has been held:-A.1110/2013 + connected Page 21 of 34The mere fact that the appellant was not named in the statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, due to this omission, the evidence of PW 10 and PW 13 tendered in the court is unreliable, cannot be sustained.Statements made to the police during investigation were not substantive piece of evidence and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 22 of 34 corroboration.In our view, if the evidence tendered by the witness in the witness box is creditworthy and reliable, that evidence cannot be rejected merely because a particular statement made by the witness before the court does not find a place in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The police officer recorded statements of witnesses in an incident where 15 persons lost their lives, 23 houses were set ablaze and large number of persons were injured.PW10 lost his real brother and PW 13 lost his daughter as well as his wife and in such a time of grief, they would not be in a normal state of mind to recollect who all were the miscreants and their names.The witnesses may be knowing the persons by face, not their names.Therefore, the mere fact that they had not named the accused persons in Section 161 statement, at that time, that would not be a reason for discarding the oral evidence if their evidence is found to be reliable and creditworthy."A.1110/2013 + connected Page 22 of 34The aforesaid paragraph though not entirely appropriate, does indicate that the Court deposition of a witness should not be disregarded and erased only because her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as propounded by the police may not have been recorded.In Dayal Singh versus State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 452, the Investigating Officer had failed to record statement of two witnesses, who had deposed before the court.It was observed that this failure would hardly have any bearing once the court was satisfied that their testimonies were relevant and they were reliable and credible witnesses.The Court had actually seen what they had deposed.Reference was made to an earlier decision in Tilkeshwar Singh and Others versus State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 1043 wherein the Investigating Officer had recorded joint statements of three witnesses contrary to mandate of Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court even in this case had relied upon the testimony of the three witnesses repelling the contention to the contrary holding that the aforesaid failure or lapse might affect the weight to be attached to the evidence of the said witness, but it would not render it inadmissible.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 23 of 34Now, we would like to examine role of each of the appellants on the basis of the testimony of Heena (PW2) and Mohd. Imran (PW3) after excluding the depositions of Ishrat Ali (PW1) to the effect that he had overheard the conversation near the toilet and deposition of Shabnam (PW4) of her conversation with Shamim (acquitted), when she had reached the spot in question.Mohd. Imran (PW3) has clearly implicated Naushad-1, Naushad-2, Dilshad, Israr, I (juvenile), Haseen Haider and Ranu Kumar in his court testimony.He had also stated that Shamim (acquitted) was standing outside when the aforementioned persons came out of their house with blood- stained clothes.After arrest of Ranu Kumar, an application dated 7th April, 2006 for police remand for one day was made.In this application, Insp.Ved Bhushan (PW22) has recorded that "the name of Ranu @ Prashant was (sic) surfaced during the interrogation of the other accomplice of this case".It, therefore, appears that name of Ranu had come up on interrogation of the persons mentioned above.We acknowledge that the statement made in the application for police remand may not be sufficient to discredit the statement made by Mohd. Imran (PW3), but we find that the said position gets corroboration and support from Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 24 of 34 Ex.PW3/A, i.e. the first statement by Imran (PW3).Case diary dated 27/28th March, 2006, also does not mention the name of Ranu Kumar.It does mention that supplementary statement of Mohd. Imran (PW3) was recorded, but the gist or the contents thereof are not reflected or reproduced in the case diary notings.Case diary No.2 dated 29 th March, 2006, does not have the name of Ranu Kumar and does not indicate his involvement.Case diary No.6 dated 7th April, 2006 records that Ranu @ Prashant had been apprehended and interrogated and had disclosed his involvement in the murder case.During the course of investigation, a raid was conducted at Karawal Nagar Chowk from where Ranu had purchased two country- made pistols and 10 live cartridges on payment of Rs.10,000/-.He pointed out a thiya (patri/ a stall on sidewalk), where one Pappu would usually meet him, but the said person could not be traced.Raids were conducted at Loni, Ghaziabad in search of the remaining accused but no one could be arrested/detained.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 24 of 34We have referred to the case diary for a limited purpose as we wanted to satisfy and be sure whether or not Ranu Kumar had participated in the occurrence.Though it is not so stated in the charge-sheet, what is apparent is that Ranu Kumar was the person who had procured the country-made pistols and 10 cartridges, which were subsequently used by the perpetrators to commit the offence.This apart, we record that Heena (PW2) had not attributed any specific role to Ranu Kumar in her examination-in-chief.In fact, she had identified a third person as Ganja @ Ranu the culprit, who had Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 25 of 34 gagged mouth of her brother Pappu.It is, therefore, clear that Heena (PW2) had not identified Ranu Kumar and had perceived the perpetrator named by her,to be somebody else.Noticeably, no test identification proceedings were held for identification of Ranu Kumar.Mohd. Imran (PW3) has claimed that Ranu was a friend of the appellant Dilshad, but there is no other material and it is difficult to accept PW3s version without PW3 elaborating and stating how did he know or ascertain the said fact.Ishrat Ali (PW1) had also oscillated and stated that he could not identify and did not know Ranu and had claimed that he came to know his name only when he overheard the conversation near the toilet.We have set out several discrepancies in the said version of Ishrat Ali (PW1) regarding the overhearing near toilet and disbelieved this part of his testimony.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 25 of 34In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept that the prosecution has been able to establish and show that Ranu had committed the offences, with which he was charged.He has been rightly acquitted by the trial court and the appeal filed by the State questioning and challenging his acquittal, therefore, must fail.The appeal filed by the State challenging acquittal of Israr should also fail but for different reasons.Name of Israr is mentioned in the first statement made by the informant Mohd. Imran (PW3), which became substratum of rukka marked Ex.PW3/A. To this extent, his case is different from that of Ranu Kumar.There are, however, good and cogent reasons why we doubt involvement of Israr.He was a resident of district Muzaffarnagar.Shabnam (PW4) on 17th August, 2007, in her cross- examination had stated that Israr (spelt as Ishrar) used to visit the Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 26 of 34 house of the mother and meet her, but in same breath deposed that he had visited the house of her parents six months before her marriage and after her marriage, he had not met him.Shabnam (PW4) also accepted the suggestion that in 1998, there were disputes between her mother and Israr regarding a property.She even claimed that she did not know that Israr was arrested by the police and he was not residing in the house of Shamim (acquitted).[See deposition of Heena (PW2) on 18th August, 2007].Subsequently, on 22nd August, 2007, when cross-examined by the counsel for Ranu Kumar, Dilshad, Naushad-1 and Haseen Haider, PW2 had testified that Israr and Naushad-1 were having ustras (razors) but on the same day, during the course of cross-examination by the counsel for Naushad-2 and Israr (spelt as Ishrar), PW2 has stated that she did not tell the police that Israr (spelt as Ishrar) was having a ustra (razor).Thus, there are contradictions galore about the presence of Israr, if we read and examine the statement of Heena (PW2).This substantially dents the prosecution case against Israr.Thus, we do not think that it will be appropriate and proper to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of Israr.There is evidence to show that Israr was arrested at about 5 - 5.30 PM on 28th March, 2006, from Village Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.).Izhar Ahmed (DW2) has deposed that 5 police Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 27 of 34 officials including Insp.Ran Singh from Delhi Police had apprehended Israr in the said village and had brought him to the house of one Iqbal Ahmad Ansari.He also accepted as correct that Israr could not be seen in Ex.DW20/DA.Iqbal Ahmad (DW3) had similarly deposed relying upon two other photographs which were taken on 28th March, 2006 at his house.He has deposed about presence of the police team from Delhi in the village and the arrest of Israr.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 27 of 34PW2 has also mentioned that before the occurrence, she had seen Shamim and Naushad-2 standing outside their house.Mohd. Imran (PW3) in his Court testimony is also categorical and affirmative as to the presence of Shamim.Her name is mentioned in Ex.PW3/A. We have also noted the motive of the crime and the fact that it was Shamim, who was perturbed and had strongly opposed the marriage and expressed her rancour and animosity.As we are reversing the judgment of acquittal of Shamim, we would like to record and take notice of the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment for acquitting her.The said reasoning records:-A.1110/2013 + connected Page 28 of 34(ii) Ishrat Ali (PW1) in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/DA) had not mentioned her name or claimed that she was present near the toilet.However, Ishrat Ali (PW1) in his court deposition had spoken about PW1s presence near the toilet.Referring to the deposition of Shabnam (PW4), the impugned judgment records that Shamim could not have spoken to PW4 after the occurrence if she was also present near the toilet, for one person cannot be present at two places at one point of time.(iii) Heena (PW2) has claimed that Shamim had fallen on her and her clothes/chunni had blood stains but neither Ishrat Ali (PW1) nor Shabnam (PW4) has averred or stated that Shamim was wearing blood-stained clothes.Learned counsel appearing for Shamim has drawn our attention to Ex.PW3/A and the statement of Heena (PW2).He submits that there are inherent contradictions, for the version given by Mohd. Imran (PW3) in Ex.PW3/A is irreconcilable with the version given by Heena (PW2) that Shamim was present with others when the offence was actually committed.PW3/A, on the basis of statement of Mohd. Imran (PW3), records that at about 10.30 PM on 27 th March, 2006, PW3 had returned home and found that the house was locked.He returned Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 29 of 34 at 10.45 PM and had then seen Shamim standing in front of his house and Naushad-1, Dilshad, Israr, I (juvenile), Hasin Haider and Naushad-2 were coming out of his house.Their clothes were blood- stained and he suspected foul play.As noticed above, on the basis of disclosure statement of Shamim (Ex.PW8/B), blood-stained lock and key and chunni were recovered.The said recoveries were made on 28 th March, 2006, i.e. immediately on the next day.The trial court has, therefore, incorrectly assumed that the clothes of Shamim were not blood- stained.Even in Ex.PW3/A, the exact words used by Mohd. Imran (PW3) are that "their clothes were blood-stained".In Ex.PW3/A, PW3 had stated that Shamim was standing in front of their house and Naushad-1, Dilshad, Israr, I (juvenile), Hasin Haider and Naushad-2, were seen coming out of his house.The words, their clothes could refer to others and not Shamim.It is noticeable that Heena (PW2) had professed that Shamim had tripped and fallen on her.Heena (PW2) had suffered extensive wounds on her neck,i.e. upper part of her body.It is possible that Shamims clothes other than the chunni might not have suffered blood-stains.Hence, recovery of the blood- stained chunni assumes significance as corroborative and supporting evidence.It would be speculative and presumptuous to disbelieve Heenas (PW2) ocular statement for the reasons given in the impugned judgment.Shamim as per the testimony of PW3 was the only woman present.We also do not think that there is any inherent or irreconcilable contrariety between the version given by Mohd. Imran (PW3) in Ex. PW3/A and the court deposition of Heena (PW2).Heena (PW2) has specifically referred to presence of the appellants and has pointed Shamim as one of the perpetrators.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 30 of 34 the offence in question had taken place sometimes before 10.45 PM for Heena (PW2) was profusely bleeding but was conscious when she was rescued.She had not suffered fire-arm wounds, whereas Anisha and Pappu had suffered projectile wounds and had died.Shamim, as per PW2, had come upstairs, after others had come and injuries had been inflicted.At her instance, Naushad-1 had inflicted another razor wound on Heenas (PW2) neck.Thus, the narration by PW2 does not contradict but supports PW3s statement that their house was locked from outside and when PW3 had returned, he had seen Shamim standing outside.We do not see any good and cogent ground to disbelieve the testimony of Heena (PW2).Shamim would be equally liable under Section 34 IPC as she had stood guard outside the house and had locked the same, while the offence was being committed upstairs.It is in this context that the statement of Heena (PW2), that prior to the occurrence she had seen Shamim and Naushad-2 talking to each other outside their house, becomes relevant and material.The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not put any fetters, restriction or condition on exercise of the said power by the appellate court.For in any appeal, the Court can reach its own conclusion both on facts and of law.On the question of involvement of Dilshad, the ballistic report affirms his involvement.The said report opines that the pistol recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement marked Ex.PW19/M, was a pistol from which the empty cartridge found at the spot was fired/misfired.The said report confirms that the pistol in question was used in the offence in question.On the ustra or the razor recovered at the behest of Naushad-1, human blood was found though blood group could not be ascertained.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 32 of 34On the question of sentences awarded by the impugned order on sentence dated 29th July, 2013 to Dilshad, Hasin Hussan, Naushad- 1 and Naushad-2 as detailed in paragraph 3 above, we do not seen any reason to interfere or modify and the same are upheld, except that their cases for remission can be considered after they have undergone 25 years of incarceration.We clarify that the State would retain 30% of the fine recovered as costs, while 70% would be paid to the injured Heena (PW2) and legal heirs of the deceased Anisha and Pappu.The sentences awarded to the appellants will run concurrently and Section 428 Cr.P.C. would apply.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss Crl.A. No.1110/2013 filed by Dilshad; Crl.A. No.1389/2013 filed by Hasin Hussan; Crl.A. No.1184/2013 filed by Naushad-2, i.e. s/o Mohd. Rafiq and Crl.A. No.1390/2013 filed by Naushad-1, i.e. s/o Kamaluddin, except for the modification made in the order of sentence.We dismiss the Criminal Appeal No.354/2015 filed by the Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 33 of 34 State against acquittal of Ranu Kumar and Israr.However, we allow the Criminal Appeal No.354/2015 filed by the State against acquittal of Shamim.She is held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed murder of Anisha and Pappu and for the offence of attempt to murder of Heena (PW2) under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 33 of 34On the question of sentence to be awarded to Shamim, we direct that the appeal filed by the State will be listed on 12th August, 2015 at 4 PM.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE August 10th, 2015 Kkb/VKR Crl.A.1110/2013 + connected Page 34 of 34

['Section 34 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.

And In the matter of : Pradip Majumder & Anr.Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha ...For the petitioners Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya ... For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Habra P.S Case No. 242 of 2010 dated 27.6.2010 under Sections 363/365/360A of the Indian Penal Code.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellant is adisplaced person from West Pakistan.In 1954, theDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,(No. 44 of 1954) was enacted.Sardar Bahadur, for the appellant.July 24.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byWANCHOO, J.--This is an appeal by special leave against thejudgment of the, Rajasthan High Court.Thereupon theappellant made an application for compensation (Ex. P- 2)to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Alwar in Marc 1955, asrequired under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.Insupport of that application, he submitted an attested copyof his verified claim (Ex. P-3).It appears that theAssistant Settlement378Officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allotableagricultural land to the appellant on quasipermanent basis,and asked the, Tehsildar Nagar to make a proposal in thatconnection in consultation with the appellant.In themeantime, secret information was received that displacedpersons in that area had obtained allotment of land on falseand forged verified claims.The matter was then inquiredinto and it was found that the claim for compensation madeby the appellant was based on a fabricated verified claim.The case was tried by theAssistant Sessions Judge to whom it was transferred.Theappellant's defence there was that the application (Ex. P-2) had not been submitted by him and that he had nothing todo with the said application or the enclosures accompanyingit.He also contended that as the Assistant SettlementOfficer, was acting as a court and as the offence under s.471 was alleged to have been committed in respect of adocument produced or given in evidence in proceedings beforethe Assistant Settlement Officer, his prosecution wasincompetent in the absence of a complaint by the AssistantSettlement Officer.The Assistant Sessions Judge rejectedthe contention of the appellant that any complaint by theAssistant Settlement Officer was necessary before cognizancecould be taken of the offence under s. 471 of the IndianPenal Code.He further held on the evidence led by theprosecution that the application379(Ex. P-2) and the copy of the verified claim (Ex. P-3) andother papers accompanying the application were got preparedby the appellant and got attested and verified by him.He, therefore, convicted the appellantunder s. 471 as well asunder s. 420 read with S. 511 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment as wellas fine.There was then an appeal by the appellant to theSessions Judge, Alwar.This appeal was dismissed with themodification that the sentence of fine was set aside.Thesubstantive sentence of imprisonment, which was two yearsrigorous imprisonment under s. 471 and one year's rigorousimprisonment under s. 420 read with s. 511 of the IndianPenal Code, has been made to run concurrently by both thecourts.The appellant then went in revision to the High Court andthe main point urged there was that the prosecution wasincompetent in view of s. 195 (1) (c) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in the absence of a complaint by theAssistant Settlement Officer, Alwar.The High Courtrejected this contention.In theresult, the High Court confirmed the judgment of theSessions380Judge.There was then an application for a certificate toappeal to this Court, which was rejected.The appellantthen came to this Court for special leave, which wasgranted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the pointswhich were urged in the High Court, before us.This brings us to the next question, namely, whether ailoffence under s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code can be said tohave been committed in the circumstances of the presentcase.This copy was then presented toMahesh Gaur, an Oaths Commissioner, who compared it with theoriginal and then attested it.This attested copy was thensent as an enclosure along with the application forcompensation (Ex. P-2) to the Assistant Settlement Officer."Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document."There can be no doubt that the appellant used the originalof Ex. P-3 which was a forged document when he got the copyof it attested by the Oaths Commissioner.Further when hesent this copy along with his application (Ex. P-2) to theAssistant Settlement Officer, his intention was that theoriginal which was a forged document should be used asgenuine through the production of a copy before theAssistant Settlement Officer.P-2) before the Assistant Settlement Officer.Theappellant's case, as we have already set out, was that henever got Ex. P-2 prepared; nor did he get Ex. P-3prepared and attested.The original of Ex. P-3 was a verified claimin favour of the appellant himself and nobody could knowbetter than the appellant, whether he had in fact got hisclaim verified or not.The evidence from the Ministry ofRehabilitation is that no claim of the appellant was eververified.In the circumstances, the inference must be thatthe appellant know that the original of Ex. P-3 was aforged document and used it as genuine.That the use wasdishonest is also clear on the facts of this case, for theappellant intended thereby to get an allotment to which hewas not entitled and thus make a wrongful gain for himself.We are also satisfied that the case had gone much beyond thestage of preparation for the copy of the forged document wasactually used by the appellant when he sent or presented itto the Assistant Settlement Officer.There isno force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Theappellant is on bail and steps will now be taken to carryout the sentence passed on him.Appeal dismissed.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Lokayukt, Ujjain.This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the applicants at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court towards order dated 20/11/2018 passed in M. Cr."Parties through their counsel.This application u/S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2014, registered at Police Station Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Ujjain for commission of offence punishable u/S. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 420, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.It is not a case where the applicants were avoiding their arrest.They are attending the Office everyday and recently they have been implicated in the crime.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.However, he has not disputed the order passed by this Court on 20/11/2018, by which anticipatory bail was granted to identically placed persons.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2019.03.01 16:23:27 +05'30'

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Jeevan Singh Gurjar, learned counsel for the complainant.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.As per prosecution case, on 25.6.2018, the complainant Bhurelal lodged a complaint alleging that at 12 p.m. when he was at home accused Mehmood came there armed with darata or bukka and co-accused Mubarak, Sadiq, Yunus, Maksood and Shahrukh were armed with lathis.It is also alleged that the present applicant verbally abused the complainant demanding money and when the he refused the same, the present applicant hit him on his head with the bukka.On the basis of the said allegation, FIR was registered and thereafter an investigation was set in motion and the applicant was arrested.C.No.29736/2018,34683/2018and 38279/2018 respectively.The investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of the trial will take a long time.In these circumstances, on the grounds of parity, he prays for grant of bail.It is further directed that, if the applicant is threatened to the witnesses then the bail granted today shall be liable to be cancelled.Certified copy as per rules.(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE oni Digitally signed by Moni Raju DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Moni Raju ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6fb601f03d4083a3289219d85392bac3b de1be8a53bd80aeba7af5a5244844c1, cn=Moni Raju Date: 2018.11.19 17:43:03 +05'30'

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 235/2017 U/s 327, 323, 294, 506, 427, 329, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Banganga, District- Indore.It is argued on behalf of the applicant that earlier the case was registered under Sections 323, 294, 327 & 427 of IPC and he was released on bail vide order dated 04/03/2017 by Judicial Magistrate First Class.Later a fracture was found in X-ray report, therefore, Section 329 was added to the prosecution case and the applicant was again arrested.Co-accused Moni @ Akash has been released by the learned Sessions Court.Therefore, he may be released on bail.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.The objection of the prosecution is that the applicant has criminal history and earlier 6 other criminal cases bearing Crime Nos.435/13 under Section 394 of IPC, Crime No. 516/13 under Section 394 of IPC & S. 25 of Arms Act, Crime No.487/13 under Section 302 of IPC, Crime No.560/13 MCRC 8067/2018 (Aatish @ Kalu vs. State of MP) 2 under Section 302 of IPC and two other Crime Nos.408/13 & 492/13 pertaining to Marpit have been registered against the present applicant, therefore, he should not be granted bail.According to the prosecution case, co-accused Golu @ Anda @ Pawan Verma armed with sword reached to the house of the complainant and asked to give him Rs.2000/- as Rangdari tax in every month.On his refusal, he threw a brick which hit his wrist and caused a fracture.The allegation against the present applicant is that he with two other co-accused persons was with the main accused Golu and he hurled abuses at the time of the incident.Considering the allegations made against the present applicant, his criminal antecedents and looking to the facts of the case, I do not find it proper to release the applicant on bail.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

M.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant in Crl.The deceased in this case was one Mr.Saravanan.P.Ws.1 and 3 are the mother and sister respectively of the deceased.P.W.2 is his friend.They were residing at Bajanai Koil Street at Gobi Pudhupalayam.Both the accused also belong to Gobichettipalayam.On 10.02.2011 at about 11.15 p.m., at Gobichettipalayam near Indira Cinema Theatre, the deceased was standing and smoking cigarette.P.W.2 was by his side and he was talking to him.At that time, these two accused came there.The accused were enraged over the fact that the deceased was smoking cigarette in front of them.The first accused questioned him as to how dare he was to smoke cigarette in his presence, though he himself happened to be a big rowdy in that area.The second accused also shouted in a similar fashion.They used abusive language.Then both the accused started attacking the deceased with hands.The deceased fell down.The second accused kicked the deceased with legs and the first accused took a big stone lying there and dropped the same on the stomach of the deceased.P.W.2 raised alarm and at once, both the accused took to the heels.P.W.2 out of fear, vanished away from the scene of occurrence without intimating anybody about the occurrence.P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased heard that the deceased sustained injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam.Immediately, she rushed to the hospital and found that the deceased was lying with injuries.Thereafter, on 13.02.2011, she took the deceased to a private hospital known as S.K.Hospital, Ram Nagar, Gobichettipalayam.At the time of admission, the Doctors were told that the deceased had fallen down from the first floor of the house accidentally and sustained injuries.The Doctors found that there were abdominal internal injuries.Therefore, surgery was conducted on his abdomen.His condition became worse.Therefore, on 14.02.2011, they discharged the deceased and forwarded him to yet another private hospital known as Dr.On receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.11, the Head Constable attached to the Gobichettipalayam Police Station went to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam.P1 is the complaint.P17 is the First Information Report.On 14.02.2011, at 7.30 a.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.He examined P.Ws.1 and 4 and recorded their statements.He recorded the statement of the deceased also under Ex.On 18.02.2011, at 5.00 a.m., he received intimation from the hospital that the deceased had died.2.Small surgical wound right ilium joint, small sutured ilium joint, sutured surgical wound at femoral region, Surgical wound in right femoral region.P10 is the postmortem certificate.P12 is his final opinion.He opined that the deceased would have died due to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.On 20.02.2011 at about 11.15 a.m., he arrested the second accused in the presence of witnesses.On such arrest, he made voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the stone.In pursuance of the same, he took the Police to the place of hide out and produced the stone (M.O.1).Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 08.07.2013 made in S.C.No.191 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Erode, by allowing these appeals.For Appellant in Crl.A.No.187 of 2014 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.35 of 2014 is the second accused in S.C.No.191 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.They stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC.By judgment dated 08.07.2013, the Trial Court convicted them under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with the above appeals.K.M.Nallaswamy Hospital, Erode for further treatment.Despite treatment, he died on 18.02.2011 on the way to Government Hospital, Erode.Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC and submitted an alteration report under Ex.P16 to the Court and handed over the case to P.W.12 for investigation.P.W.12 went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.P.W.9 - Dr.Om Prakash, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 18.12.2011 at 1.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:"External injuries:1.Vertical midline sutured wound present (17 sutures)Then P.W.12 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and also handed over the material object to the Court.On his request, the material object was sent for chemical examination.On 26.05.2011, he arrested the first accused.Then P.W.12 forwarded him for judicial remand.He examined the Doctor and collected medical records and on completing the investigation, he finally laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined; 19 documents were exhibited and 1 Material Object viz., Stone (M.O.1) was marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.2 alone is the eye witness to the occurrence.He has stated that when he was talking to the deceased, these accused came there.At that time, the accused abused the deceased, pushed him down and at last, the first accused dropped a huge stone on the abdomen of the deceased.P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased has stated that she heard about the fact that her son was lying with injuries and went to the Government hospital.Thereafter, she immediately took him to the private hospital and after surgery, he was taken to another private hospital and finally to the Government Hospital at Gobichettipalayam, where he breathed lastly.She has also stated that she has made complaint to the Police, upon which, the present case has been registered.P.W.3 - the sister of the deceased has deposed on the basis of hearsay evidence.P.W.4 has spoken about preparation of Observation Mahazar and Rough sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the same facts.P.W.6 - Dr.Rameshbabu has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Government Hospital, Gobichettipalaym.P.W.7 - Dr.N.Kumaresan has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at S.K.Hospital, Gobichettipalayam.P.W.8 - Dr.N.S.V.Kumar has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Dr.Nallaswamy Hospital.P.W.9- Dr.Omprakash, has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done by him until the deceased died.P.Ws.12 and 13 has spoken about the investigation done and final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did they mark any documents on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.P.W.2 has stated that when he was talking to the deceased, the accused came there, shouted at the deceased, attacked him with hands and pushed him down and the first accused dropped a huge stone on the abdomen of the deceased.P.W.2 is after all a close friend of the deceased.Even after witnessing the said occurrence, it is stated that he did not give any intimation either to P.W.1 or to anybody else.He has stated that he went to his house without intimating anybody about the occurrence out of fear.P.W.1 on hearing that the deceased had sustained injuries rushed to the hospital and even when the deceased was in the hospital, P.W.2 did not say anything about the occurrence.The so called explanation offered by him that out of fear, he did not disclose about the occurrence to anybody including the mother of the deceased is not plausible and the same cannot be accepted.At the time when the deceased was taken to hospital, P.W.1 told the Doctor that the deceased had fallen down from the first floor accidentally and that is how he sustained injuries.There is no explanation by P.W.1 as well as the prosecution as to why she made such a statement at the earliest point of time that the deceased had fallen down from the first floor of the house and sustained injuries.This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.Further, the FIR in this case was registered only on 13.02.2011, i.e., after three days.There is no other evidence against the accused.In view of these reasons, we hold that it is not safe to act upon the evidence of P.W.2 and to sustain the conviction.We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence u/s.302 IPC by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode are hereby set aside.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith and Heard by consent.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:51 :::The petitioner seeks to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court questioning validity of the order dated 31-08-2012 in appeal no EXT-2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra who dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner against the externment order dated 05-06-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone -2 Mumbai, whereby externing the Petitioner from the Districts of Brihan Mumbai (Greater Mumbai) Mumbai Police Commissioner Zone, Navi Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for period of one year with effect from the date the petitioner is externed.Petitioner was called It is case of the Petitioner that on 15-03-2012 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Gaondevi and was handed over an order dated 15-03-2012 and was directed to furnish surety.The Petitioner had furnished surety of Shri Anant Advilekar on the same day.The Petitioner was allowed to go.On 03-04-2012 the Petitioner had made written representation before the Asst, Commissioner of Police.On 25-04-The Petitioner filed the written representation.The externment order no. 153 /C/43/2012 dated 05-06- 2012 at Gaondevi Police Station was issued by Shri Anil Kumbhare, Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone II , Mumbai to the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, whereby the Petitioner was directed to be externed from the Districts of Greater Mumbai, Navi Mumbai ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 ::: 3/16 cri.wp.4290.2012.doc and Thane, Raigad Districts for the period of one year with effect from the date the externment is put in to operation by externing the Petitioner.The said Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order of externment on the ground that Crime no. 54 of 2012 was reported against the Petitioner at Gaondevi Police station under Section 354, 504, 506, 509 of the IPC in which the Petitioner was granted Bail.The decision making authority did not bother as to whether the Petitioner has misused or abused liberty enjoyed by him pursuant to the grant of bail order in favour of the Petitioner.The order was challenged in appeal before Secretary, Home Department Government of Maharashtra.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sathyanarayanan argued that the impugned order of externment suffered from the vice of excessive restraint as the Petitioner was directed to be externed for one year from the vast areas of Mumbai, Thane Navi Mumbai and Raigad Districts without recording the reasons and findings as to why the Petitioner should be externed from such vast areas.Learned Advocate further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not enter in to merits of the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gaondevi and erroneous order was passed violating the principles of natural justice.The Petitioner had no opportunity to meet the allegations made by the alleged witnesses.Criminal cases against the Petitioner were listed in tabular ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 ::: 4/16 cri.wp.4290.2012.doc form as under:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::1(A) Sr.Police Station Details of Crime.1 Gaondevi 147/2002 I.P.C. 325, r/w. 85(1)(2), Liquor Prohibition2 Gaondevi 204/2006 I.P.C. 332, r/w. 85(1)(2), Liquor Prohibition Act.3 Gaondevi 297/2006 I.P.C. 332, 353 r/w. 85(1) (2), Liquor Prohibition Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 ::: 6/16 cri.wp.4290.2012.doc externing authorities did not record satisfaction in the impugned orders that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the Petitioner.It is submitted that there was no any specific finding in the impugned order as to whether witnesses were apprehensive of the Petitioner to come forward in any of the cases listed.It is argued that there was no any sufficient ground to believe that the Petitioner will cause alarm, danger or harm to the anybody or to believe that the witnesses are reluctant to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner.He therefore prayed for to quash and set aside the externment proceedings against the Petitioner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::Learned APP Shri K. V. Saste supported the externment action against the Petitioner on the ground that many criminal cases were reported against the Petitioner and the allegations against the Petitioner were serious as mentioned in the impugned order.According to him faster modes of transport and conveyance are available so as to enable the prospective offender to indulge in criminal acts in extensive areas therefore the authority concerned was justified to extern the externee from four Districts.Let us now consider the relevant legal provision under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for initiation of externment proceeding.Removal of persons about to commit offence.Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which State Government may, by notification in the Official Gaulle, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the sub.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane and Anr.(1989 Mh.L.J), Page no.1111, in which it was observed as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::In other words, when the authority proceeded to give notice to the proposed externee on the ground that he is engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, he failed to mention also that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::In the impugned order of externment passed under Section 56(1)(b), there is no satisfaction recorded that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner.In absence of such satisfaction being recorded, the order of externment is vitiated.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::The initiation of externment proceedings requires the issuance of the show cause notice from the same decision-making authority which passed the externment order.Record does not show that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner to meet the accusations leveled against him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::The proceedings must clearly indicate so as to specify the unlawful activities which were committed by the Petitioner and whether real opportunity of hearing was granted to him.To wit:- Whether the Petitioner was communicated with the copy of the material produced or allegations relied against him so as to allow him reasonable time to meet the allegations.No such opportunity appears to have been given in the present case.In the present case the list of cases against the Petitioner indicate that on two occasions he was convicted for contravening Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In one case in the year 2002 he was admonished and released and in another case in the year 2006 he was sentenced 15 days of imprisonment and fine in the sum of Rs 1000/- in the Court of the 40 th Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Girgaon and third case in the year 2007 the same court had convicted him for offence under Section 504, 506(2) and Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code.He was acquitted in the year 2007 in Criminal Case no 311 of 2007 in the same Court.These entire instances were limited to the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court of 40 th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Girgaon, Mumbai and no other area.Means have to justify the end.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::The order dismissing the appeal no. EXT-2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra dated 31.08.2012 and externment order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 ::: 16/16 cri.wp.4290.2012.doc Mumbai are quashed and set aside.Hence, order :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:52 :::

