id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,881,110 | Love is blind but can it be that blind in madness that it turn the man cruel, crazy and barbaric never heard.It can be seen in this case.It is a tragic story of two un fortunate innocent children, namely; Master Sunny Arora aged about seven years and Ms. Shikha Arora aged about three or three and a half years.Their life was snatched at the cruel hands of the appellant Ajit Seth.The story of the prosecution is unfolded thus;Ajit Seth, the appellant herein came and settled in the neighborhood of Mr. Harish Arora and Indu Arora.They were in occupation of house No. B-2/261, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.The Arora couple had a son named Sunny and daughter Shikha.Ajit Seth came and settled in the neighborhood in house No. B-2/260, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.In order to utilise the facility of telephone installed in the house of Aroras, Ajit Seth started visiting their house.During these visits he developed love for Indu Arora, wife of Harish Arora and mother of those unfortunate two children.With the passage of time the bond between Ajit Seth and Indu Arora became very strong.On 17th October, 1987 on the birthday of Ajit Seth, both Indu and Ajit went to hotel Raj Hans at Surajkund, Faridabad, Haryana and spent the day together.The secret of their love could not remain hidden for long.He shifted to house No. A-2/207, Paschim Vihar on rent.Unfortunately for him the shifting of the house did not yield any results in separating his wife from Ajit Arora rather they continued meeting each other.So much so Indu Arora started eloping with Ajit Seth.However, on 3rd April, 1988 Harish Arora and his family brought Indu back.Being , frustrated with her conduct, Harish sent her to her parents house at Sarvpriya Vihar.But the bond of love between Indu and Ajit did not deter her there also.She also took her daughter Shikha with her.This time Indu and Ajit stayed at Sidharth Hotel, New Delhi in Room No. 302 which was booked in the assumed name of Amita Gugnani.Indu came back on 15th April, 1988 and apologized for her conduct.She then started living with her husband.Harish Arora lodged a missing report on the same day at police station Paschim Vihar.While eloping she also took her daughter Shikha with her.Report of this incident was also lodged with the police by the father of Ajit Seth.He informed the police that his son Ajit Seth had gone in a Maruti Car with some jewellery belonging to him.However when Ajit came back his father disowned this report.Indu and Ajit Seth with Shikha had gone to Meerut.They also stayed at Hotel Connaught Palace, New Delhi in the assumed name of Naresh Chopra and Neeta Chopra.Love has no barriers and being desperate to possess Indu, Ajit Seth called Harish Arora about 10 days prior to this occurrence.He threatened that Harish should forget about Indu otherwise harm would be caused which Harish would remember for all times.This threat was repeated by Ajit Seth when he called Harish Arora to Sidharth Hotel Coffee Shop.He even threatened that in case Harish Arora came in between him and Indu, he would finish his children.Indu Arora being blind in love for Ajit plainly told her husband Harish Arora that she could do anything for her lover Ajit Seth, and that she neither care nor bothered for Harish or for that matter for children.In the first week of June, 1988 in the presence of Darshan Lal (PW-42), she repeated that she did not care for her husband or for the children.He was unmarried whereas Indu Arora was elder to him.Ajit Seth was engaged.Because of his love for Indu he broke his engagement.Sunny Arora had been going for tuition to Mrs. Lalita Bali (PW-41) during summer vacations.Mrs. Bali was a teacher in the Martin Public School.She was residing at B-4/79, Paschim Vihar.On the fateful day i.e. 24th June, 1988, when Harish Arora was taking Sunny for tuition, Indu Arora insisted that Shikha be also taken Along with for tuition.Harish Arora took both the children and dropped at the house of Mrs. Bali at 9.30 A.M. The tuition hours were between 9.30 A.M. to 11 A.M.That day Harish Arora was busy hence he was not to pick up the children at 11 A.M. Accordingly Mrs. Bali took the children and hired a rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) so that the children could be dropped back at home.Rikshaw Driver, Babu Lal (PW-1) was told to drop the children at A-2 block, Paschim Vihar.Hardly had Babu Lal (PW-1) covered a distance of 100 yards, a motorcyclist came and stopped his rikshaw.He asked the children to come with him so that he could drop them home on the motorcycle.Sunny, the deceased got down and identified the motorcyclist as "Ajji uncle".Since Ajit Seth was wearing helmet, Shikha had not recognised the motorcyclist hence got frightened.She remained seated in the Rikshaw till such time Sunny told her that motorcyclist was "Ajji uncle".Said motorcyclist took both the children with him on his motorcycle.He paid a new one rupee note to Babu Lal (PW-1).The motorcyclist instead of going towards A-2 block, Paschim Vihar went opposite direction wherefrom Rikshaw driver was bringing the children, hence Babu Lal (PW-1) got suspicious.He immediately went to the house of Mrs. Bali Since Mrs. Bali was not at home, Bhawna daughter of Mrs. Bali met him.He narrated the fact that the children have been taken away by a motorcyclist whom children called "Ajji" uncle.That they had been taken in opposite direction.When the children did not reach home, Indu Arora went to the house of Mrs. Bali at about 12.30 P.M. On enquiry about the children, she was told by Mrs. Bali that the children were sent in the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) at about 11 A.M. That the rickshaw driver informed that a motorcyclist has taken the children on his motorcycle but in the opposite direction and that the children addressed him as "Ajji uncle".On being questioned as to whether there was any person known to Indu by the name of "Ajji", Indu nodded her head but kept quite.On getting this information, Indu Arora did not show any cause of anxiety.Indu Arora again came to the house of Mrs. Bali for enquiring about the children.At that time Mrs. Bali told her that she was prepared to go to police station with her, Indu Arora refused and went away.Indu had not ipformed Harish at the earliest opportunity that children had not come back home after the tuition or that they are missing.This information she gave to him for the first time at about 1.45 P.M. On getting this information, Harish Arora rushed to the house of Mrs. Bali.In the meantime police official came to his house and left the message with his neighbour to come to police station.When Harish Along with Indu came home, his neighbour informed that police had come and he has been called to the police station Paschim Vihar.They accordingly went to police station where he was informed that children had been admitted in RML Hospital.On 24th June, 1988, Chander Bhan (PW-2) was on duty as Chowkidar at DDA Park, Pusa Hill near Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.There was a deserted room known as Madrasi Temple at Pusa Hill.At about 11.45 A.M. Chander Bhan (PW-2) who was on duty in the DDA Park heard the cries and shrieks of children pomirig from that room.On hearing these cries he rushed towards the Madrasi Temple at Pusa Hill where he saw two children - one boy and one girl - on fire.He extinguished the fire.Some students and labours of Pusa Institute who were present in that area also reached the spot.On being asked by Chander Bhan(PW-2), the boy Sunny (the deceased) told his name and also the fact that "Jit uncle" had brought them there on his motorcycle.He set them on fire after tying.Rajender Prasad (PW-3), Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) along with their colleagues Davinder Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Surinder Kumar, Kuldip Chand were doing survey as trainee in the field of Pusa Hill which was at a distance of about 200 meters from the place of occurrence.When Chander Bhan(PW-2) rushed to the spot two lady gardners also rushed after him.On seeing this commotion the above said students also rushed after these ladies and reached the spot.Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) deputed his colleagues to call PCR van but when it did not reach early, Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) himself left for search of one.Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) informed on Telephone No. 100 about the burning of two children and also gave description of the place of occurrence.In the meantime one PCR Van was brought by his colleagues in which Sunny and Shikha were taken to RML Hospital.Children were brought to RML Hospital at 12.20 P.M. The duty constable PW Rajesh enquired from Sunny Arora, his name, parentage, address.On getting the details from Sunny the deceased those were got incorporated in the MLC.However, the name of the girl was not correctly given instead of Shikha it was given as Sita Arora.Information to Rajinder Nagar Police Station was given by the PCR at about 12 noon.Accordingly SHO, Mr. R.K. Ahuja (PW-33) reached at the spot i.e. Pusa Hill but by then the children had already been taken to RML Hospital.Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of police station Inder Puri, hence PCR was asked to give information to police station Inder Puri.PCR informed police station Inder Puri on wireless that two children have been burnt at Pusa Hill opposite Rattan Puri Chowk and that they have been taken to RML Hospital by the PCR Van.Information was accordingly recorded vide DD No. 8-A Ex. PW6/A at 12.30 P.M. Enquiry was accordingly entrusted to SI L.C. Yadav.PCR also informed police station Paschim Vihar on telephone that Sunny Arora and Shikha Arora r/o A-2, Paschim Vihar have been admitted to RML Hospital in burnt condition.They were brought from DDA park Mandir near ITI, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.Enquiry was entrusted to ASI Brahamjit Singh, SHO PS Paschim Vihar.Inspector of police station Inder Puri on receiving the information reached RML Hospital.SI L.C. Yadav also reached the hospital.The SHO of police station Paschim Vihar Inspector Mahesh Chand Sharma Along with ASI Brahmjit Singh also reached RML hospital directly.Sunny Arora and Shikha Arora were admitted in emergency ward of the RML Hospital.SHO Rajbir Singh of police station Inder Puri in the presence of SI L.C. Yadav and SHO of police station Paschim Vihar Inspector Mahesh Chander Sharma enquired the cause of his fire from Sunny Arora as to who burp them.The appellant was crazy in love with Indu Arora and had lust to possess her at any cost;To satisfy his desire and lust for Indu, he eloped with her on number of occasions;On 24th June, 1988 at about 10/10.15 A.M., Ajit Seth visited the house of one Varinder Kumar (PW-5) at Paschim Vihar to collect money;On 24th June, 1988, both the children had been left by Harish Arora, father of unfortunate children at the house of Mrs. Bali (PW-41) for taking tuition;Tuition finished at 11 A.M. and since Harish was not to pick up the children on that day, hence, Mrs. Bali got a rickshaw for the children and sent them to their home at A-2 Paschim Vihar;He stopped the rickshaw driver and asked the children to come with him on motorcycle so that he could drop them to their home.He paid a new one rupee note to the rickshaw driver;Children after recognising that motorcyclist "Ajji uncle" accepted his offer and went away with him on his motorcycle;Instead of taking them home, he went on different directions and brought them to Pusa Hill in a deserted vacant room known as Madrasi Temple;He was on visiting terms to the house of Aroras, therefore, the children used to call him "Ajji uncle;At Pusa Hill in that room he set the children on fire;At the spot burnt/half burnt exercise books of the children were found;SHO Paschim Vihar enquired from Aroras as to who is "Ajji", to which Harish replied he is Ajit Seth.The case as set up by the prosecution with regard to relations between Indu Arora and the appellant stood proved from the testimonies of Harish Arora (PW-40), Manoj Kumar (PW-36), Darshan Lal (PW-42) beside the documentary evidence of hotels.Hotel records proves that after eloping from home number of times.Indu and Ajit stayed in different hotels.Harish Arora and Manoj Kumar (PW-36) are brothers.Harish (PW-40) proved that his wife Indu was having affair with Ajit.Being blind in love neither Indu nor Ajit cared for any one.He could not be shaken on material facts touching the basic structure of the prosecution despite lengthy cross examination.He was on duty in that DDA park and was working towards Ridge side of the said park from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. on 24th June, 1988 at about 11.45 A.M. While he was performing his duties in the said park, he heard cries and shrieks of children coming from Madrasi Temple comprised of one room lying vacant on the hillock of Pusa.On hearing those cries he rushed towards the spot.On reaching there he saw two children - one boy and one girl - burning.Entire clothes of the girl had been burnt while clothes of the boy i.e. a half sleeve bushirt was still burning and stucking to his skin.He plucked the burning portion of the clothes.He extinguished their fire.He questioned the boy as to who had set them on fire, what reply the boy gave and as stated by him read as under:-"Jit uncle" had tied them and had set them on fire and had run away."After he had questioned the boy by which time those two women gardners, Angad supervisor and 6 or 7 students of the Pusa Institute also reached there.Out of those students two of them went and brought the PCR jeep in which both the children were removed to the hospital.Chander Bhan (PW-2) also accompanied the children to the hospital and to the emergency ward.In his presence, the police officials enquired from Sunny Arora, the deceased the cause of fire to which the boy replied that "Jit uncle" had set them on fire.Sunny, the deceased, also informed that he lived in Paschim Vihar.He gave the name of his father as Harish.The same is exhibit PW2/A which according to him contained correct and truthful narrations of facts as actually happened.The two labourers who also reached the spot were Mrs. Gora Bai and Mrs. Laliti.They were employees of the DDA, employed as gardeners in that very Park.Chander Bhan (PW-2) was near the nursery.Nursery was about 10 paces away from the place where he was working and about 200 paces away from the place of occurrence.In his presence students of Pusa Institute, who had collected there also asked Sunny about the cause of fire.Sunny repeated to them as well that they were brought at the spot by "Jit uncle" and after tying them he set them on fire.These facts were repeated by Sunny as and when anyone asked him.Admittedly children were taken in the PCR Van to RML hospital.Chander Bhan (PW-2) accompanied the children in the Van.Duty Constable enquired from Sunny his and his sister's name, father's name and address.Sunny furnished the particulars by telling his name, his father's name and address.He repeated that they were burnt by "Ajji Uncle".According to Chander Bhan (PW-2) when these facts were told by Sunny, Silo Raj his colleague was not present.It was not even suggested to him that Sunny was not in a fit state to answer his queries.Chancier Bhan's (PW-2) statement is spontaneous, natural and truthful.It inspires confidence.He had no axe to grind in falsely implicating this appellant nor he could have imagined those facts which he attributed were uttered by deceased Sunny.Statement of Chander Bhan (PW-2) on this aspect is corroborated by two other independent witnesses namelyRajender Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4).Rajender Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) also witnessed the oral dying declaration made by Sunny Arora at the spot.During the period of 1988 they were trainee student of ITI Pusa, New Delhi.On 24th June, 1988 at about 11.45 A.M. they along with their colleagues Surinder Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Devinder Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Kuldip Chand and Janak Raj were surveying the filed at Pusa Hill.The distance-where, they were doing the survey and the place of occurrence was hardly 200 meters.While they were surveying in the filed two lady gardeners running towards the deserted room on the hillock.Seeing the commotion they also followed them.On reaching the room they found two burning children - a boy and a girl.The boy was about 7 years old and the girl was about 3-1/2 years old.They found a male gardener and the two female gardeners present there.The girl was not speaking but was only weeping.They enquired from the boy as to how they caught fire and where were they living? How they reached at that spot? In response to their queries, Sunny the deceased told his name as Sunny, his address as at A-2, Paschim Vihar and father's name Harish.Sunny further told them that "Ajji uncle" had brought them on his motorcycle from rear side of the hillock in that room and then set them on fire after tying.He himself had fled away.According to them Sunny pointed towards the rear passage of the room to show as to wherefrom appellant left after setting them on fire.Inspector Mahesh Chand Sharma (PW-50) admitted that DD entry No. 27-B was recorded at 12.37 P.M. at Paschim Vihar police station.Thereafter he took time to go to the house of Mr. M.L. Sharma.That shows up to 12.54 P.M. he was in Paschim Vihar.Within six minutes he could not have reached RML Hospital.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after due deliberation on the basis of oral and documentary evidence concluded that charge under Section 364 IPC and under Section 302 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.He consequently convicted him on both the charges.Under Section 302 IPC he has been sentenced to death and under Section 364 IPC he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Per the provision of Section 366 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) after sentencing the appellant to death, the learned Addl.The case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the dying declarations made by the deceased Sunny Arora.One dying declaration was witnessed at the place of occurrence by Chander Bhan (PW-2), Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4), all independent persons not related in any manner to the deceased family or to the family of the accused.Second dying declaration was witnessed by ASI Brahamjit Singh (PW-32), Inspector Mahesh Chand Sharma (PW-50) and SI L.C. Yadav (PW-54) at RML Hospital.In order to appreciate the challenge raised in the appeal by the appellant and the supporting arguments for confirmation of death sentence by Mr. Ravinder Chadha, Counsel for the State, we may have a glance to the facts of this case.After two days Indu came back.Out of love for Indu, Ajit Seth purchased a flat of Indu's choice at Pitampura bearing No. PD/43-A. She had a plan to run a beauty parlour at the said premises under the name and style of "Shikha Beauty Parlour".In order to fulfill the wishes of his beloved, Ajit Seth not only purchased the flat but also got pamphlets printed for giving publicity for the said Parlour.The time of enquiry was approximately 1 P.M. Chowkidar Chander Bhan (PW-2) was also present.Sunny Arora informed that "Ajji uncle" brought him and his sister on motorcycle and set them on fire.He also told that "Ajji uncle" used to visit their house and was a resident of B-2, Paschim Vihar.SI L.C. Yadav approached the doctor for recording the statement of Sunny but by then i.e. at 1.15 P.M. Sunny was not to make the statement.On the basis of the statement given by deceased Sunny Arora, case was got registered under Section 307 IPC vide FIR No. 100/88 dated 24th June, 1988 at PS Inder Puri.Accused Ajit Seth was arrested on the same day from his shop at Chawri Bazar.His motorcycle was also seized.Rickshaw driver Babu Lal (PW-1) identified accused Ajit Seth as well as his motorcycle.On 25th June, 1988 on being interrogated Ajit Seth made a disclosure statement and another disclosure statement on 29th June, 1988 pursuance to which he got recovered the plastic bottle from near the place of occurrence and also pointed out the shop from where he had purchased the bottle and the petrol pump from where he purchased the petrol.That the hotels where Indu and Ajit Seth stayed were also discovered pursuance to the disclosure statement of Ajit Seth.The clothes of Indu Arora and that of deceased Shikha Arora were recovered from flat No. PD-43A, Pitam Pura.Records of the various hotels where Ajit Seth and Indu Arora stayed were also recovered and taken into possession.Police got the questioned writings of the records of the hotels and the specimen writings of Ajit Seth got compared from the CFSL Hand-writing expert opined that the questioned writings on the records of Hotel Rajhans and on the registration card of Hotel Connaught Palace were written by the writer of the specimen writings i.e. Ajit Seth.On further investigation, it was found that accused Ajit Seth was in Paschim Vihar on the date of occurrence at about 10.00/10.15 A.M. He had gone to the house of Virender Kumar (PW-5) to collect payment.Ajit Seth and Indu Arora had been seen talking to each other at about 10.45 A.M. at the traffic inter-section of Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar by Ashwani Kumar (PW-33).Dr. L.K. Baruah (PW-39) conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased children and opined that both the children had ante-mortem burn injuries caused by fire which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Indu Arora was arrested on suspicion on 26th June, 1988 on the ground that Indu and Ajit conspired to kill the children.Challan under Section 109 r/w Section 302 IPC was framed against Indu Arora and challan under Section 364/302 IPC was framed against accused Ajit Seth and a charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against both Indu Arora as well as Ajit Seth.After the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 18th December, 1998 held that charge under Section 109 r/w Section 302 IPC against accused Indu Arora and the charge under Section 120-B IPC against both the accused not proved.However, charge under Section 364 IPC and 302 IPC against accused Ajit Seth stood proved beyond reasonable doubt.Awarding death sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence of killing two innocent children under Section 302 IPC required this criminal reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the said death sentence and the appeal by the said convict Ajit Seth under Section 374(2) of the Code challenging the conviction and sentence.Since appeal and reference have arisen from the same judgment hence these are taken up together to be disposed of by this order.Even his son deceased Sunny saw Ajit lying on the bed with Indu and told the same to Harish.Ajit, in order to avail the facility of telephone, had been visiting his house.During these visits Ajit developed love for Indu.This part of Harish Arora's testimony is fortified by the admission made by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He admitted his intimacy and love for Indu Arora.Harish Arora in order to separate Indu from her paramour i.e. this appellant sold his house B-2/261 and settled in a rented house at A-2/207 Paschim Vihar.He, however, failed in his efforts to separate her from Ajit.Indu & Ajit crossed all limits of decency by eloping from home and staying at various hotels in Delhi as well as outside Delhi.Not only they started eloping but Ajit in order to win over Indu purchased a flat bearing No. PD-43A, Pitampura.The purchase of flat by Ajit Seth has been proved by Bhupinder Pal Singh (PW-10) when he stated that Indu Arora contacted him for a house for running a Beauty Parlour.This has also been confirmed by the testimony of Ashok Arora (PW-13).In order to make her beauty parlour a success.Ajit Seth got printed 500 hand bills.Those hand bills have been proved by Gian Chand Taneja (PW-12) as Ex. PW12/A titled as "Shikha Beauty Parlour" PD-43A LIG flats, Pitampura.This part of Gian Chand Taneja's statement has not been subjected to any cross examination rather this fact has been admitted by the appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These facts are clear pointer to Ajit's craze and lust for Indu.In order to possess Indu he did not leave any stone unturned.By showering costly gifts on her like purchasing of house in order to help her to establish Beauty Parlour shows he wanted to win over Indu Arora from her husband at any cost.Ajit eloped with Indu Arora this fact stood proved by the testimony of Harish Arora (PW-40).He proved that on 2.4.88 Indu eloped with Ajit Seth.Harish Arora lodged police report at P.S. Paschim Vihar.Report is Ex. PW40/A. After 3 or 4 days Indu came back.On 16.4.88 when Harish Arora went to police station, Ajit Seth was already present.At police station Ajit Seth gave in writing that henceforth he and Indu would not meet.This writing was given in the presence of Darshan Lal (PW-42).Darshan Lal (PW-42) corroborated the testimony of Harish Arora in this regard and proved the writing executed by Ajit Seth and witnessed by Darshan Lal Ex. PW42/A. After the execution of this document, Indu Arora was taken away by her brother Mukesh Malik.Admittedly that writing was executed by Ajit Seth in police station and witnessed by Darshan Lal (PW-42).This aberration on the part of Harish Arora as rightly pointed out by the Learned Addl.These documents were proved by Raj Kumar (PW-16) and Mr. Vipin Sharma (PW-. 23).Ex. PW16/A bears the signature of Raj Kumar (PW-16).He also identified Indu Arora as the visitor who stayed in his hotel from 12.4.88 to 15.4.88 in the assumed name of Amita Gugnani.On material facts their statements remained consistent."Ex. PW32/A (also marked Ex. PW34/A) is the report lodged by Harish Arora (PW-40) at police station Paschim Vihar.DD No. 82-A dated 27.5.88 was reported by Hari Seth, father of the appellant, thereby informing police control room on telephone that his son Ajit Seth left home in Maruti Car after taking jewellery with him.Police control room in turn informed police station Paschim Vihar about this fact.Trial court, to our mind, rightly analysed that after Ajit and Indu returned the complainant parties tried to play down the episode.Those daily dairies reports were recorded in due course of official business therefore cannot be suspected nor its authenticity can be doubted particularly when nothing has been brought on record to prove the contrary.Their elopement and staying together has also been proved by the testimony of Naresh Kumar (PW-14) i.e. Manager of Hotel Mayur, Meerut.He proved that Indu Arora and Ajit Seth with a girl aged 3 years came to his hotel.They did not stay in his hotel because Ajit Seth did not approve of the room.They however took lunch in the restaurant of his hotel.His statement has not been shaken despite lengthy cross-examination.Their staying together at hotel Connaught Palace, New Delhi on 27.5.88 has also been proved vide registration Card Ex. PW28/A. T.R. Nehra (PW-51) hand writing expert of the CFSL compared the writings on the registration Card Ex. PW28/A of hotel Connaught Palace with specimen writing of Ajit Seth.He opined vide his report Ex. PW 15/C that the writer of the specimen writing is the author of the writing on Ex. PW28/A. This is a clinching evidence of their staying together after elopement.It has been proved on record that on 17.10.87 i.e. on the birthday of Ajit Seth, he took Indu to Hotel Rajhans, Suraj Kund at Faridabad.Entry in the hotel register was in the assumed name Ajit Khanna.These exhibits contained relevant entries of Ajit Seth and Indu Arora staying in the hotel.M.P. Sharma (PW-43), employee of this hotel handed over the record of this hotel to SI Prakash Chand Mann.Hand writing expert Sh.T.R. Nehra (PW-51) after comparison opined vide his report Ex. PW51/C that questioned writing has been written by the author of specimen writings.Thus from the oral and documentary evidence discussed above it is proves beyond doubt that Ajit was madly in love with Indu.To satisfy their lust and desire they had been eloping from home.Threat to Harish Arora (PW-40) by Ajit Seth has been proved by Harish Arora (PW-40) himself.If Ajit Seth could brake his engagement for the sake of Indu then it cannot be doubted that for his desire to possess Indu he could have given threat to Harish.Ajit Seth became used to Indu Arora, therefore, could do anything.It is rightly said that a habit is like an adhesive tape, easy to stick on, but when it is ripped off, it fakes skin with it.Having got used to Induce could not tolerate anybody coming in their way.This fact has been conclusively proved by the prosecution.We see no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this count.The fact that Ajit Seth was in the vicinity of Paschim Vihar at 10/10.15 A.M. has been conclusively proved by the testimony of Varinder Kumar (PW-5).In no uncertain words he deposed that his wife was running business of insulation tapes.Time was 10 AM or 10.15 A.M., though no documentary evidence has been produced by PW-5 to show that appellant came to his house to collect Rs. 6,100/. The whereabout of this witness and the fact of collecting money had also been disclosed by the appellant.It was only on his disclosure that Varinder Kumar (PW-5) was interrogated.Moreover there is nothing on record to infer that this independent witness had any axe to grind by falsely implicating the appellant.Nor from his cross-examination defense could elicit any contradiction nor from the perusal of his statement it can be said that he was not speaking the truth.In fact his testimony inspires confidence.It has been conclusively proved by the testimonies of Harish Arora (PW-40), Mrs. Lalita Bali (PW-41) and even the admission made by Indu Arora in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Sunny Arora and Shikha Arora were dropped by Harish Arora at the house of Mrs. Lalita Bali (PW-41) on 24.6.88 for taking tuition.Their tuition finished at 11 A.M. Since their father Harish Arora was not to pick them up hence Mrs. Bali hired a rickshaw and made them seated in the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1).This fact stood proved from the unrebutted testimony of Mrs. Bali(PW-41) and of Babu Lal (PW-1), the rickshaw driver.In spite of lengthy cross-examination, the defense has not been able to shake their statements that the children were seated in the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) at 11 A.M. Though Mrs. Lalita Bali (PW-41) has been subjected to cross examination on many aspect like her going to her friend Mrs. Malhotra's house and/or going to market at 4 P.M. as well as her talking to Babu Lal (PW-1) and on other details furnished by her, but on the aspect of hiring a rickshaw and making children seated on the Rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) at 11 A.M. she has not been subjected to cross examination nor even a suggestion given to Mrs. Bali or for that matter to Mr. Babu Lal that children were not seated on Babu Lal's Rickshaw.Some improvements appears to have been made by Mrs. Bali while deposing in the Court beside some minor discrepancies here and there in her statement but those do not touch the basic structure of prosecution case that she hired the Rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) and made the children seated in the that Rickshaw at 11 A.M. with the direction to him to leave the children at A-2, Paschim Vihar.Her statement on this count in fact stood corroborated by the testimony of Babu Lal (PW-1), the rickshaw driver.From the question put to Babu Lal (PW-1) by the defense clearly show that appellant admitted that the children were carried by Babu Lal (PW-1) in his rickshaw on 24.6.88 at 11 A.M. We feel that Babu Lal's (PW-1) statement is not only truthful but inspire confidence also.It has been correctly analysed by the learned trial court when he concluded that children were seated in the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) and he was carrying them towards their home when motorcyclist came and stopped him.Motorcyclist told the children to come with him on his motorcycle and that he would drop them at their home.Sunny told Shikha it was "Ajji uncle" and, thereafter both the children sat on his motor cycle.That motorcyclist paid a new one rupee note to Babu lal (PW-1) which is proved and exhibited on record.Since the motorcyclist took the children in opposite direction, Babu Lal (PW-1) got suspicious and reported the matter at the house of Mrs. Bali.Babu Lal identified Ajit Seth at the police station to be that motorcyclist who took the children on his motorcycle and who paid him one rupee note and to whom Sunny called "Ajji uncle".Mr. Ravinder Chadha contended that cumulative affect of the above circumstances as stood proved on the record from the unimpeachable testimony of prosecution witnesses leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant herein is the one who snatched the two little buds before they could bloom into flowers.He further contended that the circumstances enumerated above and which stood established by the prosecution clearly show that appellant herein because of his lust and desire for Indu Arora make him do this barbaric and heinous crime.From the above facts Ajit Seth's crazy and mad love for Indu and consequent motive to do away the children is stood fully established.The desire to possess her was so strong that he even tried to win over by purchasing a house of her choice bearing No. PD-43/A Pitampura in order to enable her to run a beauty parlour in the said house.His action not stop at that, he even went to the extent of threatening Harish Arora not to come in his way.The final blow he gave when he picked up both the children from the rickshaw, took them away on his motorcycle to a deserted room at Pusa Hill where the little souls were cruelly killed.The identity of the motorcyclist who took the children with him has been established by the statement of Babu Lal (PW-1) when he said the boy, Sunny called the motorcyclist "Ajji uncle".It has come in the evidence of Harish Arora (PW-40) as well as his brother Manoj Kumar (PW-36) that since the appellant was on visiting terms to their house, the children started him addressing as "Ajji uncle".The fact that Babu Lal (PW-1) at the first available opportunity informed Mrs. Bali's daughter that a motorcyclist by the name of Ajji has taken the children on his motorcycle proves the identity of the motorcyclist.Babu Lal (PW-1) could not have known the name of appellant unless so called out by Sunny the deceased as "Ajji uncle".Even when his statement was recorded by the police at about 5.30 or 6.00 P.M. on 24.6.88 he repeated the same thing that the motor cyclist who took the children from his rickshaw was addressed by Sunny as "Ajji uncle".Mrs. Bali(PW-41) has corroborated Babu Lal (PW-1) to the extent that he came to her house and narrated so.She also confronted Indu as to whether she knew anybody by the name of "Ajji" because by that name Sunny Arora addressed the motorcyclist.Coupled with the testimony of Babu Lal (PW-1) and Lalita Bali (PW-41) we have the statements of Chander Bhan (PW-2), Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) who also testified that deceased Sunny Arora told them that he and his sister Shikha were brought at the place of occurrence by "Ajji uncle" on his motorcycle.Hence identity of the motorcyclist who took away the children from the rickshaw of Babu Lal stood conclusively established on record.There is no discrepancy or inconsistency in the statement of the prosecution witnesses on this count.On the esher hand, Mr. R.L Tandon, counsel for the appellant contended that since prosecution failed in establishing the charge of conspiracy to kill the children between Indu Arora and Ajit Seth hence there is no other evidence to show that the appellant knew that Sunny Arora had been going to the house of Mrs. Ball to take tuition nor he could have known the timings of the tuition.If Indu had not conspired with Ajit then how Ajit Seth could have known these facts.Mr. R.L. Tandon contended that in the absence of any evidence or material on record to show that someone fed the facts to this appellant the following facts have not been inferred:-That the appellant knew that Sunny Arora was going or had gone to the Mouse of Mrs. Bali on 24th June, 1988?That his tuition hours were from 9-30 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. He could not have imagined that Shikha Arora would also be going to the house of Mrs. Bali for taking tuition on 24th June, 1988 and at what time the tuition would be over?That appellant could not have known that Harish Arora or for that matter none else would be coming to pick up the children from the house of Mrs. Bali for being taken to their house No. A-2/207, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi?Mr. R.L. Tandon's plea was that since the story of conspiracy failed and there being no evidence on record showing that Ajit Seth was aware of above facts, the appellant cannot be linked with the crime.In reality these facts could not be said to have been proved.In fact in the absence of any information regarding the moment of the children having been fed to the appellant the case of the prosecution must fail.Moreover there was no motive to kill the children nor picking up of the children by Ajit Seth on his motorcycle has been established.According to Mr. Tandon once there is no evidence that appellant had the information or knew that the children were to go to the house of Mrs. Bali for tuition and would not be picked up by their father and that after finishing the tuition at 11 o'clock Mrs. Bali would be hiring a rickshaw for them, it can safely be said that prosecution is tainted and the witnesses planted.Finger of suspicion cannot be raised towards this appellant.In the absence of having established and prove that appellant had the information about the children, entire prosecution case must fail on this ground.Even Indu Arora in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that children were sent for tuition to Mrs. Bali.Further fact that they were got seated in the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) has been proved by the unrebutted and uncontroverter testimony of Mrs. Bali (PW-41) as well as Babu Lal (PW-1) himself.It was the appellant who took both the children on his motorcycle from the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) has also been proved.Sunny addressed the motorcyclist as "Ajji uncle" has also been proved, therefore, even if the charge of conspiracy failed the fact that this appellant lifted the children from the rickshaw of Babu Lal (PW-1) and brought them to a deserted room at Pusa Hill and set them on fire stood established.There were two police officials in the Van beside the driver.One of the official was Sikh and other two were non-sikh.His colleague Mr. Silo Raj also accompanied him to the hospital.Boy was asking for water but the same was not given rather he was put in the Jeep and rushed to RML hospital.Constable on duty asked Sunny the deceased the cause of his burn.Sunny repeated to the Constable on duty the same facts which he told to Chander Bhan (PW-2).Three to four doctors and two nurses were present in the Nursing Ward.These were attending the children as well as other patients simultaneously.These facts Chander Bhan (PW-2) disclosed in his cross-examination.To a question that boy was given injecting immediately on reaching the hospital, therefore, was not in a position to make the statement has been denied by PW-2 and by police witnesses.According to Chander Bhan after 5-10 minutes of their reaching the emergency ward injection was given to Sunny.The injection, according to Chander Bhan (PW-2) was given to Sunny when duty constable was asking particulars.defense has not been able to dislodge him despite lengthy cross examination nor could elicit any material contradiction to disprove his version.His presence at the place of occurrence and of extinguishing of the fire has not been questioned.After extinguishing the fire it was natural for him to find out who those children were and who set them on fire.This is precisely what Chander Bhan (PW-2) did.On his query, Sunny the deceased made the statement which on his death is now called his dying declaration.Sunny was capable of understanding the import of the question that is why he could tell how they were brought at the spot and by whom, and also that it was this appellant whom Sunny called "Jit or Ajji uncle" who brought them there on his motorcycle and then set them on fire.He witnessed the oral dying declaration made by Sunny Arora at the spot.It could not be shaken.His witnessing of the deceased's statement remained unchallenged on record.He is an independent witness.He was on duty at a place which was hardly 200 paces from the place of occurrence.It was but natural for him to reach there after hearing children's cries and shrieks.Cries and shrieks were audible at a distance of 200 paces.Therefore, it cannot be said that Chander Bhan (PW-2) is a planted wit-ness.It is he who reached the spot first and extinguished the fire.Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) deposed that Sunny while narrating the facts looked towards back side of the room.His colleagues went to check back side of the hillock but did not find anyone there.Rakesh Kumar, Gajinder Singh and Davinder Kumar went out to bring the PCR Van.Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) had noticed the school bags of the children and half burnt books/ exercise books of the children.He also noticed tyre marks of a motorcycle near the spot.He waited for the Van but when the PCR Van did not arrive he himself went out to make arrangement for a vehicle.He sought help of a car driver, but the car driver refused to carry the children.However, he helped him in taking him to a nearby PCO installed at general store, Rajinder Nagar bus stand, wherefrom he rang up at number 100 and informed the police that two children were burnt at Pusa Hill, he also gave the directions of the place as also how to reach the spot.When he returned the spot by then his colleagues had already arranged for PCR Van and the children were being seated in the same for taking to the hospital.Rajinder Prasad was subjected to grilling cross-examination but nothing could be extracted to discredit his statement with regard to the statement made by Sunny, the deceased.He not only withstood the test of cross examination but proved that he was telling the truth and that he was not a planted witness.When defense tried to test his statement regarding details of the place where they were standing and the place of occurrence he could tell precisely the sequence of events and the places.He explained that there was nursery on the left side of that passage while going towards the hillock.That they were ahead of Nursery about 70 to 80 meters and were standing under the Neem tree on the right side of the passage.That the male gardener had reached the spot earlier than them and had already extinguished the fire.Gardner had plucked the burnt clothes sticking to the body of the children.He vividly and with precision narrated what was stated by the deceased Sunny in response to his questions and the questions put by his colleagues.Sunny's answers were heard by them all.When questioned he, however, could not tell who individual student asked what question but he remembered what was told by Sunny in response to each query.Sunny the deceased told them that "Ajji uncle" had brought them there on the motorcycle from rear side of the Hillock and set them on fire after tying them.He testified that one passage existed on the rear side of that room which led to Todapur Road.Sunny the deceased while narrating how "Ajji uncle" brought them there and set them on fire looked backward to point out rear passage of the room.He admitted that while reporting to the police on 100 number he did not furnish details of the incident or the name of "Ajji uncle".Mr. R.L. Tandon contended that his statement is unreliable because while reporting the matter to police he did not tell the name of the boy and of the accused.This argument of Mr. Tandon is without substance.Rajender Prasad (PW-3) reported the burning of two children on Pusa Hill and wanted the police to come there immediately.At that time it was not necessary nor expected that he would start furnishing all the details.Even otherwise it is now settled law that even if details are not furnished in the FIR the prosecution case does not fail on that count.He, however, in his statement to the police furnished all the details.The only minor contradiction which defense counsel could point out in his statement was that instead of mentioning Hillock in his statement Ex. PW3/DA to the police he had mentioned Pusa Park.Mr. R.L. Tandon tried to point out other contradictions namely he did not mention to the police specifically that one male gardener and two female gardeners were rushing towards the Hillock.The factum of their rushing towards the hillock being not mentioned in Ex. PW-3/DA does not ipso-facto proves that he tried to improve his statement in Court nor, to our mind, it is a relevant consideration to discard his testimony which otherwise inspire confidence and appears to be truthful and natural.Mr. R.L. Tandon's contention that PW-3 Rajinder Prasad improved his statement in the court, this argument is noted to be rejected because these are very trivial and even otherwise irrelevant to the statement made by Sunny, the deceased.In his statement to police vide Ex. PW3/DA he did say that he saw burnt/partly burnt exercise books of the children at a time when Devender Kumar, Rajinder Singh and Rakesh Kumar had gone to bring the PCR van.Whereas in court he said he saw books after the children had left in the PCR van for hospital.Then again in court he said he saw motorcycle tyre marks near the spot, whereas to police in his statement Ex. PW-3/DA it was not so recorded.It is a fact on record that it was he who pointed out exercise books of the children at the spot and the same were seized by the police.These variations in no way effect the dying declaration made by Sunny, the deceased.These alleged improvements have no bearing on Sunny's statement.Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) remained consistent on all material facts.Mr. Tandon's contention that there were material contradiction in his statement because in Court he said he did not remember the number of police persons reached at the spot after the PCR Van with the children had left.Similarly in his statement Ex. PW-3/DA to police he specifically said that he had gone to fetch three-wheeler scooter whereas in the Court he denied this fact.These contradictions as already pointed out, in no way affect the oral statement made by the deceased.Rajender Prasad (PW-3) was a student of ITI Pusa and was in fields doing survey.He had no malice or motive to falsely implicate this appellant.His evidence establishes beyond doubt that he witnessed the dying declaration made by the deceased.In fact, Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) in material particular corroborates the statement of Chander Bhan (PW-2).Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) colleague of Rajinder Prasad PW-3 was also present with Rajender Prasad (PW-3) at Pusa Hill and doing survey on the field.He corroborates every bit Rajinder Prasad's statement and in particular the dying declaration made by Sunny Arora, the deceased thereby implicating the appellant with the commission of crime.He too asked Sunny his name and other particulars and how they got burnt.In his presence Sunny told his name, the name of his sister beside furnishing his address as A-2, Paschim Vihar and father's name as Harish.He witnessed Sunny, deceased saying that "Ajji uncle" had brought them on motorcycle from the rear side of the hillock in that room and set them on fire by tying if fled away.The deceased Sunny also pointed out backward while disclosing the above facts.He is the one who along with Gajender Singh and Devinder Kumar went to call for a PCR Van.He spotted the PCR Van present near the Pusa gate and brought the same to the Pusa park of that hill.The children were put in the PCR Van and sent to hospital.He testified that the gardener Chander Bhan (PW-2) accompanied the children in the PCR Van.The defense tried its best to shake his testimony but he stood the test of cross-examination.Nothing could be elicited from his lengthy cross-examination which could cast any shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the version given by him.He also found burnt books/exercise books and burnt skins of the children lying near the spot.He explained that rear passage of the room led to Todapur Road.Rest of his cross-examination rested in extracting the details as to how much time it took to him to reach the Patel Chowk Police Booth and in tracing the PCR Van beside the number of the police official present in the PCR Van etc. He, however, admitted having not told all the details told by the deceased Sunny Arora, to the local police because he thought his colleague had already disclosed those facts.He felt it necessary to repeat the same.To our mind his explanation for having not furnished all the details of Sunny's statement to police is plausable.Since he knew his colleague had furnished those details it is possible he thought it necessary to repeat the same.He denied that Sunny did not name "Ajji uncle" or that he told that "One Bada Ganda Daku (Notorious dacoit)" had brought them and set them on fire.Mr. R.L Tandon's contention that statement of these witnesses cannot be relied upon because they contradicted on material aspects has no force and is contrary to record.According to Mr. Tandon, Sunny was not in a position to make any such statement.We are not impressed with this contention because neither Chander Bhan (PW-2) nor Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) or for that matter Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) had any axe to grind against the appellant.They were not on inimical terms nor had any enmity with him.They are independent and natural witnesses.Not even a suggestion was given to them that Sunny was not in a fit state of mind to state what he stated to these witnesses.Chander Bhan was working as a gardener in the park which was hardly 200 paces away from the place of occurrence and so Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) were in the field near the place of occurrence.So naturally on hearing the commotion they reached the place of occurrence.Their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted nor any doubt can be entertained about their being truthful witnesses.Chander Bhan (PW-2) was the one who extinguished the fire.On reaching the spot the first thing he did was to extinguish the fire and then enquired from Sunny as to how he got the fire and who he was.Sunny, the deceased was capable of understanding and in a fit state of mind to answer their queries.That is why he could tell his name, his father's name, the name of the person i.e. "Ajji uncle" who brought them there on motorcycle and then set them on fire.Sunny Arora in no uncertain words named the appellant to be the culprit.He called the appellant "Ajji uncle".He also told that "Ajji brought them on motorcycle.Children's school bags, exercise books and books were also found there.The fact that children had gone to take tuition, therefore, they were carrying books/ exercise books.They were taken away by the appellant on his motor cycle stood proved by the testimony of Babu Lal (PW-1).Statements of Chander Bhan (PW-2), Rajinder Prasad (PW-3) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) that they witnessed the dying declaration and that Sunny was capable of understanding and was in a fit state of mind is fortified by the entries recorded in the MLC by the doctor at 12.20 P.M. Children were taken in the PCR Van from Pusa Hillock, straight to hospital.They reached RML Hospital at 12.20 P.M. That is the time recorded in the MLC.At RML hospital the Constable on duty again asked Sunny his particulars which were furnished by Sunny Arora.These details to the extent that his name was Sunny, his father's name Harish Arora and that he was resident of A-2, Paschim Vihar finds mention in the MLC.Had these details not been furnished by Sunny, the deceased himself, the doctor on duty could not have imagined the same nor could have incorporated the same in the MLC.It has come on record by the testimony of Rajinder Prasad (PW-3), Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) that on the exercise book only name of Sunny was written neither his father's name nor address was given.But MLC Ex. PW-47/A contains these details which Sunny alone could have mentioned.Their statements inspire confidence and have full of credence.Mr. R.L Tandon then argued that it has not been proved that this appellant was also known as "Ajji".If they are removed she will be free to join him.Moreover children were easy target, but unfortunately for him, PW-2 to PW-4 were present in that deserted place also where he took the children and set them on fire, thinking no body would know who set them on fire.If he wanted, Shikha could have been killed then.Fact has been established from the dying declaration made by deceased Sunny that he and his sister were set on fire by this appellant.Once there is no reason to doubt the presence of the witnesses to the dying declaration at the place of occurrence nor any inconsistency brought about through their cross-examination thereby creating doubt regarding veracity of their evidence, there being no enmity with the appellant coupled with the fact that there was no reason for them to falsely implicate him in the commission of crime, we see no reason not to believe their version.The motorcycle tyre marks were also noticed near the spot and the passage from the rear side of the room led to the main road.This appellant escape from the rear side after setting the children on fire.Similarly Inspector Rajbir Singh (PW-56) was on petrol duty at JJ Colony, Inder Puri at 12.30 P.M. when he received the message.He left from there at about 12.40 P.M. and reached the spot at about 12.55 P.M. After 2 to 3 minutes he started for RML Hospital, which must be somewhere at 12,58 P.M. Within two minutes he could not have reached the hospital.Inspector L.C. Yadav (PW-54) admitted that he reached the hospital at 1 P.M. and heard the dying declaration made by Sunny.Their movements as narrated by them prove that these police officers are planted witnesses.They could not have been in the hospital at 1 P.M. which was the time alleged when Sunny purportedly made the dying declaration.He corroborated that Sunny was unfit to make statement at 1.15 P.M. We cannot appreciate this argument of Mr. Tandon because these police official gave approximate time spent by them.It does not prove that they meticulously recorded minute by minute spent by them from one place to the other.Inspector Rajbir Singh (PW-56) was patrolling and from there he went to the spot and then to the hospital.After all from Pusa Institute to RML hospital it could not have taken more than 7 to 10 minutes in a police vehicle.Similarly the DD No. 27-B was recorded at 12.37 P.M. at P.S. Paschim Vihar.Inspector Mahesh Chand Sharma (PW-50) started immediately after the recording of the DD 27-B and on the way picked up Mr. M.L. Sharma in his jeep for the hospital.It might have taken him 15-20 minutes, still he could have made it.As regard Inspector L.C. Yadav (PW-54) he heard Sunny narrating the sequence of events.He wanted doctor to endorse it but before doctor could witness at 1.15 P.M. Sunny became unfit to make the statement.It is at this juncture Dr. Vinod Samal issued a letter Ex. PW54/A that he saw some police official talking to Sunny Arora.This letter (Ex. PW-54/A), dated 24.6.88 written by Dr. Vinod Samal, corroborates the statement of police witnesses.There is nothing to doubt their presence at the hospital and witnessing the dying declaration made by Sunny Arora in the hospital.For the reasons stated above we find no merit in the appeal.Now, the question arises what should be the sentence.Even though he was thrown out earlier by that old man for committing theft, however, later on that old man brought the accused to his house where the accused gave the reward of old man's kindness by murdering him, his wife and three daughters including one whose marriage was fixed after two months.Still the Apex Court reduced the death penalty to life imprisonment by observing that punishment should be sufficient so as to have deterrent effect as well as no further chance to the accused for relapsing into the crime and becoming danger to society.After having said so, the Apex Court further observed that "considering the heinous, barbaric offence committed by the accused, in no set of circumstances accused should be released before completion of 20 years of imprisonment".Relying on these decisions in the case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram (Supra) and Bhagwan Dass (Supra), we convert the death sentence of the appellant into life imprisonment with a direction that the appellant shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment for life and he shall not be released from the prison unless he has served at least 20 years of imprisonment including the period already undergone by him. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,111,005 | Item No. 11The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 683 of 2013 dated 15.06.2013 under sections 325/326/302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and the other relevant material which is on record.We have noted that the statements indicate that the Petitioner was not directly involved in the incident.In fact, he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred.ALLOWED Hence, we allow this application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer of this case once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,129 | JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.Respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner herein under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.Apart from the petitioner, four other persons are arraigned as accused persons.He is a qualified economic and policy analyst acknowledged for his competence and integrity in this country and abroad.He has obtained his Masters Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University where he also held prestigious Edward S. Mason Fellowship.He has taught at premier institutes like Harvard and Administration Staff College of India.He is a columnist, writer and commentator on public affairs.He also states that his writings and opinions are quoted with deference in publications and by experts and he is regarded for the excellence of his work as also for his unimpeachable integrity.The respondent authored a report titled 'Economic Strangulation of Bihar' under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Alternatives as its third report.In this report he purportedly analysed economic assistance to the State of Bihar and pointed out the inequality in this on the basis of some official statistics.The said news item appearing states the following:Mr. Modi also raised his finger at the intellectual capability and personal ambitions of Mohan Guruswamy, the 'economist' working for RJD Chief Laloo Prasad Yadav. 'It is the same Guruswamy who was sacked from the post of economic advisor to the then Finance Minister Mr. Yashwant Sihna, for allegedly making efforts to extend financial help to the tune of Rs.10,000 crores to a particular business house' charged Mr. Modi. 'The issue had even shook the Parliament and was discussed for several days' he informed.The Bihar opposition leader also declared that Guruswamy after failing to pursue other political parties for his Rajya Sabha berth, had approached Laloo Yadav for the same in July. 'Now by twisting the facts and figures Guruswamy wants to ensure his seat from RJD'.The complainant perceived those remarks as attack on his integrity which had lowered down his image and discredited him and his work in the eyes of various persons, including public at large.In these circumstances, the respondent filed the complaint making aforesaid and other averments.Apart from impleading the petitioner as accused No. 1, accused No. 2 is the publisher of the newspaper-'The Pioneer', accused No. 3 is the Editor, accused No. 4 is the Executive Editor and accused No. 5 is the Correspondent of the said newspaper.He had a very special responsibility to the Parliament and to the nation while he remains a critic.The provisions under which the complaint is filed would clearly suggest that the respondent is aggrieved at certain remarks of the petitioner, which, according to the respondent, are defamatory in nature and therefore, the respondent wants the accused persons to be tried under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC.The learned MM, after recording the pre-summoning evidence, took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the accused persons.The petitioner was the Leader of Opposition in Bihar Assembly when he had made the alleged offending remarks.At that time, the petitioner was the Leader of Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.On 18.2.2004, the petitioner called a Press conference at Patna in which he circulated a written Press Statement to the several members of the media present at the said Press conference for the purpose of publication.By the said statement he allegedly defamed the respondent by calling him corrupt and asserting that the respondent had been removed from the Government on serious charges of corruption and trying to oblige a business house to the tune of Rs.10 crores.He also verbally endorsed the remarks made in the Press Statement.He also asserted that the respondent had attempted to get political favors from former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar and current Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chandra Babu Naidu and having failed in this attempt, was now distorting facts and figures in favor of the Bihar Government in the hope of a Rajya Sabha seat from Bihar in the elections slated to be held in July 2004 Result of the Press conference was that newspapers within and outside Bihar carried those remarks.On 21.2.2004, 'The Pioneer' carried a news item entitled ''Development' to decide Poll results-Modi'. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,881,335 | This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court No.I), Cuddalore at Chidambaram dated 17.10.2005 made in Criminal Appeal No.40/2005 confirming the judgment of conviction pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram in C.C.No.54/2004 dated 29.03.2005 and the punishment imposed thereon.The facts leading to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case are as follows:-Based on the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.3/2004 on the file of All Women Police Station, Chidambaram against the petitioner herein for an alleged offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.The Inspector of Police of the said Police Station, after investigation, submitted a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram alleging that the petitioner herein had committed offences punishable under Sections 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and praying that he should be prosecuted and punished for the said offences.The same was taken on file as C.C.No.54/2004 by the said Magistrate.Necessary charges were framed and the petitioner herein (accused in the said C.C.No.54/2004) pleaded not guilty.He was tried for the said offences in which 10 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.10) were examined and four documents (Ex.P1 to P4) were marked on the side of the prosecution.After completion of prosecution evidence, the petitioner herein/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution.He denied them as false and reiterated his stand that he was not guilty.No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the Revision Petitioner herein/accused.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram, upon an appreciation of evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate found him not guilty of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted him of the said charge.However, the learned Judicial Magistrate found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and convicted him for the said offence.After questioning the Revision Petitioner/accused regarding sentence under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, but no fine was imposed.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, the petitioner herein/accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.After the said case was taken on file, the same was made over to the Fast Track Court No.1, Cuddalore at Chidambaram.The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Cuddalore at Chidambaram, after hearing, confirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.Hence the petitioner/accused has approached this court by way of the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the correctness of the judgment of the lower appellate court.This court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.This court gave its anxious consideration to the above said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.The materials available on record were also perused.The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-P.W.1 who was the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein/accused were in love with each other for a period of 3 years prior to the date of complaint.As the petitioner/ accused promised to marry P.W.1, she shared her bed with him consequent to which she became pregnant.Thereafter she was persuaded by the petitioner/accused to terminate the pregnancy and accordingly same was done.Even threafter, P.W.1 defacto complainant once again conceived because of the sexual intercourse she had with the petitioner/accused.As such she requested the petitioner/accused to marry her.But unfortunately, the petitioner/accused demanded dowry from her and refused to marry her if his demand for dowry was not met with.By the said act on the part of the petitioner/accused, he was liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offences under Section 417 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.So far as the charge of committing an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the petitioner herein/accused was acquitted by the trial court itself holding him not guilty of the said offence as the said offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.As against the said acquittal, no appeal or revision has been preferred hence the same has become final.There is no merit in the Criminal Revision Case and the same deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.3) The Station House Officer All Women Police Station Chidambaram Cuddalore District | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
188,136,613 | A. 73/2017 Page 1 of 12The appellant and his brother were prosecuted pursuant to an FIR bearing no. RC DAI 2011 A 0010 under Sections 120B/420/467/471 & 473 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act. The said FIR (Ex.PW37/A) was registered on 29.07.2011 on the basis of the information received from a reliable source that Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Manager (F), RITES had during the years 2004 to 2008 entered into a criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Bala Devi and his brother Rajesh Kumar (appellant herein), pursuant to which funds to the extent of 10,25,789/- were withdrawn against claims of Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme (hereafter 'GSLIS') in the name of fictitious persons.It was alleged that Sh.Ravinder Kumar (appellant's brother), while working with RITES, during the aforesaid period had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared vouchers against GSLIS claims under fictitious names.It was alleged that Sh.Ravinder Kumar had got the said vouchers signed from the authorized signatories and thereafter, prepared corresponding cheques in names similar to his name or that of his brother (the appellant herein).These cheques were encashed by Sh.Ravinder Kumar either in his bank account, the account of the appellant, or that of his wife Smt. Bala Devi.It was CRL.A. 73/2017 Page 2 of 12 alleged that a total of twenty cheques were prepared by Sh.Ravinder Kumar to withdraw funds from the GSLI scheme under fictitious names.Nineteen of the said cheques were made in the name of R.K. Sharma, Rajesh Kumar or Rajesh Kumar Sharma.These cheques were deposited in the bank accounts maintained in the name of the appellant or the bank accounts of Sh Ravinder Sharma.One cheque was prepared in the name of Smt. Bala Devi (wife of Sh.Ravinder Kumar) and was deposited in her account.A. 73/2017 Page 2 of 12All the employees of RITES Limited (hereafter 'RITES') were covered by a GSLIS (Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme) against which premium for the policy was payable to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) partly by RITES and partly by employees.The employee contribution was deducted from the salary of the concerned employee.On the demise of an employee or cessation from service (retirement/termination/discharge), the Personal and Administration (P&A) Division of RITES would prefer a claim with LIC and on the basis of the same, LIC would make the payment to RITES.After receiving the said payments, the P&A Division used to send cheques to the Finance and Accounts Division for depositing in the accounts of RITES to the account of a particular employee.It was explained that thereafter, a cheque payment voucher would be prepared and the same would be sent to the Banking Division for preparation of a cheque and obtaining of signatures of authorized signatories and thereafter, the said cheque would be forwarded to the beneficiary.A. 73/2017 Page 3 of 12It was alleged that Ravinder Kumar had used his position in the Finance and Accounts Department of RITES and prepared nineteen payment vouchers entering fictitious payee names which were similar to his or that of his brother and one payment voucher was made in the name of his wife.During investigation, it was found that no payment had been received from LIC against these fictitious GSLI claims and there was no regular employee with the name of R.K. Sharma/Rajesh Kumar who was entitled to any payment from the GSLIS.It was alleged that out of the twenty cheques, twelve cheques were deposited in the bank accounts of Ravinder Kumar and the remaining eight cheques were deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant maintained with various banks.CBI examined thirty-seven witnesses to establish their case.Disciplinary proceedings were instituted by RITES against Sh.Ravinder Kumar and after inquiry, he was dismissed from service with RITES.He testified to the effect that a disciplinary inquiry had been instituted against Sh.Ravinder Kumar on the charge that he had prepared a false GSLI claim.PW2/A-28); Cheque No. 70226 dated 05.08.2006 for a sum of 44,833 (Ex.PW2/A-30); and Cheque No. 81845 dated 21.06.2007 for a sum of 49,816/- (Ex.PW2/A-34) were deposited in the appellant's bank account (Account No. 10817) maintained with Punjab & Sind Bank, Naya Bazar, Delhi.Similarly, CBI also led evidence to establish that Cheque No. 78845 dated 04.04.2007 for a sum of 53,565/- (ExPW2/A-32) was deposited in the appellant's account (bearing no. 02171600001375) maintained with HDFC Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.PW2/A-39) and Cheque No. 94070 dated 16.06.2008 for a sum of 61,856/- (Ex.PW2/A-41), were deposited in the appellant's account (Account No. 2379101012826) maintained with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi.It was, thus, established that an aggregate sum of 1,16,635/- was deposited in appellant's account with Punjab & Sind Bank; 53,565/- was deposited in the appellant's account bearing No. 02171600001375 maintained with HDFC Bank, an amount of 89,372/- was deposited in the appellant's account (Account No. 021717000037246) maintained with HDFC Bank; and 1,07,534/- was deposited in CRL.A. 73/2017 Page 5 of 12 appellant's account (Account No. 2379101012826) maintained with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi.He stated that no witness had been examined to prove that the bank accounts were opened by the appellant.He contended that the prosecution had merely exhibited the bank statements, which reflected certain entries in the bank accounts and did not establish that the appellant was culpably involved in any manner.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 29.11.2016 in A.C. No. 54/2016, whereby the appellant and his brother (Ravinder Sharma) were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 420/476/468/471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter the 'PC Act').The appellant was sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of 4,00,000/- and in CRL.A. 73/2017 Page 1 of 12 default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.The appellant's brother Ravinder Kumar (since deceased) was also sentenced for committing offences punishable under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the IPC and Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) of the PC Act.The order of the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing Ravinder Sharma from the services of RITES, was brought in evidence as Ex.PW1/A CRL.A. 73/2017 Page 4 of 12A. 73/2017 Page 4 of 12CBI led evidence to establish that three Cheques - Cheque No. 68017 dated 25.05.2006 for a sum of 21,986/- (Ex.Further, two Cheques being Cheque No. 90555 dated 26.03.2008 for a sum of 48,560/- (Ex.PW2/A-38) and Cheque No. 83801 dated 31.08.2007 for a sum of 40,812/- (ExPW2/A-36), were deposited in the appellant's account (Account No. 021716000037246) maintained with HDFC Bank, Chandni Chowk.In addition, it was also established that two Cheques being Cheque No. 90572 dated 31.03.2008) for a sum of 45,678/- (Ex.In all, a sum of 3,67,106/- was deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant.A. 73/2017 Page 5 of 12Second, he submitted that there was no incriminating material to establish that the appellant had conspired with his brother for committing the offence.He submitted that there it was not established that there was meeting of minds in respect of commission of offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471 of the IPC and therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of conspiracy in respect of the said offences.A. 73/2017 Page 6 of 12Third, he submitted that the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC were not established, inasmuch as, there was no evidence to indicate that there was any cheating; or that the appellant had dishonestly induced delivery of any property; or there was any mens rea on the part of the appellant.A plain reading of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC indicates that the appellant did not dispute the bank accounts, to which the witnesses had testified, were his or that the same were not opened or operated by him.His responses to evidence in regard to opening of the accounts, remained the same - that it was a matter of record or that he could not say.It is also relevant to refer to the appellant's response to question no. 54 put to him to record his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.A. 73/2017 Page 8 of 12It is also relevant to note that none of the witnesses who had deposed as to the said accounts were cross-examined.No suggestion was put to them that the documents brought in evidence bearing the appellant's signatures were either fabricated or forged and they did not bear his signatures.A. 73/2017 Page 9 of 12 favour of the appellant.The fact that such cheques had been deposited in his accounts clearly indicated that false documents would have been made to wrongfully obtain the said cheques.However, the fine imposed in both the cases was different.Whereas a fine of 1 crore was imposed in A.C. No. 24/2016, in the present case the fine imposed on the appellant was 4 lacs.As stated earlier in A.C. 24/2016, an aggregate amount of 1,22,17,207/- had been illegally siphoned off from RITES/RITES CPF, out of which 98,42,557/- had been deposited in the bank account of the appellant.In this case, an aggregate amount of 10,25,789/- had been withdrawn from RITES, out of which 3,67,106/- had been diverted into the bank accounts of the appellant.A. 73/2017 Page 10 of 12A. 73/2017 Page 11 of 12The appeal is dismissed subject to the directions as above.The pending application is also disposed of.VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 31, 2020 RK CRL.A. 73/2017 Page 12 of 12A. 73/2017 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,524 | The complainant who was working as a salesman under the 1st petitioner was drawing his salary every month without fail.This petition has been filed by the 1st and 3rd in C.C.No.213 of 2007 before the lower court to quash the proceedings pending against them as not sustainable.The material facts submitted by the petitioners in the petition are as follows:The respondent as complainant had presented a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal and it was taken on file in C.C.No.213 of 2007 for the alleged offence u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C as a private complaint.The respondent as the complainant had averred that he was working as a salesman in one M/s. Ram Kumar Agencies from 2001 onwards and he was said to have entrusted 10 cheque leaves to the 2nd petitioner/A3 as a loyal, sincere and faithful worker and A3 did not settle salary dues and incentives to the respondent/complainant and one of the cheques entrusted by the respondent/complainant was handed over by the 1st and 3rd accused to one Mr.Prabakaran, son of Ramalingam who is also arrayed as 4th accused in the above complaint and it was typed by the 4th accused for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- and the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" for which A4 preferred a complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and therefore the petitioners namely A1 and A3 have committed the offences u/s. 464 and 420 I.P.C.The said complaint filed by the respondent was against four persons in which A4 is a stranger to other persons and the 1st petitioner/A1 is the proprietrix of Ram Kumar Agencies and A2 is one Naganathan, the Manager of Ram Kumar Agencies.His duty was to collect the amounts from various shops for which he misappropriated some of the amounts due to the Ram Kumar Agencies and therefore the 1st petitioner filed a complaint before the Karaikal police station.The respondent/complainant had given a false complaint only to divert the attention from the issue of the said misappropriation of cash and to escape from the criminal proceedings.4.The respondent/complainant never handed over the cheque leaves to the petitioner and there is no need to hand over the cheque leaves to A4 Mr.Prabakaran who is a stranger to the petitioners.The allegations made by the respondent in the complaint are completely wrong and they were made only to escape from the clutches of criminal proceedings pending in S.T.R.No.1308 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal u/s. 138 of N.I.Act.The respondent had also filed a complaint before the Labour Officer against the 1st petitioner and he did not mention the name of the 2nd petitioner/A3 as the owner of Ram Kumar Agency.The alleged offence u/s. 464 I.P.C is not at all made out against the petitioners as they never created any document against the respondent herein.The respondent has also not produced any material to prove the offence u/s. 420 I.P.C. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is an abuse of process of law and it has been filed by the respondent for only to harass the petitioners.The allegations in the complaint are vague and no specific allegations or averments against the petitioners for the commencement of such allegations.The dispute between the 1st petitioner and the Commercial Traders is not relevant to the respondent/complainant.Even though the allegations made by the respondent is said to have taken place on 14.12.2005, the respondent has filed a complaint on 05.11.2007 and the delay in lodging the complaint was almost after a period of two years, which would show its falsity.Therefore, there is no question of any criminal liability against them.Therefore, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.213 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal has to be quashed.Heard Mr. Ilanthirayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent.The petitioners have sought for quashing the complaint filed against them, since it has no relevance against them for incriminating u/s. 464 I.P.C or u/s. 420 I.P.C. though the allegations made in the complaint.Therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,667,985 | DATED : 22.09.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this criminal appeal, the appellant-complainant has challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.26 of 2008, dated 29/12/2008, acquitting accused Sanjay::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 2/12 Jamankar and Vijay Jamankar of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::Appellant Geetabai Vaidya had lodged an oral report on 04/11/2007 alleging therein that on 03/11/2007 at about 7.30 p.m. her son Anil had gone to the pan shop to eat kharra and while proceeding towards the house of Pravin Nagrale, accused No.1 Sanjay and accused No.2 Vijay obstructed him and started quarreling.While the accused and deceased Anil were quarreling, another son of appellant Geetabai, by name Sunil informed her about the quarrel and hence she rushed to the spot of incident.It is the prosecution case that when Geetabai came to the spot, she found that deceased Anil was assaulted on the head by certain article/weapon and thereby he sustained bleeding injury.After the receipt of the oral report, the investigation was conducted and on the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against Sanjay Jamankar and Vijay Jamankar.The charge against the accused was framed and the defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication due to previous enmity.According to the accused, the deceased had received injuries, as he accidentally fell from his motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and closed the evidence on their side.The accused examined Shankar Patankar in defence to prove that Anil Vaidya (deceased) had suffered injuries and had expired after falling from the motorcycle, on the side of the road.On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that on 03/11/2007 in furtherance of their common intention the accused had caused the homicidal death of Anil Vaidya.After rendering the aforesaid finding, the trial court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the original complainant-appellant has challenged the judgment in this appeal.Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial court has erroneously disbelieved the evidence of complainant-Geetabai (P.W.No.6) and Sunil Vaidya (P.W.No.7), who were the eye witnesses to the crime.It is submitted that there is ample evidence on record, specially the oral evidence::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 4/12 tendered by the eye witnesses to show that there were altercations between the accused and deceased Anil and deceased Anil was murdered by accused Sanjay Jamankar and Vijay Jamankar by means of an axe and stick.It is submitted that the injuries on the dead body of deceased Anil could have been caused by the axe and the stick, as could be seen from the post-mortem report but the trial court erroneously relied on the evidence of Shankar Patankar-D.W.No.1 and Dr.Biraj Mahulkar in his cross-examination, to hold that the injuries were possible due to the fall from the motorcycle.It is submitted that merely because there were prior enmity between complainant Geetabai and her sons Sunil and Anil on one hand and accused Sanjay and Vijay Jamankar on the other and Geetabai and her sons were convicted as they had stabbed Sanjay Jamnkar by means of gupti and knife and the appeal filed by them against the order of their conviction was dismissed, the accused could not have been acquitted in this case.It is submitted that the trial court has not considered the evidence in the right perspective while acquitting the accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::Shri Daruwala, the learned counsel for the accused Sanjay and Vijay Jamankar, has supported the judgment of the trial court.It is submitted that there were material omissions in the evidence of complainant Geetabai and her son Sunil and therefore the trial court rightly disbelieved that they were eye witnesses to the crime as they had::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 5/12 an axe to grind against the accused since they were previously convicted for stabbing accused Sanjay Jamankar by means of gupti and knife.It is submitted that though it is deposed by the witnesses that several villagers were present on the spot, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness.It is submitted that the trial court has rightly believed the case of the accused that the deceased may have sustained the injury after falling from the bike.It is submitted that the evidence of D.W. No.1 Shankar Patankar and Dr. Biraj Mahulkar would prove that deceased Anil had fallen from the bike and he had sustained the injuries as a result of the accident.It is submitted that the omissions are not only proved by the admissions in the cross-examination of P.W.No.6-Geetabai and P.W.No.7-Sunil but they are also proved by the admission of Devrao (P.W.No.11), the investigation officer, who has admitted that Geetabai did not mention in her statement that Sanjay was holding an axe and Vijay was holding a stick.It is submitted that since Sunil had ran from the spot, he could not have witnessed the crime and since Geetabai could not have been present on the spot at the time of the commission of the crime, their presence was rightly doubted.It is submitted that since complainant Geetabai and her sons Anil (deceased) and Sunil were convicted for the charge that they had stabbed accused Sanjay by means of gupti and knife, they had an axe to grind against the accused and hence they had falsely implicated them.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::Shri Lule, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has supported the judgment of the trial court.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.While dealing with this appeal, it would be necessary to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the judgment of acquittal and it would be necessary to bear in mind the well settled principle of law that where two views are possible, the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with.There is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the presumption is further strengthened by the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.The findings of facts recorded by the trial court could be reversed only on very substantial or compelling reasons and they cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible.The prosecution has based its case on direct evidence, i.e. the evidence of two eye witnesses namely P. W. No.6-Geetabai and P. W. No.7-Sunil Vaidya.P. W. No.6-Geetabai had deposed that her son Anil (deceased) went on the motorcycle to pay some amount to Pravin Nagrale and after he purchased kharra from the pan shop, he went to bring the motorcycle to the house of Ramesh Patankar.Geetabai deposed that at::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 7/12 that time both the accused, i.e. Sanjay and Vijay obstructed him.The witness deposed that Sanjay was holding an axe and Vijay was holding a bamboo stick.She further deposed that Sunil (P. W. No.7) came to the house and informed her that the accused were quarrelling with Anil.The witness has testified that Vijay assaulted on the head of Anil by bamboo stick and Sanjay assaulted Anil on his head by an axe.She has deposed that thereafter the accused rushed towards her other son Sunil but Sunil ran away.In her cross-examination Geetabai admitted that there were more than 40 prohibition cases pending against her.She has admitted that in the year 1995 an offence was registered against her and both her sons, Anil and Sunil on the charge that they had stabbed Sanjay Jamankar (accused in this case) by gupti and knife and in that case she and her sons were convicted and the appeal against the judgment of the trial court was dismissed.Geetabai further admitted in her cross-examination that she had not stated before the police that she was standing near her son at the time of assault.She deposed in her cross-examination that in her statement she had stated that Sanjay was holding an axe and Vijay was holding a bamboo stick and she is not aware as to why that statement does not find place in her statement recorded by the police.She deposed in her cross-examination that she was not aware as to why the statement made by her that Sanjay assaulted the deceased with an axe and Vijay assaulted him with a stick does not find place in her statement.The said material omissions were::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 8/12 proved by the cross-examination of Geetabai as also the cross- examination of the investigating officer.