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 Item no. 09 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present :The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi C.R.A. 696 of 2007 with C.R.R. 410 of 2008 Apurba Singha Versus The State of West Bengal :Mr. Anwar Hossain - amicus curiae For the State : Mrs. Faria Hossain Heard on : 20.01.2018 Judgement on : 20.01.2018 Joymalya Bagchi, J.:Conviction of the Appellant was recorded under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he was directed to suffer imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months more.Nobody appears for the appellant.Mr. Anwar Hossion, appearing as Amicus Curiae submitted that the versions of the prosecution witnesses are improbable and do not inspire confidence.He also submitted that there is divergence between the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the medical witnesses.On the other hand, Mrs. Faria Hossion for the State argued that the evidence of the victim P.W.3, is supported by other eyewitnesses, namely, PW 4 and 8 and the medical evidence.P.W. 3, is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case.He stated that on 6.11.2003 at 7 P.M. while he was returning home, the appellant stabbed him on the right shoulder with a Hesua.He was injured and fell down on the ground.His friend Keshab, took the Hesua from the hand of the appellant and the appellant fled away.He was taken to the house of Pitamber Mondal and thereafter to Jiaganj hospital.Then he was shifted to Lalbagh hospital and finally to Berhampur hospital.After thirteen days he was discharged.His wearing apparels were seized by the police.Hesua was also seized by the police.His evidence is corroborated by his friend Keshab Mondal, P.W.4 who had witnessed the incident.P.W. 7, Dipak Mondal, and P.W. 8, Bikash Mondal, deposed that the victim had suffered injuries due to Hesua blow and stated that they came to know that the appellant had assaulted the victim.P.W. 12, the Doctor, who treated the victim and found multiple injuries including fracture over his right shoulder.The 3 injuries according to the Doctor were grievous in nature.The aforesaid evidence clearly establishes that the victim P.W.3 was assaulted by the appellant with a Hesua on his right shoulder.His ocular version is corroborated not only by P.W. 4, an eye-witnesses, but also by P.W. 12, the Doctor who treated him at Berhampur hospital.Hence, I am inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Period of detention suffered by appellant during the investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed under 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.The appellant Mst.The record is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence.The appeal and death reference a being disposed of by this common judgment.The married life of the deceased Krishna and Kishan Lal, according to the prosecution, lacked connubial felicity and was marked by constant bickerings and quarrels, the cause of this discord being the dowry demands of the appellants.It is the prosecution case that the deceased was being subjected even to maltreatment.Deceased Krishna complained to her father Harichand (P.W. 9) and sister Neeru (P.W. 1) about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the appellants.The immediate provocation for the appellants stepping up their ill treatment of the deceased was their demand for a motor cycle and also half share of the sale proceeds of the house belonging to her father.According to the prosecution on 13-11-1988, the deceased was beaten by her husband as a result whereof she had sustained a bleeding injury over her left arm.Thereafter, on the same day at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. the appellant Mst.Chandrawati and the deceased had a quarrel during the course of which the appellant Mst.Chandrawati dragged the deceased inside the bed room, threw kerosene on her and set her on fire.In the meantime at about 9.05 p.m., somebody informed the Fire Station, Shanker Road over phone about the fire at the appellants house, which brought leading Fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) at the spot, and who took the deceased to the Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi.The deceased was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the said hospital at about 9.40 p.m. where she was examined by Dr. S. Kumar, who found her to have Krishna, Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).At about 9.10 p.m. a telephonic message was received at the Police Station, Patel Nager from S. I. Suraj Bhan of Police Control Room about the alleged incident.Sheela (P.W. 2) pertaining to the facts mentioned above can be accepted as true and reliable.Neeru (P.W. 1) testified that on 13-11-1988 at about 6/6.30 p.m., appellant Kishan's younger brother along with another person came to the house of her father (P.W. 9) and told her that Kishan had met with an accident and her father (P.W. 9) had been called to the appellant's house.Thereupon, she along with Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) proceeded to the appellant's house at Ranjit Nagar.When they reached Ranjit Nagar, appellant Kishan's brother and the person accompanying them left them at the bus stand Ranjit Nager and disappeared.According to Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) somehow she managed to reach the appellant's house.On reaching the house, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati informed her that no such accident had taken place and she had summoned her father.Neeru (P.W. 1) deposed that thereafter, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati started making several complaints and levelling allegations against the deceased Krishna upon which she expressed her desire to leave and no this Krishna also expressed her desire to accompany her.Neeru (P.W. 1) further added that she requested the appellant-Chandrawati to allow Krishna to accompany her but she declined her request and thereupon Krishna started weeping.At that time, Krishana's left arm was bleeding.On enquiry, Krishna told her that she was beaten up by her husband with a cricket bat.She then protested to the appellant-Kishan but he denied having beaten Krishna whereas Krishna maintained that she was being given beatings regularly for the previous four days.Thereupon, she again requested the appellant-Mst.Chandrawati to send Krishna to her father's house but she refused and threatened that only her dead body would go from the matrimonial house.She insisted to take the deceased with her and was proceeding towards the room of Krishna she was caught by hair by the appellant-Chandrawati who dragged her back and the brother of the appellant-Kishan, who had gone to call them, slapped her on face.Appellant Kishan's sister and one fat lady pushed her and Sheela (P.W. 5) out of the house.At the same time, Satish, son-in-law of the appellant-Chandrawati started beating Krishna and dragged her inside.When she and Sheela (P.W. 5) went to the back side of the appellant's house, they heard shrieks and alarm raised by Krishna.As they looked up, they noticed fire and smoke billowing out and heard Krishna crying; "Mausi Mujhe Bachao." Thereupon, they raised an alarm which attracted several people and they requested them to save Krishna who had been set on fire, but none of them came to Krishna's rescue.Neeru (P.W. 1) also deposed that she along with Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) rushed to the police station in a three wheeler and reported to the police that Krishna was being burnt alive at her matrimonial home.Police then accompanied them to the appellant's house.Fire brigade had already arrived at the appellant's house and she saw Krishna being brought downstairs by the firemen.She also saw the appellant-Mst.Chandrawati weeping and at that time Mst.Chandrawati told the police that she (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) had set her daughter-in-law on fire.When Krishna was being taken out of the house, she and Sheela (P.W. 5) returned home.On reaching home, she informed her father about the alleged incident.According to Mst.Chandrawati was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; Delhi under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to death together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.She was also convicted under Section 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Appellants Kishan Lal and Harkesh were convicted u/S. 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences.Pursuant to this information, S. I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24) requested the S. D. M. Shri V. K. S. Chauhan (P.W. 13) to record the dying declaration of the deceased.Immediately thereafter, S. D. M. Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) rushed to the hospital but he could not record the dying declaration as the deceased was unfit to make the statement.On 14-11-1988 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries.S. D. M. Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) prepared the inquest report (Ex. P.W. 13/A) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination.On 13-11-1988, the investigating officer S. I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24) seized one half burnt GADDA and pillow, one small cane containing kerosene oil, one match box and two burnt match sticks from the bedroom vide seizure memo (Ex. P.W. 19/A).Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Krishna on 15-11-1988 at about 4.30 p.m. and observed as under :"There are 3rd degree burns all over the body involving 100% body surface (upper part of face and forehead however shows 2nd degree burns).Scalp hair partially burnt, smell of kerosene oil is present in scalp hair.There is evidence of visitation on right side of forehead and eyelids."Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) opined that the deceased's death was caused on account of shock resulting from the burn injuries vide report Ex. P.W. 3/A. After the completion of the investigation, the three appellants were sent for trial.At the trial in the Court of Session, the appellants abjured their guilt and alleged that a false case has been foisted on them.They have not adduced any evidence in support of their defense.In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses.The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution found that the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A/34, IPC were fully brought home to the accused Mst.He also found that a charge under Section 498-A/34, IPC has been proved against the accused Kishanlal and Harkesh.That being the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the appellant Mst.Chandrawati deserved to be awarded the highest sentence laid down u/S. 302, IPC, Consequently, he convicted and sentenced the appellant Mst.Chandrawati to be hanged.In addition to this, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati was convicted under S. 498-A/34, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to suffer imprisonment for six months.The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted and sentenced the appellants Kishan Lal and Harkesh under Section 498-A/34, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The case of prosecution rests mainly on three categories of evidence : (1) Evidence of Smt. Neeru (P.W. 1).Smt. Sheela (P.W. 5) and Harichand (P.W. 9); (2) the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) made by the deceased Smt. Krishna; and (3) evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) and the Investigation Officer, Inder Singh (P.W. 24).Evidence was also produced to show the alleged torture of Krishna for some time proceeding the occurrence over demands for a motor cycle and also half share of sale proceeds of the house belonging to her father.It is beyond the pale of controversy that deceased Krishna, who died of burn injuries on 14-11-1988, was married to the appellant Kishan Lal on 18-4-1987; that the appellant Mst.L.J./62 III the mother and the appellant Harkesh is the father of the appellant Kishan Lal.It is also evident from the evidence of Smt. Neeru (P.W. 1).Smt. Sheela (P.W. 5), Hari Chand (P.W. 9), Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6), Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3), Shri V. K. S. Chauhan (P.W. 13) and S. I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24) that on 14-11-1988 the deceased Krishna died of burn injuries.There could be three alternatives for her being burnt - (a) suicide; (b) accidental fire; and (c) being put on fire.The plea of accidental fire has not been advanced either by the prosecution or by the defense.That apart, the theory of accidental death had to be brushed aside in view of presence of kerosene on the scalp of the deceased.Deceased Krishna suffered burn injuries in a bed room of the appellant's house.Accidental fire as the reason of death has, therefore, rightly not been pressed into service leaving the two other alternatives of suicide and the intentional killing by burning her, for consideration.As stated earlier, there is no eye-witness to testify to the act of setting fire to Krishna which is the prosecution case.It must be remembered that since such crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential house and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not easy to get.The finding of guilt on the charge of murder has to be recorded on the basis of circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced before the Court....."The prosecution has examined Smt. Neeru (P.W. 1) and Smt. Sheela (P.W. 5) to prove that at the relevant time, the appellant Mst.Chandrawati having belaboured Krishna, dragged her inside the room and immediately thereafter they heard shrieks and alarm raised by Krishna and when they looked up they noticed smoke and fire in the house while Krishna was shouting for help.Before we refer to the oral evidence of these witnesses, it is appropriate to deal with the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) made by the deceased.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed strong reliance on the said dying declaration in holding the appellant Mst.Chandrawati guilty of murder.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mst.Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) testified that on 13-11-1988, he was posted as Senior Resident Surgeon in the Surgical Emergency Ward of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.He further testified that on that day at about 9.50 p.m. Dr. S. Kumar had referred Krishna to his ward and he had recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) in the presence of Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) also swears to the same effect.I was locked in a room by my mother-in-law Smt. Chandrawati in the evening and she put kerosene on me and burnt me.My sisters-in-law Geeta, Pushpa and Mamta were present in the house at the time of incident but were out of the room.My husband Kishan was sent to another room by my mother-in-law and he was present in the house but out of the room at time of incident.Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) deposed that the deceased-Krishna was mentally fit and coherent when she had made her statement (Ex. P.W. 6/A) before him and she had not been given any sedative before she was transferred to his ward.Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) also swears to the same effect.At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant Mst.Chandrawati has invited our attention to the evidence of leading fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16), and Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) and the M.L.C. report (Ex. P.W. 2/A and Ex. P.W. 10/A) in support of his submission that the deceased was not in a fit mental and physical condition to make a volitional statement after she had reached the hospital.Larding fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) testified that on 13-11-1988 at about 9.05 p.m., a call was received at the fire station about a fire at the house of the appellants, and pursuant to this call he rushed to the spot; that on reaching there he found the deceased Krishna lying burnt in the house and that he took Krishna to R.M.L. Hospital.He further added that at that time.Krishna was unconscious and she did not make any statement before him.According to the prosecution.Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) was the first person before whom Krishna had made an oral dying declaration.Since this witness has not supported the prosecution version on the said point, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution.During cross-examination, his attention was invited to his case diary statement portion marked A to A in Ex. P.W. 16/A, but he had disowned the said statement.It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid contradiction has not been proved by the statement of the Investigating Officer Index Singh (P.W. 24).S. I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24) has nowhere stated in his evidence a that Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) had made the statement portion marked A to A in Ex. P.W. 16/A before him during investigation.Section 145 of the Evidence Act mandates that if any contradiction in the evidence of any witness, from his previous statement reduced to writing, is intended to be used in the case, the attention of the witness must be called to that particular part of his previous statement." Surprisingly, the prosecution has not examined Dr. S. Kumar to prove the said dying declaration of the deceased-Krishna.However, the M.L.C. (Ex. P. 2/A and Ex. P.W. 10/A) clearly shows that at 9.40 p.m., when Krishna was admitted in the hospital, she was mentally fit to make any volitional statement.This document has lent material corroboration to the testimony of Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) that Krishna was in a fit mental and physical condition to make a dying declaration.Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6), who recorded the dying declaration, was the best person to opine about the fitness of the deceased to make the statement.(See A. M. A. Rehman v. State of Gujarat, ).There is absolutely no basis of doubting the integrity and veracity of Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6), and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of both the doctors to show that they were biased in favour of the prosecution or ill-disposed towards the appellant Mst.Thus the negative testimony of Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) is not strong enough to wipe out the positive evidence of the said doctors about fitness of the deceased to make the statement.Learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) on the ground that the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) shows that after examining the deceased he ordered resuscitation proceedings to be initiated and in the meantime he recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).Relying upon the dictionary meaning of the word resuscitation as "revival after apparent death" contained in the "Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary", learned counsel further submitted that an attempt was made by the attending doctors to revive krishna before recording her dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) and that would wholly improbabilise, if not render altogether, false the said dying declaration.We do not find any merit in the said submission.Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) has nowhere stated that Krishna was clinically dead at the time of recording her dying declaration.The tenor of the aforesaid statement of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) clearly shows that he found that the life was ebbing fast in the patient.In such a situation, he was justified indeed - he was duty bound to record the dying declaration of the deceased.Both the medical men namely, Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) were conscious about her condition and, therefore, they would not have attached any importance to her statement if they had any doubt about her mental capacity.One important thing to notice in connection with the cross-examination of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) is that there is not even a whisper of a suggestion in their cross-examination to show that they were motivated in giving false evidence.It is significant to note that the evidence of fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) shows that none of the accused persons accompanied him when Krishna was being taken to the hospital.They chose to remain in the house.The M.L.C. (Ex. P. 2/A and Ex. P.W. 10/A) shows that Krishna was brought to the hospital by Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) The evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) shows that none of the deceased's relatives was present in the hospital at the time of recording her dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).The evidence of Neeru (P.W. 1), Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) shows that they reached the hospital at about 12.30 a.m. the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) was completed at 9.55 p.m. Even no police officer was present at that time.According to the Investigating Officer S. I. Inder Singh (P.W. 24), he reached the hospital at 10 a.m. In a frantic effort to undo the effect of the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A), a suggestion was put to Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) that he had recorded the dying declaration at the instance of the police.This suggestion has been denied by Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6).There is no substance in the suggestion because Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) are independent witnesses and they have no axe to grind against the appellant Mst.The deceased-Krishna was quite near to her creator at 9.50 p.m. dangerously so indeed, and we may accept that her mind was then free from failings which afflict the generality of human beings, like involving enemies in false charges.Had there being tutoring there would have been no difficulty for Krishna in implicating her husband and father-in-law also.This by itself shows that the deceased had no tendency to implicate innocent persons.The evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) leaves no room for doubt that no relation of the deceased was present at the time of recording of dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) and the deceased had made the statement without any influence or rancour.The occurrence had taken place inside the house.It cannot be said that there was mistaken identity of the assailant or that the deceased had no opportunity to see the assailant.Moreover, the defense has nowhere suggested that the deceased would have no opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.The dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) finds ample corroboration from the case history (Ex. P.W. 6/A) recorded by Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) at 9.50 p.m. He is an attesting witness of the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).The case history (Ex. P.W. 6/C) clearly shows that the statement had been made to Dr. Sandeep Chopra's hearing and had been recorded in his presence.The dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) and the case history (Ex. P.W. 6/C) are contemporaneous documents which go to show that the deceased had made the statement before the medical men.There is a consistency in the statements of the deceased Krishna as recorded in the M.L.C. (Ex. P.W. 2 and Ex. P.W. 10/A) the case history (Ex. P.W. 6/C) and the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).Thus, the corroboration provided by the said documents invested the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) with a stamp of truth, which went a long way towards inculpating the appellant Mst.Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the placement of the deceased's thumb impression at point 'B' in the dying declaration Ex. P.W. 6/A. We have ourselves examined placement of the deceased's thumb impression at point 'B' with the help of magnifying glass and find that the said last lines were added after obtaining the thumb impression on the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).It is significant to note that the aforequoted part of the deceased's statement does not inculpate any person in the alleging incident.The two parts of the dying declaration are severable and the correctness of one part does not depend upon the correctness of the other part.Consequently, the subsequent addition of the last two lines in question in the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) does not vitiate the whole to it.In the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) before us, the statement so far as they went to implicate the appellant Mst.Chandrawati in the affair were quite categoric in character and they definitely indicated that it was the appellant Mst.Chandrawati who had set the deceased-Krishna on fire.Learned counsel for the appellant Mst.It has come in the evidence of Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) that upper part of the deceased's face and forehead showed 2nd degree burns and her scalp hairs were partially burnt.As stated earlier, the evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) clearly shows that at the relevant time, the deceased was mentally fit to make a dying declaration.Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) testified that no internal examination, he found that scalp bones were intact, scalp tissues, neck tissues and brain were normal.Thus the testimony of Dr. L. T. Ramani (P.W. 3) has lent material corroboration to the testimony of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Chopra (P.W. 7) regarding mental fitness of the deceased to make dying declaration.Consequently, we find that the capacity of the deceased-Krishna to remember the facts stated in her dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) had not been impaired at the time she was making the statement.Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant Mst.Chandrawati, with some ingenuity has attempted to break the grain of the story as contained in the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).Chandrawati forcibly sprinkled kerosene oil and set the deceased on fire, the deceased must have raised hue and cry and many people would have heard and that there is no evidence of any one in the locality having heard such cries and absence of any such cries would support the theory of suicide.Admittedly, Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) is the real sister the deceased and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) is a neighbour of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1).Consequently, the evidence of both these witnesses require a careful, independent assessment and evaluation of their credibility.Neeru (P.W. 1), she along with her father (P.W. 9) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) reached the hospital at about 12.30 a.m. Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) also swears to the same effect.One important feature which must be duly taken note of at this stage is that the incident as narrated by Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) does not find place in the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).Krishna has nowhere stated in the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) that on the day in question her husband had assaulted her with a cricket bat as a result whereof she had sustained a bleeding injury on her left arm.Even the M.L.C. (Ex. P-2/A) and other contemporaneous medical documents (Ex. P.W. 6/C, Ex. P.W. 6/D, Ex. P.W. 6/E, Ex. P.W. 6/F) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P.W. 3/A) are conspicuous by absence of any such injury on the deceased's left arm.She has nowhere stated in her dying declaration about the presence of both the witnesses at the time of the alleged incident.It has come in the evidence of Neeru (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) that immediately after the alleged incident they had gone to the police station and Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) had reported to the police that her sister was being burnt alive at her matrimonial house and further in same police officer had accompanied them to the appellant's house.Strangely enough, no such police report has been produced in the Court to substantiate the statements made by both the witnesses.Even, none of the police personnel who accompanied these witnesses to the appellant's house has been produced in the witness box.It is also significant to note here that after arrival of the police, they did not go upstairs and did not ask the police that they wanted to go upstairs to see what had happened inside the house.Although they saw that Krishna was being removed to the R.M.L. Hospital, they did not go to the hospital directly from the place of occurrence and went thereafter visiting their house and reached the hospital at about 12 midnight or 1 a.m. Such a strange conduct of these witnesses assails their version and renders it doubtful.Deceased's father Hari Chand (P.W. 9) testified that at about 11 p.m. her daughter Neeru (P.W. 1), informed him about the alleged incident and immediately thereafter he along with Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) went to the police station, Jhangirpuri, where he was informed by the police officer that the deceased had been admitted in Willingdon Hospital) (R.M.L. Hospital).They then went to R.M.L. Hospital and found the deceased in a poor condition with severe burns all over her body.Surprisingly, neither Hari Chand (P.W. 9) nor Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) had lodged any report at the Police Station, Jhangirpuri about the alleged incident.What prevented them from lodging a report of the alleged incident at the police station is shrouded in mystery.Moreover, evidence of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) shows that she knew that Krishna had been removed to the R.M.L. Hospital and in such a situation there was no necessity for them to go to the P.S., Jhangirpuri to locate the deceased.The fact that Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1), Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) went to P.S., Jhangirpuri to locate the hospital where the deceased was admitted for medical treatment clearly indicates that their version about their visits to the appellant's house prior to and after the alleged incident is an afterthought or an embellishment introduced in their evidence so to add credence to the prosecution story.As demonstrated earlier, both the witnesses namely Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) and Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) want us to believe that they were present in the appellant's house at the time when Krishna was in flames.But they made no attempt to save her.Although they deposed that they had raised an alarm and shouted for help but nobody came forward to save Krishna.It is significant to note that the prosecution did not examine any resident of that locality who could have corroborated the testimony of the said witnesses regarding the alarm alleged to have been raised by them.The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when Krishna was in flames, they would have made every endeavour to save her life and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life.The circumstances pointed out earlier clearly indicate that Krishna did not lodge any report at the police station regarding the alleged incident.Both the witnesses did not accompany the deceased when she was being removed to the hospital.At least, Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) should have accompanied the deceased to the hospital and should have expressly or by her behaviour disclosed her feelings about the well being of her real sister.The said strange conduct of both the witnesses militates against the veracity of the core of their testimony as the same is not in conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of their testimony.Consequently, we are not inclined to accept their testimony relating to their presence in the appellant's house at the time where Krishna was in flames.It has to be borne in mind that the whole occurrence had taken place inside the room and it is quite possible that the cries if any raised by the deceased could not have been heard by the neighbours.The next circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel is that there were no marks of violence found on the dead body and according to him some force must have been used by the appellant before setting her on fire which should have left some marks of violence.According to the medical opinion, the deceased had suffered 100% burns and if there were any marks of violence, they would have disappeared.Yet another circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel in the context is that the door was bolted from inside.At the outset, we must make it clear that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the door of the room in question was bolted from inside.Site plan (Ex. P.W. 15/A) prepared by the Investigating Officer Devendar Singh (P.W. 15) shows that the room in question has one door.Constable Narendra Kumar (P.W. 22) had taken the photograph (Ex. P.W. 22/2) of the door, which was in broken condition.There is not an iota of evidence on record to show as to who had broken open the door.According to the learned counsel the fact that the door was broken open, speaks for itself and it was inferable from these circumstances that the deceased had committed suicide by setting herself on fire after bolting the door from inside.He further submitted that inter alia, bolting the door from inside was a pointer towards such a possibility.It is pertinent to note that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1), Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) to show or suggest that the deceased Krishna was in the frame of mind to commit suicide.There was no question of her being broken hearted and frustrated so as to resolve to commit suicide.There was no cause or occasion to make her suddenly opt for suicide on the fateful day.Putting all these pieces together, there appears to be no possibility of the deceased having made up her mind to end her life either due to frustration or desperation or to take revenge on her husband or in-laws for ill-treating her day-in and day-out.It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased sustained burn injuries inside the appellant's, house.Admittedly, the appellants including the appellant Mst.Chandrawati were inside the house at the time of the occurrence.No explanation whatsoever has come forth from the appellants as to how the deceased received burn injuries inside the house.They have not offered any explanation as to how the door of the room was broken and who did it.The appellants instead of giving any explanation feigned ignorance about the alleged occurrence.The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when one of their inmates was in flames, they would have made every endeavour to save her life, if it were a case of suicide, and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life.No such attempt was made nor even attempted.The evidence on record established that the deceased was burnt by pouring kerosene oil on her body.The appellants were present in the house when the incident took place but none of them attempted to save her life, which showed their indifference and hard hearted conduct.The appellants did not inform the parents of the deceased, nor they made any report regarding the occurrence to the police.The appellants or any of their family members did not take injured Krishna to the hospital.In appreciating the dying declaration, these circumstances become highly relevant.It is a settled law that the conduct of an accused in an offence previous and subsequent to the crime are relevant facts.These are the most telling and crucial facts apart from repulsive inhuman conduct of the appellants.Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had bolted the door of the room from inside.Fireman Raj Kumar (P.W. 16) who almost reached the scene of occurrence immediately found that the deceased was lying with burns and he took the deceased immediately to the R.M.L. Hospital.Taking an overall view of the circumstances out-lined hereinbefore, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Krishna was not suicidal but homicidal.We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) is intrinsically sound and in accord with probabilities.Learned counsel further submitted that the S. D. M. Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) has specifically mentioned in his inquest report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) that "since Krishna died without her statement recorded, a very valuable piece of evidence i.e. dying declaration could not be adduced in evidence" and this circumstance throws doubt on the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A).It has come in the evidence of Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) that on 13-11-1988, he reached the hospital within one hour after receiving request from the investigating officer but the deceased's dying declaration could not be recorded as she was found unfit to make any dying declaration.It is pertinent to mention that there are two inquest reports on the record and both were prepared by Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13).The inquest report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) was not filed before the Court along with the charge-sheet.Trial Court's order sheet dated 13-12-1989 shows that on its motion, this report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) was requisitioned by the trial Court.Shri Chauhan (P.W. 13) has not given any explanation whatsoever regarding the inordinate delay in preparing this report (Ex. P.W. 13/F).Since the inquest report (Ex. P.W. 13/A) prepared by S.D.M. (Ex. P.W. 13) is already on record, the report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) can't be treated as an inquest report.What actually prompted the S.D.M. to prepare this report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) is shrouded in mystery.The manner and the circumstances in which this report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) was brought into existence have completely robbed its efficacy.At any rate, this report (Ex. P.W. 13/F) is not strong enough to wipe out the positive evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W. 6) and Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7).After giving our anxious consideration, we are satisfied that the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) duly recorded by Dr. D. Gupta (P.W. 6) and attested by Dr. Sandeep Chopra (P.W. 7) fully implicates the appellants-Mst.Having subjected the dying declaration (Ex. P.W. 6/A) to a close scrutiny, we are satisfied that it does not suffer from any infirmity.The deceased had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and to screen the real offender who had set her on fire.On the contrary the appellant had motive for committing this ghastly offence on account of greed and avarice for dowry.The root cause for killing young bride is avarice and greed and all tender feelings which alone make the humanity noble disappear from the heart as has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Smt. Paniben v. State, .Therefore, we see no ground to disagree with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant Mst.Chandrawati had caused the death of the deceased-Krishna.Consequently, we find the appellant Mst.Chandrawati guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly confirm the appellant-Mst.Chandrawati's conviction thereunder.43. Learned counsel for the appellants have also assailed their conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34, I.P.C. Prosecution witness who deposed about the harassment of the deceased-Krishna are Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) and Hari Chand (P.W. 9) Relying upon the testimony of the said witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Section 498-A/34, I.P.C. Deceased's father Harichand (P.W. 9) deposed that after the deceased's marriage, he suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized for one month and during that period, his elder son-in-law Rakesh (husband of Neeru P.W. 1) served him well in the hospital.According to him, after his discharge from the hospital, He purchased a scooter and gifted it to Rakesh.After about a month of his discharge from the hospital, Krishna was sent to his house after giving beatings.She told him that she was being harassed by her husband and parents-in-law and asked that he (P.W. 9) should give a three wheeler and half sale proceeds of his house.He then went to the appellant's house who had repeated the said demands.One important thing to notice in connection with the cross-examination of this witness is that it was not even suggested to him that the deceased was never subjected to maltreatment or harassment by the appellants and further that no such demand as alleged by him was ever made by the appellants.Thus, the said testimony of Harichand (P.W. 9) has been left unchallenged by the appellants.It is also evident from the evidence of Mst.Neeru (P.W. 1) that her father (P.W. 9) had gifted a scooter to her husband as her husband had served her father well during his illness and on that account the appellant Kishanlal used to demand a scooter from Krishna.She testified that the deceased-Krishna had told him that the appellants-Mst.Chandrawati and Kishanlal had demanded half share in her father's house.She further testified that whenever Krishna used to visit her, she always used to complain about the maltreatment or harassment by the appellants.She also added that Krishna had come to her parental house and stayed about three months prior to Diwali, 1988, when she was beaten up by her in-laws.It is significant to note here that her aforesaid testimony has been left unchallenged by the appellants.In addition to this, Mst.Sheela (P.W. 5) deposed that the deceased-Krishna had complained to her about the demand of a scooter made by the accused-Kishan Lal.Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case.For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context.Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death.It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death.In Wazirchand v. State of Haryana, , the victim was one Veena.Chandrawati, and instead sentence her to imprisonment for life."

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

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

Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 2382 of 2009 Sushil Chandra Ghosh versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.In this criminal revisional application the defacto-complainant of a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, where his brother has been killed, moved this Court against an order, whereby the Trial Court closed the prosecution evidence at the stage when eight more witnesses were still to be examined.2. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.In spite of service of notice none appears either on behalf of the State or on behalf of the accused/opposite parties.Affidavit of service showing the service has been duly effected upon them be kept with the records.Having gone through the impugned order I find the Learned Trial Court was pleased to close the evidence on the ground in spite of exhausting of all process against the said witnesses, the prosecution was not able to tender them for examination and due to their absence earlier the schedule of examination of witnesses was failed.Then again in between 2nd of June, 2009 to 9th of June, 2009 seven more witnesses were examined by the prosecution.However, on 10th of June, 2009 as no witness was turned up the prosecution made a prayer for fixing fresh dates for examination of the rest of its witnesses, but the Trial Court rejected such prayer and closed the evidence and fixed dates for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground, all process has been exhausted for compelling the production of the witnesses and trial schedules were earlier failed due to their absence.Be that as it may, the trial in question relates to the offence of murder.Although, the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accuseds guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but that never mean the justice be denied to the victim party.Here the trial has been commenced with the framing of charge on July, 2008 but even before expiry of one year the Learned Trial Court has closed the evidence of the prosecution at a stage when already nine prosecution witnesses have been examined.It appears from the order sheets that charge-sheet witness nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, viz., Sushil Chandra Ghosh, Sunil Ghosh, Tara Prasad Prasad Som, Madhu Sudan Mondal, against whom the warrant of arrest have been issued by the Trial Court have been examined in the trial and discharged.So far as the other witnesses are concerned there is nothing on record that Court ever issued warrant of arrest against them for compelling their attendance in Court, as such it is absolutely incorrect to say so far as the said witnesses are concerned for compelling them to appear in Court all process has been exhausted.There was nothing on record that summons issued against them have been served.In view of above I am of the opinion the Trial Court was not at all justified to close the prosecution evidence, accordingly the order impugned is set aside.The Learned Trial Court is directed to re-fix the programme of the trial and to give the prosecution the necessary opportunity for examining the aforesaid witnesses before examination of whom the prosecution evidence has been closed.The Learned Trial Court immediately upon receipt of communication of this order shall issue notice for appearance to the accused persons as well as to the prosecution and in their presence re-fix the trial programme and issue fresh summons against the aforesaid witnesses.If the witnesses do not turn up on the date fixed for recording of their evidence, the Learned Trial Court is directed to exhaust all process available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel their appearance, if necessary, the Court shall issue warrant of arrest against them as have been done earlier against the other witnesses.The State is directed to produce its witnesses positively on the date that may be fixed by the Learned Trial Judge.In the result the application stands allowed.

['Section 201 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.

His contention is that parties are now residing separately, there is a decree of divorce and they don't want to live with each other.The trial court had sentenced the appellants for a period of five years RI.The application for compounding was, however, dismissed by the High Court.Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added.For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the parties have amicably settled all the dispute, the present petition preferred under HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. Cr. C. No.28415/2017 (Jagdish Bavne and Others Vs.No order as to costs.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2018.03.05 16:24:31 +05'30'

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

supported the judgment.We find that both the trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidencein great detail to find the prosecution version to be not cogent and credible.The Investigating Officer has notexplained the delay.Further the trial court found if impossible physically for giving alengthy report (Ext. P1) while in Intensive Care Unit.That being so, We find no scope forinterference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been fileda) to call for records in C.C.No.80 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate - I, Puducherry and quash.One Madasamy committed suicide on 04.09.2011 in connection with which initially a case was registered in u/s.174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was altered to one u/s.306 IPC and after completing the investigation the respondent police filed a final report against the petitioner herein for offence u/s.306 IPC and one Vadivelu challenging which Manogaran the petitioner is before this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.S.Ganesh, submitted that, except the suicide note that is alleged to have been left by Madasamy, there are no other materials implicating Manogaran in this case.He also submitted that, Kala wife of Madasamy has given three police statements which are contradictory to each other, which only shows that, Manogaran has been falsely implicated in this case.Learned counsel produced a copy of the suicide note for perusal of this Court.As stated above on the death of Madasamy initially respondent police registered the case u/s.174 Cr.P.C. At that time Kala has given a different statement wherein she has stated that Madasamy had borrowed money from one Vadivelu and when Vadivelu started demanding money, he consumed poison and committed suicide.At that juncture the suicide note was not available with the police.Only thereafter the police seized the suicide note a reading of which implicates Manogaran as the person who had assaulted Madasamy after taking him to a punchayath nearby.These facts have to be determined only during regular trial and not in a quash application.P.N. PRAKASH, J.Inspector of Police, Nettapakkam Police Station PondicherryThe Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.CRL.OP.No.21919 of 2016and M.P.No.10165 of 2016

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.2.The writ petition has been filed for transfer of investigation alleging that the respondent police has not properly investigated the case of murder of one Rajan, a school teacher.While the prosecution has filed final report 2/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 against two persons, namely, Balamurugan and Ponmurugan for the murder of Rajan, the petitioner herein contends that it was handiwork of one Devadoss, under whom Rajan was employed as a driver.Since there was previous enmity between Rajan and Devadoss, regarding piling of river sand in front of the house, the said Devadoss has engaged his driver Rajan, who in turn has taken his office friend Balamurugan to kill Rajan and thrown him in the Thamirabarani river water.The body was recovered after three days of the occurrence.3.The specific case of the petitioner is that right from registration of the First Information Report and investigation, including the post-mortem report, everything was concocted and the respondent police has not properly investigated showing a photograph of the deceased person.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is injury near neck and blood stains found on the body, but the post-morten report does not reflect the said injury.Further, the learned counsel would go to the extent of stating that the petitioner has sent the severed head of the deceased person to the police station, which was shown to him, whereas, the 3/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 post-mortem report does not reflect the same.5.On perusing the statements of the witnesses recorded by the respondent police and the final report as well as the counter filed by the first respondent, this Court finds that based on the VAO information, the dead body of Rajan was recovered from the river water and thereafter, sent for post- mortem.Investigation initially disclosed the identity of the victim and thereafter, the two accused persons were arrested from the materials collected from the witnesses.The accused persons have given their confession statement as regards the manner in which they committed the murder and they were also taken to the scene of occurrence to re-enact the crime and after completion of investigation, final report has been filed for the offences under Sections 34, 302, 392 r/w 397, 201 and 404 of IPC.From the record, this Court finds that after the Sessions Court, Nagercoil has taken the case on record in S.C.No.92 of 2015, the present writ petition has been filed for transfer of investigation.Pending writ petition, this Court on 29.10.2018, has stayed further proceedings.Hence, the trial could not be proceeded further.This Court, from the materials relied by the prosecution and the averments made in the affidavit finds that the petitioner herein has stated several facts 4/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 which are not backed by any evidence or documents.6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are eye- witnesses for the occurrence and improper investigation of the respondent police may lead to acquittal of the accused persons and unfortunately, the petitioner has neither referred the so-called eye-witnesses nor has come out with the specific material for the investigating agency to make further investigation in this case.7.In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that after a lapse of six years from the date of occurrence and after final report being filed in the year 2015 and trial under progress, change of investigation will be a futile exercise.If the petitioner herein has no specific material which warrants further investigation, Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., always provides for the investigation agency to conduct further investigation.8.Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of.It is open to the petitioner herein to provide materials to the investigating agency, if any, worth for further investigation and if such materials are produced, either the Sessions 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 Judge before whom the matter is pending or the investigation agency, may take appropriate action.No costs.Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.10.03.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sji To1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police, Vilavankode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.3.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.4.The Director General of Police, Office of Director General, Mylapore, Chennai.5.The Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St, George, Chennai.6/7http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.sji W.P.(MD)No.8784 of 2016 10.03.2020

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

THOMAS, J.Leave granted.A huge quantity of counterfeit notes of Rs.500 digithas been intercepted by the authorities and a case wasregistered by the Thane Police, Maharashtra.A number ofpersons were arrested in connection with the said racket.We are now concerned only with the arrest of a lady by nameAyesha Khan (also called Smt. Bharati Chandmal Varma) therespondent in this case.After the arrest she was producedbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded her tocustody.As a charge sheet was not laid within 90 daysthereof she applied for being released on bail as per theproviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short the Code).Though the Metropolitan Magistratedisallowed her prayer a single Judge of the High Court ofBombay allowed her to be released on bail solely on theaforesaid ground.The said order of the High Court is nowbeing challenged by the State of Maharashtra.The main contention of the State is that the period of90 days envisaged in Section 167(2) of the Code should bereckoned from the date when the police startedinvestigation into the offences under the MaharashtraControl of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (its acronym is MCOC).For considering the aforesaid contention more detailsof the facts are necessary.Respondent was arrested on1.4.2001 for the offences under Sections 489A 489B, 489C120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.She was producedbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.4.2001 and heremanded the respondent to police custody first and laterto judicial custody.During the investigation policediscovered that organised crimes under MCOC Act had alsobeen committed and the respondent was one of the linksconnected with foreign collaborators in pumping suchcounterfeit currency notes into India.The investigatingagency sought sanction of the authorities under the MCOCAct for conducting investigation under the said Act. Suchsanction was granted on 21.4.2001 and thenceforthinvestigation was conducted into the offences under theMCOC Act also.In order to circumvent the said hurdle learnedcounsel adopted a two-fold contention.First is that theperiod of 90 days can be reckoned from 21.4.2001 (the datewhen the investigation was allowed to be conducted for theoffence under the MCOC Act).

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5th December, 2007 by virtue of which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed the framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 411/473/34 IPC.Briefly stated the facts of the case, as given in the impugned order are that one Mr. Deepak Verma had lodged a complaint on 6th March, 2007 at about 11.15 p.m. stating that he had received a telephonic call from his driver named Ram Bahadur who had gone to drop his mother at a function and then to pick her up but he did not reach the place from where he was supposed to pick her up.On enquiry it had transpired that the driver Ram Bahadur intimated that he had gone to Crl.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 1 of 6 Karampura Terminal for easing himself and it was at that point of time the car was stolen when it was parked.The complainant reached the spot and found the driver Ram Bahadur to be in a drunken condition and incoherent and consequently he was booked for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust for which an FIR No. 148/2007 under Section 408 IPC was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi.During the course of trial, the driver Ram Bahadur pleaded guilty to the offence under Section 408 IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took a lenient view and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 1 of 6Subsequently thereto another FIR No. 552/2007 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and under Sections 411 and 420 of IPC was registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi against the present petitioner Sunil Kumar who is purported to have made a disclosure statement that he was having Honda City car in respect of which Ram Bahadur had committed an offence of breach of trust.The accused Sunil Kumar is purported to have made a disclosure statement and in pursuance to the same, he got the Honda City Car recovered from Desh Raj and this is how both Desh Raj and Sunil Kumar were alleged to be prima facie of having committed an offence under Section 411/473/34 IPC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order and directed framing of charge.The offence under Section 411 IPC was on account of having been found in possession of the stolen property while as the offence under Section 473 was directed to Crl.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 2 of 6 be framed on account of the fact that the vehicle number of the car in question was found to be changed.The learned Magistrate after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner directed the framing of charges against the petitioner for these two offences by invoking Section 34 IPC.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 2 of 6The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said impugned order directing the framing of charges for the aforesaid two offences has assailed the same by the present revision petition.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges under Section 411 and 473 IPC have been directed to be framed against the present petitioner although there is no evidence against the petitioner except the alleged disclosure statement which would show that the vehicle in question was recovered at his instance.It was urged that even if the evidence and the statement which are adduced at this stage are taken on its face value even then the vehicle in question was recovered from the possession of Desh Raj and it was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner and therefore, charge u/s 411 IPC could not be framed and the stolen property is one of the basic ingredients under Section 411 IPC.It was next contended that the theft of the vehicle had taken place in March while as it was recorded in July whereas the person should be found to be in possession of the goods immediately after the incident which is not so in the instant case.The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the following judgments:Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 3 of 6 Trimbak Vs.State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 39 Rajinder Kumar Vs.State 23 (1983) DLT 42 Nakali & Anr.State 1978 Cr.L.J. 379 Mahadeo Bind Vs.State of Bihar Crl.L.J. 1647 Janak Yadav Vs.State of Bihar 1960 Crl.L.J. 1646 Moti Lal Vs.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 3 of 6Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 4 of 6 would have changed the said registration number of the vehicle with a view to evade the detection.Rev. P. No. 167/2008 Page 4 of 6