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::Sunil deposed that on 23/07/2007 he was standing along with his brother Anil in front of the house of Ramesh Patankar and when the accused came there, there was an altercation between the accused and his brother Anil.Sunil deposed that when he came to the spot after informing his mother about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the accused rushed towards him.Sunil deposed that Sanjay was holding an axe at the relevant time and Vijay was holding a bamboo stick.It is deposed by Sunil that he ran away from the spot apprehending danger to his life and after some time he noticed that his brother Anil was lying in a pool of blood in front of the house of Patankar.In his cross-examination, Sunil admitted that he had not stated to the police that at the time of the altercation between the accused and the deceased, he was also standing near the house of Patankar.He stated in his cross-examination that he cannot assign any reason as to why there is no mention in his statement recorded by the police that Sanjay was holding an axe and Vijay was holding a bamboo stick as he had made that statement to the police.The omission in respect of the weapons held by the accused at the time of alleged incident was proved by the admissions of Sunil in his cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::The prosecution had examined Dr.Biraj Mahulkar, P.W.No.10, who admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries on the person of Anil were possible by a fall from the bike in an accident.P.W.No.11, who was attached to Police Station Deoli as a head constable and who had registered the report lodged by P.W.No.6- Geetabai, had admitted in his cross-examination that Geetabai had not stated that Sanjay was holding an axe and Vijay was holding a bamboo stick and they had assaulted her son Anil by the said weapons.The accused examined Shankar Patankar as the defence witness.Shankar had deposed that about 7.00 p.m. when he was taking tea in his house, he heard some noise and when he went out, he found that the motorcycle had fallen by the side of the road and Anil (deceased) was lying beneath the bike.The witness deposed that he had informed the said fact to the mother of Anil viz. Geetabai and he had brought her on the spot.On an appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Sanjay and Vijay had committed the murder of Anil and they were liable to be punished for the offence punishable under section 302 of th Penal Code.The trial court rightly recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence of P.W.No.6-Geetabai and P.W.No.7-Sunil::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 10/12 that they were not the eye witnesses to the alleged crime.The trial court held that when the alleged incident occurred, Geetabai was not present at the spot and so was Sunil.The trial court doubted the veracity of the evidence of Geetabai and Sunil in view of the proved omission that accused Sanjay was holding an axe and accused Vijay was holding a stick and that they assaulted Anil by the axe and the stick.The trial court rightly held that the aforesaid material omission washed out the evidence of P.W.No.6-Geetabai as an eye witness to the incident.Though Sunil had also deposed that he had seen Sanjay hold an axe in his hand and Vijay hold a stick, he had admitted in his cross- examination that he is not aware as to why the said fact is not mentioned in his statement, that was recorded by the police.From the deposition of Sunil, he cannot be considered to be an eye witness because he has deposed that when he saw both the accused coming towards him with the axe and the bamboo stick, he ran away from the spot apprehending danger to his life and after some time he found that his brother-Anil was lying in front of the house of Patankar.The trial court rightly held that the evidence of P.W.Nos.6 and 7 viz. Geetabai and Sunil could not have been believed in view of the material omissions in regard to the holding of the axe by accused Sanjay and the bamboo stick by accused Vijay and the assault by them with the said weapons on deceased Anil.In our view, the trial court rightly disbelieved the evidence of Geetabai and Sunil as they had an axe to::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 11/12 grind against accused Sanjay and Vijay.In the year 1995, an offence was registered against Geetabai and her sons Anil and Sunil on the charge that they had stabbed accused Sanjay Jamankar by means of gupti and knife and in that trial they were convicted and their appeal was also dismissed.The trial court also considered that as many as 40 prohibition cases were registered against Geetabai.We do not find any error in the appreciation of the evidence of Geetabai and Sunil by the trial court, as also the finding recorded by the trial court that the evidence of Geetabai and Sunil was not worthy of credit.The trial court considered that the panch witnesses P.W. No.3 Laxman Dukre and P. W. No.4 Rajendra Navthal had flatly denied about the seizure of the bloodstained clothes of the accused.Further, the chemical analyser's report at exhibit-27 also did not disclose the presence of bloodstains on the seized clothes of accused Sanjay and Vijay.There were no bloodstains found on the axe or the bamboo stick.The trial court had considered the admission of Dr. Biraj Mahulkar in his cross- examination that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: CRAPEAL339.09-Judgment 12/12 been possible by a fall from the bike in an accident.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 :::In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the complainant fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 00:44:19 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,873,656 | It is important to note that respondent no.3- Ghanshyam has died during the pendency of this appeal.Hence, his name has been deleted vide order dated 07.02.2014 from the array of the respondents.Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.1987 at about 09:00 a.m. complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) 2 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994 came to his home from market.He found that the respondents were abusing his children and threatened to kill them.Thereafter, the complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-2 Cr.A. No.1019 of 19941) took his 12 bore rifle and proceeded on motor-cycle to "Jeen" along with his son Tarun (PW-3).The respondents followed and caught them.They were armed with sticks.Suddenly, respondent no.3-Ghanshyam snatched his rifle and fired towards them.Complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) were injured by the pallets (Chharre).Police came to the spot took them to Police Station and sent them for treatment to District Hospital Sihore.Shri S.K. Rai, Government Advocate for appellant-State.None present for the respondents.Whether approved for reporting : Yes / No(JUDGMENT) Passed on: 21.09.2017 Per : Justice Smt. Anjuli Palo This appeal has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by judgment dated 13.01.1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihore, in Sessions Trial No.104/1987; whereby, learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Dehati Nalshi has been lodged by the complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1).Crime has been registered under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC against the respondents.After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent/accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.04.1 After committal learned trial Court framed charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against the respondents.The respondents abjured their guilt.They have pleaded that they are innocent and falsely implicated by the complainant due to old enmity.Defence witness has been examined by them.3 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994The learned trial Court has found that testimony of complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) is contradictory with the others.FIR has been lodged belatedly by the complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1).Complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) were the aggressors.They deliberately took the fire arm with intention to use it against the respondents.But accidentally, they got injured due to fire of their rifle.Respondents are not liable to injure them.It was also found by the trial Court that the injury caused to the complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) are not dangerous to their life.Learned trial Court has not relied on the dying declaration of Tarun (Exh. D/4).No cut mark has been found on the pant (Article-D) of Kailash Chandra, which proved that Kailash Chandra has not sustained any injury on his leg.Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) both are father and son and related witnesses.They are an interested witnesses.Other eye witness has not been supported the prosecution case.In the above circumstances, learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC against the 4 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994 respondents beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, they are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.4 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the independent witness Ramesh.The complainant has explained the delay.The complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) have received injury.Hence, as priority they were interested in getting first aid relief.Learned Government Advocate for the appellant- State contended that the injuries caused to the complainant Kailash Chandra (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature.The oral evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence.The trial Court has lost sight of the material evidence produced by the prosecution.Hence, the appellant-State prays to set aside the impugned judgment and the respondent be punished in accordance with law.It is not in dispute that at the time of incident the complainant Kailash (PW-1) and his son Tarun (PW-3) both were went to Jeen (a place) from their house by 5 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994 motor-cycle.Babu Lal (DW-1) also affirmed the said fact.Further, all the aforesaid witnesses also state that the respondents also came there.5 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994In the cross-examination Kailash (PW-1) explained that where a old building of Jeen factory and a house was situated, which was disputed between the complainant Kailash (PW-1) and respondents.Both the parties claimed their title over it.Kailash (PW-1) and Ganshyam (respondent no.3) both were the real brothers.As per Kailash (PW-1) aforesaid "Jeen" was the land of Jeen factory, which was mutated in the name of respondent no.3-Ghanshyam.The appeal has been filed by the Kailash (PW-1) against the mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court.As paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, it is appeared that "Jeen" is very distant place from the houses of complainant and respondents, which indicate that both parties went to that place with some intention.At that time, the complainant Kailash (PW-1) armed with rifle and belt of cartridges.Kailash (PW-1) stated that when they reached on the disputed place at Jeen, the respondent no.3-Ghanshyam snatched and caught hold of his rifle during which the rifle got fired.Second fire caused by the respondent no.3-Ghanshyam towards Kailash (PW-1) and 6 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994 his son Tarun (PW-3), both were father and son and are interested witnesses.6 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994Durga Prasad (PW-4) and Shankar Lal (PW-5) have also stated that after the first fire in the air, Ghanshyam caused second fire in which Tarun (PW-3) got injured.Ramesh (PW-5) corroborated the testimony of Durga Prasad (PW-4).Therefore, the testimony of Kailash (PW-1) and Tarun (PW-3) have been corroborated by the independent witnesses.In cross-examination Durga Prasad (PW-4) deposed that during the quarrel both the parties claimed for their possession over the disputed house at Jeen.The respondent no.2 was trying to restrain Kailash (PW-1) to enter into the house.Kailash (PW-1) was forcefully entered into the house.In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, it was discussed by the learned trial Court that on the obstruction raised by the respondents, Kailash (PW-1) aimed rifle towards their side.Therefore, rifle snatched by Ghanshyam, fired towards complainant Kailash (PW-1) and Tarun (PW-3).In the cross-examination Durga Prasad (PW-4) and Ramesh (PW-5) have also deposed such facts.As per the aforesaid independent eye witnesses, the respondent 7 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994 no.3-Ghanshyam deliberately fired the refile second time.Dr. S.P. Bhargava (PW-16) has examined Kailash (PW-1) and Tarun (PW-3).At that time, Tarun (PW-3) was in conscious and normal condition.He sustained a single lacerated wound with an abrasion.He further found some foreign object in the wound.He has not found any injury on Kailash (PW-1).After re-appreciation of the whole evidence on record, we also come to the conclusion that such injuries were not caused intentionally or voluntarily by the respondent No.3 to cause the death of complainant-Kailash or his son Tarun.The said injuries were caused during the tussle in private defence.It is also not established that the aforesaid injuries were dangerous for their life in ordinary course of nature.We relied the defence taken by the respondents that the complainant themselves are the aggressors.8 Cr.A. No.1019 of 19948 Cr.A. No.1019 of 1994Hence, we find the conclusion of the learned trial Court is properly based on the evidence on record. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
279,058 | On the allegation of commission of murder with rioting and other cognate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the appellants in these two appeals and some other accused persons who have since been acquitted were put on trial.The occurrence took place within a house and PW 1 was the only eye-witness.The trial Court convicted 5 persons for offences punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and other offences which are not relevant to be stated here while acquitting others.The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court.The State of Madhya Pradesh carried an appeal to the High Court challenging the acquittal.The High Court dismissed the appeal of the convicted accused person and reversed the acquittal of three persons and convicted them also in the manner as the Sessions Judge had done in respect of the five.Thus there are two appeals before us one by those who had been acquitted by the trial Judge and have since been convicted by the High Court and the other by the accused persons who have been convicted in the trial Court whose appeal has been dismissed by the High Court.We have looked in the judgments and have also heard learned Counsel for the parties.PW 1 has apparently given somewhat varying versions of the occurrence at different stages.He is, however, positive and clear that accused Firatram was armed with a spear and the medical evidence indicates one of the injuries found on the deceased (which was fatal) to have been caused by the spear.In view of the fact that evidence indicates that he was so armed and PW 1 has implicated him consistently we are of the view that he alone should have been convicted by the Courts below for the offence of murder and in the absence of evidence, no other person could be held responsible for the murder.There is clear evidence of rioting leading to causing of grievous hurt.We dismiss the appeal of Firatram upholding the charge of murder against him and conviction Under Section 302 I.P.C. and confirm his sentence of imprisonment for life.We set aside the conviction Under Section 302/149 I.P.C. of the rest.All the eight shall stand convicted Under Section 325/149 I.P.C. Each of them shall be sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
27,973,614 | J, aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6282 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.4154 of 2019 19.11.20194. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6282 of 2019If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said 4/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.11.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6282 of 2019The Sub Inspector of Police Karimedu Police Station Madurai2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6282 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,062,073 | PRONOUNCED ON : 03/04/2019JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1) The appeal is admitted.Notice after admission madereturnable forthwith.Heard both the sides for final disposal.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::Appeal No. 194/19 22) The appeal is filed against the order made by the learnedSpecial Judge appointed under the provision of Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the appeal is filedunder the provision of section 14-A of the Act. The application whichwas filed for relief of anticipatory bail by the appellant in C.R. No.14/2019 registered with Chakur Police Station, Chakur, District Laturfor offences punishable under sections 307, 341, 504, 506 of IndianPenal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for short) and section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act is rejected by the learned Special Judge.3) The first informant Shri.Udhav Shinde and the appellantare resident of village Devangra, Tahsil Chakur, District Latur.OneLaxman Bhosale is uncle of the appellant and Laxman is a friend ofthe first informant.The first informant owns a four wheeler andappellant also owns a four wheeler.The first incident took place on3.1.2019 at about 6.10 p.m. It is the contention of the firstinformant, respondent that when he was returning from hisagricultural land in his car, the car of the appellant came frombackside and it tried to give dash to the car of first informant.It iscontended that he somehow avoided the impact, but the car ofappellant overtook his car and then by stopping the car in front ofhis car, the appellant made the first informant to stop the car.It is ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 3contended that the appellant then started talking in threateninglanguage and the appellant asked the first informant to convinceLaxman Bhosale to make partition of the land and give the share tothe appellant.It iscontended that this incident was witnessed by some witnesses andtheir names are mentioned in the F.I.R. by the first informant.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::4) According to the first informant, on 11.1.2019 at 5.30p.m.when he was returning from his field and when he was on hisfoot on Devangra road, the appellant drove his four wheeler at himand tried to finish him.According to him, he somehow jumped asideand saved himself.It is contended that on that occasion also, theappellant again gave threat of life and this incident was alsowitnessed by some witnesses.The names of these witnesses arementioned in the F.I.R. It is contended that on both the occasions,the appellant wanted to finish him.In view of the nature ofallegations, the crime was initially registered for offences punishable ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 4under sections 307, 341, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::5) On 13.1.2019 the first informant gave supplementarystatement and in that statement, he contended that due tooversight, he did not mention in the report dated 11.1.2019 that hebelongs to scheduled tribe and the appellant does not belong toscheduled caste or scheduled tribe and he is of Maratha caste.Thefirst informant contended that the aforesaid incidents took place dueto hate of appellant towards the first informant as he belongs toscheduled tribe.Along with the supplementary statement, heproduced caste validity certificate.He informed that he had notsustained any visible injury on both the occasions.6) The record of investigation shows that the first informantwas working as Senior Police Inspector for Caste ScrutinyCommittee, Gadchiroli.It is his contention that he was on leave atthe relevant time and so, he was present at the native place.On theother hand, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the firstinformant was suspended during that time due to his misconduct.7) There are statements of witnesses who are named in theF.I.R. The statements show that the witnesses in respect of theincident dated 11.1.2019 say that they did not witness any incident.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::Appeal No. 194/19 5There are statements of persons like Limbaji, Ramakant and Ankushin respect of the incident dated 3.1.2019, but they say that theyonly heard the conversation which was going on between theappellant and the first informant.According to them, the appellantwas talking about the property dispute between him and his uncle,but in their presence, no threats were given and no abuses weregiven by the appellant to the first informant.The policepapers include the statement of Laxman Bhosale, uncle of theappellant and it shows that partition had taken place, but the namesof the sharers were not entered in the revenue record.8) The learned Special Judge has rejected the applicationfiled by the present appellant for anticipatory bail by holding thatthere is bar of provision of section 18-A(2) of the Act. The learnedAPP and the learned counsel for first informant strongly opposed thepresent appeal by contending that the provision of section 18-A(2)of the Act which came into force with effect from 20.8.2018 hascreated a clear bar to the proceeding under section 438 of CriminalProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) and ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 6this Court has also no jurisdiction to grant relief by allowing theappeal.In view of the nature of contentions raised, thescheme of the Act and the relevant provisions of Constitution ofIndia, this Court is considering, whether the High Court or theSessions Court (Special Court) cannot entertain the application filedunder section 438 of Cr.P.C. even to ascertain as to whether thecrime under the Act is committed or not and whether the Courtshould go with the presumption that there is material to make outprima facie case for offences mentioned in the Act when the crime isregistered for offences punishable under the Act.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::10) The sum and substance of the objects and reasonsclause of the main Act of 1989 show that the Act is made to protectthe persons of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes from the practices ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 7of untouchability, to protect their right to get minimum statutorywages, to protect them from bonded or forced labour, to preventothers who try to cow down the people of schedule castes andschedule tribes and terrorise them etc. The objects and reasonsclause also show that to achieve the object, the provisions are madein the Act which provide for higher punishment if the offence iscommitted against the people of scheduled castes and scheduledtribes.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::11) The objects and reasons clause of amendment of 2016shows that to expedite the trial of the case, to have speedyinvestigation and to provide for removal of obstructions which werenoticed at the time of arrest of the offenders under the Act and alsoto remove the obstacles which were noticed in the process of filingchargesheet and also to tackle the low conviction rate, theamendment was made.The amendment also provided for relief toand rehabilitation of victims of such offences.Some presumptionswere raised to see that the conviction rate is increased.Section 18of the Act was there right from beginning.12) The amendment of 2018 has also statement of objectsand reasons.The statement of objects and reasons show that theamendment was made to make it clear that the previous enquiry is ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::16) The learned counsel for appellant placed reliance onsome cases decided by higher judiciary and they are as under :-(i) C.R.M. 10431/2018 [Pradipta Biswas Vs.State of West Bengal] dated 26.2.2019 decided by Calcutta High Court.(ii) Cr.7295/2018 [Atendra Singh Rawat Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh] dated 11.10.2018 decided by Madhya Pradesh High Court.The State of Maharashtra and Anr.) decided on 26.2.2019, thelearned Single Judge has referred the case reported as 2012 Cri.L.J. ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::Appeal No. 194/19 134520 [Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr.Appeal No. 640/96 dated 7-5-1996, the Courts would not be justified in entertaining the application for anticipatory bail ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 14 once an offence under the Act of 1989 is disclosed in the FIR.In view of the ratio of these two judgments, there is no scope left for this Full Bench to enter into the question regarding the extent and scope of interpretation of Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 on the ground of curtailment of personal liberty for once a person is accused of an offence and a case is registered against him under the Act of 1989, the Court of Session and the High Court in view of the clear bar of Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 would clearly be precluded from entering into the enquiry of the allegations levelled against the accused and we find substance in the contention that if the Courts are permitted to enter into a roving enquiry in regard to the allegations, the whole purpose and effect of the section would be totally defused and would make it totally otiose and redundant.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::The learned Single Judge considered the casedecided subsequent to the amendment by Kolkatta High Court andMadhya Pradesh High Court also.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::17) The learned Single Judge held that application undersection 438 needs to be considered for ascertaining whether there ismaterial to make out prima facie case for offence punishable underthe Act. In the case of Supreme Court cited by the learned counselfor appellant which is reported as 1996 (11) SCC 428 [K.Sankaran Nair (Dead) through L.Rs.Devaki Amma MalathyAmma and Ors.], the Apex Court has laid down that only due tocircumstance that the law was subsequently amended which hadintention to declare that the judgment already rendered is not inconsonance with the law or amended law, is not binding, it cannotbe said that previous decision of higher judiciary was not bindingand for that, it is necessary for legislature to remove substratum ofjudgment or giving retrospective effect to the amendment todisplace the binding nature of the judgment.If that is not done, thejudgment would operate as res-judicata.This case was in respect ofthe tenancy and land laws.But, on the same line it can be said thatin the present case, the amendment of 2018 can be used only to the ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 19extent of the situation which was created by Dr. Subhash's casecited supra.That could not have been done by the legislature.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::18) The learned counsel for appellant produced on recordcopy of interim order made by the Apex Court in Petition(s) forSpecial Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 7338/2018 arising out of finaljudgment and order made by this Court in Criinal Appeal No.356/2018 dated 356/2018 (Saliquddin s/o.Ziyauddin Chisty Vs.TheState of Maharashtra).The provision ofsection 18-A came to be introduced on 20.8.2018 and so, the bar ofprovision of section 18 was only considered by the learned SingleJudge.However, it can be said that in view of the facts of the matter, ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 20the Apex Court held that the accused Saliquddin was entitled torelief of anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 194/19 22 cognizable offence;Further, he was working for CasteScrutiny Committee and so, it can be presumed that he hadknowledge about the rights given to the persons of scheduled tribeunder the Act. Allegations as they are show that the first informantwas friend of uncle of the appellant and he could have acted as amediator.Thus, the circumstance that he was belonging to particulartribe was not apparently in the mind of the appellant as he wasrequesting the first informant to act as a mediator in the familydispute of Maratha caste.The nature of allegations that attempt onthe life of first informant was made which are quoted above showthat the incidents prima facie do not appear to be probable innature.::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::Appeal No. 194/19 2824) For aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that applicationfiled for anticipatory bail was maintainable and for the reasonsalready given, the appellant is entitled to get the relief under section438 of Cr.P.C. In the result, the appeal is allowed.The order madeby the learned Judge of the Special Court in anticipatory bailapplication filed by the appellant bearing Cri.Bail Application No.80/2019 is set aside.The said application is allowed.In case ofarrest of the appellant in C.R. No. 14/2019 registered at ChakurPolice Station, District Latur for the aforesaid offences, he is to bereleased on bail on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/-(Rupeesfifteen thousand).He is not to tamper with the prosecutionwitnesses.He is not to commit similar offence.He is to attend theoffice of Investigating Officer for coming three consecutive Sundaysbetween 9.30 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. He is to cooperate theinvestigating agency.Fees of the learned counsel appointed for firstinformant/respondent No. 2 is quantified as Rs.5000/-.It is to bepaid through High Court Legal Services Authority.[ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2019 07:09:39 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,771,312 | The First Information Report (FIR) No.136/2016 was registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 20.08.2016 pursuant to directions of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 16.08.2016 in criminal complaint case no.4751/1 of 2013 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for investigation into the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the said criminal complaint having been instituted before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate by the second respondent.It appears that the second respondent had also W.P. (Crl.) 1161/2017 Page 1 of 5 earlier instituted a civil suit with regard to similar background facts, it being CS(OS) No.168/2014 against the parties including the petitioners herein as defendants.The dispute concerns property described as bearing no.40, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi- 110001 ("the property").W.P. (Crl.) 1161/2017 Page 1 of 5The civil suit resulted in an amicable settlement formalized by the parties through memorandum of understanding (MOU) executed on 03.04.2017, to which the petitioners and the second respondent are signatory.In the wake of the abovesaid resolution, the petitioners have approached this court through the petition at hand invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for the criminal case and the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.136/2016 of Police Station Barakhamba Road to be quashed.The second respondent has joined in the prayer by submitting the affidavit which was filed with the petition.By order dated 21.04.2017, notices were issued.The State, in response, has filed status report with regard to the facts and circumstances as have been found brought out through the investigation carried out thus far into the above mentioned FIR.W.P. (Crl.) 1161/2017 Page 2 of 5The second respondent has also filed his affidavit sworn on 01.05.2017 stating no objection to the prayer made in the petition being granted.When the matter was heard earlier in the morning, the second respondent was present in person with his daughter Ms. Sarita Bhateja.The learned standing counsel for the State confirms that on the basis of investigation of the case carried out thus far no offence other than that of cheating is found made out, this particularly against the backdrop of the fact that the second respondent has now given up the allegations of forgery or fabrication of documents with the explanation that the same were leveled in the FIR on some misunderstanding.The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable in terms of Section 320 CR.P.C. But then, the stage for such compounding would come in the ordinary course of criminal justice process after the investigation has been concluded and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.The investigating police agency would be taking its own time in carrying out the investigation procedure.W.P. (Crl.) 1161/2017 Page 4 of 5 | ['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. |
177,777,105 | Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA for the State.This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 16.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No.93 of 2020 under sections- 420, 406 IPC, Police Station-Ecotech-III, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.Thus where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute in respect of an offence, which is neither heinous and serious, nor involved any mental deprivity relating to an offence like murder, rape, dacoity etc, such proceedings can be quashed on the basis of settlement, but the offence should be private in nature and should not have any societal impact, such as an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or an offence involving public servants in discharge of duties etc. But the criminal cases having a predominantly civil flavour, such as commercial, financial mercantile civil partnership etc. or family disputes are such instances, where prosecution could be quashed subject to a settlement.A perusal of the compromise affidavit dated 29.06.2020 indicates that respondent no.3 is no longer desirous of prosecuting the above complaint against the petitioners. | ['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,779,344 | REJECTED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12th July, 2016 in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 324 of 2014 dated 11.8.2014 under Sections 120B/420/465/467/468/471of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,788,816 | The Applicants in both these applications are seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 243 of 2016, registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune for the ofences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositers (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ('MPID' for short).She was in custody in CR.The prosecution case is that, the frst informant had invested an amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the name of his wife on 30.07.2015 for period of one year, which Samruddha Jeevan Multi State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd., at Shivaji Nagar, Pune.He also invested further amount in the schemes of the said society.He invested about 35 Lakhs on the date of maturity.He did not receive amount.Promises were made that investor would earn better returns then Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 3 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc bank.The Directors of company misappropriated the amount.Accused Mahesh Motewar, Ex-Chairman of the society was arrested.He also noted that, other investors were also deceived.Hence, he lodged First Information Report ('FIR' for short).The society was ofering better returns to investor in their schemes.The society did not return the deposits on its maturity and various complaints were fled against the society.Complaints were fled at various places including diferent States.Accused were arrested in those cases, ofences were also registered at Odisha.The investigation further entrusted to Economic Ofence Wing ('EOW' for short), Pune.During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded.It is alleged that, Three thousand six hundred crores were misappropriated in all the cases.The said company launched various livestock, sale, purchase and rearing schemes allegedly collected investments by establishing more than 300 branch ofces across India.The applicant in BA.No. 873 of 2019 is the wife of Chairman Mahesh Motewar.It is submitted that, she was also arrested in C.R. No. 384 of 2014 registered with Chaturshrungi Police Station.He did not misappropriate any properties.He was power of attorney holder of his mother.He sold property in name of his mother for 12 lakhs.She is benefciary of huge misappropriated amount.PC revealed that, collections were handed over to applicant.It is an economic ofence.It is of serious nature.Total amount was to the tune of Three Thousand Six Hundred Crores all over India.The company launched various livestock sale, purchase and rearing schemes and collected investment by establishing branches.SEBI initiated enquiry.The accused registered Samruddha Multistate Multipurpose Cooperative Society.He is son of Mahesh Motewar and Vaishali Motewar.Central Registrar, Ministry of Agriculture appointed Liquidator to liquidate assets of Samruddh Jeevan Multistate, Multipurpose Co-operative society Ltd. The statement of Liquidator is recorded.It is submitted that he has Power of Attorney from Vaishali Motewar.Sold property's money was credited to his account.The properties sold by him were attached.The report of the Chartered Accountant indicate that an amount of Rs. 1 Crore was credited into the account of the applicant.It is submitted that huge amount was misappropriated by the accused.The accused are habitual ofenders.The applicants are in custody from date of arrest.Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is fled.The said charge-sheet mentioned that the above company claimed that it had kept maintained and undertaken the trading of livestock in the agricultural land situated at 16 places spreading across diferent State of Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Punjab, Bihar and Karnataka.Paragraph 16.11 mentions that Samruddh Jeevan Foods India Ltd., and its Sister concerns Viz.Prosperity Agro India, Samruddha Jeevan Multistate Multipurpose Cooperative Society had set up 300 branches all over India.Investigation revealed that the applicant Leena Motewar and her husband-Mahesh Motewar and family had established and expanded his business in the activities of Construction, Publication, Media, Hospitality etc. Paragraph 16.17 of the said charge-sheet mentioned that, the report submitted by Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.Unit- II92), Pune, Maharashtra dated 19th March, 2015 shows that, during 2008-2014, the company had mobilized the deposits to the quantum of Rs. 1116.12 Crores from 47.76 lakhs depositors.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.). No.(s) 1564/19 and in SLP (Cri) No. 1596/2019, which pertain to investigation of the CBI inspect to Samruddha Jeevan Multi State Multi Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd.,and investigation is carried out by Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 13 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc local Police, Odisha.Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd., was among one of the 44 companies.The said charge- sheet also mentioned that investigation surfaced that, Samruddha Jeevan Foods closed its ofces, but company continued fnancial business by accepting deposits through Samruddha Jeevan Multistate Multipurpose Cooperative Society.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::Enquiry was also conducted by SEBI.Samruddha Jeevan Group has several companies, which were utilized the amount Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 4 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc collected from investor.The applicant was Director of some of the company.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::She was in custody in another case.She was not arrested for period of about 2 years.After grant of bail in C.R. No. 384 of 2014, she was arrested in the present case.The applicant was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2019 in connection with the case registered at Odisha.It is submitted that the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.05.2014 passed in WP(Civil) No. 401/2013 and other petitions directed transfer of cases registered in State of West-Bengal and Odisha to CBI.It is submitted that, CBI was investigating two sets of cases.The Charge-sheet indicate that the investigation in relation to transaction, which are subject matter of this complaint were also taken into consideration.The Apex Court granted bail to the accused, in the case registered in State of Odisha, on the ground that the accused were in custody for substantial period of time.It is submitted that, although the present FIR is separate, Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 6 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc considering the fact that the applicant and other accused granted bail in the earlier case by the Apex Court, on parity the applicant be granted bail.The amount was used for company.The said applicant is a student of management studies.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::Learned APP submitted that the ofence is of serious nature.Crores of rupees were collected by the accused from various persons.The investors were induced to part with the amount with assurance of double returns.However, the promises turned out to be false.The applicants are not entitled for bail on the ground of parity.The prosecution has fled an afdavit opposing bail.It is submitted that the applicant in B.A. No. 873/2019 have played a vital role in the ofences.Several cases were registered against her.She has immovable property at diferent places in State of Maharashtra, which are seized in accordance with provisions of MPID Act. Details are Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 7 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc mentioned in the afdavit.Bank account of the said applicant has been seized.It is submitted that similar ofence have been committed by the said applicant in other State.The cash amount collected from the depositery was handed over to this applicant.Statement of Branch Manager and others recorded under Section 164 of Cr.Agreement executed with SJFL to transfer business to society.Samruddha Jeevan had 46 various companies.Leena Motewar was Director of Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd., Golden Crust Agro Corporation India Pvt.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::The applicant in Bail Application No. 3110 of 2018, also played a vital role.Learned counsel for the Intervenor oppose the applications for bail on several ground.Small investors were cheated.Various companies were foated.Although, the investigation was conducted, Forensic Audit was not conducted.Money trail not yet identifed.Having heard both sides, I have also perused the documents on record.The afdavit fled by the prosecution indicate that Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 9 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc the applicant in BA.No. 873 of 2019 had several immovable properties at diferent places in State of Maharashtra.The details are mentioned in afdavit.All these properties have been seized in accordance with Section 4 of the MPID Act. The bank account of the applicant is seized.While granting bail to the applicant in the said case, Court has observed that, the applicant is in custody for two years.The accused Mahesh Motewar had preferred an application for bail in connection with FIR registered in the State of Odisha before the Apex Court.It was observed that frst charge- sheet was fled in which the said accused was alleged to be mastermind behind a big fraud which involved a company called Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. It was observed that the petitioner (Mahesh Motewar) has been arrested on 16.12.2015 and in Jail.Considering Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 10 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc that accused is incarcerated for a period of almost three years, he is enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.The said charge-sheet was fled under provisions of Penal Code and other Act, with regard to role of Mahesh Motewar in group company called Samruddh Jeevan Multistate Multipurpose Cooperative Soceity Ltd. The Apex Court granted bail by order dated 23.04.2019 by observing that the High Court ought to have considered that, the two charge-sheet that have been fled are with regard to group companies where the said accused is alleged to be mastermind in which common evidence will be given.The applicant Leena Motewar preferred Special Leave Petition before Apex Court challenging order dated 25.02.2019 passed by High Court of Odisha at Cuttack.