['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is stated that in terms of the said exchange-cum- partition deed, Dr. Poonam Khanna is now the owner of ground floor and basement of C-18, Shivalik and the Defendant is owner of the roof and above of C-18, Shivalik.It is stated that there was another settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003 between Dr. Poonam Khanna and the Defendant, in terms of which out of the sale proceeds of C-18, Shivalik, Dr. Poonam Khanna and Dr. V.P. Sharma were to get 55% and 45% respectively.It is further stated that in the 45% share of Dr. V.P. Sharma, the Plaintiff, Mr. Manu Khanna, had a further right because the Defendant purchased the ground floor from the funds contributed by the Plaintiff's mother as well as his grandfather.In para 13 of the plaint, it is stated that the Defendant was planning to leave India and was in the process of selling the terrace rights without acknowledging the rights to the Plaintiff.It is stated that the Plaintiff was a mentally challenged person, with a chronological age of 23 years at the time CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 2 of 29 of filing of the suit in 2005 and a mental age of less than 7 years.The Plaintiff was expected to remain as such throughout his life.It is submitted that the Defendant, being his father cannot avoid his legal obligations towards the Plaintiff.Despite a legal notice dated 18th September 2004, the Defendant did not accede to the request.The Defendant is stated to have subjected the Plaintiff and his mother to physical cruelty.Defendant is his father.Admitted facts are that Defendant purchased ground floor of property bearing municipal No. C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 4 of 29However, Plaintiff states that the funds for said purchase have been from Plaintiff's grandfather, i.e., Shri Roop Ram.Plaintiff's mother had admittedly purchased the basement as also the terrace rights in the said property.The said document envisaged that the property will be sold and 45% share would be that of the Defendant and the remaining would be of the mother of the Plaintiff.Parties are at loggerheads with each other.The Defendant tendered his affidavit of examination-in-chief.He was cross-examined till 5th February 2011 and his evidence was closed.By the said order, the Plaintiff was allowed to continue to stay with the mother but also have access to the Defendant.The Defendant was allowed to take the Plaintiff from the house of the mother every Sunday at 10 am and return him on the same day by 5 pm.The main submission of Dr. Poonam Khanna was on Issue No. 2 as to who had contributed to the purchase of the ground floor of C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi.The case of the Defendant is that he separately purchased the ground floor for Rs. 7 lakhs by an agreement to sell by using a gift of Rs. 3.5 lakhs given to him by an NRI.According to him, the rest of the money was arranged by him from his own sources.Khanna submitted that the Defendant had not placed any NRI gift deed or any document to show his source of funds.She further submitted that the SBI Account No. 5854 (Ex.PW-1/28 and Ex. PW1/20) was a joint account in the name of Dr. Poonam Khanna and the Defendant and therefore no cheque issued from the said account could be said to be the sole contribution of the Defendant.A sum of Rs. 1.7 lakhs shown in the account, stated to have been contributed by an NRI, was in fact the contribution of the Plaintiff's mother.Khanna referred to an admission made by the Defendant in CS (OS) No. 493 of 2001 (Ex.PW-1/8) that he had purchased the ground floor of the property at C-18, Shivalik and that the funds were made available to him by his father Mr. Roop Ram, the grandfather of the Plaintiff.According to Dr.PW-1/8) filed by the Defendant for permanent injunction restraining Dr. Poonam Khanna from creating scenes, hurdles, nuisance etc. in the property at C-18, Shivalik, Near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017 in which in para 5 it was stated that the Plaintiff "has the legal right in his parents property as all the funds came from his grandfather.".CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 12 of 29Poonam Khanna submitted that money given by the Defendant's father Mr. Roop Ram was out of his self earned income being employed as an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture.According to her, out of total Rs. 7 lakhs paid for the purchase of the ground floor of C-18, Shivalik, Rs. 5.2 lakhs was contributed by Mr. Roop Ram.This was admittedly converted into two blank NRI cheques of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.7 lakh respectively by the Defendant by unfair means.Further, it was the Defendant who himself filled his name as well as that of the Plaintiff's mother in the blank cheque and later claimed that the cheques were a gift given by NRI whereas the money contributed for purchase of the ground floor actually belonged to the Plaintiff's mother and was given in the best interests of the Plaintiff.She further submitted that the deficit of Rs. 1.8 lakhs was contributed by Dr. Poonam Khanna by selling her ornaments/istridhan.Khanna submitted that the money received from the gold smith by way of two cheques of Rs. 92,300 and Rs. 98,500 respectively was deposited in the joint Savings Bank Account No. 5854 from where the total sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was paid for purchase of the ground floor of C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi in the name of the Defendant.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 15 of 29That after the execution of this Agreement the First Party alone shall and the Second Party shall not be entitled to deal with all the matters relating to entire roof/terrace of ground floor and above of property bearing No. C-18, land measuring 200 sq.yds situated at Shivalik, Near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017 and exclusively as its owner/lessee and shall be entitled to further let out/sell the said property and the second party shall have no right to evict the first party therefrom under any circumstance.The following terms of the Deed of Settlement are relevant:That it has been agreed and mutually decided by and between the parties that the custody of male child Manu will shall remain with Second party.The first party (Dr. V.P. Sharma) shall never claim the custody of the said child nor shall ever claim meeting rights of said child on any grounds.In case the second party decides for remarriage the custody of the son will be handed over to the first party.2. That it has been agreed and mutually decided between the parties that both the parties who own their respective portion in C-18, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017, shall procure a suitable buyer to dispose off their property.All the proceeds thus received shall be distributed in the ratio of 45% and 55%.First party will get a share of 45% and the second party shall get a share of 55% of the total amount they will receive after selling.Mr. Manu Khanna, son of Dr. Poonam Khanna and the Defendant, Dr. V.P. Sharma, has filed the present suit for declaration, partition and mandatory injunction in respect of the 'terrace and above' rights of the property at C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi.The Plaintiff is stated to be a mentally challenged person.He has, therefore, filed the present suit through his mother, Dr. Poonam Khanna.The plaint states the Plaintiff's mother purchased the basement and the 'terrace and above' rights of the property at C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi with her self-earned income after selling her flat in Vasant Kunj, which she had purchased with her earned income.It is stated that the Defendant Dr. V.P.Sharma purchased the ground floor of C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi with the funds contributed by Dr. Poonam Khanna and his father Mr. Roop Ram.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 1 of 29According to the Plaintiff, this fact has been admitted by the Defendant in CS (OS) No 493 of 2001 filed by him in the civil court at Tis Hazari.It is stated that by means of an exchange-cum-partition deed dated 8th March 2001, Dr. Poonam Khanna exchanged her terrace and above rights of the ground floor with the ground floor of C-18, Shivalik of the Defendant.Simultaneously a general power of attorney ('GPA') and Will were also executed and registered.It is stated that a number of criminal cases filed by the Plaintiff's mother were pending against the Defendant.In the above circumstances, the present suit has been filed seeking the following reliefs:(c) Any other relief or order that the Court deems fit and proper with costs.While directing summons to be issued in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC') on 23rd May 2005, an interim injunction was granted by the Court restraining the Defendant from raising any construction or selling the terrace floor or parting with or creating any third party interest therein.On 7th March 2006, the plaint was directed to be amended to correct certain typographical errors.On 24th July 2006, the Plaintiff was directed to CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 3 of 29 sue as an indigent person.On 3rd January 2007, the following issues were framed by the Court:CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 3 of 29"(i) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?(ii) Whether the Defendant purchased ground floor of property bearing municipal No. C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi with the funds made available by Shri Roop Ram, father of the Defendant and ground father of the Plaintiff.If yes, to what effect?(iii) If issue No. (ii) is decide in favour of the Plaintiff, to what share is the Plaintiff entitled to in property bearing No. C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi?(iv) Whether the Plaintiff through his guardian is estopped from filing the present suit in view of the deed of settlement dated 2nd April 2003?(v) Whether the suit has been filed by Dr. Poonam Khanna in the name of her minor son Manu Khanna out of malice as stated in para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement?On the same date, i.e., 3rd January 2007, the Court passed an order in IA No. 4129 of 2005 as under:The suit seeks declaration and partition.2. Plaintiff, Manu Khanna, unfortunately is a mentally challenged child.His mother has sued as his guardian.Mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant executed a deed dated 2nd March 2001 whereunder an exchange took place.Under the exchange, Defendant gave ground floor to mother of the Plaintiff.Mother of the Plaintiff gave the terrace rights to father of the Plaintiff, i.e., Defendant.Another deed dated 2nd April 2003 was executed.I may note that defence is based on the deed dated 2nd April 2003 in respect thereof, an issue has been framed today.9. Question which arises for consideration is, whether the ex parte injunction obtained by the Plaintiff on 23rd May 2005 should be confirmed or not.The said injunction restrains the Defendant from transferring, alienating, disposing or raising any constructions on the terrace floor.Whereas the Plaintiff and his mother are safely cocooned in the ground floor of the house, the Defendant is left without a shelter.Learned counsel for the Defendant states that if the Defendant is permitted to construct the first floor, Defendant would not please any special equity in his favour should the suit succeeds.Further, counsel states that the Defendant would not transfer or alienate the first floor without obtaining the leave of the Court.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 5 of 29IA No. 4129 of 2005 is accordingly disposed of permitting the Defendant to raise the construction on the terrace of the first floor.Defendant would not plead any special equity in his favour if ultimately the suit succeeds.No costs."The Court inter alia noted that "the Plaintiff through his mother resiles from the deeds dated 2nd March 2001 and 2nd April 2003".By a subsequent order dated 31st May 2007, the Court dismissed IA No. 6982 of 2007 filed by the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC bringing on record certain additional documents to prove the Plaintiff's bonafide requirement.By the same order, the Court also dismissed IA No. 6984 of 2007 seeking clubbing of the present suit with CS (OS) No. 290 of 2007 filed by the Defendant for possession.The DB observed that the said construction would definitely change the nature and character of the suit property.Accordingly, the status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties.The remaining part of the order dated 3rd January 2007 was affirmed.It was directed that the evidence should be recorded on a day-to-day basis and the suit itself was expedited.Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed IA No. 9106 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stating that the Plaintiff inadvertently and unintentionally sought CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 6 of 29 relief in respect of the roof above the ground floor whereas it is the ground floor of the suit property in respect of which the Plaintiff was seeking relief.By an order dated 14th August 2007, the Court dismissed IA No. 9106 of 2007 inter alia observing as under:CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 6 of 29The nature and character of the suit is now sought to be changed by seeking relief against the ground floor of the property which was never the case made out in the plaint.The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.In fact, the Plaintiff is doing this through his guardian, his mother, who is appearing in person and is seeking to backtrack out of the different settlements.The effect of the same would be examined in the trial of the suit."The Plaintiff while relying on the exchange-cum-partition deed dated 2nd March 2001 throughout the plaint now seeks to give a go by to the same and change the relief from one claimed on the basis of the said document to a different relief in respect of the ground floor and basement of the property which is no more with the Defendant, as per the said deed.The endeavour of the Plaintiff or rather the mother of the Plaintiff also appears to be not to see an end to the suit and to somehow evade the directions of the Division Bench of a day- to-day trial of the matter.This clearly falls within the parameters of a party acting malafide.This application was dismissed by a detailed order dated 2nd November 2007 inter alia holding as under:CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 7 of 29"I am unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff.The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff alleging that he has a share in the ancestral property.It appears that the present dispute is really a proxy battle by the mother of the Plaintiff and having obtained interim orders from the Division Bench, the real spirit of the Order of the Division Bench directing early trial in the suit is sought to be defeated by filing application after application to somehow delay the trial in the suit.In my considered view, such an endeavour has to be nipped in the bud as enough leeway has already been granted in the present matter because the Plaintiff is represented through his mother in person though she appears to be well-versed in the provisions of law.Normally, I would have restrained myself from imposing costs on a person like the Plaintiff, but the present battle is between the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff cannot be permitted, through his mother, to scuttle the trial in this fashion.The application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000."CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 8 of 29Objections were raised to the tendering of the amended affidavit on the ground that it was beyond the pleadings.The Joint Registrar ('JR') directed the matter to be placed before the Court.Another application, IA No. 13852 of 2007, praying waiver of the costs imposed by an order dated 2nd November 2007 was also dismissed.As regards the grievance of the Defendant that the affidavit of evidence tendered by the Plaintiff's mother was beyond the pleadings, the Court in its order dated 4th December 2007 observed that "only such part of the affidavit can be read which is consistent with the pleading and if the affidavit of examination-in-chief goes beyond what is stated in the plaint or refers to aspects on which the amendment has been disallowed, such aspects cannot be read in evidence."FAO (OS) No. 25 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff against the orders dated 2nd November 2007 and 4th December 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge was disposed of by the DB by an order dated 18th January 2008 stating that it would be open for the parties, including the Plaintiff, to lead evidence with regard to Issue No. 2 concerning the funds contributed for the purchase of the ground floor to the extent it is pleaded in para 4 of the plaint.However, she submitted that the said divorce decree was relevant only for the question of dissolution of marriage.Therefore, the Defendant could not be allowed to use the said decree to seek relief which was beyond the operation of the said decree.She submitted that the Defendant remarried and had no children by the second marriage.The Plaintiff was therefore, the only child of his mother and the Defendant.By an order dated 5th December 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1991 of 2008 (Ex.DW1/X-9), the Supreme Court had directed the Defendant to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 7,500 per month to the Plaintiff.Khanna, the above statement was reaffirmed by the Defendant in the subsequent Suit No. 510 of 2001 (renumbered as Suit No. 250 of 2002) CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 11 of 29 seeking possession of the ground floor of C-18 Shivalik, New Delhi.She also referred to the averments made by the Defendant in the reply filed by him to Original Petition No. 169 of 20002 (Ex.She referred to Civil Suit No. 493 of 2001 (Ex.She referred to the complaint made by the Defendant to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Ex.PW-1/10) on 4th December 2001 inter alia alleging that Dr. Poonam Khanna was posing imminent danger to his life, person and property and of his son.In this complaint the Defendant admitted that his son had right in the property at C- 18, Shivalik, New Delhi.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 11 of 29Dr. Poonam Khanna submitted that the ante litem admissions by the Defendant were not denied by him and were, therefore, binding on him.Countering the above submissions, it is submitted by the Defendant who initially appeared through counsel and later in person that Mr. Roop Ram had given an affidavit stating that he had not contributed any money whatsoever for the purchase of C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi.Further, in reply by Dr. Poonam Khanna in Civil Suit No. 290 of 2007 there was no averment CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 13 of 29 to the effect that the Defendant's father had contributed any sum.In the present plaint also there was no averment to the said effect.In terms of this document, Dr. Poonam Khanna became the owner of the entire basement, ground floor of the property at C-18, Shivalik and the Defendant became the owner of the terrace above the ground floor.Dr. Poonam Khanna, however, declined to appear at the second motion in the petition for divorce by mutual consent.By means of the said settlement, the entire property at C-18, Shivalik was to be sold off and the sale proceeds were to be shared equally.The Defendant was to forego his lien over the shop in N-15, Malviya Nagar as well as a DDA flat in Khirki, Malviya Nagar.By the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003, this was further modified and Dr. Poonam Khanna was entitled to 55% share CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 14 of 29 and the Defendant was entitled to 45% share of the proceeds from the sale of C-18, Shivalik.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 14 of 29It is further submitted that the above settlement has been judicially noticed in: (i) Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2006 filed by the Plaintiff on 4th July 2007 (ii) Crl.The above submissions have been considered.Due to differences and disputes between the parents of the Plaintiff, an exchange-cum-partition deed dated 8th March 2001was entered into between the parents.In this agreement, the Defendant is described as First CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 15 of 29 Party and Dr. Poonam Khanna as Second Party.That after the execution of this Agreement the Second Party alone shall and the First Party shall not be entitled to deal with all the matters relating to the Basement and Ground Floor of Property bearing No. C-18, land measuring 200 sq. yds situated at Shivalik, Near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017 and exclusive as its owner/lessee and shall be entitled to further let out the said property etc. and the First Party shall have no right to evict the second party therefrom under any circumstance."The exchange-cum-partition deed has been signed by the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.However, at the time of admission/denial of documents, the signatures on the document were admitted and certain corrections made therein were denied.Divorce Petition No. 342 dated 6th May 2001 was filed in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ').However, Dr. Poonam CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 16 of 29 Khanna did not pursue the matter after the first motion.Thereafter, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement dated 2nd April 2003 (Ex.PW-1/5).The Deed of Settlement again contains a preamble clause, which reads as under:CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 16 of 29"Whereas the parties while living together were professionally qualified as Doctor and from their income and savings from their profession have purchased immovable property bearing No. C-18, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017."It also set out the numerous legal proceedings that the parties had initiated against each other:"FIR No. 49 of 2001, P.S. Malviya Nagar u/S 323, 341, 452, 605 IPC, FIR No. 422 of 2002, u/S 498A/406 Complaint Case u/S 341, 323, 452, 506, 427, FIR No. 299 of 2002 u/S 324, Case for custody of Child in Guardianship Court, Case u/S 125 Cr.PC for maintenance, Civil Suit no. 249 of 2002, 250 of 2002, for property."CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 17 of 29That both the parties will move in the matrimonial court petition under Section 13 (B) (2) of HMA for grant of divorce.That it has been agreed and mutually decided between the parties that after dong the exercise as spelt out in para No. 2 as stated herein above the parties shall withdraw their respective cases as filed in various courts.That Dr. Poonam will look after the son Manu for whole of the life, she shall claim any maintenance either for herself or for the son Manu.That the second party will never claim any jewellery or any other moveable property Istridan in future.This agreement supersedes all the earlier settlement as made between the parties and this agreement shall be binding upon the parties.That this agreement has been executed by the parties of their own sweet will and without any pressure/coercion and they have well understood the contents of settlement.That it is once again made clear that parties have also exchanged their respective documents in respect of the portions, properties, etc. falling in to their shares with each other and however any document(s), paper(s), bills, authorisation of left or lying with any party concerned will return the same to other party and further in future if required both the parties shall execute all the requisite documents, applications, indemnity bond, declarations, NOC, etc, as and when required without hesitation.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 18 of 29In witnesses, whereof, the parties named hereinabove have set hands on the said Agreement at Delhi on the date, month and year written hereinabove in the presence of the following witnesses."Para 7 of the petition virtually set out the entire terms of the aforementioned settlement.It was supported by both the affidavits of the Defendant and Dr. Poonam Khanna.Thereafter, an order was passed on 3rd May 2003 in the second motion noting that the parties had settled all their disputes and claims as well as "for permanent alimony as well as about the custody of the child as detailed in paragraph No. 6 of the petition." The Court noted that "the Petitioner undertake to abide by the terms and conditions as settled by them." Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved with immediate effect.The Plaintiff was represented then and continues to be represented by his mother, Dr. Poonam Khanna, as the natural guardian.It is not as if Dr. CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 19 of 29 Poonam Khanna has subsequently discovered some new fact that she was not aware of when she entered into the settlement.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 19 of 29By an order dated 13th April 2006, the learned MM dismissed the application filed by the Defendant for dropping the proceedings against him under Section 125 CrPC.The learned ASJ passed an order dated 10th May 2006 upholding the order of the learned MM.On 26th June 2006, an order was passed by the learned MM awarding the Plaintiff interim maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month.This order was upheld by an order dated 30th October 2006 by the learned ASJ.On 9th July 2007, the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Plaintiff through his mother on the ground that the maintenance fixed was very low.Aggrieved by the above order, the Plaintiff filed Crl.M.A. No. 1919 of 2008 before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court recorded the statement of the Defendant herein on 5th December 2008 that he has offered to pay Rs. 7,500 per month to the Plaintiff herein.The Court was of the view that the said payment will be adequate and appropriate as interim maintenance.Thereafter, Crl.M.A. No. 3337 of 2007 was filed by Dr. V.P. Sharma seeking quashing of the FIR against him.In its order dated 23rd January CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 20 of 29 2009, the Court noted that acting on the said settlement, Dr. Poonam Khanna withdrew the maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 20 of 29The Defendant, in adherence to the compromise deed, filed an application before the learned MM in FIR No. 299 of 2004 registered in Police Station Malviya Nagar (which was a complaint against Dr. Poonam Khanna) for an offence under Section 324 Cr.PC seeking permission to compound the offence.However, Dr. Poonam Khanna objected to it stating that the terms and conditions of the compromise have not been adhered to.She also failed to withdraw her criminal complaint registered by her against her husband.It appears that the present suit was also filed on behalf of the Plaintiff by Dr. Poonam Khanna.It was noticed in para 13 of the order passed by this Court on 23rd January 2009 in Crl.M.C. No. 3337 of 2007, as under:Thus, it is clear that even after arriving at an amicable settlement in terms of compromise deed dated 2nd April 2003, Respondent No. 2 was not in peace and continued to prosecute the criminal cases filed by her against the Petitioner, even civil litigation was also initiated by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner.A Civil Suit No. 138 of 2008 was filed by Respondent No. 2 after the settlement of 2nd April 2003 and similar another Civil Suit No. 721 of 2005 was filed by her for declaration of rights of the disabled son in the Malviya Nagar residential property.It is a settled law that once parties reconcile their disputes and execute a document containing the terms and conditions of the reconciliation which is partly acted upon, a CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 21 of 29 party cannot withdraw from the compromise and refuse to perform its part of the obligation because it would tantamount to misuse of process of law."CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 21 of 29Consequently, the FIRs registered against the Defendant, i.e., 49 of 2002, 422 of 2002 and 299 of 2002 were quashed by the Court inter alia for the following reasons:Under these circumstances, when dispute was amicably settled, it is in the interest of justice as well as parties that criminal litigation inter se them is brought to an end.It would bring more amicable and peaceful relationship between the parties which would be far more beneficial to the interest of the child who is mentally retarded and needs protection and care in amicable and peaceful atmosphere.Respondent No. 2 has already obtained an injunction order against the Petitioner, thereby restraining him not to visit within the radius of 100 meters of the property.In the backdrop of chequered history of litigation Respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to continue with the cases with a hostile attitude; might be with a view to grab whole of the property.It is the Petitioner who has been rendered homeless in this entire litigation even when he has shown his bona fides in executing his part of the compromise.Hence, under the circumstances of this case, where parties have been litigating with each other over a long period to the detriment of the interest of a mentally retarded child and dispute now seems to be more of property dispute, it is in the interest of justice to bring this entire litigation to an end and to ensure that the relevant clause of the agreement which has become bone of contention; property is sold and sale proceeds are distributed as CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 22 of 29 per respective shares agreed between the parties; that is computed with, this petition is accordingly allowed.Aggrieved by the above order, Criminal Appeal No. 1625 of 2009 was filed by Dr. Poonam Khanna.On 17th March 2011, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:We have heard the parties appearing in person very carefully.The primary grievance of the Appellant i.e. wife is that despite the comprehensive deed of settlement dated 2nd April 2003, the Respondent had continued to pursue the litigations that were pending and has in fact filed some additional cases as well.We put it to the Respondent as to whether he would be filing to withdraw all the cases which had been initiated by him.He categorically stated that he would do so but when a similar query was put to the Appellant she, at the initial stage, said that she would not withdraw them but when told that we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, she said that she would withdraw the cases that she had filed but would continue to pursue some of the applications that had been filed on behalf of the child and would continue to seek additional maintenance.In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter.The appeal is dismissed."CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 23 of 29Another consequence of the settlement was that an order dated 29th July 2010 was passed by the learned ASJ allowing the revision petition by the Defendant and setting aside the order dated 23rd January 2010 passed by the learned MM granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month.The Court in that process took note of the fact that the settlement has been arrived at between the parties.Paras 22 to 25 of the said order read as under:I note that the Petitioner proposed a settlement deed in the Court of Smt. R.S. Nag on 27th May 2002 which envisaged that the parties will seek divorce, Petitioner will not claim any maintenance and Respondent will forgo, his lien over the DDA flat as also a shop in property No. N-15, Malviya Nagar, and property No. C-18, Shivalik, shall be sold off and sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties.Another settlement was executed on 2nd April 2003 which was ultimately registered.The only difference between vis-a-vis previous settlement was that Respondent reduced his share in the property C-18, Shivalik from 50 per cent to 45 per cent.On 3rd May 2003 the divorce obtained by mutual consent in terms of settlement dated 2nd April 2003 and Petitioner withdrew her case in the guardianship court and petition under Section 125 CrPC on behalf of his son.The joint petition for mutual consent divorce, statement on oath as well as final order expressly stipulating that the Petitioner shall not claim any maintenance through rest of the life.It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of the settlement dated 2nd March 2003, this Court quashed four criminal cases in Criminal M.C. No. 3337 of 2007 petition filed CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 24 of 29 under Section 482 CrPC by Respondent.The Petitioner preferred to challenge the said judgment in the Supreme Court, whereupon the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed."CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 24 of 29Her answer was as under:"Ans.It was acted upon in the form that GPA and Will was executed according to that deed but on 11th December 2001 the Defendant resiled from that deed by filing a suit for possession of the ground floor and in that plaint the Defendant stated on affidavit that he has cancelled the GPA and Will and subsequently in a subsequent settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003 both the Defendants as well as myself signed a clause written in the subsequent deed dated 2nd April 2003 that the subsequent deed dated 2nd April 2003 supersedes all the previous deed so as for today only the deed dated 2nd April 2003 exists.The Plaintiff Manu Khanna is not a party in this deed."On the settlement dated 2nd April 2003, the following questions were put to Dr. Poonam Khanna and answered as shown hereunder:"Q. Is it correct that a consent decree of divorce was passed between you and the Defendant under the terms and conditions of settlement dated 2nd April 2003?: The decree was not with mutual consent.I gave my consent subject to fulfilment of certain condition/promise made by the Defendant.Q. Please tell as to whether the deed dated 2nd April 2003 was ever acted upon?Ans: It was partly acted upon.Q. Can you tell as to what obligations have been discharged under the deed dated 2nd April 2003?: I have acted upon term No. 1 and term No. 3 of the aforesaid deed.Q.: I put it you that on the basis of terms and conditions contained in the deed dated 2nd April 2003, three cases pending between you and the Defendant have been settled?Q.: Have you given any notice to Defendant to comply with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement deed?Ans: No. Q: Have you filed any suit or case against the Defendant for not following the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement deed?Ans: No. Volunteered.Plaintiff is not a party to this settlement deed.Q.: Is it correct that the welfare of the Plaintiff was also taken into account while arriving at the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003?CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 26 of 29The deed dated 2nd April 2003 and the divorce decree by mutual consent cannot be read separately.It is not legally permissible to allow one party to the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003 to resile from it on the basis of such settlement, particularly since the parties have, on that basis, unalterably changed their respective positions.The Court does not consider it appropriate to reopen the whole question as to who paid for the purchase of C-18, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.In examining that question the Court might not only be re-writing the Settlement Agreement dated 2nd April 2003 but also reversing the steps taken pursuant thereto which resulted in judicial orders including those of the Supreme Court.It will be an abuse of the process and a waste of the Court's precious time to enter into this pointless exercise.Be that as it may, the Court finds the evidence placed on record to be insufficient to conclude that the funds for the purchase of the said property were not contributed to by the Defendant and, in any event, that part of the funds were contributed to by the father of the Defendant.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 27 of 29The affidavit of the father of the Defendant stating that he has not contributed anything to the purchase of the property at C-18, Shivalik has gone unchallenged.Dr. Poonam Khanna signed the settlement agreement on 2nd April 2003 accepting the statements made thereunder and participated in the steps taken on that basis.She should not be permitted now to go back on the statements made prior to the settlement.Given the long history of litigation between the parties, it is important for the Court to honour the settlement between the parties on 2nd April 2013 and to bring to an end the disputes between them.M.C. No. 2602 of 2010 was affirmed by the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the said order.Since Issue No. 2 has been decided against the Plaintiff, the question of determining the share of the Plaintiff in the property at C-18, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi does not arise.In the above circumstances, Issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.Issue No. 6 is answered against the Plaintiff by holding that the Plaintiff CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 28 of 29 is not entitled to relief for injunction or any other alternative relief not pressed.Issue No.1 is answered against the Defendant as the burden was on him to show that the suit was not properly valued and he failed to discharge such burden.CS (OS) No. 721 of 2005 Page 28 of 29Issue No. 5 is whether the suit has been filed out of malice as stated in para 1 of the preliminary objections in the written statement.The circumstances, in which the present suit has been filed is significant for the issue.As noticed earlier, after steps were taken by both the parties to comply with the respective terms of the statement, Dr. Poonam Khanna appears to have had second thoughts.She was supposed to have given up her claim to the roof and terrace above the first floor.Nevertheless, she filed the present suit and dragged the Defendant into vexatious litigation.Numerous applications were filed by her from time to time.The orders passed by the Court dismissing their applications have also been adverted to.In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff without any legal basis and to overcome the settlement deed dated 2nd April 2003 which is binding on the parties.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.Both of them have been bear at length.At the time of marriage Rahu Patil had given golden Mangalsutra, silver toering (Jodavi) to Prabhavati and Rs. 2500/- in cash along with utensils, cloths, cot, etc, to Shivaji.The petitioners are hereby taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur at Kolhapur who dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1990 by confirming the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offences punishable under provisions of Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC by which the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo various terms of sentence of imprisonment for respective offences.The petitioners are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further RI for three months.They have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo RI for five years.The couple stayed together for six months and thereafter the petitioner Shivaji was invited for traditional "Divali Saan" (traditional visit of son-in-law to father-in-law's house for celebrating Diwali along with the bride).Petitioner Shivaji, as per the prosecution case, wrote a letter Exhibit - 13 to Rahu Patil and demanded a golden chain weighing one tola and the cloth for a suit.On that Diwali visit, petitioner Shivaji and wife Prabhavati visited the house of Rahu Patil wherein Shivaji, the petitioner, was given a golden ring weighing half tola and a suit cloth by witness Rahu Patil, the father of Prabhavati.As per the prosecution case, Shivaji was annoyed and disappointed and left father-in law's house earlier than schedule departure.As per the prosecution case, after Diwali at some time PW Gundu, the brother of Prabhavati, visited the house of the petitioners for bringing Prabhavati to parental home to see her ailing mother who was suffering from Asthama.As per the prosecution case, the petitioners did not permit her to go to parents house.Thereafter Rahu Patil visited the house of the petitioner but he was not treated properly there.It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner Bayyakka abused and insulted him.He returned back.It is the prosecution case that one Subrao, the friend and neighbour of the petitioners visited the house of Rahu Patil and during the visit he told Rahu Patil that his son-in-law was not happy on account of the present of golden ring which was less in weight than expected by Shivaji, the son-in-law.After this, say about one year, Prabhavati was found dead floating on the water of the well which was 2 1/2 kms.away from the village.A complaint was lodged by PW Rahu Patil, father of deceased Prabhavati against the petitioner which resulted in investigation and the charge in which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.The first point which Mr. Gole submitted was that there is no evidence to show that Prabhavati was treated with cruelty.He made reference to the evidence on record.Shri Shringarpure, the Additional Public Prosecutor, also made reference to the evidence on record and submitted that there is abundant evidence of cruelty at the hands of the petitioners to Prabhavati.Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that the petitioners were illtreating Prabhavati and they were harassing her which was equivalent to cruelty as contemplated by the relevant provisions of IPC.It has come in the evidence of Rahu Patil that Prabhavati had told him that she was treated with cruelty by the petitioners.Brother Gundu had also seen the harassment of Prabhavati at in-laws house.PW Subrao heard the quarrels which were taking place in the house.In addition to this, there is a letter on record i.e. Exhibit 13 which was sent by Petitioner No. 1 Shivaji to his father-in-law wherein he had demanded a chain of one tola for Diwali visit and had told him that he would not visit father-in-law's house unless his demand was satisfied.It has also come in the prosecution evidence that Prabhavati was sent for doing agricultural work.In so far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution on this point is concerned, what Gundu saw cannot be accepted because Gundu has not been examined.The quarrels which were heard by PW Subrao would be irrelevant to certain extent only.The evidence of PW Rahu Patil in context with Petitioner No. 2 and 3 is quite vague.He has not stated as to how the petitioner No. 2 and 3 were treating Prabhavati with cruelty.A general statement made and nothing more than that.However, the letter sent by petitioner No.1 Exhibit-13 and his early departure than scheduled one from father-in-law's house will have to be considered along with evidence of PW Subrao.PW Subrao has stated that petitioner No. 1 Shivaji was very much disappointed by receiving only half tola golden ring from his father-in-law.Even Rahu Patil's evidence shows that the said ring was returned by his mother to Rahu Patil.But there is no specific evidence on record to show that either petitioner Nos. 2 or 3 illtreated deceased illtreated Prabhavati.Though there is evidence on record that petitioner No. 1 by writing Exhibit-13 demanded golden chain weighing one tola and showed his disappointment as indicated by Subrao, there is no evidence on record to show that he illtreated Prabhavati.The prosecution is obliged to prove that the accused behaved with the deceased in such a way which amounted to cruelty as indicated by provisions of Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.There is no evidence on record to show that such a golden chain was agreed to be given at the time of marriage.There has to be a nexus between such harassment, illtreatment, cruelty and the death.In the present case, both the Judges, trial Judge as well as first appellate Judge gave unnecessary importance to not finding of pot floating on the after sufficient enough to indicate that she had not gone there for drinking water.They also pointed out that the said well was having an electric engine fitted to it.But they lost the sight of glaring fact that she had gone alone to said well.This fact cannot be all the time weighed against the petitioners, the accused, because the well as situated near the field of the petitioners themselves.Therefore, she must have been well acquainted with the said well and, therefore, she might have gone all alone to the said well for bringing water.They misread the evidence on this point also.