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::It is observed that several complaints were fled of similar nature.Reference was made to the observations made in order passed by the Apex Court on Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 11 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc 9.05.2014 in Writ Petition No. 401/2013 and companion petitions in Paragraph 34 and 35 of the said order it was mentioned as follows.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow all these petitions and direct transfer of the following cases registered in diferent police stations in the State of West Bengal and Odisha from the State Police Agency to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).The CBI is also permitted to conduct further investigations into all such cases in which charge-sheet have already been fled.We reserve liberty for the Joint Director CBI, Incharge of the States of West-Bengal and Odisha to seek further directions in relation to transfer of any other case or cases that may require to be transferred for investigation to CBI for a full and efective investigation into the scam".In pursuant to the aforesaid directions by the Supreme Court, CBI took over the investigation and fled charge- sheet pertaining to RC/34/S/14/CBH/ KOL, accused no. 2 in said charge-sheet was mentioned as Samruddha Jeevan Food India Pvt. Ltd. The said company was incorporated as Gurukrupa Dairy Pvt. Ltd., Mahesh Motewar was Chairman/ Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 12 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc Managing Director.The accused Mahesh Motewar was also granted bail in C.R. No. 186 of 2017 registered with Vishram Bag Police Station.Similar observations were made by this Court.The facts of that case were that Samruddha Jeevan Mutstate Multipurpose Cooperative Soceity was formed.The present case relates to investigation relating to Samruddha Jeevan Multistate Multipurpose society.The applicant in BA.No. Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: 15 of 15 901-BA-873-2019.doc 3110 of 2018 is also in custody for long time in which he has been granted bail.Several witnesses are involved in this case.It is not clear when the trial would commence.Huge documents are involved.In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants can be released on bail.::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::(iv) Bail Applications stand disposed of accordingly.(v) Intervention application disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Ganesh Lokhande::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 06:36:55 ::: | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,794,048 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, to accept the surrender of the petitioners and enlarge them on bail on the very same day in Crime No.166 of 2018 on the file of the District Superintendent of Police, Jayankondam Range, Meensuruty Police Station, Ariyalur District.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.The District Superintendent of Police Jayankondam Range Meensuruty Police Station Ariyalur District.The Inspector of Police Meensuruty Police Station Ariyalur District.mk Crl.OP.No.18044 of 201817.07.2018The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294-B, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Amendment 2015 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioners cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioners have come forward with the said prayer.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the respondent.Considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitioners cannot move any anticipatory bail, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioners filing such petition in connection with Crime No.166 of 2018 pending on the file of the respondent / police within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consider the same in accordance with law on the same day.With the above direction, this petition is disposed of accordingly.17.07.2018Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking ordermkNote: Issue order copy on 18.07.2018ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,794,364 | The detenu, Jothi, son of Muniyappan, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1016 of 2019 ToPage 5 of 71.The Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 0092.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.Page 6 of 7mmi H.C.P. No. 1016 of 2019 29.08.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Jothi, son of Muniyappan, aged about 34 years.Page 2 of 7Further I submit that a bail petition has been filed on behalf of the accused Thiru.Jothi and Thiru.Further I submit that a writ petition has been filed by Tmt.Gowthami W/o Annachi before High Court, Chennai in W.P No.14575/2019 dated 14.05.2019 and it is pending in the above court.M.P.No.2334/2018 and the bail was granted on 11.04.2018 and an anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the co-accused Thiru.Sundar before Hon'ble Vacation Court Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Cr.Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of him (Thiru.Jothi) coming out on bail in the above bail application in the above court, since bails are granted by courts in the such case.If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order........"M.P.No.2334/2018 and the bail was granted on 11.04.2018 and an anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the co-accused Thiru.Sundar before Hon'ble Vacation Court Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Cr.M.P.No.1671/2018 and it was granted on 24.05.2018 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1016 of 2019 detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in Crime No.385/2019 and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 4 of 76.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.30/2019-C2 dated 22.05.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.3.The Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk Police Station, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Vellore.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1016 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,795,541 | Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of M this case, are that a complaint was made to the Deputy Director Department of Panchayat and Social Justice by Surpanch, village of panchayat- Changotola, Janpad Panchayat, Balaghat.On this rt complaint a preliminary enquiry was made by the Department of ou Panchayat and Social Justice in which it was found that in the scheme namely, Aam Admi Bima Yojana with the pretext to provide C Rs.30,000/- to the bereaved families, accounts were opened in District h Cooperative Central Bank and Dhanvantari Saving Bank, Katangi ig Branch.The accused persons Sadhna Mandele, Surendra Damahe, H Ramlal Damahe have paid only Rs.12,000/- to the beneficiaries and remaining Rs.18,000/- of each beneficiaries was misappropriated.The applications were duly filled up through the Sarpunch by five beneficiaries and the same was sent to the Cooperative Seva Samiti, Changatola.But Gulab, Shyamvati and Annpurna did not receive the compensation amount.Accused Sadhana and her husband Pradeep identified the beneficiaries and got their accounts opened in the Shri Dhanvantari Swayatv Saakh Sahkarita Maryadit, Tekadighat.After due investigation, it was found that instead of Rs.30,000/- only Rs.12,000/- was disbursed to the each of beneficiaries.The accused persons including Surendra Dhamaha was responsible for said misappropriation.Co-accused Krishna procured the attendance of the beneficiaries from Changatola.Accused Rajendra was the person and in-charge Chairman of the Society.According to the statement of Dhananjay Mishra Additional Chief Executive Officer and in-charge - Deputy Director of Department of Social Justice, Sadhna and Pradeep identified the beneficiaries.The petitioner having conspired with the other accused persons obtained signatures of the beneficiaries and instead of paying Rs.30,000/- only Rs.12,000/- was given to each of them.Statement of Guru Dayal Ranghdale also shows that the beneficiaries received only Rs.12,000/- each.Other witnesses have not named the petitioner but they have stated that two persons obtained their signatures and Sadhna and her associates have cheated them.Other witnesses also stated that sh they can identify the persons once they see the person.The petitioner Surendra is involved in conspiracy and opening of the accounts and misappropriated the amount.Prima facie in the preliminary enquiry it was found that the accused persons including the petitioner were involved in sh misappropriation of the amount.Learned 1st ASJ, Waraseoni vide e impugned order framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and ad 120B of the IPC.Pr Challenge has been made to the impugned order on the ground a that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.The whole incident took hy place at Changatola but the petitioner has been falsely named.Smt. Saadhna Mandle opened an account showing herself to be the surety. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
177,796,487 | Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement dated 19th February 2011 and order on sentence dated 22nd February 2011 whereby appellant and 3 other accused persons were convicted under 393/34 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and Rs 2000 fine each.Appellant - Matin was further convicted u/s 398 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and Rs 3000 fine and R.I. for one year and Rs 1000 fine respectively.Prosecution case succinctly stated is that on 5th October 2006, HC - Vijay Vats alongwith Constable - Balbir, Constable - Satender and Constable Mohan were present at Regal Cinema and were checking the buses when at about 3:40 PM, they noticed one person was being dragged by some persons towards Palika Parking.On seeing the police, those persons started running away from there but they were apprehended.The person who was being dragged made a statement Ex.PW6/A that he had come to New Delhi railway Station in connection with his work and after completion of his work, he boarded a bus to Nangloi.At the Regal Cinema red light, some boys whose name he later learnt as Ashfaq, Mohabbat, Sabbu and Matin boarded the bus.While accused Ashfaq and Mohabbat stood ahead of him, accused Sabbu and Matin stood behind him and on suspicion that they will take out money from his pocket, he got down from the bus out of fear.All the four accused also got down from the bus and started snatching his belongings by dragging him towards the Palika parking.On raising alarm, accused Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 1 of 9 Matin (appellant) took out a knife threatening him and in the meantime police officials came there and overpowered the accused persons.On this statement, HC Vinay Vats prepared a rukka and got the case registered.Accused persons were arrested and button actuated knife was recovered from accused Matin while blades were recovered from remaining accused.PW8 - Jagdish Chander has deposed on the same lines as initially stated to the police Ex.PW6/A that on 05.10.2006, he was going to Nangloi from New Delhi Railway Station and boarded bus route no. G1 at 3.20 p.m. When the bus reached near red light point at Regal Cinema, two persons stood at his front side and two at his back side and put their hands in his pocket.Due to their acts, he got suspicious and therefore got down from the bus and the aforesaid persons also got down from the bus and took him towards Palika Bazar side after covering him.One person out of four took out a knife and flared the same in the air.Moreover, as per the status report, the appellant was involved in following five cases as detailed in the status report:Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.As per nominal roll, he was released on bail on 07.05.2014 as such he has so far undergone a period of three years, three months twenty days besides earning remission of eleven months twenty five days.After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all of them.Charge for offence under Section 393/34 IPC was framed against all the four accused.Additionally, accused Matin was charged under Section 398 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 1 of 9In order to establish the guilt of accused persons, prosecution in all examined ten witnesses.In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the case of all the accused was one of denial simplicitor and it was alleged that after lifting them from Palam where they had gone to sell clothes, they were implicated falsely in this case.Vide impugned judgment, all the accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore.Accused Ashfaq, Mohabhat @ Bauna and Sabhu filed separate appeal bearing Crl.Appeal Nos. 395/2011 challenging their conviction and the same was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2015 whereas the present appellant - Matin preferred the present appeal.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge his conviction under Section 393 IPC and submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for more than four year as such he be released on the period already undergone.The basic challenge of learned counsel for the appellant is regarding his conviction under Section 398 IPC on the ground that there is no evidence on record that the knife recovered from the appellant was a "deadly weapon".Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference.The appellant cannot seek parity with co-accused who have been released on the period already undergone as the appellant was found in possession of a deadly weapon i.e. knife and, therefore, he was Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 2 of 9 rightly convicted under Section 398 IPC.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further referred to the antecedents of the appellant for submitting that he is a habitual offender and is involved in as many as five other cases besides this case as such, the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 2 of 9As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 393 IPC is concerned, the same has not rightly been challenged by learned counsel for the appellant as same stands proved from the testimony of PW1 - Constable Satender Kumar; PW4 - Constable Mohan Singh; PW5 - Constable Balbir; PW6 - HC Viney Vats and PW8 - Jagdish Chander, who are the eye witnesses and victim to the incident on 05.10.2006 when the accused were caught red-handed.All the three were with him at that time.He immediately shouted bachao, bachao on which all the four persons started running here and there but theywere apprehended by the police officials from special staff.His statement Ex.PW6/A was recorded by the police.Some blades were recovered from the pockets of three accused while knife was recovered from accused Matin.He identified knife Ex.P1 as well as surgical blades Ex.P2 to P4 recovered from the possession of accused persons.It has further come in his cross examination that the accused person tried to snatch his belongings.The testimony of complainant / victim finds substantial corroboration from PW1 Ct.Satender Kumar; PW4 Ct Mohan Singh; PW5 Ct.Balbir and PW6 HC Vinay Vats.Despite cross examination, nothing material could be elicited to discredit the testimony either of the complainant or any of the police official.All the accused, including the present appellant, were apprehended at the spot as such the defence taken by the appellant that he was taken from Palam while he was selling clothes and then falsely implicated in this case has no legs to stand.Moreover, the accused has not alleged any ill-will or animosity either against the complainant or any of the police officials for Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 3 of 9 which reason they will falsely implicate him or his associates in this case.As such, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 393 IPC.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 3 of 9Even testimony of aforesaid material witnesses regarding recovery of knife from the possession of accused Matin remained unchallenged as same was never assailed in cross examination.As per sketch of knife Ex.PW1/E, its total length was 24.5, the blade was 11.5 cm while the handle was 13 cm.The width of blade was 2.5 cm.It was a buttondar knife on which Rampur Best Steel was engraved.PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW6 also identified the knife which was recovered from the accused at the spot.As stated above, the appellant was armed with Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 7 of 9 this knife at the time of attempting to commit robbery.It was not an ordinary pen knife or kitchen knife.It was a button actuated knife and in contravention of the notification and, therefore, it can be safely be said that it was a deadly weapon with which the appellant was armed with at the time of attempt to commit robbery.. That being so, learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 398 IPC as well.(i) Case FIR No.680/08 u/s 411 IPC and 41/102 Cr.PC Police Station Pilakhawa(ii) Case FIR No.22/09 u/s 4/25 Arms Act Police Station Pilakhawa(iii) Case 35/11 u/s 457/380 IPC Police Station Sodhala Rajasthan(iv) Case 302/05 u/s 457/380 IPC Police Station Sodhala Rajasthan(v) Case FIR No.141/2006 u/s 379 IPC Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi That being so, even otherwise he does not deserve any leniency.The appeal is accordingly disposed of with this modification.The unexpired portion of sentence of the appellant is two years, eight months and fifteen days.As such, the appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge on 22nd February, 2016, failing which Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 8 of 9 learned Additional Sessions Judge to take appropriate steps to get the appellant arrested for serving the remainder sentence.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 8 of 9Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2016/rd Crl.Appeal No.380/2011 Page 9 of 9Appeal No.380/2011 Page 9 of 9 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,661,205 | With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.Instant revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C at the instance of accused persons who are taking exception to the framing of charge by the trial court vide order dated 11.8.2017 whereby, they have been charged for offence under Sections 467 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has erred in framing charge as referred above because, there is no mens rea on the part of petitioners to do such an act and in absence of any evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be prima facie concluded that the petitioners obtained any wrongful gain from preparation of forged document.In absence of hatching any conspiracy for wrongful gains or to commit forgery to obtain pecuniary benefits, trial court has erred in framing the charge.It is further submitted that a panchanama was prepared by inhabitants of village Nadai and signed by some of the petitioners.It has been mentioned that the petitioners have not signed any panchanma regarding the death of Sarjoo Bai.Under these circumstances, petitioners preferred this petition against framing of charge.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 461, Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs.State of Bihar and Another 2009 (8) SCC 751 and Radha Pisharassiar Amma Vs.On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.3245/2017 (Balbeer Dangi and others Vs.State of M.P.) respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that sufficient material exits against the petitioners.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.In the present case, it appears that against petitioner No.12 Ramraja Yadav, charges have been framed under Sections 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the IPC and other accused have also been put to trial by framing charge in almost similar nature of offences.As per prosecution story, Sarjoo Bai filed a criminal complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia against the petitioners in which she alleged that she was only child of her father Meharban.Her Grandfather Jagram had three sons i.e. Meharban, Harisingh and Badam Singh.Harisingh had two sons namely Mohar Singh and Ramraja (petitioner No.12).Thus, they were also entitled to the some part of the property left by their deceased Grandfather Jagram.It is alleged that before Settlement Officer, an application for partition of holdings and mutation of her share in the agricultural land in her name was filed by Sarjoo Bai which was later on transferred to the court of Tehsildar Datia.It is alleged that in that court, to grab the agricultural land of Sarjoo Bai, some forged document was prepared and submitted.At the relevant time, petitioner No.1 was Sarpanch and petitioner No.2 was Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nadai and they passed false resolution in the meeting of Panchayat on 19.8.2000 declaring Sarjoo Bai as dead.It was further alleged that petitioners No.3,4 and 5 were also involved in preparation of death certificate of Sarjoo Bai knowing full well about her existence as living being.Thereafter, she filed a criminal complaint in the court of JMFC, Datia against miscreants and the court took cognizance and directed for inquiry under Section 156(2) of the Cr.P.C, thereafter charge sheet was filed.Whole gamut of facts indicate that conduct of petitioners primafacie, is such which deserves them to face trial.Once, the persons have forged a document allegedly to get wrongful gain and allegation primafacie appears such which needs to be tested on the anvil of examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, therefore, at this juncture no interference is warranted.Even otherwise, scope of revision is very limited to the extent of procedural irregularity, impropriety, jurisdictional error or perversity to bring home the theory of false implication. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,676,634 | In the first place his clothes were stained with the blood of the deceased of Group B. He got recovered the knife which he had hidden under the table in factory at 16, Satnam Park in which he was working as Chowkidar.The blood stains on the knife matched with that of the deceased.He also got recovered the pair of shoes belonging to the deceased which was thrown on to the roof.He also identified the place where the dead body was thrown and the place where the murder was committed.The cot Crl.Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.1.2001, concluding in para 15 as afore-noted, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered the deceased Nand Lal.Co-accused Raj Rani and Radhey Shyam have been acquitted.It all commenced when on 5.12.1990 information was received at the local police station that a gunny bag was lying on a service lane near house No.26/1, Ram Nagar Extension, Delhi.The information was noted vide DD No.26- A.SI Amar Singh PW-14 accompanied by two police constables reached the spot and on opening the gunny bag found the dead body of a male which was wrapped in a sheet.He seized the sheet and the gunny bag as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-1/A and immediately sent the information at the local police station.This information was conveyed by SI Amar Singh by making an endorsement Ex.PW-14/A beneath copy of DD No.26-A. FIR Ex.Local people which included the co-accused Raj Rani had gathered and Raj Rani identified the dead body as that of her husband Nand Lal.As deposed to by him, Inspector Mahender Singh was told by the minor children of Nand Lal that blood stained pant Ex.P-15 and shirt Ex.P-16 belonged to appellant Mahesh.These clothes were kept for washing.This aroused his suspicion.He interrogated Raj Rani who broke down and confessed to have conspired along with the appellant and co-accused Radhey Shyam to murder her husband.She confessed of having illicit relations with the appellant.She apparently told about the involvement of co- accused Radhey Shyam.The appellant and co-accused Radhey Shyam were apprehended and appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/B admitting his guilt and stated that the deceased was killed when he was lying on a cot in factory of Harbans Lal PW-5 which was at 16 Satnam Park, Krishan Nagar.He disclosed that he had hidden the knife with which the deceased was killed in the said factory and volunteered to get recovered the knife used by him to kill Nand Lal.He disclosed that the shoes of Nand Lal were Crl.He led the investigating officer to the factory of PW-5 i.e. at 16 Satnam Park, Krishan Nagar and from under the table of the press man, hidden beneath a blanket, got recovered a spring operated knife Ex.P-19 in respect whereof the pointing out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A was drawn.He pointed out the cot Ex.P-22 on which the deceased was stated to have been killed which was found to be stained with blood and was seized.The pointing out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW-5/C was drawn pertaining to the cot.The pair of shoes Ex.P-2 were got recovered from the roof and seized as per seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D.Co-accused Radhey Shyam has been acquitted because a watch got recovered by him and alleged to be belonging to the deceased was opined to be a watch of ordinary make and nobody proved at the trial that the said watch belonged to Radhey Shyam.The incriminating evidence against the appellant, listed in para 15 of the impugned decision are five in number, being:-(i) The pant Ex.P-15 and the shirt Ex.P-16 belonging to the appellant were stained with the blood of the deceased.(ii) The knife Ex.P-15 got recovered by the appellant was stained with the blood of the deceased.Summarizing the incriminating circumstances against the appellant, the learned Trial Judge has held as under:-So far as Mahesh is concerned I find over- whelming evidence to convict him for the offence of murder.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 1 of 10 which the accused Mahesh got recovered had stains of blood which he identified by the CFSL Laboratory as that of B group which is that of the deceased.In my opinion, this circumstantial evidence is entirely in- consistent with innocence.In my opinion, further, the evidence collected and proved is sufficient to convict accused Mahesh for murder.I, therefore, find him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.There is no evidence of conspiracy.He is acquitted of the offence of 120-B of the Indian Penal Code."PW-11/B Crl.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 2 of 10 was registered and Inspector Mahender Singh PW-17, the SHO at the police station proceeded to the spot.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 2 of 10Appeal No.160/2001 Page 3 of 10The knife, cot, shoes got recovered by the appellant as also the clothes which were seized from the house of Raj Rani were opined to be stained with human blood of group B i.e. the blood group of the deceased as per report Ex.This then is the complete evidence against the appellant.We note that Raj Rani has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has not proved any affair between her and the appellant.The only incriminating evidence against her being the recovery of the pant and the shirt of the appellant from her house which were stained with human blood of group B i.e. the blood group of the Crl.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 4 of 10 deceased was held to be insufficient evidence to hold that she was a conspirator.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 4 of 10(iii) The pair of shoes Ex.P-2 belonging to the deceased got recovered by the appellant were stained with the blood of the deceased.(iv) The appellant identified the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown.(v) The appellant identified the place where the deceased was killed and from said place the cot Ex.P-22 was recovered and was stained with the blood of the deceased.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 5 of 10Appeal No.160/2001 Page 5 of 10The first incriminating circumstance found by the learned Trial Judge is on the belief that the shirt Ex.P-16 and the pant Ex.P-15 recovered by the investigating officer from the house of Raj Rani belonged to the appellant.We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State as to whether there is any evidence to prove that the shirt and the pant belonged to the appellant for the reason the two were not recovered pursuant to any disclosure statement made by the appellant nor was the recovery at the instance of the appellant.Learned counsel could point out to us the testimony of the investigating officer who deposed that children of Raj Rani told her that the shirt and the pant belonged to the appellant.The children of Raj Rani have not been examined as witnesses.Obviously, the investigating officer has deposed a fact told to him by somebody else and thus said evidence is hearsay.It is inadmissible evidence.Thus, the first incriminating evidence held established by the learned Trial Judge is on a misappreciation of evidence.The fourth incriminating circumstance held established by the learned Trial Judge i.e. the appellant identifying the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown, is based on the ignorance of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was recovered much prior to the Crl.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 6 of 10 arrest of the appellant and the place where it was thrown was thus obviously known to the police.The police taking the appellant to the same spot is neither admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as no new fact got discovered.It is also not a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act for the reason the alleged pointing out by the appellant cannot relate to conduct as there is no guarantee that the police, which knew the spot where the dead body was recovered, itself took the appellant to the said spot.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 6 of 10That leaves two incriminating circumstances i.e. recovery of the knife, the cot and the shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant and all three being found to be stained with human blood of group B i.e. the blood group of the deceased.Pertaining to the shoes, there is no evidence that the same belonged to the deceased.The confessional statement of the appellant made to the police pertaining to the shoes as those of the deceased are not saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.Is the chain of circumstances complete with reference to the recovery of the knife and the cot at the instance of the appellant to sustain a finding of guilt? Crl.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 7 of 10Appeal No.160/2001 Page 7 of 10It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances found incriminating should be complete where from a rational mind would unhesitatingly reach the conclusion that the accused is guilty and the possibility of his being innocent is ruled out.As held in the decision reported as JT 2008 (1) SC 191 Mani vs State of Tamil Nadu (para 21) discovery of common objects is a weak kind of evidence and conviction in a serious matter like murder cannot be based solely upon the discovery of common objects.The common objects referred to by the Supreme Court were blood-stained clothes and blood-stained weapon of offence i.e. a koduval recovered at the instance of the accused.In the decision reported as Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati v Chhatrasinh & Ors AIR 1977 SC 1753 the Supreme Court had held that in the absence of any other evidence the circumstances of seizure of blood stained shirt and dhoti from the person of an accused and dharias from the houses of the accused are wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused.In the decision reported as Surjit Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 110 a watch belonging to the deceased and one dagger which was found to be stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the accused.It was Crl.It was further held that said circumstance may create some suspicion but the same cannot take the place of proof.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 8 of 10In the decision reported as Deva Singh v State of Rajasthan 1999 CriLJ 265 Supreme Court had held that merely because a knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused would not lead to a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of the murder.In the decision reported as Prabhoo v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1113 a kulhari, a shirt and a dhoti which were found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance.Holding that it is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be such as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not with his innocence and that from the mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite Crl.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 9 of 10 possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused and that the accused might have produced the said articles when interrogated by the police, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused.We conclude by holding, taking guidance from the afore-noted decisions of the Supreme Court, that the chain of incriminating circumstances is not complete wherefrom the guilt of the appellant can be inferred.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 9 of 10The appeal is allowed.Impugned judgment and order dated 20.1.2001 convicting the appellant is set aside.The appellant is acquitted from the charge of having murdered Nand Lal.The appellant is on bail.PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.Appeal No.160/2001 Page 10 of 10Appeal No.160/2001 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,916,825 | Dear, You had beaten with iron article and had bitten with teeth to Shri Mahender Singh, son of Shri Ratan Singh, gateman, Tax Bhawan, Agra on 20-4 1992 in the evening at 8.00 p.m. who was on duty.Due to the above-said conduct, you are not deserved/ competent to be in the Govt. service any more and you are casual employee.fore, your services are terminated with immediate effect.Nevertheless, you are being paid Retrenchment benefit.Once an employee attains the 'temporary' status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which Is that he becomes entitled to the constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and other Articles dealing with services under the Union of India.JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.The trial dragged on for many years and ultimately by judgment and order dated 27-2-1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, he was acquitted, but in the meantime, by order dated 20-5-1992, his services were terminated against which he made a representation to the General Manager, Telecom Department, G.M.T. Office.The order of the Tribunal was challenged in a Writ Petition filed in the Delhi High Court but the High Court, by its order dated October 30, 1998, dismissed the writ petition.The order dated 20-5-1992 by which the services of the appellant were terminated reads as under:To Shri Nar Singh Pal, Casual Employee, S/o Shri Hari Prasad, Village Sara] Jairam, P/o Barhan, Distt.The question was dealt with by the Tribunal as follows:In the present case, the retrenchment compensation was paid and it appears that the same was accepted by encashing the cheque by the applicant.Accordingly, he cannot now be allowed to urge that the termination was bad because there was no enquiry into the alleged misconduct against him.From the allegations made in para 4 of the application, we find that a report was also lodged against the applicant with the Police in respect of the same Incident and a case was registered against him for offences under Sections 324, 427 and 504, I.P.C. The applicant was also arrested and a chargesheet was filed against him in the Court.The case was pending on the date of the application and we do not know what happened to the prosecution thereafter, but it appears that there was prima facie some material against the applicant to hold that his services were not satisfactory and to retrench his services on that basis.A perusal of the Impugned order by which the services of the appellant were terminated indicates that since the appellant had beaten one Mahender Singh with iron rod and had also bitten him with teeth on 20-4-1992 at 8,00 p.m. while the said Mahender Singh was on duty as Gateman, Tax Bhawan, Agra, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect.Thus the services were terminated on account of the allegation of assault made against the appellant.This Court on 24-1-2000 passed the following order:Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is granted six weeks' time to seek instructions whether regular departmental proceedings were taken in this matter or not.When the case was next taken up, the entire papers relating to the enquiry were placed before us by the counsel for the respondents which indicate that a regular departmental enquiry was not held and only a preliminary enquiry was held against the appellant on the basis of which his services were terminated.The letter dated 21st of April, 1992, from Assistant Engineer Trunks, T.M.X. Tax Bhawan, Agra-3, to Shri Shital Din, Divisional Engineer, Phones (Planning and Administration) Agra, recites, Jitter alia as under:Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.Mazdoor of this unit assaulted on Shri Mahendra Singh.This miss happening occurred at 20,00 hrs.At the time of incident, I was in Trunk Exchange, Agra, when Shri Mahendra Singh, Gate Man approached to the undersigned in injured condition for help.I rushed to the gate of Tax Bhawan for spot verification and making detailed enquiry of the case.I found that the culprit Shri Nar Singh Pal was abusing Shri Mahendra Singh, Gate-man, Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.Mazdoor not only assaulted on Shri Mahendra Singh, Gateman but he also threatened to kill me when I was making spot enquiry.As per my observation Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.Mazdoor was under drunk condition.I immediately informed to you thereafter S.O. Rakabga Police Station on phone regarding this incidence.The letter further recites as under:I shall be grateful if you may kindly take a suitable action against Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.Mazdoor who has created hindrance in government work, damages of the government property and created the terror and horror amongst the staff due to his gunda activities and has threatened the undersigned.For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,692,758 | The original petition has been filed to call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.97 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, (Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem and also to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner, including the final report of the respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner along with A1 was charged for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 167, 467, 468, 419, 471, 477-A, 409 and 420 IPC (2 counts) and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) &(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and r/w Section 109 of IPC.He would further submit that the petitioner is a practising Advocate and that the allegation against him is that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused by committing forgery, impersonation and fabrication of documents and misappropriated the amounts which were intended to the beneficiaries and misused the amount.He would submit that the petitioner appeared as counsel and represented the case of his client till getting the compensation amounts by way of Demand Drafts from the Tribunal and that the Demand Drafts have beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 encashed at Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Branch, Siluvampatty.He would further submit that this Court by order dated 30.03.2015 in Crl.OP.No.17327 of 2014 quashed the proceedings against A1, who is a Government Servant and thereby charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be sustained and the case cannot be tried before the Special Court.When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that trial has commenced and that eight witnesses have been examined in chief, so far.He would further submit that the very specific evidence of P.W.1 is that the petitioner had taken him to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, obtained his signatures in certain forms and informed him that he would receive the amount whereas the petitioner had cheated him and misappropriated the amounts awarded as compensation and that he has been examined in chief and since, the trial has commenced and examination of witnesses have been done in chief, this Court shall not interfere at this stage.He would also submit that apart from the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner along with other accused have been charged for having opened the account falsely in the names of beneficiaries by impersonation and by committing criminal breach of trust, fabrication of documents and falsification of accounts.He would further submit that trial has already commenced and eight witnesses have been examined in chief.He would also submit that this Court has taken into consideration and finding that A1 was not involved in the offence, quashed the proceedings against A1, whereas, there are ample and enough materials as against the petitioner.I have gone through the materials available on record, the trial has commenced and eight witnesses have been examined in chief so far.P.W.1 has spoken about the involvement of the petitioner.This Court is of the opinion that all the grounds can be raised in defence before the trial Court at appropriate stage.The petitioner can very well refute the allegation by crosshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 examining the witnesses.There is no merit in the petition to quash.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed.13.02.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non Speaking Order ms ToThe Special Judge, Salem (Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Namakkal.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., ms Criminal Original Petition No.23766 of 2015 13.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,694,106 | The applicant will not leave India without previous -3- M.Cr.C.No.28715/2019 permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his appearance for the first time before the concerned Police Station on 26/07/2019 and thereafter, once in a week till conclusion of investigation.The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate bench in shape of PUD.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,211,004 | The present appellants was convicted under Sections 204-B, 398-A, 34 of IPC and sentenced to 10 years and 3 years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1000/- each respectively and also two months R.I. each by way of default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after remaining in custody for one year they were granted bail during the trial, however, after pronouncement of judgment against them, they were taken into custody.Till date, they have completed 18 months of custody.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that if granted bail, there is no possibility of their absconding.It is directed that if the appellants furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall be suspended and they be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11.12.2017, and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy today.