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

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

Janardhan Sharma, for the appellant.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Gana-pathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.The facts leading up to the present appeal are shortly asfollows: On April 6, 1943, the appellant was appointed asub-inspector under the Delhi Audit Fund.In February 1947,he was transferred to the Co-operative Societies Departmentand posted as subinspector in the Milk Scheme.On July 3,1947, the the appellant was confirmed by the then DeputyCommissioner of Delhi who was also the ex-officio Registrarof Co-operative Societies.You should also state inyour reply whether you wish to be heard in person or whetheryou will produce defence.The reply should reach theAsst.Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, within tendays from the receipt of this charge sheet".Thechargesheet was signed by Shri Rameshwar Dayal who was atthat time the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi and wasadmittedly the authority competent to dismiss the appellant.The appellant duly submitted his explanation in writing.It was in thefollowing terms: -"I, the undersigned, do hereby dismiss Shri Khem Chand,sub-inspector, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, from theGovernment Service with effect from the date of this order.On August 1, 1948, the appellantwas transferred to the Rehabilitation Department of the Co-operative Societies and posted as sub-inspector.On July 1,1949, the appellant was suspended by the then DeputyCommissioner, Delhi.On July 9, 1949, the appellant wasserved with a charge sheet under r. 6(1) of the Rules whichhad been framed by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to providefor the appointment to the subordinate services under hisadministrative control and the discipline and rights ofappeal of members of those services.After formulatingeight several charges the document concluded as follows: "You are, therefore, called upon to show cause why you shouldnot be dismissed from the service.One Shri Mahipal Singh, Inspector, Co.operative Societies was appointed by the DeputyCommissioner, Delhi the officer to hold the enquiry.Theappellant attended two sittings before the Enquiry Officerand then applied to the Deputy Commissioner to entrust theenquiry to some Gazetted Officer under him.This request ofthe appellant was rejected and he was informed accordingly.The appellant,however, did not, after October 20, 1949, attend any furthersittings before the Enquiry Officer.The Enquiry Officerthereupon framed four additional charges against theappellant, namely, (1) for his refusal to attend theenquiry, (2) for his refusal to accept the service of theorder of the Enquiry Officer, (3) for his absence withoutpermission and (4) for his misconduct in snatching awaypapers from one Mohd. Ishaq and using unparliamentary andthreatening language.It appears that at or about this time the appellantbecame involved in a criminal case on a charge under s. 307of the Indian Penal Code and on October 30, 1949, he wasactually arrested but was released on bail two or three dayslater.Eventually on May 20, 1950, the appellant wasdischarged from the criminal charge.On November 14, 1951, the appellant was served with anotice signed by one Shri Vasudev Taneja, Superintendent.It will be noticed that both the points relatedto the enquiry before Shri Mahipal Singh.On December 13,1951, Shri J. B. Tandon made a report.After reciting thecharge sheet containing the notice calling upon theappellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed fromservice and setting out the charges contained in the noticeand summarising the explanation submitted by the appellantwith regard to each of the charges and reciting the prayerof the appellant that the Enquiry Officer should be changedand the rejection thereof and the framing of additionalcharges and the appellant's absence from the enquiry witheffect from October 20, 1949, the report proceeded to setout the actual charges which Shri Mahipal Singh was appoint-ed to enquire into.The report then stated that the enquirywith regard to the first two charges had been held in thepresence of the appellant and the rest were enquired into exparte as the appellant had absented himself from theenquiry.Then the report recited that twelve charges hadbeen proved against the appellant and he was given thebenefit of doubt in respect of charge No. (iii) and that nocharge sheet had been given with regard to charges Nos.(xiii) and (xiv) and that no enquiry had been held on thosecharges.Out of the twelve charges said to have been provedagainst the appellant, Shri J. B. Tandon found that nocharge had been actually framed in one case and, therefore,he reduced the number of proved charges to eleven andproceeded to base his recommendation on them.After statingthat the charges of embezzlemient, acceptance of illegalgratification and borrowing of money from societies were soserious that even one of them alone was sufficient to demandthe appellant's dismissal and that the entries made in hischaracter roll disclosed that his work and conduct had notbeen satisfactory and explaining that the enquiry had beenheld up by reason of the appellant having been challanedunder s. 307, Indian Penal Code, Shri J. B." The charges of embezzlement, acceptance of illegalgratification, making wrong statement, misbehaviour at thetime of enquiry and refusal to receive orders to attendenquiry which had been proved against him are so seriousthat, I am sorry, I cannot suggest lesser punishment thandismissal from service and he may be dismissed." The report also recommended that the appellant's gunlicence be cancelled and that he be directed to surrenderhis licence and deposit the gun in the district Malkhana andthat the money, which had been proved to have been taken bythe appellant from various societies, might also berecovered from the security deposit furnished by him.Thereis no positive and definite statement in Shri J. B. Tandon'sreport that Shri Mahipal Singh had concluded the enquiry orsubmitted a formal report.The general tenor of Shri J. B.Tandon's report, however suggests that Shri Mahipal Singhdid arrive, at definite findings on twelve charges.Theappellant's grievance is that he was not given a copy of thereport of Shri Mahipal Singh, if any had been made, and nosuch report has been exhibited in this case.At the foot of Shri J. B. Tandon's report the followingendorsement appears over the signature of the DeputyCommissioner, Delhi under date December 14, 1951: " Thereport is approved.Action accordingly." Thereupon onDecember 17, 1951, a formal order was issued over thesignature of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi.He has been found guilty of the charges of embezzlement,acceptance of illegal gratification, making wrongstatement,misbehaviour at the time of the enquiry andrefusal to receive order to attend the enquiry.I furtherorder that money which has been proved to have been taken byShri Khem Chand from various societies be recovered from thesecurity deposit furnished by him.Thereafter the appellant served a notice of suit onthe respondents under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedureand on May 21, 1953, filed civil suit No. 213 of 1953complaining, inter alia, that Art. 311(2) had not beencomplied with.The suit was decreed by the subordinatejudge, Delhi on May 31, 1954, declaring that the plaintiff'sdismissal was void and inoperative and that the plaintiffcontinued to be in the.service of the State of Delhi at thedate of the institution of the suit and awarding costs tothe plaintiff.The Union of India preferred an appealagainst the judgment of the subordinate judge, Delhi, butthe appeal was dismissed by the senior subordinate judge,Delhi on December 21, 1954, and the decree of the trialcourt was confirmed.A second appeal was taken by thedefendants to the Punjab High Court.By his judgment datedNovember 1, 1955, the Single Judge held that there had beena substantial compliance with the provisions of Art. 311 andaccordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the decree of thecourts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.OnSeptember 6, 1956, the plaintiff obtained special leave fromthis Court and has preferred this appeal against the orderof the learned Single Judge.The appellant has also beenallowed to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis.Appeal allowed.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1] A challenge in the present petitions is to the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 349, 353, 332, 109, 324, 420, 427, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, Section 37 read with 135 of the Police Act 1861, Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 2016, Section 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Sections 3(1)(II), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::pursuant to secret information, Assistant Supdt.of Police of Karvir Police Station of Kolhapur along with other police personnel raided the Matka (Gambling) Den of Salim Yashin Mulla (accused No.26).It is alleged that while recording of the panchanama of incriminating articles which were found during the raid was going on, the wife of accused No.26 namely Shama Salim Mulla (accused No.1) came there with other co-accused and they assaulted the raiding party.4] Initially, on the basis of complaint lodged by one of the members of the raiding party with Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur, the said police station registered the crime vide crime No.136 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 349, 353, 332, 109, 324, 427, of IPC, Section 4 and 5 of Maharashtra Gambling Act, Section 37 read with 135 of Police Act and Section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::6] It is alleged that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused No.26 used to transfer money received by him from Matka business to accused No.30 Rakesh Agrawal (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3775 of 2019) and accused No.42 Manish Agarwal (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2899 of 2019), in certain contingencies i.e if he perceived that he would not be able to repay the amount in the event particular number on which maximum amount was betted and accepted by him declared to be winning number.Thus, accused No.30 and 42 used to accept that risk and discharge Dinesh Sherla 5/18::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 ::: [email protected] the obligation to pay if said number turn out to be winning one.It is alleged that in a similar circumstances, accused Nos.30 and 42 used to transfer risk and money received by them from persons like accused No.26 to accused No.43 Samrat Korane (petitioner in Writ Petition No.5461 of 2019).::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::7] We have heard the learned advocates for the petitioners and learned Spl.P.P., for the respondent - State.8] Before adverting to rival contentions, we would first like to refer to the provisions of the MCOC Act, which are relevant for deciding the issues involved in the present matter and their interpretation by Hon'ble Supreme Court.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::An 'organized crime' should be any 'continuing unlawful activity' either by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of such syndicate.The mere indulgence in a violent activity etc. either for pecuniary gain or other advantage or for promoting insurgency as an individual, either singly or jointly as a member of 'organized crime syndicate' or on behalf of a such syndicate would be sufficient for bringing the said activity within the four corners of the definition of 'organized crime'.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::By conspectus reading of the above three definitions, if in the preceding 10 years from the date of third continuing unlawful activity if more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court which had taken cognizance of such offence which would result in imposition of a punishment of three years or more, undertaken by a person individually or jointly either as a member of an 'organized crime syndicate' or on its behalf, such crime if falls within the definition of 'organized crime', the invocation of MCOCA would be the resultant position."10] As regards requirement of more than one charge-sheet within the preceding period of 10 years, this Court in the judgment reported in 2009 ALL MR 1903 in the case of Govind S. Ubhe vs. State of Maharashtra has held:11] In the above backdrop, now we will examine the rival contentions raised by the parties.P.P has pointed out the statements of witnesses and confessions of some of the petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::12] We have perused the said statements and confessions.The fact that the petitioners were not present at the time of incident dated 8.4.2019 is not in dispute.The statement of witness Sanjay Adsule referred to by learned Spl.A confession of accused No.32 Ankush Waghre came to be recorded during the course of investigation and it shows that accused No.26 Salim Mulla used to transfer money received Dinesh Sherla 10/18::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 ::: [email protected] by him from Matka business to accused Nos. 30 and 42 in certain contingencies as stated supra.Suffice it to say that the statement of witnesses and confessions of some of the petitioners referred to by learned Spl.P.P. are on a similar terms.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be roped in the present Dinesh Sherla 11/18::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 ::: [email protected] crime as members of organized crime syndicate led by ac- cused No. 26, on the basis of their alleged complicity in his Matka business.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::It will lead to a tyrant situation.These members may work under one leadership, however, they may commit offence independently which should fall under the definition of "continuing unlawful activity" as either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate.::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 06:08:53 :::As against this, the learned Spl.In absence of any challenge to the said clause, we are compelled to reject this contention.20] No case is, therefore, made out to quash the prosecution in question against the petitioners.In the result, all the petitions are dismissed.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(14/03/2018) Per Justice Sanjay Yadav:One more appeal [Cr.A. No.362/2005], arising from said judgment, preferred by Mangal Singh S/o Matadeen has been abated due to his death.(2) These appellants, viz., Parashuram, Ramsahai, Ramswaroop @ Roopa, Ramlakhan, Ramsevak @ Sevak and Jalim Singh along with Diwan Singh and Siyaram were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 on the allegations that on 06.10.2001 at 09:15 AM each one of them armed with lethal weapons: barchi, sword, spear, lathi (stick), country-made bomb (hathgola) forming unlawful assembly and sharing common object caused injuries to Chironji (PW-6), Madan (the deceased), Raghuveer, Patiram (PW-13), Leelabai (died natural death during pendency of trial), Ramhet (PW-12), Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15).As a result whereof Madan succumbed to the injuries.Chironji (PW-6) lodged an FIR to the effect that the accused persons being annoyed with complainant's buffaloes causing damage to their hutment in the night in the agricultural fields of Jalim and Lakhan, Sevak, Roopa, Lakhan, Parshuram, Ramsahai, Mangal Singh, Jalim Singh armed with Barchi, Sword, lathi, spear and country-made bomb (hathgola) came to their house and entered their house by breaking the door; but went back as the complainant and other victims ran away from their house.However, when the victims were going to Police Station, Kolaras on a tractor to lodge report, the accused persons stopped their tractor on way.Lakhan carrying barchi caused injury to Madan on his left side of chest, as a result whereof he fell down unconscious.Sevak caused injuries with gupti to complainant Chironji (PW-6) on his right side of the torso and another blow was hit on his head.Roopa caused injury to the complainant with sword.Other accused persons who were also armed with lethal weapons caused injuries to the victim party resulting in grievous injuries.Report whereof is Ex.P-6/Ex.Statements of injured, viz., Chrionji, Khachera Dhobi, Kailash Dhakad, Patiram, Gyani Dhobi, Badami Dhakad, Babulal Dhakad were recorded.On the basis of memorandum statements of accused persons, the weapons used in commission of 4 Cra.243.2005 & Cra.260.2005 offence were seized vide Ex.P-5, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14, Ex.P- 15, Ex.P-16, Ex.Accused persons were arrested.(5) The complaint led to registration of offences under Sections 307, 323, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC.However, with the death of Madan, immediately after lodging report led to conversion of offence under Section 307 to that of under Section 302 IPC.That Panchnama of the body of Madan was prepared and was sent for post mortem.After completing the investigation, charge- sheet was filed which was committed before the Sessions Court.(6) The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded that they are falsely implicated.In defence examined two witnesses, viz., Ramkrishna Pandey (DW-1) and Dr. Nisar Ahmed (DW-2) exhibited D-11 to D-13 which are the MLCs of appellants Ramsevak, Ramlakhan and Ramswaroop to establish the discrepancy and falsity of prosecution story.(7) Prosecution, to bring home the charges, examined 21 witnesses.Out of these Chironji (PW-6), Ramhet (PW-12), Partiram (PW-13), Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15) were injured eyewitnesses.Dr. S.K. Majeji (PW-4) was examined as doctor who carried out post mortem of the deceased Madan.P-6/Ex.P-34 is his post mortem report.Following injuries were found on the body of deceased Madan:-"(1) Punctured wound 1''x1/2'' deep upto lung matter, on the chest left side exterior & upper part about 3'' below the mid point clavicle left line haemorrhage in muscle, pleural cavity lung left, lung of left side also cut 1''x1/2''x2'';(2) Abrasion 4''x1'' middle of back;(3) Abrasion 1/2''x1/2''.Left hand.All injuries ante-mortem in nature.Injury No.1 caused by sharp cutting edged pointed instrument."(8) Dr. P.D. Gupta (PW-9) was examined to prove the MLCs of Chironji (PW-6), Raghuveer, Patiram, Kailash who respectively were found to have sustained injuries 5 Cra.243.2005 & Cra.260.2005 vide Ex.P-36, Ex.P-38 and Ex.(9) Pertinent it is to note that in the cross-case, the accused persons also filed documents and examined the doctor who carried out MLC of the injuries, sustained in the same incident, to Ramsewak and Ramlakhan Ex.The doctor who carried out MLC, Dr. Nisar Ahmed was examined as (DW-2).(10) The trial court, on the basis of the evidence on record found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing charges against the present appellants, acquitting two persons, viz., Deewan Singh and Siyaram.(11) Taking us through the entire evidence on record, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution having deliberately suppressed the genesis of the entire incident proceeded on a different version ignoring the fact that it was the alleged victim party who were the assailants and the accused persons were only defending themselves and exercising their right of private defence.It is contended that since there was a free fight in which the members of both the parties sustained injuries, the prosecution was not fair in not recording and investigating true version and instead resorted to concocted story.(12) It is contended that the accused persons who are Kachchi by caste had purchased the land in the village of complainant who happened to be of Dhakad community.As the complainant's buffaloes had caused damage to the hut located in the agricultural field at 5 led them to the house of the complainant to inform about the damage wherein they were beaten by the complainant party which led the accused persons lodge complaint at Police Station Kolaras and while returning therefrom the 6 Cra.243.2005 & Cra.260.2005 accused persons were haulted by the complainant party who were on tractor armed with weapons and they being aggressor the accused persons had to defend themselves and while exercising their right of private defence to save themselves from the beating by the complainant party injuries were sustained by the members of both the parties.It is urged that Madan (deceased) succumbed to one such injuries.(13) The appellants have adverted to Ex.P-8 and Ex.D-9 and the site plan Ex.P-10 and Ex.D-10 to establish that both the parties had lodged complaint with the Police Station Kolaras for the same incident which, it is contended, has been admitted by the Investigating Officer Ramashankar Dubey (PW-19) in paragraph 17 of his deposition in Court.It is urged that Ex.D-11, Ex.D-12 and Ex.D-13 are MLCs relating to the injuries sustained by the accused persons viz Ramsewak S/o Govindi Kushwah, Ramlakhan S/o Govindi Kushwah and Ramswaroop S/o Govindi Kushwah.Reference has been made to the statement of Chironji (PW-6) (Paragraph 4), Khachera (PW-7) (Paragraph 13), Ramhet (PW-12) (Paragraph 8), Patiram (PW-13) (Paragraph 2), Gyani (PW-14) (Paragraph 6), Kailash (PW-15) (Paragraph 2) and Badami (PW-16) (Paragraph 8).It is urged that the prosecution having failed to explain the injuries on the accused persons creates doubt about the credibility of the injured executers.Jala and others [(1997) 11 SCC 579]" wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe:The fact that as many as six accused had received injuries during the incident cannot be disputed in view of the medical evidence on record.All the injuries received by Jala (A-1) and Vishnu (A-2) were not minor.Vishnu (A-2) had received an incised injury on his hand and Jala (A-1) had received a lacerated wound on his head.They were bleeding injuries.All the injured eye witnesses who were with deceased Anna have denied to have caused any injury to any of the accused.They flatly denied that they had weapons with them at the time of the incident.If under these circumstances the High Court thought it fit not to place, any reliance on Sua, Mohan, Panna, Arjun and Rukam, it cannot be said that the High Court was not justified in doing so."(14) It is further contended on the basis of FIR Ex.D/9 and the statement of Chironji (PW-6) (Paragraph 2), Khachera (PW-7) (Paragraph 20), Ramhet (PW-12) (Paragraph 1), Patiram (PW-13) (Paragraph 1) and the statement of the Investigating Officer Ramashankar Dubey (PW-19) (Paragraph 20) that though there was no use of "hathgola" at the place of incident, yet the prosecution witnesses in their depositions in the Court stated that use of "hathgola", which is not supported even by the Investigating Officer creates doubt over the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and that they are not giving the correct and apt version.(15) It is contended that as the accused persons had first gone to the police station to report about the beating given to them in the morning when they had gone to the house of the complainant as to the damage caused to the hut, and while coming back from the police station the complainant party, who had no cause to go to the police station had come on tractor and were the aggressors.It is seen that the prosecution has deliberately separated two incidents which occurred at 5.45 p.m and 6 p.m. on that date.A reading of the evidence clearly goes to show that after the first incident of quarrel between the ladies had taken place, when the deceased-Rajpal was passing through the road and had come near the house of the accused there appears to have arisen a quarrel between the accused party and the prosecution party.On these submissions, the appellants plead acquittal.(21) Considered the rival submissions, perused the entire record and the decisions cited at bar.(22) The question is whether the prosecution has distorted the version and the genesis as would create any doubt about the prosecution story.Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-8 it is stated that the complainant had run away from their village and later when they were going to lodge the complaint to the police station at 09:15 am were assailed by the accused.Whereas as per Ex.D-9 since the accused persons were beaten by the complainant party when they went to their village and while coming back from the Police Station after lodging complaint, they were encircled and beaten.Since the accused persons had taken the defence by placing on record Ex.D-9 to demolish the prosecution story as to second event in the chain of happenings, the onus was on them to have placed on record the copy of FIR which they had allegedly lodged with the police as regard to alleged beating given to them when they had gone to the victim party's house to complain of the damages caused to their hut.In absence whereof, no dent is caused to the prosecution story as to complainant party running away from the village when the accused persons had come to their village and caused damages to their houses.In view whereof if were the accused persons who were anguished and the prosecution succeeded in establishing the fact beyond the reasonable doubt that besides being armed with deadly weapons had formed an unlawful assembly sharing common object and when the complainant party was on its way to lodge complaint were attacked; and the nature of injuries sustained by the members of both the parties establish the fact that the accused persons were the aggressors and not the members of complainant party who were on tractor and were pulled down from it.(35) The chain of events starts from early morning when the complainant's buffaloes causing damage to the hut in the agricultural field of the accused persons.Then accused persons forming an assembly with lethal weapons and attacking and causing damages to the house of the complainant party and thereafter an attempt to prevent them from lodging complaint at police station suggests that besides forming unlawful assembly each member shared common object to cause injuries and death of the complainant and Madan respectively.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-The appellant - accused married the deceased Ambika about 14 years prior to the occurrence.The accused was unfaithful to her as she was having illicit intimacy with one Kumaresan from three years prior to the occurrence.Though this couple is having four children and the appellant also advised his wife-deceased to mend her ways she did not yield and six months prior to the date of occurrence, she deserted the appellant and joined the said Kumaresan her paramour.On 14-1-1986 at 12.00 Noon PW 2, who is residing in Door No. 4 in Nadukuppam, Triplicane, was sitting outside her house and at that time, the deceased Ambika came there for a chit chat.While they were in conversation, the appellant-accused, who is a fisherman, was returning from the sea and on seeing the deceased, sitting along with PW 2, he came towards her.When PW 1 came and learnt what had happened from PW 2, she ran inside the house and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with a broken horlicks bottle glass at her neck.After inflicting the injury, the appellant came out and escaped with the bleading broken glass piece, P.Ws. 1 and 2 shouted for help and PW 3 who was coming by that way helped them for lifting the victim Ambika from inside the house to the front pial.PW 4, the paramour of the deceased, also came there on hearing the news and the victim was sent in an autorickshaw along with PW 1 to hospital.In Government Hospital at Royapettah, the victim Ambika was exammed by P.W. 11, who found her already dead.Ex. P. W. 13 is the Accident Register prepared by him.P.W. 1 immediately went to the Merina Police Station at 1.30 p.m. and lodged the complaint Ex. P1 with P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was on duty.The Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same in Crime No. 28 of 1988 for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and prepared the First Information Report Ex. P. 14, which was forwarded to the Court and other superior officials.P.W. 13 - Inspector of Police who received the phone message relating to this occurrence, came to the police station.He also found the blood stained articles M.Os.He proceeded to the, hospital, where he conducted the inquest, in the presence of the panchayatdors.Ex. P16 is the inquest report.He also seized the blood stained saree, jacket and skirt M.Os.This appellant stands convicted by the learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in sessions Judge No. 72 of 1988 for the offence under section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for having caused the death of his wife by name Ambika.13 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, of whom P.W. 1 is the eye witness and PW 2 had partly witnessed the occurrence.He sent a requisition through P.W. 10 to the Forensic Science department, attached to the Madras Medical college for doing the post-mortem of the deceased.P.W. 5, the Professor attached to the Forensic Departtment in the Madras Medical college, after receiving the requisition Ex. P. 2, conducted post-mortem on 15-1-1988 at 3.30 p.m. He found as many as six external injuries, namely, (1) A linear oblique abrasion 3 x 0.5 cms overright posterior aspect of upper third of forearms, (2) An obliquely placed abrasion over the outer aspect of right forearm, (3) A linear abrasion seen over outer aspect of right upper arm.(4) An oblique abrasion over back of left forearm, (5) Two obliquely placed abrasion over a sternal area and left lateral to midline over the intercostat space close to anterior midline, and (6) An obliquely situated gaping deep incised stab wound over the left side of neck.The Doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to shock and the injury to the left jugular veins.The appellant took the police party and PW 8 to a place near a public lavatory, where M.O. 9 broken Horlicks Bottle was lying.The same was seized under Ex. P8 Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses.The Inspector of Police sent a requisition Ex. P. 9 to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to send the blood stained articles for forensic examination.They were sent accordingly under a covering letter Ex. P. 10 and after examination Ex. P. 11 forensic Report and Ex. P. 12 serologist Report were received by the court, P.W. 13 after complating the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code.After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him.The appellant simply denied his complicity in the crime and said that the case was foisted against him.No witness was examined on his side.The learned Sessions Judge after considering evidence has acquitted the appellant for the offence under sections 449 and 302 of the lndian Penal Code, but has convicted him under section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was unfaithful to the appellant even after giving birth to four children, that on the fateful day, she was found in the house of P.W. 2, which enraged the appellant to comit the murder because of her conduct and therefore, this is a case in which sympathy has to be invoked to award lenient sentence on the appellant.The learned counsel further argued that the appellant is having four children and if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, the life of the children will be doomed and therefore a favourable consideration has to be shown on the question of sentence.The learned counsel did not argue the appeal on the merit prosecution case.On a perusal of the evidence P.W. 1 who was present throughout the occurrence, it is well established that this appellant is the perpetrator of the crime in taking the life of the deceased.P.W. 2 though is the owner of the house in which the occurrence took place she did not enter into the house, but however she has spoken the events before the occurrence and subsequent to the occurrence.She has stated that the appellant when saw the deceased sitting in front of her house, chased her inside the house and thereafter when the came out, he was having a broken Horlicks Bottle with blood stains.This evidence of P.W. 2 fully supports the evidence of P.W. 1 the eye witness to the occurence.Further P.Ws. 3 and 4 also have spoken in their evidence that soon after their arrival to the scene of of occurrence, P.Ws. 1 and 2 has told them that the appellant-accused had stabbed his wife-Deceased.Therefore, there is abundant evidence, to accept the commission of the crime by this appellant-accused, namely stabbing his wife on account of which she died on the spot.I find no extenuating circumstances to bring down the offence under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no occasion for the appellant to get provoked at the time of the occurrence as he was fully aware that his wife-deceased had already deserted him and was living with P.W. 4 for more than six months.The conduct of the appellant reveals that he wanted to take vengeance upon his wife when he happened to sea her as she had deserted him and had chased her inside the house of P.W. 2 where he stabbed her with the broken Horlicks Bottle.It is true that when he was coming to the House of P.W. 2 he had no intention of committing the crime, but the moment he saw her his vengeance which was dormant, had compelled him to chase her and take her life out for her unfaithfull conduct this is a clear case of murder.But some how the learned sessions Judge has chosen to convict the appellant under section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code for which there is no appeal from the state.Hence there is no need to go into the nature of the offence committed by the appellant.The learned Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years only for the offence under section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code.But as mentioned above, there is no reason to show any sympathy to this appellant for the simple reason that his wife had deserted him.Any how for the offence under section 304(ii) Indian Penal Code, I feel that the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment cannot be said to be excessive.Even though, the appellant-asscused has four children, now I am told that they are in managable age.Even if they were unable to manage themselves, it is for the appellant to address any orphanage to take custody of the children.Any how, from the evidence and the circumstances available in this case, the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for the nature of offence committed by the appellant cannot at all be excessive and, therefore, no intervention is necessary to modify the sentence already imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.Appeal dismissed.

['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.

Therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgement.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 2 of 38Brief facts of the case are that Police Station Rohini had received an information vide D.D. No. 24 dated 07.09.2001 at 2.50 PM from the Police Control Room about the quarrel at B-6/222, Sector 5, Rohini.On reaching at the spot, police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she alleged that she was studying in SPM College, Punjabi Bagh in BA First year.She was going to the bus stand on foot to take bus for college at about 8.40 AM.When she reached at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, she saw her neighbour Mohit Bansal standing with his red colour motorcycle.On seeing her, he threatened and stopped her and asked her to sit on his motorcycle.There was no one present to help her.So he took her forcibly in flat No.B-5/136, Sector 11, Rohini.One boy was also present in the flat, who was in business of cable work in Sector 5, Rohini.He was known to her by the name Raju.Simultaneously, another boy, who had been called by Raju and Mohit Bansal by the name Rana also came there.Thereafter, appellant Mohit Bansal bolted the room from inside and pushed her on a bed and removed her clothes and also removed his clothes.She started weeping.Appellant Mohit Bansal gagged her mouth and told that if she will cry then he will kill her.Thereafter, Mohit Bansal committed rape on her against her consent.After that, he unbolted the room while she was wearing her clothes.Mohit Bansal snatched her clothes and called Raju and Rana inside the room.He Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 3 of 38 started wearing his clothes.She covered herself with bed sheet.Both Raju and Rana tried to hug her; she started weeping loudly but Raju did not restrain.He started pressing her breast with his hands.Rana was seeing the same.On her cries, they left her.She wore her clothes and came down from the flat.Before her leaving the flat, Mohit Bansal again threatened her that if she will tell this fact to anyone, then it would be bad for her.From outside, she took a rickshaw and came back to her house.Her mother was not present in the house, so she changed her clothes and slept.At about 2.30 PM, her mother woke her up and then she told her mother about the incident.Her mother went to the house of Mohit Bansal to complain about the same.But mother of Mohit Bansal started abusing and quarrelling with her mother.Accordingly, her elder sister Anuradha informed the police on telephone.Saroj, mother of the prosecutrix.PW9/A.PW6, Dr. G.P.Kaushal has proved the MLC of appellant Mohit Bansal as Ex.PW6/A.PW10, Sh.Samuel, Record Clerk from the Transport Department has proved the RC of motorcycle bearing No.DL6SK-9171 in the name of Usha Bansal and details of record as Ex.PW10/A.PW11, H.C. Suresh Kumar deposed that he joined the investigation of this case and visited the house of in-laws of appellant Chander Prakash @Raju, i.e., G-20/77, Sector 7 Rohini.The house was searched for recovery of bed sheet, but the same was not traceable there.He has proved the memo of Khana Talashi as Ex.PW11/A.PW12, Constable Balraj Singh deposed that he joined the investigation with Inspector R.S. Dahiya and Harish Chand.He stated that appellant Chander Prakash surrendered before the court and with the permission of the court he was interrogated and was arrested.The said appellant made a disclosure statement mark PW12/AA.The said appellant also pointed out the flat.He identified the appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju in the court.PW13, HC Siksha, posted in PCR has proved the information received by her as Ex.PW13/BB.PW14 is HC Jogender Singh, who deposed that on receipt of DD No. 24, he along with ASI Dharampal reached at the place of quarrel and there came to know that the persons involved in the quarrel had already been removed by the PCR to Police Post Vijay Nagar.SI Dharampal prepared the Tehrir of the case and got the case registered through him.He handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to SI Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 6 of 38 Dharampal at BSA Hospital.He received two parcels and one sample seal from the doctor, which he handed over to SI Dharampal, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/A. Thereafter, at the instance of the prosecutrix, site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 6 of 38PW15, SI Dharampal has proved the DD No.24 as Ex.PW15/A and deposed that he reached at the place of quarrel and came to know that PCR had removed the persons involved in the quarrel.He came back to the Police Post, where he met the prosecutrix and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. He has prepared the Rukka Ex.PW15/P.PW16, Inspector R.S. Dahiya is the Investigating Officer of this case.He recorded the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix and her father.He also went to the place of occurrence at flat No.B-5/136, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi and on pointing out by the prosecutrix, he prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW16/A.He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of appellant Chander Prakash@ Raju.On 16.10.2001, blood sample of appellant Chander Prakash with other exhibits were sent to FSL for comparison through Constable Balraj and thereafter he formally arrested appellant Mohit Bansal in the court.He tendered the FSL results vide Ex.PW16/C and Ex.PW16/D.PW17, HC Rajender was working as MHC(M).On 08.09.2001, SI Anant Kiran deposited the sealed parcels with him along with sample and also took the same from him for depositing with CFSL, Crl.It proves that she had already a meeting fixed with appellant Mohit Bansal.The flat in question was at a distance of six to seven kilometres from the bus stop but she did not raise any alarm.If she was being taken on a motorcycle forcibly, then certainly she was a Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 8 of 38 pillion rider and in that circumstance, appellant Mohit Bansal was not in a position to threaten her on the point of revolver.Appellant took her to a flat at Sector 11, Rohini forcibly and asked her to go upstairs after stopping his motorcycle there.Accordingly, she got down from the motorcycle and appellant Mohit Bansal followed her so that she may go to the flat and not run away.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 9 of 38Learned senior counsel has pointed out that the prosecutrix has made some improvements as in her previous statement Ex.PW1/A, she nowhere stated that appellant Mohit Bansal threatened her that he would kill her father and brother.He argued that the distance between the bus stop from where the prosecutrix was allegedly forcibly taken by the appellant Mohit Bansal on his motorcycle and flat is about six to seven kilometres.She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/A in her cross-examination.She admitted that they passed through a bus stand of Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital and she did not raise any alarm at that time.She voluntarily stated that it was not raised due to fear.She admitted in the cross-examination that she knew appellant Mohit Bansal for the last seven-eight years and also admitted that the said appellant Mohit Bansal called her by name and she stopped there.She also admitted that she did not try to run away from the stop.According to the biological report on all these exhibits, human blood of AB Group was found except Ex.2a, i.e., lady kurta.Prosecutrix in her statement Ex.PW1/A has proved that on 07.09.2001, appellant Mohit Bansal threatened her and forcibly took her on his motorcycle in a flat where appellant Raju was also present and appellant Rana also came there.Appellant Mohit Bansal bolted the room and removed her clothes forcibly and again threatened her to kill her and against her wishes committed rape upon her.Thereafter, appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju tried to hug her and pressed her breast with his hands.Appellant Vikas Rana was standing there and had seen the entire incident and on her cries, she was left, thereafter, she came down from the flat and went to her house.Her mother was not present in the house, therefore, she slept.At about 2.30 PM, she narrated the incident to her mother and police was informed accordingly.According to FSL report Ex.PW16/C, parcel No.1 was containing Ex.1a, one underwear, Ex.1b, four micro slides having thin whitish smear, Ex.1c, some filamentous like material Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 12 of 38 described as pubic hair, Ex.1d, dark brown liquid described as blood samples and Ex.1e, two pieces of cotton wool swab.Parcel No.2 was containing Ex.2a, one lady kurta and Ex.2b, one salwar.Parcel No.3 was containing Ex.3, one underwear.Parcel No.4 was containing Ex.4, i.e., some dark brown flaky material described as blood sample of Mohit Bansal.Parcel No.5 was containing Ex.5, i.e., dark brown liquid described as blood sample of appellant Chander Prakash.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 12 of 38Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the result of analysis, as per which human semen was detected on Ex.1a, i.e., one underwear of the prosecutrix.According to the biological report, Ex.It is further in evidence against you that Inspector R.S. Dahiya collected the result of the FSL and he tendered the same in court vide Ex.In the present case, the allegation on the appellant Mohit Bansal was that he forcibly took the prosecutrix on his motorcycle to a flat, which covers a distance of 6-7 Kms.and there was no resistance, no cry, no attempt to take help from anyone, when she was passing through full of traffic.Moreover, no attempt was made by the prosecutrix to invite the attention of the members of the public all along with road though she had crossed the distance of about 6-7 Kms.through the thick crowd.At about 8.40 am, when she reached near Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, she saw appellant Mohit Bansal on a motorcycle.On seeing her, the said appellant stopped her and threatened her that he would kill her father and brother, if she did not sit on his motorcycle.So she sat on his motorcycle out of fear.The said appellant forcibly took her to a flat at Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi and asked her to go upstairs after stopping his motorcycle there.She got down from the motorcycle and appellant Mohit Bansal followed her so that she may go to the flat and not run away.She further deposed that when she entered into the flat, appellant Raju was also present in the room and appellant Rana entered into the Crl.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 23 of 38PW1/ prosecutrix further deposed that as soon as appellant Rana entered into the room, appellant Mohit Bansal bolted the room from inside.Rana went inside the room, which was occupied by appellant Raju.There was a bed in that room and appellant Mohit Bansal forcibly pushed her on the bed and thereafter he removed his clothes.She started weeping.He removed her clothes and she wept bitterly.The appellant Mohit Bansal gagged her mouth with his friends and threatened her that if she raised alarm, he will kill her, then she stopped weeping.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 24 of 38The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience.The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice."I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.The allegations against the appellants are that on 07.09.2001, PW1 prosecutrix was going on foot to the bus stand from her house for going to college.At about 8.40 AM, when she reached near Rajiv Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 29 of 38 Gandhi Cancer Institute, appellant Mohit Bansal stopped her and threatened her that he would kill her father and brother if she did not sit on his motorcycle.Accordingly, she sat on his motorcycle out of fear.She was forcibly taken to a flat at Sector 11, Rohini.Appellant Raju was also present in the room and appellant Rana entered into the said flat thereafter.As soon as appellant Rana entered into the room, appellant Mohit Bansal bolted the room from inside.Appellant Rana went inside the other room, which was occupied by appellant Raju also.Thereafter, she put her clothes and came down from the flat.At that time appellant Mohit Bansal again threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise he would kill her.By way of present appeals, all the appellants are impugning the judgment dated 23.09.2009 and order on sentence dated 29.09.2009 passed by the learned Trial Court.Vide judgment dated 23.09.2009, passed by the learned Trial Court, all the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) read with Explanation 1 and Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC).Vide order dated 29.09.2009, they all were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo SI for one year and nine Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 2 of 38 months.Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has also been given to all the appellants by the learned Trial Court.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 3 of 38On her statement, the Investigating Officer prepared the ruqqa and got the case registered vide FIR No. 646/2001 at Police Station Rohini for the offences punishable under Sections 365/376/342/354/34 IPC.During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done.Clothes of the prosecutrix including her undergarments, which she was wearing at the time of rape, and her vaginal swab were taken and seized.After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against all the appellants.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 4 of 38Vide order dated 04.06.2004, charge under Sections 354/34 IPC and Section 376 (2) (g) IPC was framed against the appellants Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana and charge under Sections 366/376(2)(g)/506-II IPC was framed against the appellant Mohit Bansal to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in all.PW1 is the prosecutrix.PW3 is Smt. Nirmal Chhabra, who stated that about two years back, at about 10 or 11 AM when she was spreading her clothes for drying outside her house, the prosecutrix asked her the way to go to the Japanese Park.PW Anuradha and Gulshan were dropped by the prosecution.PW4, Ved Prakash did not support the prosecution case.PW5, Dr. Sandhaya Jain has proved the MLC of Anuradha/sister of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW5/A and also proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW7 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi has proved the MLC of appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju as Ex.PW7/A.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 5 of 38PW8, ASI Mohd. Swalay has proved the FIR as Ex.PW8/A.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 7 of 38 Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for result, and after examination the same were again deposited with him.He has proved the entries as exhibits PW17/A, 17/B and 17/C.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 7 of 38After recording the statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., DW-1, Sh.Gulshan Kumar Sachdeva was examined on behalf of appellant Mohit Bansal.He produced the record pertaining to Students Union Election 2001-02 and has proved the copy of the same as Ex.Case of the appellants before the Trial Court was that appellant Vikas Rana was not known to the prosecutrix.He was not arrested at the instance of the prosecutrix.There was a delay in arrest of appellant Mohit Bansal.According to the case of the prosecution, the flat has one room only and according to the deposition of the prosecutrix, the other co-appellants, i.e., Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana were in the second room, which falsifies the deposition of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm when she was taken by appellant Mohit Bansal on his motorcycle.Appellant Vikas Rana was arrested later on.Prosecutrix made a lot of improvements in her supplementary statement.As per the statement of the prosecutrix, she was not taking any book with her although she was going to college.Hence, the prosecutrix did not protest in any manner in respect of any act of appellant Mohit Bansal.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 8 of 38It is further case of the appellants that as per the prosecution case before the Trial Court, appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana were hiding in the bathroom.Appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju also committed rape on the prosecutrix.These facts were not told to the doctor in the hospital by the prosecutrix.Moreover, PW3 Smt. Nirmal Chhabra has stated that prosecutrix was normal when she asked the way to Japanese Park.Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mohit Bansal, has submitted that there was a bus stand near the house of the prosecutrix, so there was no reason for her going to any other bus stand, which was far away from her house to pick up a bus to go to her college; PW1/prosecutrix did not disclose complete facts to the police; she has denied making of supplementary statement Ex.PW1/DA; father of the prosecutrix has not been examined; evidence of PW3 Nirmal Chhabra is contrary to the factum of voting of elections on that date and it is not opined on the MLC Ex.PW9/A of the prosecutrix that she was habitual for sexual intercourse or not.Advocate further submitted that PW1 has deposed before the court that when she reached at the bus stand from her house at about 8.40 AM, appellant Mohit Bansal stopped her and threatened her Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 9 of 38 that he would kill her father and brother if she did not sit on his motorcycle.So she sat on his motorcycle out of fear.Further, it is admitted that the appellant Mohit Bansal was not having any arm whereas in the supplementary statement she stated that appellant Mohit Bansal was having a revolver with him.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 10 of 38Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix voluntarily went with appellant Mohit Bansal on his motorcycle and there was no fear from the side of the appellant.PW1/prosecutrix has further deposed that when she entered into the flat, appellant Raju was also present in the room and appellant Rana entered thereafter in the said flat.Both the appellants have been identified by her.Appellant Mohit Bansal was known to her.Appellant Raju was also known to her as he was a cable operator of the area.She further deposed that as soon as appellant Rana entered into the room, appellant Mohit Bansal bolted the room from inside.Appellant Rana went inside the other room which was occupied by another appellant Raju.Appellant Mohit Bansal bolted that room from inside and there was a bed in that room.Learned senior counsel for the appellants has pointed out that from the site plan of flat Ex.PW16/A, it is clear that there was one room, one kitchen, one latrine and there was no second room in the flat as it was one room flat only.Whereas PW1/prosecutrix has deposed that there were two rooms in the flat.Thus, she deposed falsely.He further submitted that the learned Trial Court on considering the evidence on record and from the deposition of the prosecutrix/PW1 has opined that she went with appellant Mohit Bansal of her own will because the prosecution has failed to prove from the statement of the prosecutrix that she was kidnapped or abducted by appellant Mohit Bansal.Accordingly, appellant Mohit Bansal has been acquitted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 11 of 38PW16/D, Ex. 1a, i.e., underwear of the prosecutrix was found having semen of AB group.Ex.1e, i.e., cotton wool swab was having blood of AB group, Ex.2b, i.e., salwar was found having blood of AB group.Ex.3, i.e., underwear of appellant Mohit Bansal was also found having blood of AB group,Keeping in view the result of the FSL report stated above, the learned Trial Court while recording the statement of appellant Mohit Bansal under Section 313 Cr.P.C., put a specific question to him that:-PW16/C and PW16/D. What have you to say?Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 13 of 38Consequently, the learned Trial Court has recorded that as per FSL report, it is proved that appellant Mohit Bansal had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.During pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 07.12.2009, on an application moved on behalf of appellant Mohit Bansal, the Superintendent Jail was directed to get his blood group determined in jail hospital and send his report to the Court.Accordingly, report Ex.CW2/A was submitted before this Court, stating therein that "blood grouping of prisoner/patient Mohit Bansal was done.The blood group of prisoner/patient is B+ve.Thereafter, the sentence of appellant Mohit Bansal was suspended and he was released on bail vide order dated 05.2.2010 passed by this Court.This Court issued summons vide order dated 05.03.2012 for appearance of Dr. Rajan Verma (Pathologist) of Dr. Vermas Diagnostic Clinic, C2B/93A, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 with report dated 11.12.2009 and Medical Officer Incharge, who signed the MO 1/c DJR No. 1369 dated 14.12.2009 sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Rohini, Delhi on blood group determination report of prisoner/patient Mohit Bansal S/o Shri Dinesh Bansal.Accordingly, Dr. Rajan Verma appeared in this Court and his statement was recorded as CW1 on 16.05.2012, which reads as under:-" I am a consultant at Dr.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 14 of 38I had submitted the report dated 11.12.2009 to the Medical Officer, Incharge, Rohini District Jai, Delhi on the same date wherein I recorded the blood group of Mohit Bansal s/o Dinesh Bansal as B +ve.The said report is Ex.CW1/A bearing my signature at point A."The same reads as under:-" Presently, I am working as Medical Officer, Incharge, Rohini District Jail, Delhi.I identify the signature of Dr. Harpreet Kaur, earlier Medical Officer, Incharge, Rohini District Jail, Delhi on the report Ex.As per the report, the blood group determination report of the prisoner/patient Mohit Bansal s/o Dinesh Bansal was found to be B+ve.(Office record seen and returned to the witness)."Both the aforesaid doctors were not cross-examined by the learned APP for the State.This report itself falsifies and negates the theory that on that day, no such incident took place.From the deposition of PW1 corroborated by PW3, it is clear that after the incident, the prosecutrix came back to her house.Ex.1e, i.e., cotton woolen swab was found having blood of AB Group.Ex.2a, i.e., Salwar was found having blood of AB Group.Ex.3, i.e., underwear of appellant Mohit Bansal was found having blood of AB Group.However, perusal of the FSL report clearly established that no such blood group was ever detected on any of these articles.FSL report clearly indicates that it was semen which was found on all these articles and that too of AB blood group and not the blood.According to biological report, on all the exhibits human semen of AB blood group was found.Ex.3, i.e., underwear of appellant Mohit Bansal was also found having semen of AB blood group.Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside on this sole count alone, as the conviction had been passed only on this very ground by stating that the FSL Report has proved that the appellant had intercourse with the prosecutrix.In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Ashok Narang Vs.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 23 of 38 said flat thereafter.All the appellants have been identified by the prosecutrix.Appellant Mohit Bansal was already known to her.Appellant Raju was also known to her as he was the cable operator of the area.Thereafter, he committed rape on her without her consent.Standing Counsel further submitted that PW1/ prosecutrix further deposed that after rape, she started wearing her clothes, but appellant Mohit Bansal snatched her clothes and opened the door of the room.Thereafter, from the other room both the appellants, i.e., Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana entered in that room.She became perturbed and nervous, accordingly, she wrapped herself with a bed sheet which was lying on the bed.The appellant Raju sat beside her; she started weeping.At that time, appellant Raju threatened her not to cry, otherwise, they will kill her and nobody would come to know.Appellant Raju pressed her breasts with hands and kissed them and called appellant Vikas Rana.Appellant Vikas Rana became nervous and thereafter she put her clothes and came out of the flat to Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 24 of 38 come down.At that time Mohit Bansal again threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone; otherwise, he will kill her.She further deposed that she got down from the flat and found a lady sitting there.She asked her the way to go to Japanese park and then she took a rickshaw and came back to her house.If this was the fact, what prevented the appellant Mohit Bansal not to raise this issue during the trial? In that eventuality, the Ld. Trial Court would have sent the sample again to FSL and ascertained the correct report upon them.The incident took place in 2001 and the appellant raised the issue of blood group on 07.12.2009 when this Court directed the Superintendent Jail to get his blood group determined in the Jail Hospital and send the report to the Court.Counsel submitted that the blood group determined in the FSL report on semen is AB+.May be there is an error on that.Now the blood group of the appellant has been determined as B+ve.When all the witnesses have deposed and supported the prosecution case, Crl.Trial Court be affirmed.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 25 of 38Standing Counsel further submitted that it is believed by the learned Trial Court that the prosecutrix went with appellant Mohit Bansal on her own will, but that does not mean that she gave consent to sexually exploit her in the presence of other friends and allow friends to participate in the offence and outrage her modesty.Besides, benefit of some contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be given in favour of the appellants especially when she has proved the incident.She was cross-examined at length, however, the appellants failed to get material which could demolish the prosecution case.Appellant Mohit Bansal has brought additional evidence on record belatedly.The benefit of the same cannot be given at this stage.When only certain G.Os.have to be marked ordering of retrial appears to be not justified.The Court observed as under:-Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 27 of 38A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice.Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.Vide order dated 04.06.2004, charge under Sections 354/34 IPC and Section 376 (2) (g) IPC was framed against the appellants Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana and charge under Sections 366/376(2)(g)/506-II IPC was framed against the appellant Mohit Bansal to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.There was a bed in the room and appellant Mohit Bansal forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her will.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 29 of 38It is further alleged that after committing rape, when she was wearing her clothes, appellant Mohit Bansal snatched her clothes and opened the door of the room.Thereafter, from the other room, both the appellants, i.e., Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana had entered in that room.She became perturbed and nervous and wrapped herself with a bed sheet.Appellant Raju pressed her breast with his hands and kissed them.PW1/prosecutrix further deposed that she got down from the flat and found a lady, namely, Smt. Nirmal Chhabra (PW3) sitting there.She asked her the way to go to the Japanese Park and then she took a rickshaw and came back to her house.Since her mother was not at home, she slept and thereafter when woke up by her mother she narrated the whole story.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 30 of 38The learned Trial Court apart from the evidence of PW1 prosecutrix and PW3 Smt. Nirmal Chhabra has also relied upon the FSL report, wherein semen of appellant Mohit Bansal was detected on the under garments of the prosecutirx.The learned Trial Court while acquitting the appellant Mohit Bansal of the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC has recorded that PW1 prosecutrix had gone with appellant Mohit Bansal of her own will because the prosecution has failed to prove from the statement of the prosecutrix that she was kidnapped or abducted by appellant Mohit Bansal.However, he was convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC on the ground that FSL report has proved that appellant Mohit Bansal has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.The Trial Court has read the FSL report that Ex.3, i.e., underwear of appellant Mohit Bansal was found having blood of AB group.Ex.1a, i.e., underwear of the prosecutrix was found having blood of AB group, Ex.1e, i.e., cotton wool swab was found having blood of AB group, Ex.2b, i.e., salwar was found having blood of AB group.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecutrix was neither induced nor abducted by appellant Mohit Bansal, rather she had gone with him of her own free will.During the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 07.12.2009, on an application moved on behalf of appellant Mohit Bansal, the Superintendent Jail was directed to get his blood group determined in jail hospital and send his report to the Court.Accordingly, report Ex.CW1/A was submitted before this Court, stating therein that the Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 31 of 38 blood group of prisoner/patient was B+ve.The said report Ex.Further corroborated by CW2, Dr. Vijay Mohan Aggarwal, whose statement was also recorded on oath by this Court on 16.05.2012, who identified the signature of Dr. Harpreet Kaur, earlier Medical Officer, Incharge, Rohini District Jail, Delhi on the report Ex.CW2/A. He further deposed that as per the report, the blood group determination report of the prisoner/patient Mohit Bansal was found to be B+ve.However, both the aforesaid doctors were not cross-examined by the learned APP for the State.CW1 and CW2 who proved this Crl.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 32 of 38Moreover, PW9, Dr. Sandhaya Jain, who has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW9/A, has opined that there was no bruises, no laceration, no abrasion on body surface were found.No local bleeding, no bruises and no laceration were found on the genitals of the prosecutrix.No injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix.Furthermore, there is no opinion as to whether the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse or not.It is also not established whether the hymen rupture was a fresh or an old one.PW6, Dr. D.J. Kaushal has proved the MLC of appellant Mohit Bansal as Ex.PW6/A and has admitted in cross-examination that no injury was observed on the genitalia of the patient.He has specifically deposed that in case of forcible act, marks of struggle may be on the body of the offender.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 33 of 38When the prosecution or the accused having possession of the additional evidence failed to produce such additional evidence then they cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in their case.Only in exceptional cases where the prosecution or the accused, for compelling reasons, could not produce the evidence before the Trial Court or where they had no knowledge about the existence of such additional evidence and when they had come to know about additional evidence, the Court may permit the prosecution or the accused to adduce additional evidence.In the present case, PW1/prosecutrix has admitted that on the date of the incident, i.e., 07.09.2001 she had gone to her college to cast her vote in the Students Union Election.DW1 Gulshan Kumar Sachdeva has proved the election notification as Ex.DW1/A and deposed that elections of the Union were held 07.09.2001 and the timing of voting was 8.30 am to 11.30 am for day classes.It is pertinent to mention here that her college, i.e., SPM College is a day classes college.If the prosecutrix had faced such a trauma, then it is not believable that after the said trauma, she would go for voting in Students Union Election.PW1/prosecutrix has deposed that as soon as appellant Rana entered into the room, appellant Mohit Bansal bolted that room from inside.Appellant Rana went inside the other room which was occupied by another appellant Raju.Whereas as per the site plan of flat Ex.PW16/A, it is clear that there was one room, one kitchen, one Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 34 of 38 bathroom-cum-latrine.There was no second room as it was only one room flat.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 34 of 38The Trial Court has misread the FSL report Ex.PW16/C. In the said report, blood group of appellant Mohit Bansal was not determined.However, learned Trial Court has erred in holding that Ex.3, .i.e., underwear of Mohit Bansal was found having blood group of AB group and on Ex.1a, i.e., underwear of prosecutrix also semen of AB blood group was found.Thus, Mohit Bansal is wrongly connected with the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.Therefore, the appellants had the opportunity only after the opinion of the Trial Court.In view of the above discussion, if appellant Mohit Bansal is not connected with the rape committed, then the other appellants, i.e., Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana are also entitled to have the same benefit as the main allegations are against appellant Mohit Bansal only and they were convicted for being present at the place of occurrence.Therefore, from the above discussion, it is proved that no rape was committed by appellant Mohit Bansal upon the prosecutrix.Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 35 of 38Therefore, all the appellants are discharged for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.The defence of the appellants before the Trial Court and before this Court is that the prosecutrix went with appellant Mohit Bansal of her own will and if there was sexual intercourse, that was with her consent.The deposition of PW9, Dr. Sandhya Jain, has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW9 /A, who deposed that there was no force used for having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.However, her presence with the appellants at the place of occurrence is proved by the corroborative evidence of PW3 Smt. Nirmal Chhabra, who deposed that she was sitting on the ground floor where the prosecutrix met her and asked the way to go to Japanese Park.It is also proved by the statement of the prosecutrix that when she was wearing her clothes, appellant Mohit Bansal snatched her clothes and opened the door of the room.Thereafter, both the appellants, i.e., Chander Prakash @ Raju and Vikas Rana entered in that room.She became perturbed and nervous and wrapped herself with a bed sheet.Both tried to hug her.However, appellant Raju pressed her breast with his hands and kissed them.Rana had seen the same.Thus, it is established that all three appellants had outraged her modesty.Accordingly, all the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.Since, all the appellants have spent more than seven months in incarceration, therefore, they are sentenced for the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs.25,000/-Crl.A. Nos.828, 876, 785-2009 Page 36 of 38In default of payment of fine amount, appellants shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.From the deposition of the PW1/prosecturix, it is proved that she was threatened by appellant Mohit Bansal after the incident and thereafter appellant Chander Prakash @ Raju also threatened her when he pressed her breast and prosecutrix started weeping loudly.Later on while she was coming out from the flat, even at that time also appellant Mohit Bansal gave threats to her that not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise he would kill her.Appellant Vikas Rana was present at that time.I note, appellants Raju and Rana were not charged under Section 506-II IPC, despite that the learned Trial Court has convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 506-II IPC also.It is trite that a person cannot be convicted of an offence for which he was not charged.Therefore, appellants Raju and Rana are accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506-II IPC.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard on I.A.No.635/19 application for taking documents on record.As the documents are relevant for the disposal of this matter, they are taken on record.Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.Certified copy of the order sheet passed by Additional Sessions Judge, district Sehore dated 4.1.2019 disclosed the fact that the appellant has surrendered himself to serve jail sentence.Hence this appeal is maintainable.Record of the court below has been received.Heard on admission.Heard on I.A .No.14332/2018 which is an application filed under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Sehore, district Sehore in S.T. No.66/2017, convicting the appellant under Section 304-A of the IPC sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.40,000/- and Section 176-II of the IPC sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is innocent.Finding of the learned lower Court is contrary to law and there is fair chances of him to succeed in the case.During trial the appellant was on bail.The disposal of this appeal will take time.If the appellant has not been released on bail, his right to appeal will be frustrated.On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.C.C. as per rules.(J.P.Gupta) JUDGE vj Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 01/05/2019 17:52:39

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

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

For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel.For Respondent : Shri V.K. Soni, learned Panel Lawyer.----------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R (Passed on 15.09.2015) Applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by an order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Dindori (Smt. Geeta Solanki) in Special Sessions Trial No. 03/15, whereby the learned trial Judge has framed the charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (n) of the IPC.The brief facts for the adjudication of this revision are given below:-(2.1).On 14.11.2014, at about 7.45 p.m., informant Mahesh lodged a written report at Police Station, Samnapur, alleging that on the self same day at 3.30 p.m. from the outskirts of his native village Bhanpur, applicant/accused Yunish has forcibly taken his minor daughter/prosecutrix on his bike.The incident was witnessed by Arjun, Mathura, Sulochna, Prabhu, Ramesh and Dasaru.On the basis of written report, the police registered an FIR at Crime No. 612/2014 against the applicant under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.(2.2).On 17.11.2014, the police recovered the prosecutrix from the applicant's possession, recorded her case diary statement and sent her for medico-legal examination.The prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was also got recorded by the police.Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (n) of the IPC.(2.3).At the stage of framing of charges, the applicant filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., praying that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dindori has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix in which she has stated that the applicant had not committed any sexual offence upon her.Hence, her statement is relevant at the time of framing of charges against him and the same be called from the aforesaid.However, the learned trial Judge rejected the application vide the impugned order holding that the application is not maintainable at this stage and has levelled charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (n) of the IPC.(2.4) Hence, this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has categorically stated that the applicant had not committed any sexual offence upon her and he has submitted a copy of her statement with an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge ought to have called for the statement of prosecutrix and should have taken the statement into consideration at the time of framing of the charges.Accordingly, this revision is finally disposed of.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.2-CBI.Heard on the question of admission.Record perused.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.A t this stage, counsel appearing on advance copy accepts notice of the appeal on behalf of the respondents, therefore, no further notice after admission is required to be issued.This is an application for suspension of the custodial sentence awarded to appellant Deewan Jatav.Appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 468 r/w 120-B, 419 r/w 120-B, 471 r/w 120- B of IPC and Section 3-D/4 of M.P. Recognised Examinations Act, 1937 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine.The bail application is opposed by counsel for the CBI.After having heard rival submissions at length and considering the evidence that has come on record, we are of the considered opinion that application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.Accordingly, IA No.13576/2018 stands allowed and closed.Office is directed to process the matter to be listed for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn along with Cr.Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court in advance for information.C.C. on payment of usual charges.Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 11/12/2018 10:43:13

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

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

Case diary perused.This is 1st application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 307/2020 registered at Police Station- Kukshi District- Dhar for commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (N), 506, 343/34 of I.P.C.According to the prosecution story, on 30.06.2020, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the applicant and co-accused Rahul alleging that on 26.06.2020, at about 05.00 pm the co-accused Rahul alongwith the present applicant took the prosecutrix on their motorcycle at Pithampur.It is alleged that the present applicant left the prosecutrix at Pithampur, where the co-accused Rahul committed rape upon her.On that basis, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.This allegation against the co-accused Rahul.It is alleged that applicant was accompanied with the Rahul when he abducted the prosecutrix and after dropping the prosecutrix at Pithampur, the applicant left from the place, therefore, at the most offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. or 363 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.Under these :2: change of circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.:2:Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Certified copy, as per rules.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c4547 15d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d NAYAK 05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.09.25 16:45:35 +05'30'

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary is available for perusal.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.94 of 2013 registered by PS Civil Line, District Datia for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 506B, 324, 336, 325, 325 and 34 of IPC.During course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted permission to withdraw this application.Application is dismissed as withdrawn.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 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.

The complaint reads as follows :-'I am S.Raghuram, residing at 79, 3rd Street, Kamdar Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai  34,The marriage was attended by a number of well-known film personalities, politicians etc., as I am a reputed dance director in the film field.She was staying with them till she was taken to the U.S by her husband a week after the marriage.All her jewels, silver, valuables, clothes etc. were also taken to her in-law's house, as it is customary in our families.My daughter informed me over the phone that she was having a happy married life with her husband in the U.S. She continued her studies in California after her return.She still has three semesters to finish her course.In May 2007 Mrs. Savithri Chandrasekar the mother of Deepak Chandrasekar went to USA to visit her son and stayed in his house.As she has got a taste of the wealth of our family.She wanted to extract a huge sum from us and started harassing and intimidating my daughter.She wanted to get Rs.1,50,00,000/- to cover the expenses of her daughter and son-in-law who are going to migrate to the U.S.A. She demanded the money from my daughter and asked her to get it from me immediately.Though I was worried about her safety, I thought that it was a one time incident and advised her to be patient.My daughter left all her belonging including her jewellery and personal effects in her matrimonial home had to go to my elder daughter's house in Cincinatti Ohio.When she tried to contact her husband over phone, he strictly instructed her to desist from either contacting him or from returning to his house.My daughter informed me over the phone that as she has categorically refused to ask me for huge dowry amounts, her mother-in-law and husband became very angry and that at the instigation of her mother in law, he started behaving like a psychopath.He turned very violent and tried chocking her with a pillow.He had also thrown her puppy violently, breaking its leg.This clearly shows that the threats issued by Mr. & Mrs. Chandrasekar that my daughter's marriage would end if the dowry demand was not met has been implemented.It is pertinent to point out that Mrs.Chandrasekar has left to Oman after creating this trouble.Clearly Mrs. Savithri Chandrasekar and Chandrasekar are totally responsible for the physical and mental abuse suffered by my daughter for the break down of her marriage.My daughter is on dependent visa and her husband is at present having only work permit (H1 Visa).Certain facts which require mention are as follows :-Both, the daughter of the de-facto complainant viz. Gayatri and the third accused viz. Deepak Chandrasekar being in United States of America, had registered their marriage on 28.08.2006 before the Office of Recorder, Country of Alameda, Oakland, California as mentioned under the Licence of marriage issued by such office.Marriage between the daughter of the de-facto complainant and the third accused has been dissolved on 22.01.2008 by The Superior Court of California, Country of Santa Clara, U.S.A. It is an admitted position that, at the time the Court in America was moved towards dissolution of the marriage, the third respondent/the de-facto complainant's daughter was in America but as on the order of dissolution she was not there.The petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. No.251 of 2008 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai seeks to quash the proceedings as against him.The marriage was not a happy one and several differences arose between the married couple.The de-facto complainant has preferred the complaint against the petitioner herein, his wife and son, the son having married the complainant's daughter Gayatri.At the time of marriage, I gave my daughter about 600 gms of gold jewels, diamonds and silver worth Rs.3,50,000/-.I presented my daughter with very valuable silk saris.Cash was also given.I presented saris, dhotis and other articles to the bridegroom's parents and other relatives.The marriage was a glittering affair and I spent lavishly as I wanted my daughter to have a happy married life.She prevailed on my son-in-law also and he also started abusing harassing and ill-treating her.My daughter tells me that the situation became so bad that she was injured when her husband beat her up.She had to take medical treatment for the injury.When I heard about this I was very shocked.My daughter had to give a police complaint against her husband.When I found out these development, I immediately met his parents Mrs. Savithri & Mr.Chandrasekar on 17.06.2007 at their residence I realised that they were instrumental in causing this trouble.Both of them refused to advice or counsel their son., but on the contrary demanded Rs.1.5 crores to be paid to them immediately.They threatened me that only if I oblige them, they would instruct their son to take my daughter back.I tried to convince them that I have very valuable properties and that ultimately I will be giving these properties only to my two daughters and that they need not have any apprehension about this.I refused to concede to their demand and this infuriated them.They specifically informed me that their son would file for divorce and also see that my daughter would be intimidated by the police in U.S.A. My request to them to allow the young couple to have a peaceful married life was turned down.They informed me categorically that unless their demand for money was met, there is no chance for reconciliation.They abused me and throw me out of the house.She was shocked to receive a Lawyer notice issued on behalf of her husband advising her he had filed a petition for divorce at U.S.A He also instructed her to refrain from contacting her husband as otherwise he would get a court order to restrain her from doing so.My daughter has no money of her own and the intention of the Chandrasekar is to prevent her from seeking adequate legal aid to defend her self in the U.S.A court.I therefore request you to register a complaint against Mrs.Savithri Chandrasekar and Mr.B.V.Chandrasekar under the relevant provision of Dowry Prohibition Act, Indian Penal Code & Domestic Violence Act and prosecute them under the Act."The complaint dated 02.07.2007 which was forwarded to the Commissioner of police has been registered in Cr. No. 8/07 on the file of the first respondent police on 25.08.2007 and for offences under sections 498(A) and 506(i)IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On receipt of the complaint the respondent police had filed charge sheet against the three accused for offences u/s.406 and 498A IPC.The lower court has taken cognizance for offences u/s. 498A, 406 and 506(i) IPC and issued summons to the accused.Though at the instance of this Court several submissions were made on the question of the validity of the marriage conducted in India and the registration thereof under the Hindu Marriage Act, in the face of an earlier registration of marriage on 28.08.2006 at America and this Court also heard both counsel in some detail on the binding nature or otherwise of the decree of dissolution passed by the Court in America, the same only were of academic interest and need not detain us in disposal of the petition before us.Upon the complaint of the respondent and on completion of investigation, charge sheet had been filed for offences u/s. 406 and 498A IPC.The lower court has, on consideration of the complaint, charge sheet and statement of witnesses filed therewith, taken cognizance for offences u/s.498A, 406 and 506 (i)IPC.The copy of the complaint has been extracted herein above towards making ready reference thereto.It is seen that the couple had left for America within a week of their marriage.The complaint also speaks of the second accused having gone over to stay with the couple in May 2007, where after the entire sordid happenings transpired.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never in America.The complaint itself informs at paragraph seven that, the third respondent/complainant's daughter left all her belongings, including her jewellery and personal effects in her matrimonial home and had to go to her sister's house in a different State owing to the ill-treatment suffered by her.Thus, it can be seen that there has been no entrustment of such articles in the hands of the petitioner, which would enable him to misappropriate the same.As such no offence of criminal breach of trust would stand made out against him.As regards the offences u/s.498A IPC, it is seen that the entire allegations there regards are only that which took place in America, where, to repeat, this petitioner had not been.All the allegations which would attract section 498A IPC are alleged against the second and third accused in the case.The same would hold true also in respect of offences u/s. 506(i) IPC.In fact the only allegation we find in the complaint against the petitioner is that, mentioned in paragraph eight of the complaint, wherein it has been stated that "the petitioner and his wife on the contrary demanded Rs.1.5 crores to be paid to them immediately and on such payment they would advise his son to take his daughter back and that, when the complainant refused to concede to the demand they were infuriated and informed that their son would file for divorce and would see that his daughter would be intimidated by the police in U.S.A. and that unless their demand for money was met there was no chance for reconciliation and he was abused and thrown out of the house.As against this, the 161(3) Cr.P.C statement stops with saying that it was the petitioner's wife, the second accused, who made the demand.Ofcourse, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was the only person appearing before the lower court, the second accused being away at Oman and the third accused in America and if the proceedings against this petitioner were to be quashed, the entire case would come to a stand still.That, by itself would not be reason for prolonging the agony of the petitioner.In these circumstances, this court quashes the proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai as against the petitioner.This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

J U D G M E N TS.B. Sinha, J :was prepared therefor wherein one Inspector Bhalle Ram was a witness.Ajit Singh charge you Const.Narender Singh No.730/DA that on 04.9.97, Harvinder Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh R/o Praladpur Gharoli, P.s.Kharkhoda, Sonepat and Deepak S/o Shri reghbir Singh R/o Ghoge, P.S. Narela, Delhi were arrested in case FIR No.371/97 u/s 186, 307, 353 IPC Sec. 27 Arms Act. P.S. Narela, Delhi.Both the accused made confessions regarding the supply of arms by Const.Narender Singh No.612/DAP, 730/DAP posted at CP Vijay Ghat on this you Const.Narender Singh were arrested by special staff North Distt.Two days PC remand was also obtained by Crime Branch in case FIR No.717/97 u/s 409, 380, 457 IPC P.S. Kotwali in which two revolvers and one pistol were stolen from Kot of CPR Vijayghat/1st Bn.The above act on your part amounts to grave misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer which renders you liable to be dealt under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987."In the identification memo, it was recorded :"Farad identification Memo place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses accused Narender Singh alias Nanda S/o Joginder Singh R/o D-8, Type-IInd New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi under police custody by himself voluntarily by walking ahead in the vicinity of CDR/Vijay Ghat Armoury 1st by DAP entered in the place covered by boundary walls surrounding through Iron gate entered in the place of Armoury Room shown the place and told that on 22/23.6.97 (identified) at about 2 am to 05 am he was on sentry duty and during his duty alongwith other colleagues named Jaswinder, Jaswant alias Jassu, Dhanraj @ Dhannu and Raja Singh @ Raju committed theft of two revolvers and one pistol.This identification memo was prepared then and there."Tej Pal Singh along with his staff of AATS.Crime Branch along with accused Narender who is present today here came at Vijay Ghat.A First Information Report was lodged against him on 30.10.1995 for commission of an offence under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.He remained in judicial custody for a period of 15 days.A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in relation to the same incident.He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for stay of the said proceeding till disposal of the criminal case.By an order dated 23.07.1996, the said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal upon issuing some directions.In the meantime, two revolvers and one pistol were found from the Vijay Ghat Armoury.Two persons who were accused therein, inter alia, made confessions stating that the respondent had committed theft of the said two revolvers and pistol.While in police custody he also made a confession as regards his involvement in the said offence.He also led the investigating team to the room of the Vijay Ghat Armoury and pointed out the place wherefrom, he while working as a Sentry on the night of 22/23.06.1997, committed theft of two revolvers and one pistol with some of his colleagues.An identification memo.The validity of the said order was questioned by the respondent by filing an application before the Tribunal.The Tribunal allowed the said application by an order dated 08.08.2001 holding that the Appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds for dismissing the respondent from service without holding any disciplinary proceeding.On 01.05.2002, a charge-sheet was drawn up against the Respondent which reads as under :On interrogation you Const.Narender Singh 730/DAP confessed that while you were at CPR Vijay Ghat you had committed theft of two revolvers and pistol from the kot on intervening night 22/23.6.97 along with Raju, Jasvinder Jassu and Dhannu after stealing keys of Kot from the pillow of Const.Narender Singh (Kot munshi).On or about 16.05.2002, in the said departmental proceeding, the respondent was found guilty and by an order dated 22.07.2002, he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority, stating :"I have gone through the record and facts of the file, enquiry report submitted by the E.O., defence taken by the delinquent Const.Minutely and meticulously.The charges in a disciplinary action are based on preponderance of evidence that does not exclude confession made to the police and such confessions need not be necessarily supported by recovery of material fact as enumerated in the Indian Evidence Act. In agreement of conclusion by the E.O. I find that charges are proved against the delinquent officer, if is allowed to continue in the department like Police, he not only will damage the department by his criminal activities he will also tarnish image of the police department.Therefore, I Manoj Kumar Lal, Deputy Commissioner of Police Ist Bn.DAP on being satisfied that charges on the basis of proof available on the record are proved against the def.An original application was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal.The Tribunal in terms of an order dated 24.02.2004 set aside the said order of dismissal, holding :Inspector Bhalle Ram had stated that he was posted as Inspector CPR/Vijay Ghat.The applicant had made a Nisandehi in Kot and disclosed that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.1997 had stolen the fire arms.Inspector Tej Pal Singh, PW-12 had further appeared and testified that he had investigated the matter.During the investigation, the applicant had taken him to Vijay Ghat where Nisandehi was prepared on his instance which is exhibit PW-8/A. It is on the strength of the Nisandehi that the respondents have concluded that this is an admission made by the applicant about the said theft.Since the said statement made did not relate to any recovery, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discharged the applicant."The Tribunal allowed the original application.The writ petition filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court in limine.Accused had made a Nisandehi inKot and disclosed that on the night between 22/23.6.97 at about 2 to 5 am he along with other accused had stolen 2 revolvers and 1 pistol.The memo was prepared and signed by him as well as others including Const.The Memo is exhibit PW-8/A."In the cross-examination, he was asked only four questions which together with answers rendered thereto, as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are reproduced hereinbelow :"Q. No. 1 : Has the exhibit PW-8A any date written by Inspr.Tej Pal Singh ?The signature of Inspr.Tej Pal Singh is there.Q. No.2 Is there any date on his exhibit below the signature of Narender Singh ?Q. No.3 Has Inspr.Tej Pal Singh recovered any weapon from Const.Narender on that day ?The weapon was not recovered in his presence but IO told that the weapons have already been recovered.Q. No.4 Do you know that court decided the case on merits ?Yes."The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a confession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, not been disputed.The respondent had not retracted from the said confession.