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,215,426 | 2 M.Cr.It is an admitted fact that the deceased Sadhna was marry with the applicant No.1 Digvijay Singh since ten years back.Out of their wedlock one son was also born who is aged about 5 years.On 23.04.2018, the deceased Sadhna was admitted in the Green City Hospital by the applicant No.1 Digvijay Singh and she expired on 29.04.2018, due to the burn injuries.The applicant No.2 Mahendra Singh who is the father-in-law of deceased is a practicing Advocate.She stated in the letter that the appellant had unusual attraction towards other girls, particularly towards deceased's sister Asha, Sushma, Sandhya, sister of Charuhas, wife of Anil Pangrikar.The deceased wrote in the letter that the appellant, in order to torture and mentally harass her, used to say that these girls had good physical figures and looked beautiful.The appellant had been maltreating and beating his wife and saying that if she dies, he will be remarried.Now, we shall examine the fact of present case, it appears from the case diary that the Marg No.0/18 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., upon the information given by Dr. R.S. Chhabara, Green City Hospital, Bhopal.The S.D.O.P., Begumganj conducted the marg inquiry.He recorded the statements of father of deceased Prahlad Singh, mother Roopmati, brother Shripal and maternal uncle Ramgulam.He also recorded the statements of village Chowkidar Tulsiram Ahirwar and the witness Raghveer Aadivasi.In addition to aforesaid statements he also recorded the statements of police personnel, ASI Sudhakar Soni, Head Constable No. 335 Ramesh Parashar and Head Constable No. 125 Ramesh Evane, all three posted at Police Station, Deonagar.During marg inquiry, the police prepared the spot map and seizure of articles, inquest panchnana and collected the postmortem report.The aforesaid sketches also indicates that this may not the result of falling the small chimni.This petition has been filed on 16.08.2018 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 22.05.2018 registered at Police Station Deonagar District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and also for quashment of Challan No. 169/2018 filed before the trial Court.Thereafter, the police received the information and registered the Marg No. 0/2018 on 29.04.2018 at Police Sation, Goutam Nagar, Bhopal.Upon the basis of aforesaid zero number information, original Marg No. 12/1988 was registered at Police Station, Deonagar.After the inquiry into marg on 22.05.2018, Crime No. 136/2018 under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered.Police investigate the matter and after investigation challan No. 169/2018 filed before the trial Court.It is submitted by the applicants that the deceased Sadhna was residing with her husband , while Mahendra Singh and Parwati Thakur were living separately since six years back.In both the statements, no any allegation has been made against the applicants.The deceased herself said in the dying declaration and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that she had gone to the kitchen for cooking the food, but there was no light in the kitchen so she had to light a Chimni which was kept over and almarah near the place where she was working.When she stood up the Chimni fell on her.Due to which her sari caught fire and she got severely burnt.When she scream for help then husband/applicant No.1 reached to the room.The deceased also said in her statement that her mother-in-law and father-in-law/applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing separately and the deceased is resides with her husband and child.The dying declaration have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate.Therefore, no case is made out upon the basis of the dying declaration and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.3 M.Cr.The applicants have not played any passive role in the instigating the deceased to commit the suicide.In absence of any prima facie case against the applicants, benefits of doubt ought to have been granted to the applicants.The entire story is based on the inadmissible and concocted evidence.At the time of oral arguments, learned applicant's counsel also submitted that the applicants are innocent person who have been falsely implicated in this case.As per documents Page.72 and 130, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are living separately.The dying declaration at Page 65 and the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C at page 87 were recorded on 24.04.2018 in which it was stated that the accident was the result of falling the Chimni.No any allegation was made against the applicants.No any visible injury is found in the postmortem report.If the deceased demanded the ornaments and the applicants refused to give, even then it cannot constitute the offfence under Section 306 of IPC.During the period of ten years, no any FIR was lodged, no any panchayat was conducted and no any medical examination was done.On the other side, the State strongly opposed the petition.The deceased was 80% burn and the reason of her death was extensive burn.In the case of burn the injury may not be visible.When 4 M.Cr.C.No.33397/2018 the dying declaration was recorded at that time no any member of the family of the deceased was present.The dying declaration and the statement was the result of pressure created by applicants or the undue adjustment by the Doctor/Police.Counsel for the State also draws the attention towards the statements of Tulsiram Ahirwar (Chowkidar) and Prahlad and submits that from the aforesaid statements, it is clearly established that the applicant No.2 was present at the time of incident.False information was given by the husband about the accidental burn.Therefore, the prosecution is based upon strong evidence and not liable to be quashed at the primary stage.Thereafter, a compromise was entered into between the deceased and the second Respondent.But the second Respondent again filed an FIR against the deceased.Due to continuous humiliation and suffering 17 M.Cr.C.No.33397/2018 inflicted upon by the wife the deceased committed suicide leaving two suicide notes.An FIR was lodged against the second Respondent.The accused Respondents approached the High Court for quashment of FIR.The High Court allowed the Respondent's application and quashed the FIR.Aggrieved by present appeal was preferred.But The Apex Court while allowing appeal said :-17 M.Cr.27 M.Cr.In Raja Babu & anr.State of M.P., AIR 2008 SC 3212, the deceased wanted to be married in a literate family.She was not happy with the fact that her husband was illiterate and also with the status and condition of the family of her husband.She was also required to do some domestic work as the family was poor, for which she was not happy.The court considered the letter reflects the attitude of the in-laws of the deceased towards the deceased and observed that in the said letter there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellants were alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.In the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 S.C. 1828 a letter was written by the deceased to her parents, just before she had committed suicide.The deceased wrote in the letter that she was an unlucky girl.She thought that she would have some moments of happiness, but it was not possible because of the nature of her husband (the appellant herein).She mentioned that on the last day and night, the appellant had quarreled with her and in the morning the appellant cursed the father of the deceased.She was physically assaulted and sent to her father's house where she stayed for one and half years but due to the intervention of the panchayat members and the promise of the appellant that he would not harass her again and his request for pardon, she came back.However, it appears that she was again harassed and tormented and ultimately driven to suicide.The appellant was convicted by the trial Court for abetting the suicide under Sec. 306 IPC, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court.32 M.Cr.33 M.Cr.State of Haryana (Supra), it was stated that the deceased committed suicide due to the beheviour of accused who made false allegation against the deceased regarding demand of dowry.A panchayat was held in the village at the instance of the accused during which the appellant slapped the deceased.The appellant and his sister used to threaten the deceased on telephone at the instance of their father.The case was registered under Section 306 of IPC.The incident of slapping by the appellant in September, 2001 cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.As the allegations against all the three accused are similar, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant after acquitting the other two accused."34 M.Cr.Thereafter, come to the conclusion that the death of deceased was the result of abetment of all three applicants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.During investigation, the police also recorded the statements of various witnesses and come to the conclusion that the offence is proved 35 M.Cr.C.No.33397/2018 against the present applicants.Therefore, police filed the challan No. 169/2018 dated 14.07.2018 before the trial Court.35 M.Cr.Only it is required to be seen whether any sufficient ground was available to registered the FIR and to investigate the matter.In this case the FIR was registered upon the basis of aforementioned documents and the statements of ten witnesses.The applicants strongly rely upon the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Raisen.Primfa facie this document create a suspicion.In the aforesaid document date "22.04.2018" has been mentioned.Another fact also create some suspicion which is the time mentioned by the doctor with the date in the beginning of the statement.In the beginning of statement doctor mentioned that - fifM+rk c;ku nsus dh gkyr esa gSA .Above the aforesaid remark doctor mentioned the date and time as "24.04.2018 at 12:49 pm.".Therefore, prima facie it appears that the doctor gave the back dated certificate but "true" has come out by the mistake of himself.Therefore, when the doubt is created upon any statement or document, then it may be resolved or justified only by the elaborate statement before the trial Court.Prima facie this statement cannot made the basis for quashment of FIR.As per the aforesaid statement and the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is tried to convince that the death was the result of an accident.The 36 M.Cr.C.No.33397/2018 deceased had gone to the kitchen for cocking the food but there was no light in the kitchen.Therefore, she lighted a chimni/ [lamp] and kept over in almirah and when she stood up the chimni fall on her.This story is not convincing at this stage.Because it is not the case of applicants that there was no any electric connection in the house.The incident was happened at about 9:00 am in the morning.Therefore, it may be presumed that the sufficient light was available.If there was deem light then the electric light was also available.It is stated in the aforesaid marg that the deceased was going to flame the chulha.While the spot map shows that the cocking gas was also available in the house.A cane of diesel was also found there.The burn portion of the body have been mentioned in the postmortem report by making a sketch.36 M.Cr.Only upon the basis of separate living of any accused it cannot be believed that he could not participate in the crime like 498-A and 306 of IPC related to the women.From the statement of Raghuveer Aadivasi, it is transpired that the applicant No.2 was present in front of the house of the deceased.The brother of applicant No.2 Pratap Singh Dangi also supported the fact that the applicant No.2 was present at the time of the incident and he called the vehicle of police.Prahlad Singh is the father of the deceased who said in his statement that just after the marriage all three applicants were harassing the decease for demand of dowry and they also beated the deceased for several times.When the Digvijay Singh met with an accident, the witness gave the Rs. 1,50,000/- but the accused did not satisfy and they continuously creating the pressure upon the deceased by abusing her to took the money from her parents.The aforesaid accident was occurred after three years of marriage.The witness said that the husband beated the deceased for so many times.Before five months from the death at the time of makar shankranti the witness took her 37 M.Cr.C.No.33397/2018 daughter to his home and when the again had gone to the house of accused for dropping of his daughter, at that time Mahendra misbehaved and abuse and also quarrel with the deceased and assult on deceased by throwing a plastic chair upon the deceased.The deceased sustained injury and 16 stitches were put by the doctor upon the aforesaid injury.The ornaments given at the time of marriage was also taken by the applicants and when the deceased was demanding her ornaments the accused person quarrel with her and beated her, but they did not give the ornaments to the deceased.It is also stated in the statement that on 22.04.2018, the accused Digvijay Singh give the telephonic information to Shripal who is the son of the Prahlad Singh and told that Sadhana sustained burn injury but there are "minor-burn", therefore, they may come on tomorrow.Thereafter, in the night about 1.30 the witness and other family members reached to the hospital.37 M.Cr.The other witnesses Roopmati, Shripal and Ramgulam also supported the aforesaid statement of Prahlad Singh.It appears that the Digvijay Singh give the false information to the parents that the deceased sustained some "minor-burn" therefore, they may come on tomorrow.The FIR was registered upon the basis of sufficient evidence and the documents.Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR.Hence, this petition is dismissed. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,217,761 | The minimum wages are revised not only to meet the inflation but also to improve the standard of living of the lowest paid workers and hence there is need to add 50% of the minimum wages to arrive at the victim's income.Thus, the dependency works out to be ` 767/- + 383/- - 50% x 12 x 13 = 89,700/-.The award of ` 2,000/- each towards loss of estates and funeral expenses was also on the lower side.G. P. MITTAL, J.FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 1 of 112. FAO No.350/1999 preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited is for setting aside of the award on the ground that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the TSR driver Pradeep Kumar, whereas FAO No.391/1999 is for enhancement of compensation awarded on the ground that it is too low.On 05.05.2011 the Appeal for enhancement of compensation was allowed and an additional sum of ` 10,000/- towards love and affection was awarded.CM APPL.On the next date i.e. on 26.09.2011 this Court ordered as under:-The said order is maintained."FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 2 of 11It appears that the previous order (dated 31.05.2011) was not brought to the notice of the Court.In view of the order dated 31.05.2011, the order dated 26.09.2011 cannot be given effect to.Thus, both the appeals i.e. FAO No.350/1999 and 391/1999 are heard on merits.Before adverting to the respective contention of the parties, it would be worthwhile to briefly mention the facts leading to filing of the present petitions before the Tribunal.On 03.03.1990 at about 3:00 P.M. deceased Arun Khanna along with his brother Anuj Khanna were sitting in front of their house.A TSR No. DAR 8824 driven by Pradeep Kumar came from the service lane and struck against an electricity pole.The TSR driver was advised not to go ahead as the electricity pole could fall leading to a fire.The TSR driver did not stop much to the annoyance of the deceased and Anuj Khanna.They, therefore, chased the TSR, went ahead of him and gave him a signal to stop.The TSR driver did not stop and hit against the two wheeler on which Arun Khanna (the deceased) was riding as a pillion rider and which was driven by Anuj Khanna.Arun Khanna sustained injuries which proved fatal.FIR for an offence under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at Police Station Bhajanpura which was later on converted to under Section 279/304-A IPC.On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of Pradeep Kumar, the TSR driver.FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 3 of 11The award is challenged by the Insurance Company (in FAO No.350/1999) on the ground that the deceased did not die due to any injury sustained in the accident.Rather, it was a deliberate act on the part of the TSR driver (Pradeep Kumar) Respondent No.3 to have rammed the TSR against the deceased resulting in the injuries which proved fatal.It is submitted that even otherwise the driver did not possess an effective and valid driving licence and thus, the insurance company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay the compensation.FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 4 of 119. PWs 1 and 2's testimonies clearly demonstrate that Arun Khanna suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the TSR driver (Pradeep Kumar).It is true that Arun Khanna and the deceased chased the TSR because of his alleged misdemeanor as he (Pradeep Kumar) used abusive language instead of stopping the TSR when it struck against the electricity pole in front of the deceased's house.Yet, there was nothing on record which could have suggested that Pradeep Kumar had any intention to kill the deceased or had intentionally collided the TSR against the two wheeler.The negligence on the part of Pradeep Kumar was writ large.Otherwise also, the use of the words "arising out of the use of motor vehicle in under Section 165" are wide enough to neglect the eventualities even when there may be some intent to collide the vehicle against any other vehicle.In Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 (3) SCC 530 there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck due to which the petrol tanker went off the road and fell at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway leading to leakage of petrol which collected nearby.Later an explosion took place in the petrol tanker resulting in fire.Number of persons who assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and few of them succumbed to the injuries.The victims filed the claim petitions which were dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the explosion and the fire had no connection with FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 5 of 11 the accident, and was altogether an independent accident.The appeal was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court holding that the explosion was a direct consequence of the accident.The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge against which the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 5 of 11The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition holding that the explosion and fire resulting in injuries and death was due to the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC) the deceased was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire.On the fateful day the auto rickshaw was parked in the rickshaw stand at Dimapur when some unknown passengers engaged the deceased for journey.As to what happened on that day is not known.It was only on the next day that the police was able to recover the body of the deceased but the auto rickshaw in question was never traced out.The owner of the auto rickshaw claimed compensation from the insurance company for the loss of auto rickshaw.The heirs of the deceased claimed compensation for the death of the driver on the ground that the death occurred on account of accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle.The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident.Similarly, there would be deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses in case of a bachelor.FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 9 of 11Apart from a bald statement made by PW-3 Shri O.P. Khanna, the deceased's father that the deceased was working with M/s. Allied Data Processing and getting a salary of ` 2,000/- per month, nothing was placed on record to prove the deceased's income.Moreover, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of love and affection.Considering that the accident took place in the year 1990, I would award an amount of ` 10,000/- towards loss of estates (instead of ` 2,000/-) and ` 5,000/- on FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 10 of 11 account of funeral expenses (instead of ` 2,000/-).I would further award a sum of ` 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection.The total compensation payable thus works out to ` 1,14,700/-.The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum for the period 11.05.1990 to 03.08.1993 and then from 14.05.1998 till the realization of the amount in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.Respondent No.3 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to make the payment along with the upto date interest in the name of the Appellant No.2 Shri O.P. Khanna.The amount to be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within 30 days which shall be disbursed to the Appellant No.2 Shri O.P. Khanna, father of the deceased.(The other Appellant Smt. Kamini Khanna has died during the pendency of this Appeal).All pending applications stands disposed of.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 18, 2011 vk FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 11 of 11FAO 350/1999 & 391/1999 Page 11 of 11 | ['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,218,174 | This appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by Special Judge, Shivpuri in Bail Application No.269/2016, whereby an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants has been rejected.Brief facts of the case are that on 22.08.2016 when complainant was on duty, the appellants came there and demanded money for drinking liquor when complainant refused to give money, they started abusing in the name of his caste saying 'Chamra Wale' .They also gave beating.Devi Singh gave a lathi below on his head.When complainant was going to lodge the report, the appellants were sitting on the wall and not permitted to go to the police station.Hence, report was lodged on second day, on which Crime No.43/2016 under Sections 294, 323, 327, 506-B/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered.Application has been moved on behalf of the appellants for grant of bail which was dismissed by learned Trial Court.I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the case diary as well as impugned order.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge bj/- | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
41,222,852 | The case of the prosecution is that on 9th February 1996 Sukhwinder Singh (PW3) after getting his truck (No. HR-10-5772), which was owned by his father, loaded with badarpur along with two labourers was moving towards Yusuf Sarai.Kali Charan (since absconding) was the driver of the truck.At around 2.30 a.m., the truck reached Adhchini Village.It is stated that bhangra dance was going on in the middle of road.When Kali Charan slowed down the truck, some persons boarded the truck from the drivers side as well as the conductors side asking them to move the truck.Some persons came in a Maruti car and stopped their car in front of the truck and started assaulting Kali Charan by pulling him down.Some 10-15 persons also arrived at the spot.PW-3 was also beaten by them and the truck was set on afire.When the mob tried to throw PW-3 into the burning truck, some people intervened and they were saved.However, PW-3 was mercilessly beaten.It is state that Kali Charan was beaten to the extent that he was half dead.Thereafter, they put him in a rehri and threw him on a heap of rubbish.PW-3 and Kali Charan were moved to AIIMS Hospital.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 2 of 16Arising out of the above incident a DD (No. 5A) was noted after a call was made to the Police Control Room (PCR).Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were sons of Om Prakash.Jai Prakash (A-1) had in fact got married on that very date and the barat was returning from the wedding.I saw Ram Parkash boarding the truck from the driver side and the said Ram Parkash caught hold of the Daala of the truck with his left hand, and he tried to drag out the driver of the truck with his right hand.All of a sudden the driver of the truck started running the truck with a speed in that process Ram Parkash fell down.Kali Charan was driving that truck and Sukhvinder s/o owner of the bus was sitting in the truck.She is supposed to have actually seen two persons burning the truck from the drivers side and then him falling down.The next important witness of the prosecution is Surender Kumar Sharma (PW4).He is also resident of Village Adhchini.He stated that around 3.00 am he heard some noise coming and some ladies were singing.He got up and came down in front of his shop and saw CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 6 of 16 "some persons beating two other persons with fists and kicks".He further stated that his house No. 6A was about 50-60 meters from the main road and House No. 100 was on the main road.The house of the accused was by the side of his house.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi, convicting the Appellants of offences under Section 147 read with 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 308 read with 149 IPC, 325 read with 149 IPC and 427 read with 149 IPC and the order on sentence dated 12 th March 2008 whereby, for the offence under Section 147 read with 149 IPC, each of the Appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 2 months; for the offence under Section 308 read with 149 IPC, to undergo three years RI with fine of CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 1 of 16 Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo SI for two months and, for the offence under Section 325 read with 149 IPC, to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo SI for 2 months and, for the offence under Section 427 read with 149 IPC, to undergo six months SI.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 1 of 16Thereafter, FIR No. 114 of 1996 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar.After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the five accused.By an order dated 17th July 2002, the five accused were charged with the aforementioned offences under Sections 147, 308, 325 and 427 read with 149 IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Arising out of the same incident, another DD No. 34A was noted pursuant to the information received from the PCR.DD No. 34A was entrusted to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Ram Avtar (PW-10).PW- 10 found that the truck had run over Ram Prakash, the eldest brother of A1 to A4 in the present case, killing him.An FIR No. 113 of 1996 was registered under Section 279/304 IPC.The trial arising out of the said case is stated to be pending.By some coincidence the same PW10 was assigned FIR No. 114 of 1996 as well.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 3 of 16In the case arising out of FIR No. 114 of 1996, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses.PW1 (Jai Singh), was put forth as witness to the incident.However, he turned hostile and denied making any previous statement to the police.He was a taxi driver at the stand near the IIT Gate where the truck was burnt.PW2 Shakuntla was put forth as eye-witness.She stated that on 9th February 1996 at around 2 am or 3 am she was present at her house A-2, Village Adichini, New Delhi.She was stated to be a transporter.It is stated that she heard the noise and came out of her house and she noticed that a large crowd had collected at the workshop of Jai Prakash (A1) "in front of my house".She noticed that the baratis had returned from the marriage.She claimed to be having a cordless phone with her.She then stated:"In the meanwhile, a truck came from the side of Mehrauli.After some time I saw that all the accused persons present in the court had brought Kali Charan and Sukhvinder from the truck, and CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 4 of 16 they started beating Sukhvinder and Kali Charan with fists and kicks.I called the police, Accused persons were saying to each other to bring petrol and set Sukhvinder Singh on fire.But the truck was not set on fire in my presence.After about ten minutes the police reached there.Police took the injured to the hospital, but I do not know as to what happened with the accused persons later, as the accused persons had already left the spot."CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 4 of 16In her cross-examination, it transpired that she was aware of some previous litigation involving the father and brothers of the accused.She was confronted with the improvements made by her in her deposition by drawing her attention to the statements made by her under Section 161 CrPC.She stated that she did not see any other person trying to hold the truck driver other than Ram Prakash.She stated "Truck did not halt at the place where deceased Ram Prakash was trying to board the truck, however, it was slowed down very much".She further stated that the "truck was not at a high speed after Ram Prakash fell down but speed may be 30 to 40 K.M. at that time".As regards the other eye-witness, Surinder, (PW4), she stated as under:"The house of Surinder is far away from the office of Surinder, and it takes about five minutes to reach there, from the house to the office.The office of Surinder remains open even upto 10 to CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 5 of 16 11 pm which is on the main road.It is correct that his house is in the village."CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 5 of 16Finally, she admitted in her cross-examination that her house was far away from the gate of the house of the accused persons which could be approached from Sarvodaya Enclave.She denied that she was deposing falsely because of previous enmity with the accused persons.This witness is supposed to have clearly stated that after Ram Prakash fell down, she saw "that all the accused persons present in the court had brought Kali Charan and Sukhvinder from the truck, and they started beating Sukhvinder and Kali Charan with fists and kicks".However, she did not individually identify each of the accused in the Court although she was deposing more than 7 years after the incident.She also did not attribute any individual roles to each of the accused for their alleged assault on PW3 and Kali Charan.Another factor to be noticed is that according to her there was a noise even before the incident happened.He then heard Rishi Parkash who he had identified in the Court "saying that they put the truck on fire".He then stated that while Jai Prakash (A-1), Hari Prakash (A-2), Ved Prakash (A-3) were beating PW3 and Kali Charan with kicks and fists, some public persons were trying to save them.He heard the accused saying that the boys should be thrown in the garbage and later put them on fire.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 6 of 16In his cross-examination, PW4 admitted that A-1 to A-4 were his cousins and were running a workshop at the side of his shop.He stated he did not see Suresh (A-5), brother-in-law of A-1, present at the spot.He stated that A-5 was a resident of Gurgaon.There was a shop in House No. 6A. He stated that the quarrel was taking place in House No. 100 "and when I came down, I saw the quarrel in front of house No. 100".He claimed that the truck was burning at a distance of 250 to 300 yds from his shop.He was confronted with his being a witness in the proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC in respect of Rohtash (husband of PW2) and one where he himself was an accused in the said case, which was lodged by Om Prakash (father of the accused persons, i.e., A-1 to A-5).He also claimed not to remember the case CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 7 of 16 arising out of the FIR No. 146 of 1996 of P.S. Malviya Nagar under Sections 147 and 148 IPC in which the accused persons were acquitted and in which he was the Complainant.He denied that there was an old enmity between the accused persons and him.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 7 of 16PW5 (Pawan Razak) was a labourer who is supposed to have been travelling in the truck.He, however, did not support the prosecution.He too stated that the truck was stopped by a Maruti car.He claimed to have run away from the spot when he saw PW3 and Kali Charan being beaten.He declined to identify the accused persons in the Court.What is significant as far as the evidence of PW4 is concerned is that he makes no mention of the fact that Ram Prakash was run over by the truck and was killed.What is further strange is that in the site plan drawn in the FIR No. 114 of 1996 in which PW10 was the IO, there is no indication that the truck had run over Ram Prakash and had come to halt near the IIT Gate.This site plan in FIR No. 114 of 1996 (Ex PW-10/E) does not also indicate the house of PWs 2 and 4 and the distance of their houses from the spot when the truck came into a halt.Strangely the site plan in FIR No. 113 of 1996 has also been placed on record although not exhibited.This site plan clearly shows the point at which the truck hit Ram Prakash, the second point near the IIT Gate where his body was found and the third point further ahead near the IIT Gate where the truck was found halted.It is not understood as to why there can be two site plans arising out of the same incident, i.e., CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 8 of 16 one showing where the dead body of Ram Prakash was lying and another not even mentioning this fact.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 8 of 16The other person who was the star witness of the prosecution is PW3 (Sukhvinder Singh), the injured eye-witness.Strangely, he too does not mention the fact that the truck run over Ram Prakash and killed him.As regards identifying the accused, he too was unable to identify each of the accused.What is significant is that there was no test identification parade (TIP) conducted for PW-3 so as to enable him to identify the accused.Therefore, he was actually identifying them for the first time in Court on 15th September 2003, i.e., more than 7 years of the incident.Mr. Hariharan referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC 654 to emphasize the importance of consistent positions of two eye-witnesses for the trial Court to believe credibility of the prosecution case.He further referred to the same decision to emphasize the necessity of holding the TIP and submitted that, while it is not mandatory that a TIP should be held in each case, as observed in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746, it is usually considered "a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings." While failure to hold a TIP would not make the evidence of identification in Court inadmissible, it has been CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 9 of 16 emphasized that "these matters must be left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which must consider all aspects of the matter in the light of evidence on record before pronouncing upon the acceptability or rejection of such identification." [see Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 150]CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 9 of 16As already pointed out, neither PW-3 nor PW-4, talk of the truck having run over Ram Parkash.PW-10 SI Ram Avtar confirmed that "it is correct that when I reached at the spot lot of baratis were still at the accident spot and the deceased was one of the barati." Strangely PW-2 who was supposed to be an eye- witness, in her examination-in- chief, did not talk of Ram Parkash actually being run over.She only stated that Ram Parkash caught hold of the Daala of the truck with his left hand, and he tried to drag out the driver of the truck with his right hand.She further stated that all of a sudden the driver of the truck increased the speed of the truck, and, in that process, Ram Parkash fell down.This is a clear improvement of her statement (Ex.PW-2/DA) where she did not state the above fact, which she was subsequently confronted with in her cross-examination.PW-2 did not talk of the truck being set on fire whereas PW-3 did.She made it improbable that PW-4 Surender Kumar Sharma was present there as his house is far away from his office and since, according to her, it would take about five minutes to reach his office.It is for the ASI to actually indicate CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 10 of 16 where the house of PW-2 and PW-3 was situated on the site plan.It must be remembered that the time of the incident was between 2.00 and 3.00 am.The credibility of their version would be decided on the possibility of their being identified.What is also unexplained is the role of PW-10 himself.While he prepared two site plans, one for the FIR No. 113 of 1996 and the separate one for this case arising out of FIR No. 114 of 1996, he has not explained why in the site plan prepared for the present case the fact of Ram Parkash being run over by the truck and the position of a dead body of Ram Parkash, which are two critical factors, are not mentioned.According to PW-4, "ASI Ram Avtar came to me at about 7.30 am for recording my statement." However, the ASI himself stated that "I came back to Adchini again and searched for eye-witnesses but none met me there".When the trial Court repeatedly asked him to clarify this aspect, he gave the following answer:CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 10 of 16"It is correct that incident of accident as well as to beating of driver etc., had taken place at the same time and it was witnesses by lot of baratis who were available at the spot when I was there investigating the accident.By my saying that no eye-witness met me at the spot and in hospital I mean that no one was ready to tell me about the incident at that time.I recorded statements later on."This is also inconsistent with PW-2 stating that she was one of the persons who called the police.She claimed to have reached at the spot at the time when Ram Prakash had fallen down from the truck while CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 11 of 16 trying to pull down the truck driver.She stated that "it is correct that Inspector Ajit Singh had visited me in connection with this case.He asked me to sign some papers and at this asking I signed the same." The investigation in the present case, therefore, leaves much to be desired.It is not clear as to where exactly the beatings to PW-3 and Kali Charan took place.According to PW-2 the "truck did not halt at the place where deceased Ram Parkash was trying to board the truck.The position of the trucks halt in front of their houses makes it impossible for them to have seen the beating of PW-3 and Kalicharan.He stated that "on 9th February 1996 I was after midnight of 8th I was already in Adichini attending a call of accident.While I was still in Adichini I was handed over a copy of DD No. 34A (Ex.PW6/B)".In that case, the incident took place in his presence since the beating of PW-3 and Kalicharan, according to PW-2 and PW-4 had happened between 2.00 and 3.00 am.It appears that Kalicharan was also discharged on the same day.In another matter he is an absconder, therefore, he could not be produced as a witness.It must be remembered that according to PW-3, Kalicharan was also CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 12 of 16 almost half dead.As far as MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) is concerned, one of the injuries on the mouth was found to be a bleeding present jaw fracture.The doctor (Dr. Chander Kant) who prepared the MLC was not examined.Therefore, this question remained unexplained.There is no X-ray on record as to whether there was a fracture in the jaw.CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 11 of 16CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 12 of 16As regards the alibi of Rishi Prakash and Ved Prakash, PW-11 (Ajit Singh), ACP (CAW) North East, in his evidence, stated as under:"I also interrogated one doctor Nagar who told me that accused Rishi Prakash and Ved Prakash had come to him at his house/clinic asking him to visit at Village Adchini, Aurvindo Marg where the accident had occurred to medical examined their brother Ram Prakash, the doctor told me that he had visited the place of accident at Adchini and found the injured Ram Prakash was dead."The above evidence probablize the version of the accused and in particular Ram Prakash and Ved Prakash in their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein they stated that "We were not even present near the place of this incident.How a bride groom or his family members can participate in these types of incidents."CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 13 of 16" Neither was the Maruti car recovered nor were its whereabouts ascertained.However, both have turned hostile as regards the accused being involved in giving beatings to PW-3 and Kalicharan.What the trial Court appears to have missed is that neither CRL.A. No. 273 of 2008 Page 14 of 16 PW-2 nor PW-4 identified the five accused individually in the Court and have not described the role of each of the accused.This appears to have been totally missed by the trial Court.Also, what was completely missed was the failure to hold TIP proceedings to enable PW-3 to identify the accused.The trial Court also does not appear to have noticed the anomaly and did not try the present case together with FIR No. 113 of 1996 as both arose out of the same incident.In this case, PW-4 states that his statement was recorded by the police at around 7.30 am, though it contradicts the fact that the rukka was not sent on statement more than one and half hour, i.e., 8.30 am without mentioning the statement of any other witnesses.This probablizes the fact that PW-3 was not even present at the spot to witness the statement.In the above circumstances, the failure to hold TIP proceedings to enable PW-3 to identify the five accused and to rely on his identification, for the first time in Court nearly seven months, after the incident was unexplainable.Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 10th March 2008 and the order on sentence dated 12 th March 2008 are hereby set aside.The appeal is allowed in the above terms. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,347,215 | Heard on I.A.No.8193/2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellants No.1 and 2, who have been convicted under Sections 148, IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 2 years RI, under Section 302/149, IPC, has been sentenced to undergo LI with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine 1 years RI, under Section 307/149, IPC has been sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine 1 year RI, under Section 324/149, IPC has been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI, under Section 323 (2 counts) has been sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 months RI to each of them.Appellant No.1 has been also convicted under Section 25(1- B) of Arms Act, has been sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and Appellant No.2 Sonu has been also convicted under Section 3 (ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act for life imprisonment.After arguing for sometime and looking to the role attributed to the appellant No.2 - Sonu, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.2 - Sonu.His prayer is allowed.Accordingly, application filed on behalf of appellant No.2 is dismissed as withdrawn.In respect of appellant No.1 - Bhaiyalal, he has drawn our attention to prosecution story and submitted that he is having complete parity with Bharat, whose application for suspension of jail sentence has been allowed vide order dated 22.8.2017 passed in Cri.He further submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the present applicant nor he has caused any injury to Ashok and prays for grant of suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.1 - Bhaiyalal.Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection.On due consideration of the aforesaid and the material evidence available in the record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, on the ground of parity with co-accused - Bharat, the application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.1 - Bhaiyalal, I.A.No.8193/2017, is allowed and it is directed that appellant No.1 - Bhaiyalal son of Tulsiram shall be released on bail upon depositing the fine and subject to the following conditions :-That, the present appellant No.1 - Bhaiyalal shall furnish two local solvent sureties of blood relative in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) and execute a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.2.The present appellant No.1, upon being released on bail, shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 21/11/2017 and, thereafter, once in alternate English Calendar month on First Monday, till the disposal of the appeal.3.The present appellant No.1 will deposit his passport, if available, else file an affidavit in this Court declaring that he does not have any passport of any country.This compliance will be the condition precedent for release on bail.As and when the matter will be listed for final hearing, no adjournment shall be sought by the appellant, otherwise, this Court may consider for cancellation of the bail/suspension of jail sentence.Certified copy, as per rules. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
8,734,779 | (Order of the Court is made by S.TAMILVANAN,J) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.1758/2014, dated 10.11.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Vinothkumar, son of Vijayakumar, aged 34 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Piracy Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.C.C.Chellappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases the accused was granted bail, viz., [a] by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.MP.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC in Cr.No.1062/2011 on the file of P-3, Vyasarpadi Police Station ; [b] by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.593 /2009 for the offence u/s.379 IPC in Cr.No.26/2009 on the file of R-1 Mambalam Police Station; and [c] by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.929/2013 for the offences u/s.341, 294[b], 336, 427, 397 and 506[ii] IPC on the file of V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station respectively. | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,349,569 | This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant - Dharamraj, which is arising out of the judgement of conviction and sentence pronounced on 17.06.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.280/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-and in default, to suffer additional 2 months RI.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant doubted the character of his wife Krishnabai and nursed grudge against her.On 2 Cr. A. No.704/2009 28.02.2008, Satyanarayan, son of the appellant came with his maternal uncle Sohanlal and lodged a report at Police Station Badnagar, in which it was stated that the complainant had gone to the agricultural field and when he came back at around 6.30 PM, he heard shrieks of his mother Krishnabai and when he entered the house, he saw appellant/father carrying knife in his hand and his mother lying dead in cot in pool of blood.The complainant came out and cried aloud.Hearing his cries, grandmother of the complainant and other neighbours came rushing and the appellant went away on his motorcycle.FIR was registered vide Crime No.85/2008 under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant, the police drew spot map, merg was instituted, panchnama of the body was prepared.Dr. Fakruddin Saifi (PW-5) conducted post-mortem.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses.The accused/appellant was arrested and knife was recovered from him on the basis of his memorandum.His statements that he did not go to the school at Lohana from 28.02.2008 are also found to be false.He, though admits that he resides with his maternal-uncle Sohanlal (PW-2) but denies the suggestion that he is residing with Sohanlal since one and half year to two years.He denies the suggestion that he is residing with Sohanlal since 2007 and that on the day of the incident also he was not at Village Lohana but was at Village Piplu.P/14; whereas the recovery memo is Ex.P/15 carrying his signatures.He has simply been asked a question that no such recovery was made at the behest of accused which suggestion has been denied by him.Thus, in absence of appropriate challenge, it is found proved that the clothes of deceased were sought to be burnt by appellant some kilometers away from the place of incident and the purpose of doing so could only have been to destroy the evidence.(Indore, Delivered on this 17th day of September, 2019) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.His blood stained shirt was also seized.The accused also revealed that he had tried to destroy the clothes of deceased worn by her at the time of incident by burning them at a secluded spot and burnt clothes and ash were seized from the spot shown by him.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC and charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant by the learned ASJ.Cr. A. No.704/2009After conclusion of trial, the accused in his accused statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC took the defence that the witnesses have joined together to implicate him falsely so that they may usurp his land.He states that his wife wanted her share in agricultural land of her father which was being resisted by her brother Sohanlal and Sohanlal had sold five bighas of land of his father and this was the cause of quarrel between deceased Krishnabai and her brother Sohanlal.Appellant further states that Sohanlal has tutored the son of appellant in order to falsely implicate him.As per appellant, his son had been living with Sohanlal from a time one year before the incident.He further states that at the time of incident he was not in his home with his wife but was in a village Sarangi which is 150-200 kilometres away where he had gone to fetch labourers and that he had talked to Sohanlal also from Sarangi and had come back at 10:30 pm.He further states that no knife was recovered from him.He has expressed that he shall lead defence evidence.However no defence witness has been examined by him.Learned Trial Court relying upon the evidence of Satyanarayan (PW-1) and other corroborating evidence, found charge under Section 302 IPC proved against the appellant and sentenced him as aforementioned.In the appeal filed by the appellant, following grounds have been taken :-a) That Satyanarayan (PW-1) is a child witness, who was tutored by his maternal uncle Sohanlal (PW-2).Cr. A. No.704/2009b) That the appellant was not in his home with the deceased at the time of incident but was in another village Sarangi.c) That witnesses Sohanlal (PW-2), Heeralal (PW-4) and Bharatlal (PW-8) are hearsay witnesses.d) That the real culprit is Sohanlal (PW-2), who killed his sister Krishnabai over a dispute regarding family property.e) That provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C have not been complied with.f) That report Exhibit-P/1 is antedated and the whole story is cooked up.On the above grounds, appeal has been sought to be allowed and the appellant acquitted.The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in all.These witnesses are the son of appellant-Satyanarayan (PW-1) who had recorded the FIR against the appellant, Sohanlal (PW-2), the brother of the deceased, Vishnubai (PW-3), the mother of the appellant, Heeralal (PW-4) and Bharatlal (PW-8), both being brothers of deceased, Dr. Fakhruddin Saifi (PW-5), Barkat Ali (PW-6), a witness of quarrelsome history between deceased and appellant, Nirbhay Singh (PW-7), brother of appellant, Prakash 5 Cr.A. No.704/2009 (PW-9) and Balaram (PW-10), both being witnesses of recovery of knife from appellant, Shankarsingh (PW-11), the witness of seizure of clothes of deceased, Sunil Panchal (PW-13), Patwari who had prepared the spot map Exhibit-P/4, Lokesh Sharma (PW-15) and Kantilal (PW-12), being the witnesses of half burnt clothes and the ash of burnt clothes of deceased and Sohanlal Choudhary (PW-17), the Investigating Officer.The prosecution had sought to prove its case on the basis of the testimony of Satyanarayan (PW-1) along with other circumstantial evidence against the appellant and alleged failure of appellant to prove his defence of alibi.As already stated, the trial Court has found the prosecution evidence reliable and charge framed under Section 302 IPC has been found proved by the trial Court.As far as the death of Krishnabai is concerned, perusal of post-mortem report of Dr. Fakruddin Saifi (PW-5) shows that there are as many as 19 stab wounds on the body of the deceased and the injuries were antemortem in nature.As per opinion of the doctor, injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Post-mortem report is dated 29.03.2008, which is Exhibit- P/5 and as per the witness, death occurred within 24 hours.Causing such multiple injuries shows that assailant was in enraged state of mind.It is clear that there is no eye witness of the incident.Witness Satyanarayan (PW-1), claims to be the first person who heard 6 Cr.A. No.704/2009 shrieks of his mother and on entering inside he saw his mother lying on a cot in injured condition.Hence, the deposition of this witness needs to be appreciated in the first place.The witness-Satyanarayan (PW-1) is thirteen years old and has been asked some questions to test his competence to depose and has been found fit who knows the sanctity of oath.This witness states that he studies in class-6th in Government Middle School at Lohana.Regarding incident, he states that on 28.02.2008 he was cutting fodder at agricultural field adjacent to his house.At that time, his mother and father were inside the house and after cutting fodder he came back to his house at 6:30 pm and heard shrieks of his mother and when he went inside the house he saw his mother lying on the cot in injured condition.He came out and cried aloud to which his aunt and grandmother on hearing his cries, younger brother Omprakash and other neighbours came to the spot and at that point of time, his father took up his motorcycle and went towards the Kuti, he states that after his father had stabbed his mother, he draped a sari and blouse over her and fled from the spot.He states that his father doubted the character of his mother but the mother was not like that and it was his father who was of dubious character.This witness further states that his maternal uncle Sohanlal was intimated on phone who thereafter arrived at the spot and the witness went along with his maternal uncle Sohanlal to lodge a report which is Exhibit-P/1 which is from 'a' to 'a' part.He further states that spot map Exhibit-P/2 was prepared at his behest which carries the signatures from 'a' to 'a' 7 Cr. A. No.704/2009 part.He further states that the spot map prepared by Patwari which is Exhibit-P/4 on which his signatures are from 'a' to 'a' part.A close perusal of examination-in-chief of this witness shows that he does not state that the appellant inflicted injuries on his mother before his own eyes.He only states that he went inside the house and he saw his mother in injured condition and he immediately came out, cried aloud and at that point of time his father fled from the spot from his motorcycle.He also states that his father had covered his mother with sari and blouse.It is pertinent to note that this witness has stated that he was studying in class-6th in a school which is situated in the same village in which his mother and father resides and that at the time of incident, he had just returned from cutting fodder in a field adjacent to his house.The testimony of this witness has been challenged on two grounds, first ground being that this witness did not reside with his parents at Village-Lohana, but was residing with maternal uncle Sohanlal at Village-Piplu since a year before the incident and he was making false statements regarding being the first person to hear shrieks and see the body of his mother and secondly that he is tutored witness who has been tutored by his maternal uncle Sohanlal (PW-2).Firstly it would be considered as to whether at the time of incident the witness stayed with his parents at Village Lohana Kuti or stayed with his maternal-uncle Sohanlal (PW-2) at Village Piplu.However, in para 8 he has been confronted with document Ex.On confronting with this document, the witness Satyanarayan (PW-1) states that this Certificate carries wrong statements.D/1 and the submission of this witness that at the time of incident he was studying at Lohana in Middle School has not been found to be creditworthy and rather it appears that he did not attend classes from 1st of March, 2007 onwards.However, witness Vishnubai (PW-3), who is the mother of appellant Dharamraj, in cross-examination in para 2 states that Satyanarayan was living since a year before the incident at Village 9 Cr. A. No.704/2009 Piplu in his maternal-uncle's house.Witness Heeralal (PW-4), who has been examined on 24.12.2008, first claims ignorance in para 11 as to whether Satyanarayan resides at Village Piplu in Sohanlal's House or not, but later on in the same paragraph he states that he has been seeing Satyanarayan in the house of Sohanlal since last one and half year to two years.He is the real brother of Sohanlal (PW-2) and still in para 11 he admits to have seen Satyanarayan in the house of Sohanlal since before the death of his sister Krishnabai.Thus, the defence has been able to breach the credibility of Satyanarayan (PW-1) regarding his statements that he at the time of incident was at Village Lohana and was studying in school at Lohana.On the contrary, it appears that he had stopped studying at Lohana from March, 2007 i.e. one year earlier to the date of incident 28.02.2008 and that there is a credible evidence that he had been living since 2007 at Village Piplu with his maternal-uncle Sohanlal (PW-2).Sohanlal (PW-2) in para 13, states that Satyanarayan is living with him from the date his sister died and that Satyanarayan had to discontinue studies in the school as Satyanarayan used to be threatened by his own family members when he used to go to the school.However, these statements are incorrect as it has been found that Satyanarayan had left the school one year earlier to the incident.Even his brother Heeralal (PW-4) admits to seeing Satyanarayan in the house of Sohanlal since one and half year to two years.Thus, the statements of Satyanarayan (PW-1) are not found to be reliable that at the time of incident he was staying with his 10 Cr. A. No.704/2009 parents.On the contrary there is credible evidence available to the effect that Satyanarayan was staying in a different Village Piplu with his maternal-uncle Sohanlal (PW-2).Now coming to the other statements of Satyanarayan (PW-1) as to his hearing shricks of his mother, seeing his mother in injured condition and his father speeding away on motor cycle shall be dealt with and credibility of the witness shall be tested.Satyanarayan (PW-1) in para 15 categorically states that he has come to the Court along with Sohanlal who had told him to depose that his father had killed his mother.These statements show that he is a tutored witness and in this context his other statements shall be considered.In the examination-in-chief he says that his father (appellant) was of dubious character, but such statements are not found in his police statement (Ex.D/2) and FIR (Ex.P/1).He states in para 3 of examination-in-chief that a neighbour called his maternal-uncle Sohanlal and then Sohanlal came to the spot.However, these statements are also not there in his police statements or in FIR.How Sohanlal (PW-2) came to the spot has been stated by Sohanlal himself who states that it was Nirbhay Singh who called him and told him about the incident.However, Nirbhay Singh (PW-7) denies that he called Sohanlal.Reverting back to the evidence of Satyanarayan (PW-1), it has been found that he has admitted that he has been tutored by Sohanlal (PW-2).It has also been found that his statements of staying with his parents at the time of incident have also not been 11 Cr. A. No.704/2009 found proved.Thus, his statements that he heard shricks of his mother and he saw his mother in injured condition and saw his father fleeing from the spot on motor cycle are also not creditworthy statements.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted citations which are Chhagan Dame v/s State of Gujrat, reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 182, Kesharsingh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1982 MPWN Note 506, Hoshiyarsingh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2003 (1) MPWN 332 and Rataniya and another v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2017 (3) JLJ 401, in which it has been mandated that the Court must carefully considered whether the child witness was under influence of any tutoring and conviction cannot be based on unreliable testimony of child witness.The other circumstantial evidence against the appellant is that he fled from the spot after committing the incident.However, there is only one witness regarding this piece of claim of prosecution, he is Satyanarayan (PW-1).It has already been found that Satyanarayan (PW-1) is not a reliable witness.Still onus lies upon Dharamraj, the appellant, as to the circumstances in which his wife was killed and this onus against him originates under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellant seeks to discharge this onus by taking the plea of alibi and states that at the time of incident he was not at his home but had gone to Village Sarangi to fetch labourers and he came back only at 10.30 PM in the night.Cr. A. No.704/2009Regarding this plea, the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Sattar v/s State of Maharashtra [(2010) 8 SCC 430] and Vijay Pal v/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi [(2015) 4 SCC 749], it has been held that when a plea of alibi is raised, it is for the accused to establish the plea by positive evidence.Thus, onus lied upon the appellant to prove as to where he was at the time of the incident.The appellant had taken number of opportunities for leading defence evidence, but ultimately no evidence was led by him.He instead relies upon the evidence of Sohanlal (PW-2) and the statements of his mother Vishnubai (PW-3) to prove his defence of alibi.Sohanlal (PW-2) states that when he went to meet his sister at 4.00 PM, Dharamraj was not at home and the witness talked to Dharamraj on phone who told him that he is in Village Sarangi.Vishnubai (PW-3) has stated that her son Dharamraj had gone to Village Sarangi on the date of incident and came back at 10.30 PM.Vishnubai (PW-3) is the mother of appellant and is an interested witness inclined to safeguard the interest of the appellant.From the evidence of Sohanlal (PW-2) it can only be affirmed that Dharamraj was not in his house at 4.00 PM when Sohanlal had gone to meet his sister.Although he talked to Dharamraj on phone and Dharamraj had told him that he was at Village Sarangi, onus was still upon Dharamraj to lead by positive evidence to prove that he was in Village Sarangi at the time when the offence was committed.Whether appellant was truthful to Sohanlal on phone cannot be ascertained until a positive evidence was led by him.Cr. A. No.704/2009Thus, it is only found proved that Dharamraj was not in his house at about 4.00 PM when Sohanlal visited his sister.The offence was committed between the time of 4.00 to 6.30 PM and the onus was upon Dharamraj to show that during this period also he had not come back and was at Village Sarangi.Thus, the plea of alibi has not been proved by appellant.Now other circumstantial evidence against the appellant shall be considered.These circumstantial evidence are recovery of knife from the backyard of the house of Dharamraj on the basis of his memorandum; his blood stained trousers and disposal of the Sari of the deceased by him in order to destroy the evidence.Witnesses Prakash (PW-9), Balaram (PW-10) and Investigating Officer Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) are the witnesses of recovery of knife at the behest of appellant and also seizure of blood stained trousers from him.Both the independent witnesses - Prakash (PW-9) and Balaram (PW-10) state that police arrested appellant Dharamraj as per Ex.P/9 on which they appended their signatures and thereafter they accompanied police team along with Dharamraj to the house of Dharamraj and this team went to the backyard of the house of Dharamraj and the knife was found in the wheat field of Mansingh, the brother of Dharamraj and Dharamraj picked up knife and gave the same to the police.Both the witnesses have stated that in the seizure memo (Ex.P/10) they appended their signatures.The Investigating Officer Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) states that Dharamraj first gave memorandum statements in which he proposed recovery of knife from the field of Mansingh and 14 Cr. A. No.704/2009 thereafter Dharamraj took the team tio backyard of his house and recovered knife from the field.Witness Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17), the Investigating Officer, has not been asked any such questions which seek to challenge the memorandum statements and recovery of knife at the behest of Dharamraj.Both the independent witnesses have been asked a question that the place from recovery was made was a public place from which any one can pass.The knife was sent to Dr. Fakhruddin Saifi (PW-5) and he was queried as to whether injuries on the person of deceased could have been caused by this knife, the witness in his report Ex.Thus, it is proved that stab wounds on deceased could have been inflicted with this knife 15 Cr. A. No.704/2009 which is seized at the behest of appellant Dharamraj.The doctor also states that the knife, which was produced before him, was blood stained.The knife was thereafter sent to FSL vide draft Ex.P/20 and as per the report, the knife Article "C" had blood stains, however, it could not be determined as to whether these were human blood or not.All these three witnesses i.e. Prakash (PW-9), Balaram (PW-10) and Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) are also the witnesses of recovery of trouser worn by the appellant.The trouser was recovered from his person.Although Balaram (PW-10) states that recovery of trouser was made from inside the house of the appellant but both other witnesses, namely Prakash (PW-9) and Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) state that the trouser worn Dharamraj was directed to be taken off and seizure memo was prepared thereafter.The seizure memo is Ex.The trouser was sent to FSL and as per report Ex.P/20, the trouser was found to containing human blood traces.The evidence pertaining to recovery of trouser from his peprson has not been challenged appropriately in cross-examination in the evidence of Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) and the evidence of Prakash (PW-9).Consequently, it is found proved that two days after the incident on 01.03.2008, trousers worn by Dharamraj were seized which were found to contain human blood.Dharamraj has not offered any explanation as to how the human blood traces were found on his trousers.One another circumstantial evidence against Dharamraj is 16 Cr.A. No.704/2009 mention of injury on the fingers of Dharamraj in his arrest memo (Ex.P/9).This mention has been made in Column No.9 regarding the particulars as to the physical condition of the accused.Although no question has been asked in accused statements regarding presence of injury on the finger of appellant but the same cannot be looked over as well.The last circumstantial evidence against the appellant is the recovery of burnt piece of Sari of deceased at the behest of appellant Dharamraj.There are two independent witnesses apart from the evidence of Investigating Officer Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17).Regarding this piece of evidence, the witnesses are Kantilal (PW-12) and Lokesh Sharma (PW-15).Whie Lokesh Sharma is completely hostile and does not support the prosecution story, Kantilal (PW-12) states that he was made to sit in police vehicle and was accompanied by the accused and was taken towards a Village called Lohana Bangred village.He states that some clothes were recovered from road side, however, he denies that he appended his signatures on any document.He was declared hostile and thereafter he admitted that the police had recovered blood stained Sari, blouse on the way to Lohana Bangred.He admits his signatures on Ex.P/15 from "A"" to "A" part.In cross- examination by counsel for the appellant he states that the clothes were recovered as per Ex.P/15 only.This witness, however, has stated that clothes of deceased which is Sari and blouse, were seized in their entirety; whereas the prosecution story is that the clothes were seized in burnt condition and there was ash at the spot 17 Cr.A. No.704/2009 also implying that there was an attempt to burn the clothes in order to destroy the evidence.The witness Sohan Lal Choudhary (PW-17) has stated that on 04.03.2008 on the basis of memorandum of accused, the clothes were recovered from a culvert near Bangred and the memorandum is Ex.As per Ex.P/19, parts of clothes recovered under Ex.P/15 were found to be pieces of Sari of a lady.It is thus found proved that appellant had sought to destroy the evidence relating to the offence.The motive for murdering the wife has been stated to be that the appellant is doubted the character of his wife.The appellant denies having any such motive.However, question has been asked to Sohanlal (PW-2) that he was angry with appellant as he used to cast aspersion on the character of his wife and, therefore, plan was hatched by him to implicate the appellant.Looking to these facts, motive to commit murder of deceased has been found to be present.As already found, the deceased was inflicted injuries multiple times, and such state show enraged state of mind of the assailant which generally happens when there emotions run very high.There is submission on behalf of the appellant that Sohanlal 18 Cr.A. No.704/2009 (PW-2) was the brother of deceased and there was a running dispute between both as the deceased claimed interest in family property and that Sohanlal had sold off family property to the dislike of the deceased and their relations had turned sour and it was Sohanlal (PW-2) who committed murder of his sister and has falsely implicated the appellant.Such questions were asked to Sohanlal (PW-2) who denies there being any rift between him and his sister.He did go to his sister's place at 4.00 PM but he states that he had gone there to meet his sister who had complained to him against the cruelty of appellant.The brother of Sohanlal (PW-2) is Heeralal (PW-4) who also has no knowledge about the dispute between Sohanlal and deceased.Sohanlal had in fact kept the child of his sister with himself (Satyanarayan) and such a thing is possible only when relations between the brother and sister are not estranged.Even appellant in his accused statements does not state that it was Sohanlal who committed the murder of his wife.Thus, the defence propounded by the appellant against Sohanlal as the real culprit has not been found to be substantiated.The house of appellant was 19 Cr. A. No.704/2009 surrounded by his own relatives and none of them have come up against Sohanlal alleging him to be the main culprit.Thus, following circumstances are found proved against the appellant :-(1) Failure to prove alibi.(2) Blood stained knife recovered at the behest of the appellant.(3) Ascertainment by doctor that the recovered knife could be the weapon of offence.(4) The recovery of trousers from appellant containing human blood traces.(5) Attempt to destroy the evidence by appellant.(6) Presence of motive for causing murder of wife by the appellant.From the above circumstantial evidence, it is found proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant only who inflicted knife blows on his wife Krishnabai resulting in her death.The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Apex Court judgment in the case of K. Ravi Kumar v/s State of Karnataka [(2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 185] in which offence under Section 302 of IPC was converted into 304 Part-II of IPC when it was found that husband and wife had heated exchange between them and eventually wife stabbed and then set ablaze by husband leading to her death.The above citation is not applicable in this matter because there is no evidence that there was heated exchange between husband and wife in this matter.It rather appears that appellant had 20 Cr. A. No.704/2009 brought a folding knife with him which shows his intention to kill his wife and it is not that appellant had picked up a kitchen knife all of a sudden and inflicted injuries.Therefore, there is no ground to reduce the offence from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.Consequently, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court is affirmed.The sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500-00 awarded by the Trial Court also stands affirmed.The disposal of the property shall be as per the orders of the Trial Court.The appeal stands disposed off as dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
873,579 | (2) The accused denied their involvement.The defense is that at theinstance of Dr. Aparna Sarin, the so-called social worker of the area they have been falsely implicated.Kumari Juman Majumdar is the prosecutrix, and the most material witness.Her version is that she and her sister-in-law Smt. Anjali Majumdar were working as maidservant in the house of one Chattar Singh.As ill luck would have it, on 1stof April, 1985, Mrs. Chattar Singh misplaced one of her ear-rings.She made enquiries from the prosecutrix who showed her ignorance and denied having stolen the ear-ring.Chattar Singh then summoned the local police and lodged the report.Immediately after her release from The police custody, she was taken to Jpn hospital for medical examination.The time was 8.30 P.M. She was examined by Dr. Sandhya Bajpai.The M.L.C. isEx.In secretors the group can usually be readily established, as the group specific substances occur in relatively high concentration,but in non-secretors they are absent".Gradwbhi's Legal Medicine observeas under : "The blood group substances found in body fluids are confined to those of the Abo system.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In the month of April, 1985, Constable Aman Kumar and his two colleagues, Satbir Singh and 0m Parkash were posted at police post Hari Nagar under the jurisdiction of Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi.Satbir Singh and 0m Parkash are accused of abetting the commission of rape.Aman Kumar was charged to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 376(Proviso-A) Indian Penal Code while against the remaining two charge under Section 109 IPC was framed.In fact she had a personal grudge against the officers posted at police post, Hari Nagar, as they refused to oblige her in doing wrong acts on several occasions.They even denied their presence at the relevant time and place of the occurrence.(3) The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 21witnesses while the accused recalled and produced Dr. J. Chatterji to depose about the bony age of the prosecutor.(4) On consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed and proved on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences charged with, and sentenced all of them to undergo R.I.for a period of 10 years together with a fine of Rs. 5000.00 each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 2 years Rs. 10,000.00 was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix.Even after the enquiries, the ear-ring could not be found.The local police then brought the prosecutrix to the police station for furtherinvestigation.She was detained, first at the police station Tilak Nagar and then transferred to the police post and kept there.It is the case of the prosecutrix that on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd of April, 1985 she was given beating during the night.One of the constables (pointing towards accused Aman Kumar) committed rape on her.Before the act the accused had taken off his clothes and forcibly removed her clothes.Even though she offered resistance but the accused completed the act and during his process,bit her on the lips.All along this period, accused 0m Parkash and SatbirSingh remained present in the room.(6) In the morning of the next day, according to her, Smt. Anjali Majumdar came to the police post and met her.The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her.With the help of Dr. Aparna Sarin, she was got released in the evening and was medically examined the same day.(7) It is her case that the police officers again took her away and arranged a forced marriage with one Vijay Bara, an invalid person.She was also offered some amount in consideration of the closure of the case.but she refused to oblige them.On the basis of her statement and after collecting the relevantmaterial, the case was registered.(8) The submissions of the learned counsel for Aman Kumar in brief are that :-(A)The trial court gravely erred in placing reliance on the evidence of Dr. J. Chatterji, Radiologist, in fixing the age of the prosecutrix as 14 years, in as much as, in the subsequent case against the prosecutrix her age was determined between 15 years and less than 17 years.(B)There is no document to show as to when and at whose instance and by whom the prosecutrix was taken into police custody.Further more there is no evidence to suggest that during the night between 2nd/ 3/04/1985, she was present at the policepost.(C)The allegation of rape by accused Aman Kumar does not find corroboration from the medical record and/or the reports from the C.F.S.L.(D)No reliance should have been placed on the test identificationparade, inasmuch as, the accused had already been shown to the prosecutrix at the police post.(9) The contention of the other two accused is that their names do not find mention in the first information report and the possibility of their false implication in the case cannot be ruled out.The identification parade held by Shri V.K. Malhotra, M.M. was a farce as each of the accused was not mixed up with persons having identical features.(10) Learned counsel for the State mainly relied upon the unrebutted evidence of the prosecutrix, supported by medical evidence.He also defended the action of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in holding the identification parade so as to fix the identity of the accused persons (11) Learned counsel for the accused persons nave tried to create doubt about the presence of the prosecutrix at the police post on the day and time of the occurrence.Their contention is that no case u/s 380 Indian Penal Code was got registered by S. Chattar Singh from whose house an car-ring is alleged to havebeen stolen by the prosecutrix.Besides that, S. Chattar Singh was also not produced to support the plea of his having produced the prosecutrix or she in turn was arrested and detained in the said case.(12) I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised in thisbehalf.It is no doubt true S. Chattar Singh has not come into the witness box to support the lodging of the report or the arrest of the prosecutrix, but there is an overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the fact that during intervening night between 2nd/3rd April, 19.S5, the prosecutrix was in custody of the police at police post Hari Nagar.The evidence of the prosecutor coupled with the statement of Smt. Anjali Majumdar, her sister-in-law, is, byitself, enough to conclude that the prosecutor was taken into custody and detained at the police post Hari Nagar at the instance of S. Chattar Singh.Anjali is specific on the point that S. Chattar Singh brought her andthe prosecutrix along with her younger brother to the police post Hari Nagar.The police detained the prosecutrix but allowed her and her younger brother to leave.Besides that the prosecution has examined Public Witness 4 Rajesh Kurnar, Public Witness 3Dr.Aparna Sarin and the brother of the prosecutrix Jagu Majumdar.All of them in one voice depose that on the morning of 3/04/1985 they saw theprosecutrix sitting at the police post and inspite of their repeated attempts theSHO, Tilak Nagar did not allow them to meet her.Jagu Majumdar went to the extent of securing a search warrant from the competent court which was duly delivered at the police post.It was only thereafter that the prosecutrix was released from the custody.There is no worthwhile cross examination on any of these witnesses.Bhopal Singh who admitted having recorded the Fir No. 117 dated 3.4.1985 u/s 380 Indian Penal Code on the report of S. Chattar Singh against the prosecutrix.This fact also goes to show that a case u/s 380 Indian Penal Code was registered against the prosecutor and during the course of in-vestigation, she was kept at the police post.(15) In the face of this categorical denial, the prosecution was required to establish the identity of the accused persons.During this course of theinvestigation, the prosecutrix had told the police that if the accused are produced before her, she will be in a position to identify them.She also gave the description of the person who committed rape "tall and thin".It appears that on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, the 1.0. was not able to pin-point the accused persons inasmuch as there were eight police constables who were posted at the police post on the relevant date.preferred to move an application before the C.M.M.Delhi for fixing the identity of the accused persons.This application was moved on 6.4.1985 and on the same day, it was marked to Shri V.K. Malhotra,M.M. Delhi.to produce all the eight constables in his Court room for identification.This direction was duly complied with and at about 2.30 P.M. all the constables were produced.The identification proceedings further indicate that before holding the parade, as per the case of the prosecutrix, the police officers were directed to remove their caps and take out their shirts from their pants so that they should be inthe same state as the accused were at the time of commission of the offence.The identification proceedings were conducted in the court room and all of them were made to stand in a row along the side wall.Later on theprosecutrix was summoned and she immediately pointed towards Constable Aman Kumar as the police officer who raped her.She also named and pointed towards Constable 0m Parkash a.nd Constable Satbir Singh as the two other police officials present in the room.(16) Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the identification ofthe accused persons in the so-called identification proceedings conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate is not identification in the eye of law, inasmuchas, none of the accused was made to join other persons having similar features.Learned counsel also submits that as per the admission of the prosecutrix,they had already been shown to her at the police post, a day prior to the holding of the identification proceedings.These arguments prima facie have no substance.It was only after the fixing of the identity,that they were arrested and released on hail.(17) On the second aspect, it is not made clear from the cross examination of the prosecutrix that any of the accused persons was shown to her prior tothe holding of the identification proceedings.Of course, she had seen them at the police post but the question is at what, time was it prior or after the parade.was it at the police station or in the Court room.According to her the person who committed rape on her was tall, lean and thin.On seeing the accused Aman kumar,the lower Court observed that he in fact is tall, lean and thin.Thus thedescription given by the prosecutrix fully tallied with his constitution.The identity of the accused thus stands fully established, as the person responsible for the commission of offence.On the other hand there are numerous circumstances indicating the falsehood of her version.But if her testimony finds the slightest corroboration, which may come from the circumstantial evidence, the medical report or from an unknownsource, then there is no going back.One has, however, to keep in mind the circumstances under which she was placed at that point of time and the opportunity for the accused to do wrongful act.(20) With this background, one has carefully to peruse the statement ofKm.Public Witness 13/A. On examination, the doctor found two small tears in thehymen.She also found abrasions on the velva.On local examination, she observed abrasions on the back of the prosecutrix.It led to bleeding.Before the rape, she was given beating.At the time of the rape she was made to lie on the ground.R.K. Bhatnagar of the C.F.S.L. to support the plea of innocence of accused Aman Kumar.On Chemical examination of the blood sample of the accused Aman Kumar, the doctor opined that it is 'O' Group.The semen stains on the salwar and shirt, according to the doctor gave reaction for Ab group.In the opinion of the doctor Ex. Public Witness 21/6 the blood and the semen group of an individual should be the same.(26) This argument, in its first impression, appeared to be of some substance, but when examined in depth, it turned out to be damp squib.This very aspect has been very well handled at some length by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and found the opinion to be contrary to medical jurisprudence.The learned lower court has referred to the numerous medical books of eminent authors.The commentary on the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Dr. J.P. Modi on this aspect lays down. "Blood group can be detected in the semen, if the person is a secretor i.e. one who secrets blood group antigens in his serum.If not, reaction of group O with semen may only mean absence of group substance in the semen.In the absence of knowledge of secretor or non-secretor the reaction of group O in semen will mean either group 0 or non-secretor." Alfred Swain Taylor has got this to say on this point as under:- "IT must be remembered that only 80 per cent of the individuals are secretors.Moreover not all individuals secrets their corresponding blood group substances in their fluids.About 75 per cent of the population are secretors and the rest non-secretors.Secretors usually produce A, and H blood group substances in high concentration in seminal fluids, saliva, vaginal secretion and gastric juices.In nutshell, the statement of the prosecutrix stands fully corroborated from the medical evidence placed and proved on record.(28) As a last resort, counsel for the appellants, submitted that at thetime of the alleged offence the prosecutrix was major and a consenting party.The prosecution examined Dr. J. Chatterjee a radiologist of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.On examination she opined that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 14 years old.The police post is situated in the Lig Flats of Dda having 4 rooms on the ground floor and same accommodation on the first floor.As and when one approaches to the post,there are two rooms opposite each other which are used as a reporting room and the office room of the in charge, Police Post.There are two small rooms on the back side of the quarters and in between, there is an open space.The rooms on the first floor are meant for the residence of the police officers.At that late hour of the night, she even could not raise hue and cry which normally a minor girl should be in a position to do, if attacked under differentcircumstances.The threats of the accused persons that she would be sent to jail were more than sufficient to dissuade her from reporting the matter to the superiors.The accused persons are the police officers who are the custodians of law.Their primary role should have been to protect the innocent from any and every kind of on slaught.(34) In the result, the appeals fail. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
87,359,319 | (Delivered on this 28th day of March, 2019) The appellants have filed this present appeal challenging the judgment dated 14/08/2015 delivered by I ASJ, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur in S.T. No.90/2011 whereby convicted the Cr.A. No.1171/2015 2 Aanandsingh S/o Mohansingh Rajput vs. State of M.P.2. Facts in brief are that on 07/09/2010 complainant-Rakesh Mewada has filed a written complaint at Police Station-Akodiya, District-Shajapur to the effect that on 28/12/2009, his cousin brother-Pappu alongwith other co-accused persons cheated his family members and other persons also, on the promise that they will give job in Forest Department as Forest Security by issuing a forged and fabricated appointment letter meaning thereby they committed forgery/deceived the innocent persons.Thereafter FIR was registered.The police registered the case under Section 420/34 (3 counts), 467/34 (3 counts) 468/34 (3 counts) of IPC.After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court.Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and the appellants were charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.Cr.A. No.1171/2015 3Cr.A. No.1184/2015 Raees Khan S/o Jaleel Khan vs. State of M.P. Cr.A. No.1419/2015 Pappu @ Pradip S/o Babulal Mewada vs. State of M.P.criminal antecedents.Bail bond, if any shall stands discharged. | ['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. |