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Allowed md.CRM No. 1573 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 23.02.2016 in connection with Egra Police Station Case No.298 of 2015 dated 16.07.2015 under Sections 363A/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Dilip Ghorai and Another Petitioners Mr. Purna Chandra Maiti, Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar ...have filed this court for grant of anticipatory bail.Defence counsel submits that the petitioners are neighbours of the victim lady and are in no way involved in the offence alleged.They have been falsely implicated.The petitioners are persons of good repute and have no past criminal record.Counsel for the State produces the Case Diary and takes us to the statement of the victim lady recorded 2 under Section 164 Cr.PC.The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed and disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey J.) 3

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In all fourteen offences were noted by the Authority while issuing Show-cause-Notice.The list of those offences and dates of commission thereof is as follows:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 2Heard learned Advocates for the parties.The petitioner is challenging the order of externment passed on 22nd June, 2007, and the order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal [Annexs.P-3 and P-4 respectively].Date of Commission Sections Crime No. No. of offence.6th May, 2000 481,380 and 411 84/2000 of IPC.5th Aug. 2005 504, 506, IPC.19th Aug.2000 379 of IPC.28th Oct. 2000 461,380 read with 175/2000 34 of IPC.5. 13th to 16th 461 and 380, IPC.4th to 8th 381, 411 read 99/2002 Aug.with 34 of IPC.8th Aug., 2002 124, Bom.379, IPC.158/2004 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 ::: Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 3::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::9. 20th Sept.,2004 392 read with 193/2004 34 of IPC.The order of externment was passed and petitioner preferred the statutory appeal.In the appeal, the petitioner had raised a ground that out of fourteen crimes, he was already acquitted in four cases, inter alia, other grounds.No effort was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well the Appellate Authority to ascertain the truthfulness of the claim of the petitioner about acquittal in those four offences.As is noticed by the Appellate Authority that though the petitioner claims that he was acquitted well ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 ::: Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 4 before issuance of notice of show cause in four offences, he had failed to furnish the copies of judgments of acquittal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::Though various grounds have been urged in support of petition, the point, which goes to the root of the case, is delay in issuance of notice.According to the petitioner, this point vitiates the action in its commencement and ultimately the final order too.In order to substantiate the point as regards the delay, the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-[a] Santosh Ramprasad Sharma Vs.Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch & another [1992 Cri.L.J. 3983], [b] Shabbirbhai Bookwala & another Vs.State of Mah.& others [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2553], and [c] Shaikh Dayan Shaikh Lukman Vs.State of Maharashtra & others [Criminal Appeal No. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 ::: Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 5 1851 of 2011, decided on 23rd September, 2011 by Hon ble Supreme Court].::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::The offence at Sr.It is seen that no action, whatsoever, was taken by the police during the period from December, 2005 to January, 2007, i.e., for one year and one month, and till the notice of show cause [Annex.P-1] dated 27th February, 2007 was issued.It is not clear as to how suddenly in January, 2007 the threat got aggravated.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 6Nothing untoward, if happened during the intervening period, is brought on record of this Court by the respondents.In the given situation, on account of delay in taking action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, the action stands vitiated.When authorities lost time either in initiation or completing the action, it results in adversely affecting the genuineness of urgency of preventive action.Thus, when the judicial dictum is to ensure the urgency, it was the duty of authorities to translate into action the said urgency, with all punctualness.It is seen from all other judgments relied upon by the petitioner that:-The preventive action has to be initiated and completed with same degree of urge and punctualness and without any lousiness.Subsistence of urgency or emergency has to persist through, it being a preventive ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 ::: Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 7 measure.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::|hedau| ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 ::: Criminal Writ Petition No. 426 of 2007 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:25 :::

['Section 323 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.

For the year 2004-2005, tender was again called for and the tender was allotted to the A-1 as his bid washttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 lowest.Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.822 and 821 of 2014 in C.C.No.9400 of 2010 by a common order by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on 15.02.2017 and dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.This revisions petitions were filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners/Accused (A2 and A3) against the dismissal of their discharge petitions filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C by the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.392 of 2007 is accused No.3 namely Abdul Razzak and accused No.2 namely Murugan is the revision petitioner in Crl.2.The brief case of the revision petitioners are as follows: The case of the Revision Petitioners is that one Mohammed Hayath, accused No.1, working as the Project Co-ordinator in a computer software company by name “soft Solution” owned by the defecto complainant namely Senthil Kumar, committed an offence of hacking of hard disc owned by the defecto complainant and used the source code for his personal gains.Based on the complaint, a case has been registered by the respondent police against A1 in Crime No.1 of 2005, under sec.3.The allegations in the final report is that the revision petitioners also colluded with A1 thereby and they committed an offences under the sections mentioned supra.Trial is yet to commence.The Revision Petitioners had filed discharge petitions before the trial Court in Crl.4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners contends that the 1st Revision Petitioner was employed as General Manager and the 2nd Revision Petitioner was employed as Special Officer of Thiruppattur Town Co-Operative Bank were falsely implicated by the respondent police without any prima facie materials.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-http://www.judis.nic.in 4 operative department as already ordered an enquiry under sec.81 of Co-operative Societies Act and by its conclusion, it has absolved the Revision Petitioners from any criminal liabilities and they have not been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings also.Though they initiated surcharge proceedings that was also dropped.6.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has not sought permission to prosecute the Revision Petitioners which is mandatory under section 197of Cr.P.C and the quantum of amount awarded as contract to the A1 by the Revision Petitioners is Rs.1,36,000/- which is more or less similar to the amount allotted in the previous year and hence there is no room or reason for any scandal as alleged in the final report.7.The Revision Petitioners contends that the Reserve Bank of India issued institutional notification to keep all the final accounts of the every financial year in computerized firm and the bank is not having facility of the computer and they have to avail outsourcehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 agencies by way of giving work orders.Accordingly for the year 2003- 2004 the order was allotted to the defacto complainant as per the tender norms.For the year 2004-2005 tender was called for and the tender was allotted to the A-1 as his bid was lowest.Besides, another part of the work was allotted to M/s Online a different contractor.Thus everything was fully transparent in nature and according to accepted norms.Hence the witnesses who speaks about the source code and other software issue as alleged by the defacto complainant cannot be taken as a substantive proof.9.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant ought to prove that he is the lawful owner of the hard disc, source code and other.The allegation as if A1 used FOX PRO, which is common banking software readily available in the market freely and as such that cannot be any impunity over its title by the defacto complainant and no mental act can be attributed to the petitioners.Mere allotment of contract by the A2 and A3 could not be treated at par with hacking.10.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act gives exemption for liability of intermediary in certain cases and hence the intermediary namely the officials of the bank are not liable for the prosecution.11.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, the offences by the companies or official and the company should also be invariably be arrayed as an accused and without assigning the company the office bearers or the directors cannot been charged.In the present context, the special officer namely the A2 and General Manager namely the A3 has alone be charged.13.On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent filed their Counter against the Revision Petition.14.The Respondent in their Counter alleged that the Revision Petitioners along with the accused A1 Mohammed Hayath, have been charge sheeted for the commission of offences u/s 65 , 66 of Information Technology Act r/w 120 (B) IPC and 408 IPC.The Defacto Complainant, Senthil Kumar, is the proprietor of “Soft Solution” functioning at No.11, Teacher Govindaraj Street, Arcot, Vellore District.He developed specialized accounting software on his own intellectual ideas and with the assistance of the other paid software developes.But for the first half of the financial year 2004-2005, the same work order was entrusted to A1 Mohammed Hayath by the Revision Petitioners, who carried out the job by using the software stolen from the system of defacto complainant.The cost of the work amounting to Rs.71,000/- was shared by the revision petitioners.The case is mainly revolving around the Banking software developed by the Defacto complainant to suit the need of the computerization of the accounts of the Tiruppathur Urban Co-operative Bank.The Revision petitioners and A1 Mohamed Hyath were the beneficiaries from the stolen software.19.I heard Mr.S.Sairaman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.The learned Trial Court failed to list out the sufficient grounds and materials against the revision petitioners from the statements and annexure contained in the Final Report.32.In the result, both the criminal revision cases are allowed.The impugned order dated 15.02.2017 is set-aside.

['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This petition has been filed, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 413/17 at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 326, 308 of the IPC on the basis of compromise.During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 have jointly filed application under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. which was registered as I.A.No.539/18 stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.This Court, vide order dated 19/02/18, had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of compromise.The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 28/02/18 itself and verified the compromise.No order as to cost.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is a petition for granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C.The acquittal is recorded mainly on two grounds; first the prosecutrix was consenting party and second the prosecution could not establish that she was minor at the time of incident.Having regard to the statement of Satyanarayan (P.W.4) and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2013 SC 3467, we find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and leave is MCRC No. 449/19 2 granted.MCRC No. 449/19 2As a consequence of this order, Office is directed to register the appeal as an admitted appeal and proceed further as per rules.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against the non- petitioner.He is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court 27.06.2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, MCRC No.449/2019 is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A. No.381/2010 Page 1 of 29The appellant has been convicted for the murder of his father's younger brother(chacha) Heera Lal(hereinafter to be referred as 'the deceased) and causing disappearance of his dead body.The prosecution case was that the appellant had murdered the deceased as he(the deceased) was suspecting illicit relationship between his wife, PW-5 Smt. Ramwati, and the appellant and also because of some financial dealings between the two.The deceased had left his house in the night of 19 th February,2004 telling his wife that he was going to the house of the appellant as there some 'hissab'(settlement of financial dealings) to be done.As per the prosecution case the appellant and the deceased had drinks that night and the uncle(chacha) of the Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 2 of 29 deceased, PW-2 Moti Lal, was also present with them for sometime and had left while they were still drinking.However, the deceased did not return back to his house that night.On 1st March,2004 the appellant had allegedly confessed before his chacha, PW-2 Moti Lal, the wife of the deceased, PW-5 Ramwati and his neighbor PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed that he had murdered Heera Lal on 19th February,2004 as there was some 'len den' with him and had thrown his dead body in a gutter in Machli Market, Sultan Puri.On being informed about that confession the police arrested the appellant on 1st March,2004 and on the same day the dead body of the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the appellant.My husband did not return back at night.On the next morning I sent my younger son to house of Daya Shanker and my son returned back and told me that Daya Shanker had gone for his work.Daya Shanker had told him that my husband had gone for his work.I kept waiting for my husband till evening, but he did not return back home.Thereafter, I went to the P.S. and lodged a missing report in respect of my husband."It is correct that on the next morning when I asked Daya Shankar, he told me that Hira Lal had stayed over night with him, but had left early morning.................................................."PW-9 Ram Shankar is the son of the deceased.He deposed that:"On 19.2.04 when my father did not return till evening, I asked my mother who told me that he had gone for work.Thereafter I went upstairs in my room to study as my exams were approaching.My father did not return even by the next morning....................My father did not return back home for 2-3 days.I told my TAU Moti Lal that my father had not returned home since 2-3 days.My Tau went to the place of work of my father........................................................................................................."PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed is the neighbour of the deceased.He deposed like this in respect of the circumstance of last seen:"On 19.2.04 I came to know that my neighbour Sh Moti Lal had gone for his work but did not return at night.I accordingly enquired from wife of Sh Moti Lal.He stated like this in his examination-in-chief:"Thereafter I alongwith Moti Lal went to his house.Accused Daya Shankar was present there.Sh Ved Prakash, Hem Raj and other people also came there.We all enquired from accused Daya Shankar about Hira Lal.Accused Daya Shankar was evasive in his replies.Thereafter, we threatened to beat Daya Shankar.Out of fear the accused claimed that he would tell everything and he should not be beaten.Daya Shakar told us that he had killed his Chacha Hira Lal on the night on 19.2.04 itself.On our asking he stated having killed his Chacha on account of some "len den".On our asking about dead body of Hira Lal accused claimed that he had thrown the dead body in gutter near pyaio and toilet main Machli Market near Bus Stand Sultanpuri.............."The relevant of the examination-in-chief of PW-9 Ram Shankar, who is the son of the deceased, regarding this circumstance is as under:Accused admitted his guilt before the police and stated that he had thrown the dead body of my father in a gutter at Macchi market.Thereafter I alongwith many other people including Hem Raj and Ved Prakash went to the Machhi Market where dead body of my father was taken out from the gutter.I identified the dead body of my father.........."None of the relatives of the deceased (PWs 2, 5 and"Police had reached my house before I returned back to my house from the police station.I came to know that police had reached my house on basis of telephone call made by one of my neighbor.PCR van had reached my house before I returned from the police station.PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed is the other witness of recovery of the dead body.The relevant part of his examination-in-chief is as under:"I called up number 100 from my mobile phone.P.K. BHASIN, J.By way of this appeal the appellant-accused has questioned the correctness of the judgment dated 29th August, 2009 and order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant-accused has been found guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 1 of 29 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code(in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months further simple imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.The appellant also got recovered one blood stained knife with which he had allegedly slit the neck of the deceased.A. No.381/2010 Page 2 of 29Thus, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the appellant-accused on circumstantial evidence alone.The circumstances which had been pressed into service before the trial Court and accepted also by the trial Court were: (i) the appellant-A. No.381/2010 Page 3 of 29accused and the deceased were last seen together on the night of 19th February,2004,(ii) on 1st March,2004 the appellant-accused made an extra judicial confession before his uncle PW-2 Moti Lal, Chachi PW-5 Ramwati and neighbour PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed and couple of other persons, (iii) recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant-accused, (iv) recovery of one blood stained knife also at the instance of the appellant-accused and (v) the appellant-accused had motive to kill the deceased as he was suspecting that the deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife and also because of some financial dealings with the deceased.The appellant-accused felt that none of these circumstances had been established and he had been wrongly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and so he filed the present appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment of the trial Court.We shall now straightaway go to the prosecution evidence to examine if the aforesaid circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been rightly found by the trial Court to have been established beyond reasonable doubt or not.We shall start with the first circumstance of 'last seen'.PW-5 Ramvati, widow of the Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 4 of 29 deceased, is the first witness in respect of this circumstance.This is what she had deposed on 24/03/2005:A. No.381/2010 Page 4 of 29"I do not remember the month but it was 19th day of the month, about one year back.At about 10.00 PM my husband went out of the house saying that he was going to house of Daya Shanker for some "Hisaab" as Daya Shanker was going to the village.7. PW-2 Moti Lal, elder brother of the deceased, is the second witness of the 'last seen' circumstance.He deposed as under on 17/02/2005:"................. I do not remember the exact date but it was about one year back when my brother had left the house for work.When I returned back from my work, I came to know on the next date that my brother had not returned back home.I asked his children as to where my brother had gone.I was informed that he had gone for work and did not return.I searched for my brother and also contacted the persons we knew, but could not find anything about whereabouts of my brother.Thereafter I lodged a report in the police station regarding my brother having gone missing......"Since this witness had resiled from his police version he was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.Then he stated that:A. No.381/2010 Page 5 of 29It is incorrect to suggest that on 19.2.04 at about 8:30 PM I had seen Daya Shankar and my brother Hira Lal drinking liquor at C-136 DDA Market, Sultan Puri.I had not mentioned any such fact to the police.(confronted with statement Mark P.2A portion X to X where it is so recorded).On enquiry Rama Shankar S/o Moti Lal told me that he had seen his father having liquor with his cusion Daya Shankar on the previous evening.Thereafter we all searched for Moti Lal.We got lodged missing report regarding Moti Lal in the police station.A. No.381/2010 Page 6 of 29.............. Elder brother of Moti Lal came to my house.He told me that as Moti Lal had gone with Daya Shankar before he went missing,"(this witness after referring to Moti Lal as the deceased had clarified that it was actually Heera Lal who had gone missing and Moti Lal was his brother).The reference to this evidence and conclusion of the learned trial Judge in respect of this circumstance are to be found in para no.38 of the impugned judgment which is re-produced below:"38.Last seen together :- PW-2 Moti Lal has deposed that it is correct that on the next day morning when he asked Daya Shankar, he told him that Heera Lal had stayed over night with him but left early morning.PW 5-Ramwati has deposed that she does not remember the month but it was 19th day of the month about one year back.At about 10.00 pm her husband went out of the house saying that he was going to house of Daya Shankar for some Hisab as Daya Shankar was going to the village.Her husband did not return back at night.On the next morning she sent her younger son to house of Daya Shankar and her son returned back and told her that Daya Shankar, the accused herein had told her son that her husband had gone to his work.It is incorrect to suggest that her husband had never gone to the house of the accused Daya Shankar.PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed has deposed that on 19.02.2004 he came to know that his neighbour Moti Lal had gone for his work but did not returned at night, though, the witness has stated further that it was Heera Lal who has gone missing and not Moti Lal.He accordingly inquired from the wife of Heera Lal.On inquiry Rama Shankar S/O Heera Lal has told him that he has seen his father drinking liquor with his cousin Daya Shankar on previous evening.Moti Lal, brother of the deceased Heera Lal has come to his house and he told him that Heera Lal has gone with Daya Shankar before he went missing.Hence, on the aforesaid testimony of the public witnesses it is Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 7 of 29 fully established that the deceased Heera Lal was last seen together with the accused Daya Shankar."A. No.381/2010 Page 7 of 29We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the trial Judge since none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has claimed during evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant-accused.PW-2 Moti Lal is the brother of the deceased who had claimed during investigation stage before the police that he had seen his brother having drinks with the appellant- accused on 19th February, 2004 but he has not maintained that statement in Court.He did not claim that even when he was cross- examined by the public prosecutor.PW-2 Moti Lal had also not claimed in evidence that he had told PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed that the deceased had gone with the appellant-accused before he went missing.PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed had claimed that the son of the deceased had told him that he had seen his father having drinks with the appellant-accused.Though the prosecution had examined son of the deceased, PW-9 Rama Shankar, but this witness did not state during his evidence that he had seen his father having drinks with the appellant-accused or that he had said so to PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed.And PW-5 Ramwati had simply claimed that when her Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 8 of 29 husband(the deceased) had left home at night he had told her that he was going to the house of the appellant.So, the conclusion of the trial Judge in respect of the first circumstance of 'last seen together' is based on no evidence at all and we have no hesitation in holding that this circumstance has not been established at all.A. No.381/2010 Page 8 of 29Now, we come to the circumstance of extra judicial confession made by the appellant-accused that he had murdered his real chacha, the deceased Heera Lal, and thereafter he had thrown the dead body in a gutter.This circumstance has also been found by the trial Judge to have been established by the prosecution.The relevant part of the examination-in-chief of PW-2 Moti Lal regarding this circumstance is as under:"We had planned to contact a Tantrik to know whereabouts of my brother.Raja Ram returned back to my house after sometime.He told me that Daya Shankar was telling that we should not spent any money to know whereabouts of my brother and that his whereabouts would be known within 2-3 days.I became suspicious as Daya Shankar had not said anything for the past so many days.I thought that Daya Shankar must be knowing something.I planned to go to the police station in this regard.I went to the police station."A. No.381/2010 Page 9 of 29This witness, as noticed already, was cross-examined by the additional public prosecutor and in that cross-examination also he did not admit that the appellant had made any confession before him and he stated that:"..............It is incorrect to suggest that on 1.3.04 on being questioned by myself, other family members and neighbor Dilshad Ahmed the accused had claimed that on 19.2.04 he had killed Hira Lal by cutting his neck at C-136 DDA Market or that on the night of 20.2.04 he took the dead body in a rehri to Machli Market and threw the same in the gutter.I had not mentioned any such fact to the police................"14. PW-5, the widow of the deceased, was examined in support of this circumstance but she did not support the prosecution in her chief-examination.In her cross-examination by the additional public prosecutor she stated that:"I had not mentioned in my statement to the police that the accused had admitted before the family members that on 19.2.04 he alongwith my husband had consumed liquor or that thereafter accused had killed my husband and thrown the dead body in a gutter.(Confronted with statement Mark P-5A portion Y - Y where it is so recorded) It is correct that accused had claimed before my family members that he had consumed liquor with my husband and then killed him."When cross-examined by the counsel for the accused she admitted that the accused had not admitted his guilt in her presence.A. No.381/2010 Page 10 of 29The next witness of extra judicial confession is PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed who is the neighbour of the deceased.A. No.381/2010 Page 11 of 29During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused this witness stated as under:-".........Accused had admitted his guilt in my presence in the morning at about 9.30 AM on 1-3-04 in my house.Police was also present there............................. He had been kept locked in our house during night by my Tau Moti Lal.The accused had not been threatened............."PW-10 Ved Parkash in his examination-in-chief did not say anything about extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused so he was cross-examined by the additional public prosecutor and in that examination he stated that:-"It is correct that on 1.3.04 when I reached house of Hira Lal.I found Moti Lal and Hem Raj there alongwith some other persons who all were making enquiries from Daya Shanker.It is correct that accused Daya Shankar had admitted having killed Hira Lal in my presence.Telephone call to No.100 was made by Dilshad.My statement was recorded by the police."Then in cross-examination on behalf of the appellant-accused PW-10 stated as under:-"On 1-3-04 I had gone to house of Hira Lal at about 9-30 AM.Accused had admitted his guilt at that time itself.Dilshad, Hem Raj, police officers and some neighbours were present when the accused had admitted his guilt........................"A. No.381/2010 Page 12 of 29PW-11 Hem Raj is the next witness of extra judicial confession.Since this witness had also not stated anything about the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused he had to be cross- examined by the additional public prosecutor.In that cross- examination he stated in reply to the question of the prosecutor that:-I had not made any such statement to the police............"PW-13 Raja Ram was also cross-examined by the additional public prosecutor since he had also not said anything about extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant-accused in his examination-in-chief.In that cross-examination he denied the suggestion of the prosecutor that the accused had accepted his guilt in his presence.This is what this witness answered to the questions put to him by the prosecutor:-".................It is correct that when Moti Lal had given a telephone call at my house he had informed me that Daya Shankar had admitted having killed Heera Lai........... It is incorrect to suggest that Daya Shankar had admitted in my presence that he had killed Heera Lal on 19.2.04 or had thrown the dead body in the gutter on Crl.I had not stated this fact in my statement to the police..............................................................................................."A. No.381/2010 Page 13 of 29The discussion about the evidence of these witnesses of extra judicial confession and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in favour of the prosecution are to be found in para no. 39 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced below:-"Extra-Judicial Confession:- PW-2 Sh.Moti Lal, who is the brother of the deceased Heera Lal has deposed on oath that they had planned to contact a Tantrik to know whereabouts of his brother.Raja Ram came to his house after some time and told him that Daya Shankar was telling that they should not spend any money to know the whereabout of Heera Lal and his whereabout will be known within 2-3 days.He became suspicious as Daya Shankar had not said anything for the past so many days.He has also deposed in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the accused Daya Shankar told us that he had already told everything to Raja Ram.PW-5 Ramvati has deposed in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that it is correct that the accused has claimed before his family members that he had consumed liquor with her husband and then killed him, though she has also deposed in her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused that the accused has not admitted any fact regarding his consuming liquor and killing her husband in her presence.PW8-Dilshad Ahmed has also deposed that he along with Moti Lal went to his house and Daya Shankar was present there.Ved Parkash, Hem Raj and other people also came there.They all inquired from the accused Daya Shankar about Hira Lal.Accused Daya Shankar was evasive in his replies.Thereafter, they threatened to beat him.Out of the fear the accused claimed that he would tell everything and he should not be beaten.Daya Shankar told them that he has killed his Chacha Heera Lal on the night of 19.2.2004 itself.He has also deposed in his cross- examination that the accused Daya Shankar has been threatened that Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 14 of 29 he would be beaten.They have only threatened and have not beaten him.The accused has admitted his guilt before them at about 9.30- 9.45 a.m. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had not admitted his guilt in his presence.PW-9 Ram Shankar who is the son of the deceased Heera Lal has also deposed in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that the accused had admitted his guilt in his presence in the morning at about 9.30 a.m. on 01.03.2004 in his house.The accused had not been threatened.It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had not admitted his guilt in his presence.PW10-Ved Parkash has also deposed in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that it is correct that on 01.03.2004 when he reached the house of Heera Lal, he found Moti Lal and Hem Raj there along with the some other persons who all were making inquiries from Daya Shankar.It is correct that the accused has admitted killing of Hira Lal in his presence.Telephone call to 100 no. was made by Dilshad.He has also deposed in his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused that on 01.03.2004 at about 9.30 am he has gone to the house of the deceased Heera Lal and the accused Daya Shankar has admitted his guilt at that time itself.Dilshad, Hem Raj, police officials and some neighbours were also present there when the accused had admitted his guilt.It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had not admitted his guilt in his presence.PW-13 Raja Ram has also deposed in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that it is incorrect that when Moti Lal had given a telephone call at his house he had informed him that accused Daya Shankar had admitted having killed Heera Lal.A. No.381/2010 Page 14 of 29Under the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the accused has admitted his guilt before his family and relatives.The admission of guilt/confession before the family members is fully admissible against him..........................................In the present case the confession is before the family members and the neighbourers and the confession has been made voluntarily.A. No.381/2010 Page 15 of 29 contrary to show that the accused has not made an extra-judicial confession before the family members and the neighbourers and even the accused has not led any evidence in his defence showing anything to the contrary.Hence, it can also be safely concluded that the accused has made an extra-judicial confession before the family members that he has killed his Chacha Heera Lal by cutting his throat by knife in his shop."A. No.381/2010 Page 15 of 29Learned counsel(amicus curiae) for the appellant-accused had submitted that while examining the prosecution case about the alleged extra judicial confession this court should keep in mind the fact that the prosecution was alleging that the appellant-accused had illicit relationship with his chachi, PW-5 Ramwati, who is the widow of the deceased and she has not supported the prosecution case in respect of this circumstance.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined to establish the circumstance of extra judicial confession, which even otherwise is a very weak piece of evidence in a criminal trial as per various judgments of the Apex Court, it is quite clear that neither the widow of the deceased(PW-5) nor his son(PW-9) as well his brother(PW-2) and uncle(PW-13) have supported the prosecution case.None of them claimed that the appellant-accused had made any confession about murder in their presence.The learned trial Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 16 of 29 Judge totally ignored the fact that none of the relatives of the appellant-accused claimed that before them he had made any confession of guilt and came to hold that they did claim so.13) having said anything about the making of extra judicial confession by the appellant-accused and his disclosing about the place of concealment of the dead body of the deceased it becomes improbable that he would have made any confession about the murder before the neighbours of the deceased.In any case, we would examine their evidence as the learned additional public prosecutor had read out their evidence during the course of hearing.PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed, claiming to be a neighbour of the deceased, had though claimed that the appellant-accused had admitted in his presence and also in the presence of PW-2 Moti Lal and others that he had killed the deceased and thrown his dead body in a gutter in Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 17 of 29 Fish Market of Sultanpuri but his evidence does not appear to be trustworthy and reliable for many reasons.A. No.381/2010 Page 17 of 2924. PW-8 had claimed that the appellant-accused had made the confessional statement around 9.30 a.m. on 1st March, 2004 and then he had informed the police on phone and PCR reached within 5 to 10 minutes but FIR was registered around 2.30 p.m. and that too not at his instance but on the statement of PW-2 Moti Lal who, as noticed already, had disowned that portion of his first information statement(Ex.The Supreme Court in one of its judgments(cited by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant- accused) in " State of Andhra Pradesh vs E. Satyanarayana": (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 400 while considering the extra judicial confession made by the accused of that case had not accepted the evidence of the concerned witness in that regard since the confession was alleged to have been made at 8 a.m. while FIR Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 18 of 29 was registered around 11.30 a.m. and that much delay had remained unexplained by the prosecution.For the same reason the Supreme Court had rejected the evidence of extra judicial confession in an earlier judgment also which is reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 607, which was also cited by the learned amicus curiae.Here, even the accused was arrested at 7 p.m. even though he was all along present after the alleged confession made by him.That fact also makes the prosecution case regarding the extra judicial confession to be doubtful.A. No.381/2010 Page 18 of 29Then of course he admitted that the appellant-accused had confessed about having killed the deceased in his presence as also in the presence of PW-2 Moti Lal and PW-11 Hem Raj and others but when he was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused he stated that police was also present at the time of making of confession by the appellant-accused.Even PW-10 Ram Shankar, son of the deceased had stated in his cross-So, both these witnesses in any event do not corroborate each other on this material aspect i.e. place of making of the confessional statement by the appellant-accused.PW-8 had claimed that he had been requested by PW-2 Moti Lal on 1st March,2004 to come to his house as something was to be asked from the accused about the deceased.However, Moti Lal did not claim that he had requested Dilshad Ahmed to come to his house.So, there was even otherwise no occasion for Dilshad Ahmed to be Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 20 of 29 present in the house of Moti Lal at the time of making of alleged confession by the accused, if at all it was made.Similarly PW-10 Ved Parkash had no occasion to go the house of deceased on 1st March,2004 when the accused had allegedly made the confessional statement.A. No.381/2010 Page 20 of 29PW-11 Hem Raj did not support the prosecution regarding making of extra judicial confession by the appellant-accused either in his examination-in-chief or cross-examination by the prosecutor.There is another reason also for rejecting the prosecution case regarding the appellant-accused making extra judicial confession and giving information about the place where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased.That reason is that the confession even as per the prosecution witnesses was not made voluntarily.PW-8 Dilshad Ahmed, so called independent witness, had himself deposed that before the confession was made by the appellant-accused he was threatened by him and others that he shall be beaten and then out of fear he had confessed to having killed the deceased on account of some 'len-den'.PW-9 Ram Shankar, son of the deceased, had also stated in cross-examination on behalf of the accused that Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 21 of 29 the appellant-accused had been kept locked in their house from the night of 29th February,2004 till the morning of 1st March,2004 by PW-2 Moti Lal.However, that evidence was also examined and rejected.We would also examine the third circumstance of recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the deceased since the learned additional public prosecutor had strongly relied upon this circumstance also.The witnesses of this circumstance, other than the police officials, are once again PWs 2, 8, 10, 11 and 13 based on whose evidence we have already rejected the prosecution case that in their presence the appellant-accused had claimed that he had murdered the deceased and thrown his dead body in a gutter in Fish Market in Sultanpuri.A. No.381/2010 Page 23 of 29We have examined the prosecution evidence in respect of the recovery of dead body and we find that evidence adduced is doubtful and it cannot be said that this circumstance stands established beyond reasonable doubt.PW-2 Moti Lal had stated in his examination-in-chief that when he entertained suspicion against the appellant-accused on being informed by PW-13 Raja Ram, who, as noticed already, is also related to the deceased and obviously to PW-2 also, that the appellant-accused had told him that they should not spend money on tantriks to find out the whereabouts of the deceased as is whereabouts would become known within 2-3 days, he decided to go to the police and so he went to the police station.PW-11 Ved Parkash had deposed that when PW-2 Moti Lal had told him that he had suspicion against the appellant-accused he had told PW-2 to inform the police and then he was also requested by PW-2 to accompany him to the police station but he had not gone.Now what PW-2 had informed the police at the police station is not a part of the prosecution case and is a mystery and what has come on record is the statement of PW-2, which formed the basis of FIR, recorded late Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 24 of 29 afternoon that day after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and part of which he had disowned also.PW-2 further deposed that:A. No.381/2010 Page 24 of 29Police had apprehended the accused in the house of my brother Hari Lal.Police took the accused in their vehicle while I alongwith my neighbours went on foot.We had gone to toilet of DDA Market near Machhi market, Sultan Puri.There was a big stone lying on the nalli.We were asked by the police to remove the said stone.We removed the stone and found dead body of my brother Hira Lal......................"PCR came there.Accused admitted his guilt even in front of PCR police.PCR people took the accused with them.I followed them.We went to the gutter near bus stand where dead body of Hira Lal was recovered from inside the gutter...................................................."PW-19 ASI Azad.Mohd. is the initial investigating officer.As per the prosecution case he reached the house of the deceased after PCR had informed the area police station where he was posted, about the apprehension of the murderer of the deceased(appellant-accused).Relevant portion of his examination-in-chief is as under: -A. No.381/2010 Page 25 of 29"On 01.03.2004 I was posted as ASI at PS Sultan Puri.I was on emergency duty and was given DD No. 26B by duty officer.It was regarding the apprehension of the accused.I alongwith constable Jagdish went to house No. 833, Pocket P-4, Sultan Puri.There I met Moti Lal, Dilshad and other persons.They produced Daya Shanker accused present in court today, (correctly pointed out).I interrogated the accused.Accused took the police alongwith public persons such Moti Lal Dilshad etc. to DDA Flats, Machli Market and pointed out a sewer.The lid of sewer was lifted with the help of public persons.I found one male dead body lying in the said sewer.I with the help of public persons lifted the dead body from the sewer and had taken it out.Moti Lal who was also with us identified the dead body as of his brother Hira Lal.................................................................................."From the evidence of these three witnesses of recovery of the dead body of the deceased it is clear that they are not consistent and do not corroborate each other's version.PW-2 simply claimed that the police(PCR) took the appellant-accused to Machli Market and from there the dead body was recovered but did not say that it was the appellant-accused who had pointed out the place where the dead body was concealed.PW-8 had claimed that the appellant- accused had told PCR officials about three place where he had thrown the dead body and then PCR people had taken him to that place and the body was recovered.However, none of the PCR official has been examined by the prosecution.PW-19 ASI Azad Crl.A. No.381/2010 Page 26 of 29 Mohd. did not even claim that PCR officials were present when he reached the house of the deceased or that they had left after his arrival there.PW-19 did not claim that when he interrogated the appellant-accused he had disclosed to him that he would get the dead body recovered.Admittedly no confessional/disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by PW-19 at that time.In fact, his disclosure statement was recorded by the subsequent investigating officer PW-22 Inspector Preet Singh after the dead body had been recovered.There is evidence of recovery of weapon of offence also adduced by the prosecution and which was sought to established by the prosecution through police witnesses only but we need not go into that evidence since admittedly the group of human blood found on the recovered knife could not be ascertained and linked with the deceased.