873,630 | The petitioner is discharged.JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.This revision petition has been filed challenging the order on charge as well as the charge framed on 22.4.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the present petitioner.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were four accused in this case.The four accused were Mahesh Kumar (husband), late Banarasi Das (father-in-law), Smt. Kusum (married sister-in-law) and Urmila Devi (the present petitioner) (mother-in-law).The present petitioner was absconding and her trial could not commence because of that.However, after the judgment and order of acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioner has joined the proceedings and she has been charged by virtue of the order on charge and formal charge for having committed offences, firstly under Section 498A and secondly under Sections 304B/34, IPC.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the role ascribed to the present petitioner was in common with the role ascribed to the other co-accused and there was no specific or separate role which was ascribed to the present petitioner by the prosecution as borne out by the statements as well as the evidence which has come on record.The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the trial Court, on the basis of the entire evidence led before it, concluded that it was doubtful as to whether the deceased (Meenu) was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the sake of dowry by any of the accused person.It concluded that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against any of the accused and that it would not be safe to act upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.It is in these circumstances that the co-accused were acquitted on the benefit of doubt being given to them.He submits that it is the very same evidence which is going to be pressed into service against the present petitioner and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to a full-fledged trial.The learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment dated 24.9.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial Court and have been found to be untrustworthy.He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State wherein, also, the to co-accused had been acquitted while the petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed against him.Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the additional Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149, IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a further point for our consideration.According to him there was no independent charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code either against the husband or against the wife.Both were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.He states that the element of sharing the common intention by husband and the wife was the core of the charge.The husband having been acquitted and there being no independent charge under Section 302, IPC against the wife, she cannot be convicted for the said offence.In the background of this decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the charge against the co-accused was, inter alia, under Sections 304B/34, IPC and they were all acquitted.In the present case I have gone through the statement which has come on record and also the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. there is specific role assigned to accused Urmila Devi who was not available being P.O. when the other accused persons were facing the trial.The statements of Smt. Imarti, Ms. Mona, Ms. Sonia shows that Urmila Devi was not providing food to deceased Meenu.Urmila Devi also used to taunt Meenu for bringing saries of less value and gave beatings to the deceased only on the third day of marriage.There are other allegations also which are specific to Urmila Devi which is evident from the testimony of these witnesses.But as Urmila Devi was not in the dock when this evidence was produced which was specific to Urmila Devi hence in my opinion as there are specific averments and the allegations against Urmila Devi.She be accordingly charged.Ms Kapur referred to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said decision to indicate that although in the case before the Supreme Court there was a judgment of acquittal of co-accused rendered in an earlier trial arising out of the same transaction, the same was held to be wholly irrelevant in the case of the appellant before the Supreme Court who was tried separately.According to her, the Court observed that the case of the accused who were acquitted was decided on the basis of the evidence led there while the case of the present accused was to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial.In that case also, Ms. Kapur points out, the initial charge was under Sections 302/34, IPC but as the co-accused had been acquitted and the Court found sufficient material to independently convict the appellant under Section 302 he was so convicted and Section 34, IPC was dropped.It was her contention that specific and separate allegations have been made against the present petitioner who was the mother-in-law of the deceased Meenu.The allegations against the present petitioner cannot be split from the allegations made against the father-in-law and the sister-in-law.Both of them, that is the father-in-law and the sister-in-law have been acquitted.When such a finding has been recorded in respect of the co-accused and where the evidence against the present petitioner is neither separable nor divisible from that against the co-accused, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the present petitioner to be subjected to a trial when the end result is more than clear.Subjecting the present petitioner to trial would be an exercise in futility.In these circumstances, the impugned order on charge as well as the charge are liable to be set aside.This revision petition is allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,736,644 | (i) The deceased, in this case, is one Gangeswari.The 1st appellant/1st accused is her husband and the 2nd appellant/2nd accused is her father-in-law.After marriage, these two accused and the deceased were living at Vennangupattu Village.In course of time, both the accused started demanding dowry of Rs.1 lakh from the parents of the deceased.They harassed the deceased repeatedly demanding the said amount.Sometime before 26.02.2008, the 1st accused, stating that only if the deceased brings the demanded amount, she can stay in her matrimonial home, left the deceased in her parental home.On 25.02.2008, though the deceased was not willing, the mother of the deceased convinced her and sent her along with her child, to the house of the accused.(ii) On 26.02.2008, at 11a.m., when the deceased was alone in her house, these accused, demanded dowry and quarrelled with her.At the end of the quarrel, it is alleged that the 1st accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and tried to set fire by lighting a matchstick.As the matchstick did not light up, the 2nd accused, snatched the matchbox and lighted a match stick again and set fire to the deceased, resulting in the deceased sustaining severe burn injuries.The deceased was immediately rushed to local Government Hospital, where the deceased told the Doctor that while she was cooking, the kerosene stove burst and consequently, she caught fire.After treatment for sometime in the said hospital, she was then shifted to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry.(iii) On receipt of intimation, Ex-P7, from the Hospital Authorities, P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Soonampaedu Police Station, rushed to the JIPMER Hospital.She went to Ward No.34, where the deceased was undergoing treatment as an in-patient and found that she was in a conscious state.One Doctor, by name, Senthil, who was attending on the deceased, also certified that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state of mind to give a statement.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.) The appellants are accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 181 of 2009 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet.They stood charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 23.08.2012, the Trial Court convicted both the accused under Sections 498A and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed on the appellants for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.Having ascertained the condition of the deceased, P.W.13 recorded her statement at 11.40a.m.On returning to the Police Station, she registered a case in Crime No. 96 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 498 A and 307 I.P.C and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex-P8 is the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.13 and Ex-P9 is the First Information Report.P.W.13 also gave a request, Ex-P10 to the Court concerned to record the dying declaration of the deceased.Accordingly, P.W.14, learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, went to JIPMER Hospital at 11.30a.m.and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of one Doctor Senthil.The said Doctor certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind to give the statement.(iv) Thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Soonampaedu Police Station.On 29.02.2008, at about 5.15p.m., he arrested the 1st accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another.Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand and the case property was sent to Court.On receipt of intimation about the death of the victim, in this case, P.W.15 altered the section of offence into Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex-P16 is the section of offence alteration report.On 26.03.2008, between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30a.m., in the presence of Panchayatdhars and witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the mortuary of JIPMER Hospital.Ex-P17 is the inquest report.Then, he sent the dead body for postmortem.(v) P.W.11, Dr.M.J.E. Ambroise, Chief Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, JIPMER, Puducherry, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.40a.m.He opined that the deceased had sustained 43% burns on her body and that death was due to septicaemia due to burns.(vi) Continuing the investigation, P.W.15 examined P.W.11, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy and P.W.14, Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and recorded their statements.(vi) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same as false.(vii) In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 17 documents and one material object (a 10 litre white plastic can found at the place of occurrence) were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.P.W.2 is the elder sister of the deceased.P.W.3 is the elder brother of the deceased.P.W.4 is another elder brother of the deceased.P.W.5 is yet another elder sister of the deceased.and P.W.8 is a neighbour of the deceased.All these witnesses, namely, P.W.s 1 to 8, have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion about the cause of death.P.W.12 is the Head Constable, who carried the dead body to the Doctor for postmortem.P.W.13 has spoken about the statement recorded by her from the deceased under Ex-P8 and the registration of the case.P.W.14, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry, has spoken about the recording of judicial dying declaratioin by him and P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of final report.(viii) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false.On their side, they examined two witnesses as D.W.s 1 and 2. D.W.1 is a close relative of the deceased.She has stated that on 25.02.2008, when she came to the house of the mother of the deceased, for the purpose of extending an invitation in respect of marriage of her sister, she was asked to take the deceased along with her and also invite the husband of the deceased for her sister's marriage.Accordingly, she took the deceased along with her.On reaching the house of the deceased, when the deceased went to prepare tea, the kerosene stove burst and the deceased sustained burn injuries.He has stated that he accompanied D.W.1 for the purpose of extending marriage invitation and he has also stated that due to bursting of kerosene stove, while cooking, the deceased caught fire.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted these two appellants as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment.That is how, these accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already pointed out, all the relatives and neighbours of the deceased, who have been examined as P.W.s 1 to 8, have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, in any manner.The prosecution, therefore, relies only on the two dying declarations made by the deceased, one to P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Soonampaedu Police Station and the other to P.W.14, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that these two dying declarations cannot be believed for various reasons.According to him, initially, the deceased was taken to a local Government Hospital where the deceased told the Doctor that while she was cooking on a kerosene stove, it burst and consequently, she caught fire.As pointed out by the learned counsel, unfortunately, the medical records pertaining to the treatment given in the said hospital have not been produced.The Doctor, who treated the deceased, has also not been examined.However, in Ex-P7, the deceased has stated that she was taken to local Government Hospital where she told the Doctor that she sustained burn injuries due to bursting of kerosene stove when she was cooking.This, being the earliest dying declaration, deserves weightage.From the said hospital, she was taken to another hospital for which also, there is no evidence.There also, the deceased had repeated the same version.Finally, she was taken to JIPMER hospital at Puducherry.In the said hospital, according to P.W.13, the statement of the deceased, namely, EX-P8 was recorded at 11.40a.m.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry, in his evidence, has stated that on 28.02.2008, the Sub Inspector of Police (obviously referring to P.W.13) had given a request to record the dying declaration from the deceased in connection with the case in Crime No. 96/2008 and as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he went to JIPMER Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 11.30a.m.This evidence of the learned Judicial Magistrate would clearly go to show that even before 11.30a.m.on 28.02.2008, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.13) had registered the case in Crime No. 96 of 2008 and made a request to record the judicial dying declaration.As spoken to by P.W.13, Ex-P8 was recorded at 11.40a.m.i.e, after the learned Judicial Magistrate had gone to the hospital.That statement, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, has been suppressed.Even assuming that Ex-P8 was recorded at 11.40a.m., as spoken to by P.W.13, the learned Magistrate had recorded Ex-P11 between 11.40a.m. and 12.10.p.m.The dying declaration shows that the learned Magistrate received intimation at 11.10a.m. itself, which means that based on some other statement, the Sub Inspector of Police would have registered a case before 11.10a.m.on 28.02.2008 and thus, between 11.40a.m.and 12.10p.m., the deceased was giving dying declaration to the learned Judicial Magistrate.So far as Ex-P11 is concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken a printed form with certain blanks.The form contains a few questions printed already.The answers elicited from the deceased have been written in the handwriting of the learned Magistrate.The statement of the deceased has also been written in the handwriting of the learned Magistrate. | ['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. |
75,406,741 | Police have already seized that pulses and applicant is ready to cooperate in the matter.This is First application of the applicant Juganjeet Singh Barar filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.487/2018 registered at Police Station M.P. Nagar, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC.The applicant also gave three cheques for that amount which were also dishonored.On that, complainant got false crime registered against the applicant by using his political contacts, while no case under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicant.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;C.C. on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
75,430,838 | As per prosecution story, complainant Pinki Jatav lodged an FIR in the Police Station Nagda on 11.11.2019, at 21.54, against the present appellants and 5 others.According to the complainant, on 11.12.2019, near about 6.00 p.m., she was standing in front of her house situated at Chetanpura, Nagda.Appellants and five others were causing a nuisance by selling liquor.When she objected, they threatened to rape her.Thereafter she went inside her house.State of M.P. and another -: 2 :- Yunus, Lakhan and Sharif came inside her house.Jeetu was armed with a sword and Sunil was carrying a stick and told her to come outside the house.Vinod was standing outside her house.Sunil and Sharif were carrying sticks and after the complainant coming out of her house then Jeetu caused injury by the sword below the knee of the left leg.This is a repeat (Second) application filed under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the appellant - Jitendra @ Jitu Prajapat, who has been arrested by Police on 12.12.2019 in Crime No.599/2019, Police Station Nagda Mandi, District Dhar concerning offence under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 08.01.2020; whereby learned Special Judge, Ujjain has rejected an application for release on bail.Hence, the present appellant has filed this Second repeat bail application.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the case diary.Sunil, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3607/2020 Jitendra @ Jitu Prajapat V/s.Vinod gave repeated blows on her leg as well as on hand by the iron rod.Lakhan, Sharif and Yunus assaulted her by kicks and fists, thereafter another accused Chandni W/o Jeetu also came there and assaulted her by kicks and fists and someone out of them touched her private parts.Thereafter her son Aditya and sister Chandni came to rescue her.All the accused left the spot threatening her see dire consequences.Police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 147, 148, 324, 323 read with 149 and 506 of the IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and arrested all the accused.-: 2 :-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.The complainant has made a false allegation against him that he caused injury by the sword but as per the Doctor's report, no injury was found by a sharp- edged weapon.Even the weapon which was recovered from the present appellant was not a sword.She further submits that the Police did not record the statements of the independent witnesses like neighbours and residents.There is no other evidence to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.3607/2020 Jitendra @ Jitu Prajapat V/s.State of M.P. and another -: 3 :- corroborate the evidence of PW-1 in respect of the charge under Section 452 of the IPC.The trial is held up because of the lock- down due to corona epidemic.Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.-: 3 :-On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the appellant is a hardcore criminal and as many as nine criminal cases have been registered against him and twice prohibitory proceedings have been initiated against him.If he is released then he will repeat the offence and influence the witnesses.PW-1 and her statement has specifically stated that the appellant entered into her house and dragged her outside the house and abused her by filthy language and caused injury by sword.I have perused the case diary.Although there is no medical opinion about the injury by the sword but the appellant is having a strong criminal antecedents.Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby rejected. | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
75,467,236 | This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 244 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a partner of the finance company whereas on a false complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent has registered the case.He would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is in initial stage and the petitioner is a close relative of the main accused and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Perused the materials available on record.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final report, in the manner known to law.23.01.2020 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No gnshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J,.1.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.810 of 2020 | ['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
75,773,991 | Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.Rejoinder affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.Heard SriDeepak Kumar Tripathi,learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants but could not point out anything material to the contrary.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.Let the applicant- Samiullah, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
75,828,789 | The sole accused is the appellant in this appeal.The appellant has been tried for charges under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC.He pleaded not guilty to the charges.In the circumstances, the trial Court directed the prosecution to produce the witnesses.To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marked Exs.On the incriminating information in the prosecution evidence, the trial Court examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence.However, he did not examine any witnesses nor mark any document on his side.Appreciating the said evidence and the submissions of both sides the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:ConvictionSentence307 IPC10 years RI and fine Rs.5,000/-, in default 6 months SI294(b) IPC6 months SI and fine Rs.1,000/- in default 2 months SIThe learned Additional Sessions Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently.Fine amount has been paid.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the facts and circumstances, an offence under Section 307 IPC will not arise.The leaned counsel for the appellant contended that even as per the prosecution version, the accused alleged to have picked up a stone and assaulted the injured with that on the rear side of her head.The medical evidence is that she had simple injury.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that at the time of occurrence there was quarrel and in a drunken mood intending to kill P.W.1 the appellant had assaulted P.W.1 with a stone and she sustained injury.She had narrow escape.He has also scolded her in filthy language.In the circumstances, the trial Court has convicted him under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC and punished him accordingly.I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.The appellant and P.W.1 are spouses.They have become estranged couples.They have strained relationship.No love last between them.In this backdrop of the matter, on 07.08.2013, at about 4.30 pm, while P.W.1, was standing in front of her sister Chellammal's house, the accused came, scolded P.W.1 in filthy language and wordy altercation ensued between both, suddenly the accused picked up a stone and thrown it on the rear side of her head.The weapon of offence viz., stone has not been marked.Thus, dimension of the weapon and the size of it are not known.P.W.5, the Doctor, noticed one lacerated wound 4X1 cm bone depth on the rear side of her head.P.W.8, the Doctor, opined that the injury was simple in nature (See Ex.P3-Wound Certificate).It relates to 'sentencing policy'.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Under Section 294(b) IPC, he is sentenced to 10 days SI.Under Section 324 IPC, his total period of imprisonment, namely, 60 days is awarded as sentence.The sentence of fine imposed under Sections 294(b), 307 of IPC are set aside.The appellant is given relief under Section 428 Cr.P.C. He is entitled to refund of the fine amount.Since the appellant had already undergone the sentence as imposed by this Court, he is directed to be set free.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Jail authority is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not required for any other case.1.The Principal Session Judge, Ariyalur.2.The Additional Session Judge, Ariyalur.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.4.The Inspector of Police, Kayarlabath Police Station, Ariyalur District.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6.Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.P.DEVADASS, J.A.No.122 of 201508.04.2015 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
75,858,267 | under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (i), 376 (n) of IPC read with Section 3 / 4, 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and respondent No.2- Sewantibai from offences under Section 363 and 366 of IPC.On due consideration of the statement of Sapna (P.W.1) and the scholar register, so also the fact that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 05/08/2001 and at the time of occurrence, she was minor, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed.Accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.The respondent Nos. 1 to 2 are also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the M.Cr.C. No.15732/2018 2 satisfaction of CJM/ Trial Court for their appearance, before the Registry / Office of this Court on 11/12/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.C. No.15732/2018 2With the aforesaid, M.Cr. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
356,511 | Should you fail to appear before meand to pass the bond as directed above, I shall proceed withthe enquiry in your absence.Take note.1.Since March 1969 in the localities of Nehru Road, AzadRoad, Monghibai Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ram Mandir Roadand the areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of VileParle Police Station, Great of Bombay your acts and movements are causing harm, alarm and danger to the residents of the aforesaid localities 'and areas.2.That you assault the residents of the aforesaidlocalities and areas either suspecting them of givinginformation to the police about your illegal activities orbecause they fail accede to your demand of money whichoffences are punishable under chapter XVI of.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedAugust 11, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.S. B. Wad, for the appellant.M. C. Bhandare and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byCHANDRACHUD J. This appeal by special leave is directedagainst the judgment dated August 11, 1971 of the High Courtat Bombay, dismissing the petition filed by the appellantunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challengean order of externment passed by the 1st respondent.On October 9, 1969 a notice of even date was served on theappellant under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 22 of1951, asking him to appear before the Assistant Commissionerof Police, 'M' Division, Bombay, in answer to allegationscontained in the notice.Briefly, the allegations were thatthe appellant's_acts and movements were causing harm, 6-L63lSup.CI/7366alarm and danger to the residents of certain localitieswithin the, jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station, thathe was given to assaulting the residents of those localitieseither because, they were suspected to be, police informantsor because they failed to accede to the demands of money,that he had committed robberies in the particularlocalities, that since March 1969 he had committed severalacts of the above description and that witnesses were notwilling to come forward to depose against him in public.witnessesto refute the, allegations.He contended that theallegations were vague and general, that they were made atthe instance of one Damayanti Deshpande who was inimical tohim, that he was a social worker of some standing, that hewas, a member of the Congress Party and that in twocriminal cases which were filed against him he was acquittedin spite of the evidence led by the prosecution.Later, the appellant was heard by Shri G. K. Nadkarni,Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Greater Bombay.Ona consideration of the explanation and the evidence tenderedby the appellant, the Dy.Commissioner passed an orderdated July 23, 1970 under section 59 of the Act, externinghim from the limits of Greater Bombay and the District ofThana, for a period of two years.The order of externmentwas directed to take effect within two days of the decisionof two criminal cases which were then pending against theappellant and in case he was sentenced in the aforesaidcases to a term of imprisonment, the order was to takeeffect within two days from the date of his release fromjail.The appellant then filed a petition in the Bombay High Courtunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challengethe order of externment.public against the proposed externee.A reasoned order con-taining a discussion of the evidence led against theexternee would probably spark off another round of tyrannyand harassment. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,654,418 | The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 21st May, 2000, information was received at PS Kotla Mubarakpur that one person had Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 1 of 23 been stabbed and a quarrel was taking place at J 43 Seva Nagar.The information was recorded vide DD No. 51B and was given to ASI Rajbir Singh for investigation.He went to the spot and came to know that the injured Rakesh had been taken to some unknown hospital.His wife Saraswati met him on the spot.The Investigating officer recorded her statement wherein she alleged that about two years ago, her husband has taken shop of the uncle of Pankaj on rent in Defence Colony Market where he did business of flowers for three months and thereafter vacated the shop.On 19th May, 2000 Pankaj came to their house and placed order for flowers and stated that he would come again on the next day.On 20th May, 2000, Pankaj came to their house along with one more person at about 10:15 p.m. After about 10 minutes, she heard the alarm raised by her husband.She went inside the room and saw that Pankaj stabbed her husband in the stomach and the other person caught her neck.She fell down and both of them ran away.While fleeing away, Pankaj was saying that he had taught a lesson for vacating the shop taken on rent.A. 374/2003 Page 1 of 23He was also dealing in flowers.In the year 1999, his uncle got vacated the shop which he had let out to Rakesh because he was not paying rent regularly.He got himself freed from other boy by biting him and got up and raised alarm.Then accused gave a knife blow in his stomach.His wife, who was cooking food at that time, came in the room when he raised alarm.Pankaj caught the neck of his wife.Thereafter, the accused persons left after pushing his wife.Before leaving the house, Pankaj told him that he had taught a lesson to him for vacating the shop which he had taken.Thereafter, the neighbours Satish and Sunder came and took him to hospital.His blood stained shirt Ex.P1 was taken into possession by the police.In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he went to the hospital, he was not in a position to tell anything about his injuries.He was quite scared at that time and, therefore, does not recollect what he had told the Doctor in the hospital.He admitted Crl.Till 23rd May, 2000, he was not in a position to talk to anyone.He denied the suggestion that he asked his wife to report against Pankaj.He also denied that on the night of 20th May, 2000 his wife told the police that two persons had come to their house with a view to commit robbery.He could not say why Pankaj caused injury to him after about two years of his vacating the shop of his uncle.His presence at the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured in the incident.On 20th May, 2000 at about 8:30 p.m., accused Pankaj accompanied by one more boy came to the house but someone was sitting in their house at that time, therefore, they left saying that they would come later on.Again they came at about 10:00 a.m. and sat with her husband to talk to him.She was cooking food and heard an alarm.She went to the room and saw that Pankaj gave a blow on the stomach of his husband and associate of Pankaj caught her neck.She fell down.When they heard the noise of neighbours, they ran away.He took him to AIIMS in auto rickshaw.PW9/2 prepared by Dr. Roopa who has left the hospital.As per the MLC, Dr. Roopa examined Rakesh on 20 th May, 2000 and found that he was bleeding from the site of injury in the abdomen and intestinal duodenum.Two intestinal perforation with active bleeding was found.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order on sentence dated 5th May, 2003 vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.During the course of investigation, initially, the accused could not be arrested, as such, vide order dated 1st November, 2000, he was Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 2 of 23 declared proclaimed offender.Charge sheet was submitted under Section 299 Cr.P.C for offence u/s 307/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C).Charge for offence under Section 307 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. 374/2003 Page 2 of 23In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted that injured Rakesh had taken a shop on rent from his uncle about three years prior to 20th May, 2000 and had vacated that shop after about three months.However, he has denied the rest of the case of prosecution.According to him, Rakesh did not want to vacate the shop taken on rent from his uncle and when he vacated the shop, he threatened to teach him a lesson.He examined DW-1 Shankar Dubey in support of his defence, who has deposed that in the year 2000, he used to supply flowers to accused as well as to the injured.There was quarrel between Pankaj and Rakesh as Rakesh was not paying rent of the shop.Pankaj got the shop vacated from Rakesh.While leaving the Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 3 of 23 shop, Rakesh threatened Pankaj to see him later.In the year 2002, he came to know that Pankaj had been implicated in a false case.A. 374/2003 Page 3 of 23Accused examined himself in support of his case and deposed that Rakesh is a floweriest.On his asking, Rakesh paid the arrears of rent and vacated the shop.There was no quarrel between them.However, he had told him that he would see him.His father had suffered from paralysis, and, therefore, he had gone to his village to look after him.Vide impugned order, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced as stated above.Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.I have heard Sh.V.K. Ohri, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Fizani Hussain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.A. 374/2003 Page 4 of 23A. 374/2003 Page 4 of 23It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no independent witness to the incident and the case of prosecution rests on the testimony of Rakesh Kumar and his wife only.Both these witnesses have not identified the accused.Moreover, their testimony suffers from discrepancies.The knife was broken and it was not possible to inflict injury with such a knife.Moreover, the oral testimony of the witnesses does not find corroboration from medical evidence, inasmuch as, according to the injured, there were two injuries, one on the back and another on abdomen.However, as per the MLC, there was only one injury on the person of Rakesh.The knife has been planted upon the accused and in fact there is no witness to the seizure of the knife and Investigating Officer has also deposed that the knife is not connected with the crime.Moreover, no finger print was taken from the knife nor the same was sent to FSL.If any injury had been caused by the appellant, some blood would have come on his clothes, but clothes of the accused were not seized.Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.As such, accused is entitled to be acquitted.Alternatively, it was submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 5 of 23 about 16 months and has also paid fine.As such, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused, then he be released on the period already undergone.A. 374/2003 Page 5 of 23As regards identification of the accused is concerned, it was submitted that parties were well known to each other and the mere fact that when the witnesses came to be examined, it was not specifically written "present in the court", does not mean that there was any doubt regarding the identity of the accused.A. 374/2003 Page 6 of 23 While appearing as a witness, the accused had tried to take the plea of alibi that he was in village at that time but the same is not proved and, in fact, reference was made to the statement of the village persons when proceedings under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused wherein they stated that accused had not come to the village for the last three years.Under the circumstances, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference.Keeping in view the fact that injury caused by the accused was opined to be dangerous, as such, he does not deserve any leniency even in regard to quantum of sentence.As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.A. 374/2003 Page 6 of 23I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.He vacated the shop after about three months.On 19th May, 2000, accused Pankaj came alone to his Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 7 of 23 house and offered to do business jointly in his office.He again came on 20th May, 2000 along with one boy at about 8:30 p.m. As someone was sitting in the house at that time, he left saying that he would come back thereafter.He again came at about 10:15 p.m. with that very boy and sat in the room.Pankaj asked him to take out his diary for writing address.He took out a copy to write on it and as soon as he sat on the small table, his companion gagged his mouth.Pankaj gave knife blow on his back.There was no altercation or quarrel between him and Pankaj on that date.He denied the suggestion that he owed money to Pankaj and, therefore, falsely implicated him in this case.A. 374/2003 Page 7 of 23A. 374/2003 Page 8 of 23As regards the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not identified by the injured in the Court, although it is true that there is no specific mention in the testimony of this witness or his wife that the accused Pankaj was present in the Court when they came to depose before the Court.However, the entire sequence of events goes to show that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the accused.The parties were well known to each other from before, Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 9 of 23 inasmuch as, it is undisputed case of the parties that the accused as well as Rakesh were dealing in the business of selling flowers.Rakesh had taken a shop on rent belonging to uncle of accused Pankaj.The shop was vacated by Rakesh after three months.Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that on 19th May, 2000, accused Pankaj came to the house of injured and offered to deal in the business of flowers jointly with Rakesh.Thereafter, again he came on 20th May, 2000 along with another boy and then the incident in question had taken place.As such, the mere omission to mention specifically in the Court that accused Pankaj was present in the Court is not of any consequence keeping in view the fact that identity of the accused is not in doubt.A. 374/2003 Page 9 of 23It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness, inasmuch as, he sustain injuries in the incident.As such, there is an inbuilt assurance regarding his presence at the scene of the crime and it is unlikely that he will allow the real culprit to go scot free and would falsely implicate any other persons.Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.He had been examined by the doctor.He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.As rightly observed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, it seems that when the accused came to the house of Rakesh in order to have discussion regarding business, some altercation might have taken place and during the course of altercation, the accused got enraged and gave knife blow to Rakesh.A. 374/2003 Page 13 of 23While running away, Pankaj was saying to her husband that he had taught a lesson for the shop.Satish and some of his friends came on hearing the alarm raised by her.They took her husband to the hospital.Her statement Ex. PW5/1 was Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 14 of 23 recorded by the police, which bears her signatures.This witness was cross-examined by learned defence counsel, however, nothing material could be elicited to discredit her testimony.She also reiterated that there was no previous dispute between the accused Pankaj and her husband.She denied the suggestion that there was previous dispute between Pankaj and her husband on money matters.Rather she deposed that Pankaj told her on that date when he came to her house that he would take food with them.She also denied the suggestion that she made a statement in the night of 20th May, 2000 to the Police that two unknown persons had come to their house and had given knife blow to her husband with the intention of committing robbery.She also denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused at the instance of her husband as he has some dispute with the accused on money matters.As such, testimony of Rakesh finds substantial corroboration from his wife Saraswati.A. 374/2003 Page 14 of 23The submission that there was no independent witness, is devoid of merit, inasmuch as, since the incident had taken place in the house itself, therefore, there was no possibility of any independent witness of having witnessed the occurrence.However, on hearing the alarm of Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 15 of 23 Saraswati, PW-1 Sunder Lal reached the spot.He has deposed that on 20th May, 2000 at about 10/11 p.m. he was present in his house.He heard the noise that "Pankaj ne hamare aadmi ko maar diya".He went to the House No. J-347 where Rakesh used to reside.Rakesh was found lying on the ground in a pool of blood.Nothing material could be elicited to discredit the testimony of witness.The fact that immediately after the incident, Saraswati, wife of injured had raised the alarm that Pankaj had stabbed her husband is another piece of corroborative evidence as provided under Section 157 of the Evidence Act and it falsifies the plea taken by the accused that some other person came to the house of Rakesh for the purpose of committing robbery and who had injured him.A. 374/2003 Page 15 of 23As regards, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, is concerned, a perusal of entire evidence goes to show that the evidence of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because Crl.Mere marginal variation and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the witness who is none else but the injured himself and his wife.Further, relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness.A. 374/2003 Page 16 of 23Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.The court has to form Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 17 of 23 its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier.The injury was opined to be dangerous.He Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 18 of 23 further deposed that according to him also, the injuries were dangerous to the life of patient.A. 374/2003 Page 18 of 23As regards the submission that there was discrepancy between the oral testimony of Rakesh and the medical evidence, inasmuch as, as per MLC only one injury was found, learned Public Prosecutor had referred to the statement of injured recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated that Pankaj inflicted knife on his back which could not be inflicted properly.When he tried to save himself then, Pankaj gave knife blow on his abdomen.Due to this reason, Rakesh might not have sustained injuries on his back and, therefore, the same does not find mention in the MLC.Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any discrepancy between the oral and medical evidence.In his cross-examination, it has come that this knife could not be connected with the crime and that the complainant had expressed ignorance about ownership of knife.In fact, the knife was not even exhibited either in his statement nor shown to the injured and his wife during their statement.The result of the same, at best be, that Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 19 of 23 the broken knife which was alleged to be found lying on the spot was not the weapon of offence with which injury were inflicted upon Rakesh and it can be said that the weapon of offence was not recovered.A. 374/2003 Page 19 of 23Omission to send blood stained clothes of injured or weapon of offence, can at best be, said to be a lapse on the part of Investigating Officer of the case.Coming to the plea taken by the accused that while vacating the shop of his uncle, Rakesh had threatened to teach him a lesson and, therefore, he falsely implicated him in this case, the same does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, accused while appearing as DW-2 has admitted that there was no quarrel between them as Rakesh vacated the shop and paid arrears of rent.The very fact that shop was vacated and Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 20 of 23 arrears of rent were paid without any dispute leaves no doubt that Rakesh was not having any animus against Pankaj or against his uncle after vacating the shop.P.C. For the first time, this plea was taken by him when he examined himself as DW-2 that he had gone to his village in February, 2000 and returned back in July, 2000 as his father had suffered from paralysis and he had gone there to look after him.He could have examined his father in order to substantiate this plea.The least which he could have done was to place on record the medical documents to show that his father really suffered from paralysis and he had gone to the village to look after him but the same was not done.In fact the proceedings executed against the appellant u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C belies his plea in asmuch as when police officials had gone to execute proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. Statement of his father Harender Singh was recorded wherein it is stated Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 21 of 23 that his son Pankaj had gone to Delhi along with his brother about 5 years ago and was residing with his brother Gautam in Delhi.For the last two years, his son had not visited the village and he does not know his whereabouts.The Mukhia of the village also gave a statement to the same effect.Moreover, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured Rakesh which finds substantial corroboration from his wife Saraswati, neighbour Sunder who removed him to hospital and the medical evidence.As such, prosecution succeeded in establishing that it was accused Pankaj who had inflicted injuries on the person of Rakesh.A. 374/2003 Page 21 of 23Although, the appellant was charged for offence under Section 307 IPC but after detailed discussion, it was observed that the charge proved against the accused is of Section 326 IPC.As per the statement of the witnesses the accused had given stab injury to Rakesh by a knife.As per opinion given by Dr. Sudhir Kumar, the injury sustained by Rakesh was dangerous.As such, he was convicted for offence under Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 22 of 23 Section 326 IPC.No fault can be found with this finding of the then learned Additional Sessions Judge which calls for interference.A. 374/2003 Page 22 of 23The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine.The mere fact that the appellant remained in custody for about 16 months in jail is not sufficient to take a lenient view in the matter, inasmuch as, the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 326 IPC is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and injury was opined to be dangerous.As such, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.The appellant is on bail.He is directed to surrender within seven days and to undergo the balance of his sentence, failing which the learned Trial Court to get him arrested in order to serve the remainder of sentence.Copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent back.SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 rs Crl.A. 374/2003 Page 23 of 23A. 374/2003 Page 23 of 23 | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