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

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

Allowed md.CRM No. 5388 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.7.2018 in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No.262/2018 dated 14.04.2018, under sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code;And In Re:-Manowara Begum @ Sekh Manuyara Khatun and another ... Petitioners Mr.Anindya Ghosh, Advocate ..for the Petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld.Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya, Advocate .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No.262/2018 dated 14.04.2018, under sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners are the mother-in-law and husband's brother, respectively, of the victim who succumbed to her burn injuries.Though there is a statement where the victim admitted to having attempted to commit suicide, the State refers to the post-mortem report and the unusual feature of the backside of the victim suffering more burn injuries than the front.The petitioners say that even the husband and the father- in-law who were arrested have been granted anticipatory bail.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

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

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

On 04.11.2005, the hospital authorities of Government Seth Govind Das (Victoria) Hospital Jabalpur had informed the police of Police Station Omti, Jabalpur that one Jeetu @ Dinesh Patel (now deceased) is admitted for treatment.It is reported that he consumed liquid Sulphas .Thereupon, on 04.11.2005, the police recorded his statement.On 06.11.2005, he died during the treatment.The police had post-mortem of his dead body.the time of incident the deceased was doing a job of cook in a private hotel known as Hotel Neelam, which is situated under the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Omti, Jabalpur.The owner of the hotel was Harjeet Singh, who is the co-accused of the case, and the applicant was manager of the hotel.The deceased sold his two-wheeler and out of the sale proceeds he deposited Rs.14,000/- with the co-accused.The co- accused also owed the deceased the arrears of 8 months of his wages.The deceased seriously fell ill on account of jaundice.He, therefore, asked for the co-accused the arrears of his wages and return of his money Rs.14,000/-.He did not pay the money by making one or the other pretext.Rajesh, Rekbahadur and Chhotelal were the employees of the hotel and colleagues of the deceased at the relevant time.They have simply stated in their statements that the applicant would harass the deceased but their statements are also silent as to how and why the applicant used to harass the deceased.Munna, Prashant and Kamlesh are the elder brother and nephews (the last two) of the deceased respectively.For Applicant : Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned Advocate with Shri Virendra Singh, Advocate.However, the coroner could not ascertain the exact cause of his death and recommended for the chemical examination of his viscera.The F.S.L., Sagar has given the report stating therein that the deceased died of consumption of poisonous substance ethylene dibromide.Upon the report, the police registered Marg case No.31/05 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. (2.2) The Marg inquiry was assigned to Sub-Inspector S.M. Sharma.During the inquiry, he recorded Marg statements of Kamlesh, Prabhat, Narendra, Munnalal, etc. On the basis of their statements, he submitted Marg inquiry report.Upon his aforesaid frequent demands the co- accused and the applicant started harassing him.Under the circumstances, he committed suicide.(4)IPC at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur.Upon the completion of investigation into the crime, the police filed a charge sheet against the applicant and the co-accused in the court for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.After the committal proceedings, the case is registered as Sessions Trial No.490/06 and is made over for trial to the 10 t h Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties upon the question of framing of the charges, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned order holding that there is prima-facie evidence on record that the applicant and the co-accused committed offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 and 506-B r/w 34 of the IPC and framed the aforesaid charges against the applicant and the co-accused.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has filed this revision.and why the applicant would harass him.He further submitted that it was the responsibility of the co-accused to return the money and the arrears of the wages which he owed to the deceased.It is apparent from the statements of the deceased and other witnesses that the deceased commit suicide on account of non-payment of the money for which none other than the co-accused himself is responsible.He further submitted that if the prosecution case is accepted as it is on its face value against the applicant that he would harass the deceased, despite that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out because the harassment cannot be equated with the abetment as defined in Section 107 of the IPC, utmost it may be a cause of suicide.He still further submitted that there is no material on the record that he intimidated the deceased.Thus, the learned trial Judge, has committed errors of law and facts by framing the charges against the applicant under Section 306 r/w 34 and 506-B r/w 34 of the IPC.Hence, the impugned order, insofar as it is against the applicant, is liable to be set aside.In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following authorities.State of West Bengal [2005 Cri.L.J. 1737 (SC)].Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State has fully supported the impugned order and submitted that there is prima-facie evidence on record against the applicant for framing the charges against him under Section 306 r/w 34 and 506-B r/w 34 of the IPC.Hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed.I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the impugned order and material on record.The following is the point for determination for me:-the 'abetment' have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons, in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission.The explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of 'abetment'."It is worth mentioning here that upon the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial Judge has treated the statement of the deceased dated 04.11.2005 as his dying declaration.State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2013 MP 1177].of which he consumed Sulphas.Upon the meticulous perusal of the statement of the deceased, I find that he has not clarified as to how and why the applicant would harass him.To put it simply, the deceased has only stated that the applicant would harass him without giving details of harassment.They have stated in their statements that the deceased committed suicide because the co-accused had not paid his arrears of wages and money deposited with him.They have not stated anything against the applicant.In view of the above factual evidence, the alleged acts of harassment on the part of the applicant to the deceased cannot be equated with the abetment.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 From Monthly List Dated 7.1.2019 8.1.2019 (112) Allowed md.(112)Amar Mandal @ Amor Mondal ... Petitioner Mr. Subho Sankar Bhattacharjee .. for the petitioner Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Seema Biswas .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Sandeshkhali Police Station Case no.185 of 2018 dated 18.11.2018, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.The State refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.It appears that the victim refused to undergo the medical examination.Considering the contents of the statement and the other material on record, there is no need to take the petitioner into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.C.R.M. 11437 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) The Appeal is allowed.(ii) The impugned Order dated 7th July 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge below Exhibit 1 in CriminalGaikwad RD 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:07:25 ::: (39)APEALNo.9002018(J) Miscellaneous Application No.559 of 2018 so far as it relates to rejection of application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant/accused in the subject crime is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:07:25 :::(iii) The application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant/accused in the subject crime is allowed.(iv) In the event of his arrest in the crime in question, the appellant/accused is directed to be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount.(v) As a condition of this Order, the appellant/accused should not extend any threat inducement or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vi) As a condition of this Order, the appellant/accused should attend the Investigating Officer as and when directed and he should co-operate the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.(vii) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:07:25 :::

['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 19.10.2013 the accused Kirti wife of the injured along with other co-accused Raju came to Gwalior as Kirti was having D.Ed. examination, which was scheduled to be held on 20.10.2013 at Greenwood Public School, Adityapuram, Gwalior.It is alleged that on 19.10.2013 at 12:00 PM the accused Kirti has telephoned Raju Dixit the other accused, who came there by his motorcycle and three of them came to Gwalior on the motorcycle of :: 3 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) Raju.Avneesh and his wife went to Anjana's house, who is said to be the cousin (Chacheri Behan) of Kirti and Raju went back by his motorcycle.On 20.10.2013 when Kirti and Avneesh were going to the Examination Centre, at that time Kirti has made a phone call to Raju and he came to Gwalior by his motorcycle and all three of them went to the Greenwood Public School (the Examination Centre).After the examination was over, Raju, Kirti and the complainant/ injured Avneesh sat on the motorcycle of Raju and on the request made by the Raju that he has some work at the Airforce Centre all of them went towards the Air Force Centre.Near the Air Force Centre Raju stopped the motorcycle, Kirti caught hold of the hands of Avneesh and Raju has inflicted knife injuries to Avneesh all over the body including the vital parts.Thereafter assuming that Avneesh has expired they left him there and went away.(3) On the basis of the aforesaid, Dehati Nalishi and thereafter the FIR (Ex.P.8) was registered.It is submitted that Avneesh was taken to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior by Ambulance 108 and at Sahara Hospital his complaint was got recorded by Mahaveer Singh (PW.4).(13.7.2020) Per Vishal Mishra , J.:: 2 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) (1) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C assails the judgment of conviction of the trial Court dated 13.1.2017 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.149/2014, whereby appellant no.1 has been convicted under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in lieu of default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months RI and appellant no.2 has been convicted under section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 7 years RI with fine of Rs.5000/- and in lieu of default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months RI.(2) As per the prosecution story the incident is said to have taken place on 20.10.2013 when the injured as well as the appellants were going towards the Airport Road Tiraha.The complaint has been lodged by the injured Avneesh (PW.2) on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi was got registered (Ex.P.2).On the basis of the aforesaid information, the FIR was got registered at Crime No. 313/2013 at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior.During the course of investigation, the police authorities have prepared the spot map and memorandum of 27 of Evidence Act, :: 4 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) seizure memo and other relevant documents and has recorded the statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C.(4) After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the matter was put to trial.The accused have denied the incident and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case, therefore, they were put to trial.During the trial 13 prosecution witnesses were examined as Meenakshi (PW.1, Avneesh (PW.2), Dr. P.C. Saxena (PW.3), Mahaveer Singh (PW.4), Akhilesh Sharma (PW.5), Manish Dwivedi (PW.6), Lakhan Singh Rajput (PW.7), Anjana (PW.8), Amar Singh Kushwah (PW.9), Sobren Singh (PW.10), Amit Mishra (PW.11), Dr. M.G. Barua (PW.12) and Udhhav Singh Parmar (PW.13) and other relevant documents were exhibited before the Trial Court.(6) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the :: 5 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) present appeal has been filed before this Court.P.2 and the statement of Mahaveer Singh (PW.4) clearly shows that injured was hospitalized at around about 2:30 PM.At that time when the injured was hospitalized he was in an unconscious condition.He has drawn attention of this Court again to the statement of Mahaveer Singh (PW.4), who has stated that on getting information with respect to the fact that one injured person is lying near the Air Force Tiraha, he went to the spot and found Avneesh badly injured.It is further submitted that there are 14 injuries on the body of the injured and he was in an unconscious position.The statement of Avneesh is also being read over to this Court and it is argued that he has specifically stated that after getting injured he became unconscious and he regain his consciousness in Sahara Hospital at about 3:00 AM.Thus, the recording of Dehati Nalishi by the injured Avneesh appears to be improbable and factually incorrect.It is submitted that the aforesaid vital aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by the :: 6 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) learned Trial Court.(8) Another argument raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the presence of the appellant no.1 Raju on the place of the incident is again doubtful.As per the prosecution story Kirti and Raju both went to the Greenwood Public School, Gwalior for their D.Ed Examination, but from the statement of Principal of the School has been recorded as PW.1 Meenakshi, wherein she has stated that Kirti was having her examination for which the Register showing the attendance of Kirti and her Roll Number for the examination was produced before the Court.But as far as examination of Raju is concerned she is categorically stated that there was no examination of Raju in their Centre as there was no enrollment of Raju in their Centre.It is submitted that as per the prosecution story itself and the statement of Avneesh on 19.10.2013 all three of them came to Gwalior by motorcycle of Raju and thereafter Raju went back to Bhind leaving Kirti and Avneesh at their cousin sister's house (Chacheri Bua) and on the next date i.e. 20.10.2013 when Kirti along with Avneesh were going for the Examination Centre, Kirti has called Raju and thereafter they came on his motorcycle and all of them went to the Examination Centre.But, the fact remains that the distance from Gwalior to Bhind is approximately 60 to 70 kilometers, therefore, it is not possible that immediately on phone call Raju :: 7 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) could have arrived at Gwalior and took them to the Examination Centre, coupled with the fact that there was no registration or examination of Raju in the Greenwood Public School, where the Examination Centre of Kirti was scheduled.Even the statement of cousin sister of Kirti who was examined as PW.8 has shown presence of Kirti and Avneesh only.Under these circumstances presence of Raju at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.It is submitted that the aforesaid vital aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court.Counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court to the statement of Dr. P.C. Saxena (PW.3), who in his report Ex.P.4 has categorically stated that when he has examined the injured for the first time at about 5:00 PM on 20.10.2013 he was in semi unconscious state.Therefore, the recording of Dehati Nalishi by the injured Avneesh is highly doubtful and creates a serious doubt over the entire prosecution story.It is argued that the aforesaid vital aspect of the case has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and the judgment of conviction has been passed.It is further argued by the counsel for the appellants that the place of incident is also doubtful.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.2 shows the place of incident to the Air Force Road Tiraha, whereas the spot map Ex.P.3 shows the place of incident to be Bhonderi Tiraha, near Air Force road.Thus, :: 8 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) there is difference in the spot of incident in both the documents.It is argued that there is big distance between the two places shown in Dehati Nalishi and spot map.Even the Investigating Officer (PW.13) Udhhav Singh Parmar has shown the place of incident to be Bhonderi Tiraha.Therefore, it is not clear from the prosecution version that what is the place of incident.This again goes to show create a serious doubt over the prosecution story.It is further argued that the defence taken by the accused has not been considered properly by the Trial Court, wherein they have categorically stated that the incident has taken place as a result of an accident, wherein the injuries have sustained to Avneesh.It is argued that they have been falsely implicated in the case owing to the fact that there was some dispute with respect to demand of dowry between husband and wife owing to which a false report has been made by the husband taking advantage of accident in which he has sustained injuries.The ground taken by the accused Kirti to the effect that she was writing a personal diary which has been clearly stated by her in her statement, but could not produce the diary owing to the fact that the same was kept with her mother-in-law and she refused to give the diary to her.There is nothing on record to show that there was any relationship between Raju and Kirti.Even the husband has also not objected for coming to Gwalior with Raju on one motorcycle.This clearly goes to show :: 9 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) that there was no motive of Raju to have inflicted injuries to Avneesh.Counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the statement of Mahaveer Singh (PW.4), who was a first person who has seen the injured and has called the Ambulance 108 by which he has taken the injured to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior.It is submitted that he has shown the time of reaching the Hospital to as 2:30 PM, whereas the case-sheet of Avneesh clearly goes to show that he was admitted at 4:21 PM in the Hospital.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) proof.It is argued that as soon as the information to Mahaveer Singh (PW.4) was received regarding the injured he went to the spot and found Avneesh lying in injured position.He was in semiconscious state and was groaning.Thus, as soon as he reached the hospital then immediately the treatment was given to him and thereafter the police authorities were permitted to record dehati nalishi.Counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to statement of PW.1 Meenakshi the Principal of the Greenwood Public School, who has categorically stated in her statement that on 20.10.2013 the D.Ed. examination was held in his school, wherein the accused Kirti has participated.She has produced the details pertaining to the records as Ex.P.1 i.e. the Attendance Register wherein the presence of Kirti was marked.This clearly establishes the fact that the Kirti went to Greenwood Public School for examination along with Avneesh and Raju.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) along with his wife and Raju went to the Greenwood Public School, which was the Examination Centre of his wife and he left Raju and his wife to the Examination Centre and after completion of the examination on request of Raju that he was having some work in Air Force Centre, therefore, all the three went to Air Force Centre Tiraha on the motorcycle of Raju and on reaching near the Tiraha of Air Force Centre, Raju stopped the motorcycle and Kirti caught hold of hands of Avneesh and Raju has inflicted knife blows.It was further stated that the knife blows were inflicted on the vital parts of the body i.e. neck etc., as a result of which he was not in a position to even shout.He was badly injured and he fell down and assuming that he is dead, both the accused persons flee away from the place of incident.There were 14 injuries found on the body of the injured which was duly corroborated by medical evidence.He has read over the statement of doctor, who has examined the injured on the initial stage.The doctor has found 14 injuries on the body of Avneesh and all the injuries were inflicted by sharp cutting weapon like knife.There is a recovery of knife from Raju.Thus, the story of the prosecution is fully corroborated by the testimony of the injured witness as well as :: 13 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) medical evidence.Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly found the accused guilty of committing the offence and they were rightly convicted.It is further contended that the statement of Anjana (PW.8), who is said to be cousin sister of Kirti, who has turned hostile in the matter is of no help to the accused as the statement of hostile witness to the extent in support of prosecution story can be read into.It is submitted that Anjana in her statement has categorically stated that Kirti came to Gwalior along with her husband for giving examination for which the Centre was Greenwood Public School.She came on 19.10.2013 a day before the examination.Thus, the prosecution story to the aforesaid extent is duly corroborated by the statement of Anjana (PW.8).Coupled with the other circumstances and considering the statement of P.W.2 the injured it is clearly established that the accused persons have inflicted injuries to Avneesh.All the injuries were inflicted by a sharp-cutting object i.e. knife and were found to be medically corroborated.It is further argued that there were 14 injuries found on the body of Avneesh i.e. repeated blows by knife were inflicted which clearly establishes the intention of the accused persons.Thus, after inflicting the injuries when Avneesh fell down the accused persons thought that Avneesh was dead and leaving Avneesh there they ran away.But, the fact remains that Avneesh survived and was :: 14 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) taken to Hospital and was medically treated, by which his life was saved.The doctor in his statement has stated that due to the medical treatment given to the injured he is survived otherwise the injuries were fatal and dangerous to life.(11) Recording of Dehati Nalshi by Avneesh has been considered in para 16 of the judgment by the learned Trial Court, wherein elaborate discussion has been made by the Trial Court and Trial Court has categorically observed that Avneesh (PW.2), the injured was the author of Dehati Nalishi and there is no dispute with respect of the same.The arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused that the spot of incident was shown to be different in the Dehati Nalishi and spot map memo.The aforesaid argument is of no help to the accused as Uddhav Singh Parmar (PW.13) has categorically stated that as soon as the information with respect to the injured was received he went to the place of spot of commission of offence.The spot is between the Air Force Tiraha and Bhonderi Tiraha.He has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of Avneesh (PW.2) and has argued that PW.2 in his statement has categorically stated that Bhonderi Tiraha is just ahead of Air Force Tiraha and the place of incident the boundary wall of Potato Research Centre was on both the sides.The maps discloses the same position, wherein the place of incident was shown to be adjoining to the boundary wall of the Potato :: 15 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) Research Centre.Coupled with the fact that there is a categorical statement made by Avneesh that the incident has taken place ahead of Air Force Tiraha.The distance between Air Force Tiraha and Bhonderi Tiraha is not more than 1 Kilometer.Therefore, the place of incident was between Air Force Tiraha and Bhonderi Tiraha.Thus, there is no material contradiction in the statement of witnesses and the spot map showing the place of incident.He has prays for dismissal of the appeal.(12) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.(13) From perusal of the record, it is seen that categorical statement made by Avneesh (PW.2) the injured, that he was inflicted injuries by Raju and the other co-accused Kirti has helped Raju.The injuries found on the body of the injured Raju were medically corroborated.14 injuries were :: 16 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) found by the Doctor.And all the injuries were incised wounds which could have been inflicted by sharp cutting weapon.There is a recovery of knife from Raju.Thus, the injuries found on the body of the injured are medically corroborated.The argument regarding the recording of Dehati Nalishi by PW.2 injured is concerned, it is being categorically stated by Avneesh (PW.2) that he has got recorded the Dehati Nalishi.The PW.4 Mahaveer Singh has categorically stated in his statement that on getting information with respect to the injured, he went on the spot and called Ambulance 108, by which he was taken to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior.He was in semi-unconscious state.The aforesaid statement was also supported by the statement of Dr. P.C. Saxena (PW.3), who has initially treated the injured.The Doctor has also categorically stated that he was found injured in semi-unconscious state.Therefore, the complaint recorded in the form of Dehati Nalishi find weightage and support from the statements of Avneesh (PW.2), Mahaveer Singh (PW.4) as well as Dr. P.C. Saxena (P.W.3).The aforesaid aspect was proved and established by the statement given by the Principal of the Greenwood :: 17 :: Cr.A.No.219/2017 (Raju alias Rajeev and another ) Public School, who has produced the document having acknowledgment of Kirti.Thus, the prosecution story to the aforesaid extent is fully proved by leading cogent evidence and there is no doubt with respect to the same.As far as presence of Raju is concerned the injured Avneesh (PW.2) has categorically given a statement against Raju.It is stated that from the statement it is clear that Raju has inflicted knife injuries when Kirti caught hold of the hands.All the three were going on motorcycle and Raju suddenly stopped the motorcycle near the Air Force Tiraha and there the incident has taken place.There is recovery of knife from Raju.The Dehati Nalishi is also prompt on the basis of which the FIR was got registered.Thus, there is sufficient material available on record which have proved the prosecution story beyond any reasonable doubt.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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