356,554 | This appeal is by a woman.She was accused of having caused the murder of her husband.The prosecution case was that there was strife between the parties.The deceased suspected the appellant of infidelity.On the day of the occurrence, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her husband and put him to fire.The crime was witnessed by the daughter of the appellant, P.W. 8, then aged about 11 years and her minor son still younger, who was not produced as a witness.When the deceased was removed to the Government Hospital at Tirupathi with extensive burns, his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.Earlier thereto was an oral dying declaration made to P.W. 1, the Doctor attending on him in the Government Hospital and a later dying declaration before a Police Officer who came to the hospital on information received of the crime.Thus, in sum, we have evidence of an eye-witness, P.W. 8 and three dying declarations made one after the other.In all the dying declarations, the appellant pointedly has been named as the culprit of the crime.Both the courts below have believed the said evidence and held the appellant guilty.We find no reason to take a different view than the one concurrently taken by the two courts below.A sad feature of the case cannot escape our attention.The Court of Session instead of recording conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. did so under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. for reasons which were far from convincing.Strangely, no appeal was preferred by the State against scaling down of the offence from one under Section 302, I.P.C. to one under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. The High Court presumably, on compassionate grounds, since the appellant was a woman, reduced the sentence from seven years to four years rigorous imprisonment.All the same, when the State seems to be submitting to the verdicts of the courts below, we on our part, would also put the matter to rest.The appeal is accordingly 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. |
3,565,748 | punishable under Sections 302/149, 148 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/07/2007 at 8 pm, the respondents constituted unlawful assembly and in furtherence of its common object committed the murder of Khilan Yadav and caused disappearance of the corresponding evidence.Morgue intimation (Ex.P/1) was recorded at the instance of Vijay Yadav (PW1) and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and prays for leave to file appeal.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General and record of the trial Court was perused.Munna was given up by the prosecution and Naresh at one place has deposed that Ramprasad had informed him 6-7 months after the incident, whereas, after a while, he stated that Ramprasad had informed him after a year of the incident.This contradiction was considered material by the trial Court in view of the fact that though Ramprasad has claimed to be an eye-witness, yet he had informed the same to other witnesses after several months.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,671,189 | Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.As both the appeals relate to the same occurrence, both the applications are being disposed of by a common order.That country made pistol and cartridges (live and empty) were recovered from his possession by P.W. 5 and the aforesaid articles were sealed on the spot; there was sufficient light of torch at the time of recovery of articles, besides it a red coloured motorcycle was also recovered from the possession of Simpoo Yadav; there was also available sufficient evidence of ballistic expert regarding the use of aforesaid weapon in murder of the victim; the learned trial court, although convicted the accused Simpoo Yadav for committing murder of the victim Rajman in connected sessions trial, has wrongly acquitted him in connected case under Section 3/25 Arms Act, only on the ground that there is no public witness of the recovery.Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly contended that the oral evidence led by the prosecution is credible and trustworthy so the leave to appeal in both the cases be granted.On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the prosecution in order to prove its case has produced 9 witnesses in all, out of which only two witnesses are of fact and the remaining 7 witnesses are of formal nature.The learned lower court after elaborately appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, found the prosecution case under section 302 IPC r/w 34 against accused Simpoo Yadav @ Avinash Yadav and Navneet as proved to the hilt and convicted both of them.So far as the complicity of accused numbers 2 to 8 in the occurrence was concerned, the court below did not find any cogent evidence in proof of the fact that any criminal conspiracy was hatched among the remaining accused persons to commit the murder of Rajman Chauhan. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,678,019 | This Criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 31.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.26 of 2012 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.A.No.538 of 2012The learned Sessions Judge, after completing the formalities, framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 376(ii) of IPC.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined and marked 7 documents.After completing evidence, incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses was put before the accused, he denied as false.On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.There against, the present appeal has been preferred by the convict before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.A.No.538 of 2012The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the doctor, who has opined that when the girl is riding a cycle, there is a possibility of tearing hymen and also he would submit that the appellant is the neighbour, who used to play with her.If anything was happened, the mother would have filed the complaint immediately, whereas, she has not given the complaint on the same day.There is a delay in preferring the complaint.There is a previous enmity between the appellant and PW-1 and in order to take vengeance, she has foisted a false case against the appellant.There is no eye witness and there is no external injury.There is no possibility of alleged offence as framed by the trial Court.Though the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 376 (2) IPC, convicted him for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.In the absence of any eye-witness or any injury, the conviction of the appellant is not valid.The Trial Court failed to consider the enmity between the appellant and PW-1 and wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, which warrants interference.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.She has clearly spoken about the occurrence.Soon after the occurrence, since the appellant/accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.A.No.538 of 2012 threatened the victim girl, she has not informed the same.Subsequently, when the victim girl was taking bath, she felt pain in her private part and thereafter, she informed PW-1 about the occurrence.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on records.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is alleged to have committed sexual assault on the victim girl, aged 2½ years.The evidence of PW-1 clearly proved the allegations against the appellant.As per the evidence of PW-1, the appellant has not penetrated his private part into the victim, whereas, the appellant has inserted his finger in the private part of the victim girl.Before the amendment in the year 2013, insertion of the fingers does not fall under Section 376 of IPC.Therefore, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that though the prosecution has proved its case, however, interpreting the legal provisionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.A.No.538 of 2012 matches with the factual matrix of the case, found that the offence falls under Section 356 of IPC.On reading of the entire evidence of PWs-1, 6, 7, 8 and 11, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.There is no sound ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.The judgment dated 31.07.2012 in S.C.No.26 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, is hereby confirmed.The Trial Court is directed to secure the accused to undergo remaining period of sentence, if any.The counsel for the appellant/accused on record, who was appointed by the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai from the Legal Aid Panel is entitled for the fees as per the rule.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.The Inspector of Police, Vikkramangalam Police Station, Ariyalur District.Crl.A.No.538 of 2012 30.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 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. |
35,679,547 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.14366/2019 (Rohit s/o Arjun Singh Chamar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 15.04.2019 Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
356,796 | For Appellants : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondent : Mr.A.Saravanan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) CRL.R.C.No.789 of 2003G.Arumugam .. Revision Petitioner / RW1vs.Palani S/o.Subbulakshmi W/o.Ramachandran S/o.The Assistant Commissioner Pulianthopu Range, Chennai 39. ... Respondents Prayer:- Petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 07.05.2003 passed in S.C.No.231 of 2001 on the file of the Magaler Neethimandram, Chennai, challenging the acquittal of 3rd respondent and seeking conviction of respondents 1 to 3 under Section 302 and 201 IPC.For Petitioner : Dr.G.Krishnamurthy For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Sadasharam For R4 : Mr.A.Saravanan, Government Advocate(Crl.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-The second and third accused are the mother and father of the first accused.At the time of marriage, Jeeva was given 15 sovereign of gold jewels apart from other house-hold articles.Subsequently, five sovereigns of gold jewels were given to the deceased.After the marriage, the deceased Jeeva and the first accused were living happily only for a period of one or two months.Thereafter, a separate family was set up at Padi.Unable to bear the rental expenses, the first accused and the deceased came back to the house of 2nd and 3rd accused and they were living in separate portion in the same house.There was a demand for a motorbike by the accused 1 and 2 for which the deceased was harassed.PW1 was unable to meet out the demand made by the accused due to the financial crisis.In respect of the demand and harassment, the deceased had written two letters to her father PW1, which are marked as Exs.Afterwards, a panchayat was convened and PW3, friend of PW1, had also participated in the said Panchayat.In the Panchayat, PW1, promised to give a motorbike to the first accused after a period of few months.Four months after the Panchayat on 20.09.2000, PW1 and PW2 were informed that Jeeva had died.Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the house of the accused and they were informed by the accused that the deceased died due to hanging.PW1 gave a complaint Ex.P3 to the Police.On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.764 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.P11 is the First Information Report.PW8, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, took up the investigation.Prayer:- Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 07.05.2003 passed in S.C.No.231 of 2001 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai 104, and pray for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them.Side)Common Judgment The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2003 are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.231 of 2001 on the file of the Magaler Neethimandram, Chennai.Totally, there are three accused in this case.2. P.W.1 Mr.G.Arumugam, who is the father of the deceased had preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.789 of 2003, seeking conviction to the Accused 1 to 3 under Section 302 and 201 IPC.On receiving requisition, PW5-Tahsildar of Kottai-Tondiarpettai Division conducted enquiry over the body of the deceased.He recorded the statement of the witnesses.He prepared the inquest report Ex.P6 and sent a requisition to the Doctor to conduct Postmortem examination.PW4 Doctor had conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased.P5 is the Postmortem Report.He gave opinion that the deceased died of Asphyxia due to hanging.PW8, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused persons and sent them to Judicial custody.After completing the investigation, he laid a final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8; marked Exs.The accused 1 to 3 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity.The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above.Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / accused 1 to 3, submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 306 and 304-B IPC are not made out and originally charge under Section 304-B IPC was not framed against the accused.But, at the fair end of the trial, the second charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed, which caused great prejudice to the accused.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused further submitted that there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was not subjected to any cruelty and even the letters Exs.P1 and P2 marked by the prosecution did not indicate any cruelty by the accused and further, Exs.P1 and P2 were written more than 2 months prior to the death of the deceased and Exs.P1 and P2, letters said to have been written by the deceased are not admissible in evidence.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that PW1 father of the deceased categorically stated that the second accused demanded a motorbike and PW2 stated that the accused demanded money for starting a company and the first accused had demanded a motorbike and the deceased was harassed by the accused for the said demand.The learned counsel also submitted that Exs.P1 and P2 also corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and in Exs.P1 and P2, letters were written by the deceased, it is mentioned that the deceased was abused by the accused.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/PW1, father of the deceased, submitted that as per the Postmortem report, some antemortem injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased.Doctor-P.W.4 had stated that the deceased had sustained injury on the head, which was possible due to violence.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the deceased had committed suicide due to demand of dowry.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that Ex.D1 is not admissible since only Xerox copy is filed and original is not filed and further PW1 admitted the handwriting of the deceased in Ex.P1 and P2 and Ex.According to the evidence of PW1, father of the deceased, there was some dispute between the deceased and the first accused.Even in Exs.P1 and P2, it was mentioned that there was a demand for two wheeler vehicle for which the deceased was abused.It is the evidence of PW2 that once the first accused took the deceased to her parent's house and left her stating that she could return to the matrimonial home if only she comes with the vehicle.Even in Ex.P1, the letter sent by the deceased to the father PW1, she had mentioned that she was abused by the accused for the reason that the vehicle was not given.Though Ex.P1 & P2 were written much prior to the death of the deceased, there is an impediment in admitting them as they cannot be termed as dying declaration.The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 is sufficient to prove that the deceased was harassed by the accused 1 and 2, demanding a motorcycle.Therefore, the accused 1 and 2 / appellants are liable under Section 498A IPC.Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the deceased had sustained Antemortem injuries as per the evidence of the Doctor, this Court perused the evidence of PW4 and Postmortem report.In Ex.P5, it is mentioned as follows:"Antemortem Injuries:Both eye show subconjunctiral haemorrhage with ecchymosis (black eye)2. Contusion over the left lower lip corresponding to the upper canine & Premolar.An oblique blackish brown incomplete, intermittent ligature mark seen over the front and outer aspect of the neck measuring 18 x 1.5 c.m.It lies 7 c.m.below the right mastoid, over the outer aspect of neck, 4 c.m. below chin and 9 c.m. above suprasternal notch.Over the right side of neck in lies 2.5 c.m.below the left middle third of Ramus of mandible.Mursal aspect of tongue over the left side, shows diffuse blackish contusion."Though the Doctor has mentioned about the Antemortem injury, it is clear that the death was possible only by hanging.The doctor also admitted that even the injuries 1 & 4 are possible at the time of hanging.From the Postmortem Report, it was not possible for the Doctor to say that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the revision petitioner-PW1, even before the commencement of trial, filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.22358 of 2000, seeking a direction for further investigation stating that it was a case of 302 IPC.This Court does not find any merit in the revision filed by the revision petitioner / PW1, father of the deceased.Hence, the Crl.R.C.No.789 of 2003 filed by P.W.1 is liable to be dismissed.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / Accused 1 and 2 stated that both the Accused 1 and 2 have already been in jail for a period of 65 days.In the result, the Criminal Revision No.789 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner/PW1 is dismissed.The Crl.A.No.783/2003 filed by the accused 1 & 2 is partly allowed and the conviction imposed on the appellants / Accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 306, 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside.The sentence imposed on the appellants / accused 1 & 2 under Section 304B IPC is also set aside.The conviction imposed on the accused 1 and 2 / appellants under Section 498A IPC alone is confirmed and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months, which they have already undergone.Further, 1st accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and second accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo each 6 months simple imprisonment.The fine amount already paid by the appellants A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 304B IPC shall be adjusted towards the fine amount now imposed by this Court for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,684,728 | The background fact of the case is that the complainant, the opposite party no. 2 herein, came across with a Newspaper advertisement issued by M/s. Thomas Cook India Limited about a tour package "Best of (11) days" for Europe Tour and contacted the present petitioner and another accused at their office and got all the details about such tour package.As the complainant expressed his willingness to avail such package, the present petitioner and another accused advised him to pay and deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as advance with the accused company to have a confirm booking in the said tour package.The complainant being impressed by the representation of the said accused persons deposited a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh to the accused no. 1, the company Thomas Cook India Limited along with a form duly filled up accompanied by other necessary documents.Such deposit was made in the first week of May, 2007, but soon thereafter sometime in second week of May, 2007 the complainant was informed by the accused person including the present petitioner that their company is no longer in a position to provide them any accommodation in the aforesaid tour package "Best of (11) days" and asked them to participate in their next package tour "European Extravaganza 100%, European Holidays Package".However, the complainant expressed the unwillingness to accept such proposal and demanded refund of the advance paid to the company but in spite of repeated demands, no refund has been made.Thereafter, the complainant being unable to get his money back lodged a complaint to the Jhalda Police Station, whereupon Jhalda Police Station Case No. 4 of 2008 under Sections 420/416/403/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the self-same offences as against the petitioner and another.Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for quashing on the following grounds;(c) The allegations made in the First Information Report stand contradicted by the statements of the other witnesses.(d) On the face of the allegations made in the FIR and whatever appearing from the evidentiary materials collected by the police during investigation, no offence can be said to have been made out for which charge- sheet has been submitted.On the other hand, Mr. Dastoor appearing on behalf of the defacto- complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that a case of cheating has been clearly made out.He further submitted that the complainant has been deceived by the false offer of the accused persons and has suffered a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh.Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, produced the Case Diary.Mr. Mallick adopted the submissions of Mr. Dastoor and prays for dismissal of the instant criminal revision.Having heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the First Information Report as well as the evidentiary materials available from the Case Diary which have been collected by the police during investigation, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee that no case has been made out against the present petitioner.It is the specific case of the complainant on being deceived by the paper advertisement as well as by the oral representations of the accused persons, made to him when the complainant met the said accuseds at their office, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, as an advance, for the package tour "Best of (11) days".However, after receipt of such amount of money, within few days, the complainant was informed by the accused persons that he could not be accommodated in the said tour programme and when the complainant demanded for refund of the said advance the said accused persons refused.I have also found that police has recorded statements of many witnesses during the course of investigation which support the complainant's case.I further find that the petitioner has been charged for commission of offence of cheating in his individual capacity.There is also specific allegation of interaction between the complainant and the present petitioner and it is further been alleged that following such interaction and on his representation and being asked by him the complainant made the advance in respect whereof he has been cheated. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,685,238 | Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of sh the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the e petitioner Mohan in crime no.51/2018 registered by ad P.S.Navegaon, District- Chhindwara under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.Pr As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was a 24 years a hy old unmarried girl.ad At about 11:45 p.m. on 26.03.2018, the prosecutrix was M sleeping on the cot in her house.Her family members were also sleeping around.Petitioner Mohan came, woke her up of and threatened that if she married Dinesh, he would ruin her rt life and would kill her.Since, the prosecutrix was afraid of ou the petitioner, she accompanied the petitioner.He took her on the promise of marriage by dragging her outside the C house.They went from Khidkikaneri on foot to Navegaon h railway station.From Navegaon by train to Chhindwara.ig From Chhindrawa to Nagpur and thereafter to Chandrapur.H From Chandrapur they went to Varud and stayed at Varud at a place, where labourers stayed.At that place, he raped her twice.Thereafter, on 01.04.2018, they returned to Khidkikaneri.On 02.04.2018, the prosecutrix lodged the first information report.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of the offence, the prosecutrix was a 24 years old mature girl.The story in the first information report and the story as given in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure differ substantially.It has further been submitted that the prosecutrix had accompanied the petitioner of her own free will and accord and had gone to various places and had sexual intercourse with the petitioner by free consent.The petitioner has been in custody since 03.04.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.05.13 22:38:34 -07'00' | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,689,091 | The prosecution case is to the followingeffect :(a) Sohrabuddin Shaikh (since deceased) was a dreaded criminal, against whom offences of murder, abduction and extortion etc. were registered in the States of Gujarat andavk 2 REVN-430-2017-J.doc Rajasthan.He was an absconding accused in Crime No.214 of 2004 regarding murder of Hamid Lala committed in jurisdiction of Hathipole Police Station of Udaipur in Rajasthan and in Crime No.1124 of 2004 registered at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in respect of firing at the office of the Popular Builder.He was having link with the terrorists.In the year 1994/95 upon his arrest, Gujarat Police seized 24 AK 56 rifles, large number of hand grenades and a large cache of ammunitions from the well of his farm house, which was supposedly sent to him by Dawood Ibrahim at the instance of ISI for spreading terror in India.According to the intelligence input, he was going to help Pakistani Intelligence Agency ISI and Terrorist Organization Lashkar-e-Toiba in assassinating some big leader of Gujarat.Police from States of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh were desperately searching for his whereabouts.Kausarbi (since deceased) was wife of deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Tulsiram Prajapati (since deceased) was an aide of deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh andavk 3 REVN-430-2017-J.doc they both were undertaking criminal activities jointly.Award of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- was already declared on Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati respectively.According to the prosecution case, in the year 2004, gang of Sohrabuddin Shaikh became very active in Rajsamand, Nathdwara, Sukher and Udaipur districts of Rajasthan i.e. the areas which are known for marble mining and trade including export of the marble.Hamid Lala gang was protecting the marble traders for consideration.Gang of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati wanted to take control over the area for financial gains by getting rid of Hamid Lala gang.Accordingly, Hamid Lala was murdered by Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his gang.Sohrabuddin Shaikh also started extorting large sum of money from A.K.Marbles and M/s.Sangam Textiles.In view of criminal background and nuisance of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati, the accused persons from Gujarat and Rajasthan Police force entered into criminal conspiracy to eliminate Sohrabuddin Shaikh and then acted in connivance in abduction andavk 4 REVN-430-2017-J.doc killing of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Acting in furtherance of the conspiracy, they also killed Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati.(b) According to the prosecution case, senior police officers from the States of Gujarat and Rajasthan entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Sohrabuddin Shaikh.For this purpose, they sought help from his associate Tulsiram Prajapati for nabbing Sohrabuddin Shaikh by misleading Tulsiram Prajapati that due to political pressure, they need to arrest Sohrabuddin Shaikh for few months, and subsequently, he will be released on bail.Criminal conspiracy to eliminate Sohrabuddin Shaikh came to be hatched by senior officers including the respondent/ discharged accused no.3, by being in constant touch with each other.For that purpose, discharged accused D.G. Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandiyan and Dinesh M.N. as well as others were in constant touch and were visiting various places in other States, there was meeting of minds between them.Everyone had interest in nabbing Sohrabuddinavk 5 REVN-430-2017-J.doc Shaikh.For achieving this ultimate aim of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, teams of police officers from States of Gujarat and Rajasthan were formed.Police came to know that Sohrabuddin Shaikh along with his wife Kausarbi had gone to Hyderabad for celebrating the festival of Eid with his friend Kalimuddin of Hyderabad.Police received the tip that on 22 nd November 2005, Sohrabuddin Shaikh along with his wife Kausarbi was to go from Hyderabad to Sangli for gynecological treatment of Kausarbi, and they were to undertake this journey by luxury bus of Sangita Travels, Ahmedabad, in company of Tulsiram Prajapati.It is alleged that Police therefore, decided to abduct Sohrabuddin Shaikh during this journey.(c) According to prosecution case, in pursuant to conspiracy hatched respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. visited Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, about two months prior to fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.He also visited Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh.Respondent/dischargedavk 6 REVN-430-2017-J.doc accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. was at Ahmedabad from 24th November 2005 to 26th November 2005 when Sohrabuddin Shaikh died in fake encounter by teams of Gujarat and Rajasthan Police.Infact, he was present on the spot of encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.(d) How abduction took place is reflected from CBI statement of Nathuba Jadeja (PW105) and Gurudayal Singh (PW106), recorded by the Investigating Agency i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 11th May 2010 and 4th March 2010 respectively.These two witnesses at the relevant time i.e. in November 2005, were working with the Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, as drivers.The learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted the fact that both these witnesses are accomplice, having role in commission of the crime in question.REVN-430-2017-J.doc(e) As reflected from police statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja recorded by the CBI, at about 6.00 p.m. of 20 th November 2005, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan, Superintendent of Police with the Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, called him and directed him to accompany Police Inspector named N.H.Dhabi on a tour.Accordingly, along with Police Officials named Ajay Parmar, Santaram Sharma and co-driver Gurudayal Singh (PW106), Nathuba Jadeja(PW105) travelled by Qualis vehicle from Ahmedabad to Hyderabad.They reached Hyderabad at about 8.00 - 8.30 p.m. of 21st November 2005 and went to the campus of Central Industrial Security Force, Hyderabad.By that time, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan had already reached Hyderabad by taking a morning flight.Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi and Santaram Sharma went to meet discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan at a bungalow in the campus of the Central Industrial Security Force, at Hyderabad.Police Official Santaram Sharma stayed at that bungalow.Thereafter, Police Officials N.H.Dhabi andavk 8 REVN-430-2017-J.doc Parmar stayed in one room, whereas PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and PW106 Gurudayal Singh stayed in the another room of the guest house in the campus of the Central Industrial Security Force at Hyderabad, for the night halt.(f) Statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja recorded by the CBI further reflects that on 22nd November 2005, at about 8.30 - 9.00 a.m., Police Officials N.H.Dhabi, Parmar as well as drivers PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and PW106 Gurudayal Singh left the Central Industrial Security Force campus and went to IPS Officers mess, where N.H.Dhabi and Parmar met discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan.Thereafter, Police Officials Parmar and Santaram Sharma, along with PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and PW106 Gurudayal Singh went to Airport for purchasing air ticket for the return journey of discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan.Ajay Parmar went inside the Airport for purchasing the ticket.Then, they returned to the Officers Mess.Santaram Sharma and Ajay Parmar then bought two number plates.Subsequently,avk 9 REVN-430-2017-J.doc number plates of Qualis came to be changed by substituting it with the number plate having registration number of Andhra Pradesh by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and PW106 Gurudayal Singh, on instructions of Police Officer Parmar.(g) CBI statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja shows that at about 7.00 p.m of 22nd November 2005, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan accompanied by seven to eight other persons left for intercepting the luxury bus in which Sohrabuddin Shaikh was travelling, by two Tata Sumo vehicles.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja was following them by driving the Qualis vehicle.One of the Tata Sumo vehicles was driven by PW106 Gurudayal Singh.During the course of chasing the luxury bus, after a brief halt at the hotel, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan, Police Officers named N.H.Dhabi and Santaram Sharma along with two others sat in the Qualis driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja.The luxury bus was further chased by those two Tata Sumo vehicles as well as the Qualis vehicle driven by PW105avk 10 REVN-430-2017-J.doc Nathuba Jadeja.After midnight, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan directed PW105 Nathuba Jadeja to intercept the luxury bus by overtaking it by the Qualis vehicle.Accordingly, on intercepting it near Zahirabad, the luxury bus stopped.Discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan, Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi and others approached the bus.Then Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausarbi as well as Tulsiram Prajapati were made to alight from the said bus.Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati were then made to sit in the Qualis vehicle driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja, whereas Kausarbi was made to sit in the Tata Sumo vehicle driven by PW106 Gurudayal Singh.During return journey towards Ahmedabad, 2 kilometers after Bharuch, Kausarbi was also shifted to the Qualis vehicle driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja.Tulsiram Prajapati was shifted to another vehicle by Rajasthan Police.He was taken to Udaipur where he was kept in illegal custody for five days.Thereafter, he was shown to be arrested by a team led by PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada, Stationavk 11 REVN-430-2017-J.doc House Officer, Hathipole Police Station, Udaipur.Tulsiram Prajapati was then allowed to go by setting him free.He came to be apprehended on 26th November 2005 from the house of Chandan Kumar Jha at Bhilwara by PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Rajasthan.Police Officials named N.H.Dhabi, Parmar and Chaubey stayed at the said farm house.Discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan was dropped at his house.On his instructions, the Qualis vehicle was driven towards the police chowki near Judges bungalow.It was parked in one of the bungalows by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja.This is how, according to the prosecution case, Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati were abducted from theavk 12 REVN-430-2017-J.doc luxury bus near Zahirabad, while they were undertaking journey from Hyderabad to Sangli and subsequently Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were dumped in the "Disha Farm House" near Ahmedabad.At about 1.30 a.m. to 2.00 a.m. of 26 th November 2005, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja drove Maruti car which was occupied by Police Officers from Rajasthan Police as well as accused Police Officer N.H.Dhabi.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja was made to stop that Maruti car in between Narol circle and Vishala circle.At about 2.00 a.m. of 26 th November 2005, another Maruti car driven by Bhailal (PW107) came from Narol and stopped there.N.H.Dhabi and Police Personnel from Rajasthan Police alighted from the car.After sometime, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja heard sound of shotsavk 13 REVN-430-2017-J.doc being fired.On instructions, he and co-driver Bhailal (PW107) reversed the Maruti car.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja then saw Sohrabuddin Shaikh lying there in injured condition.Discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan, Superintendent of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad, discharged accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, and respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. (who is referred as the Superintendent of Police Udaipur by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja) along with other Police personnels namely Chaubey, Santaram Sharma etc. were found to be present there.One motorcycle was also found lying there.Police Officials N.H.Dhabi and Ajay Parmar took Soharabuddin Shaikh to the hospital in Maruti car driven by Bhailal (PW107).In this way, fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh came to be effected in between Narol circle and Vishala circle, in the night intervening 25th November 2006 and 26th November 2006, by the accused persons.REVN-430-2017-J.doc(j) According to the prosecution case reflected from the CBI statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja, thereafter, Kausarbi also came to be murdered by the accused persons and her dead body came to be disposed off by burning it at the bed of the river at Village Ellol.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja was asked by discharged accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, to accompany the tempo along with Police Official Chauhan.Firewood came to be loaded in that tempo and during the journey to Village Ellol, that tempo faced problem of malfunctioning of gear.Another tempo was summoned and firewood came to be shifted in that tempo.Further journey started thereafter and at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. of 28th November 2005, that tempo also got stuck in the sand in the bed of the river at Village Ellol.Then, discharged accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan and discharged accused N.K.Amin came there.Firewood from the tempo came to be stacked near the river bed.Dead body of Kausarbi was brought there by a jeep.As stated by PW105 Nathubaavk 15 REVN-430-2017-J.doc Jadeja, it was kept on the funeral pyre by him as well as by Chauhan, Chaubey and Rathod.Accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, burnt it by setting the pyre on fire.Thereafter, ashes and bones came to be collected in a bag and by the jeep, that bag was carried away by Police Officials named Chaubey and Chauhan.(k) Prosecution case, as reflected from the statement dated 4 th March 2010 of PW106 Gurudayal Singh recorded by the CBI is to the effect that on instructions of N.H.Dhabi, Police Inspector, Anti Terrorist Squad, at 7.30 p.m. of 20 th November 2005, he, alongwith N.H.Dhabi, Santaram Sharma and Ajay Parmar started their journey in the Qualis vehicle driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and then after 2.00 a.m., he drove that vehicle.On 22nd November 2005, they went to the IPS Mess where discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan was camping.avk 16REVN-430-2017-J.doc In the afternoon, he along with Parmar, Nathuba Jadeja (PW105) and Santaram Sharma went to the Airport for purchasing Air tickets for discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan.Parmar went inside the Airport for purchasing the Air ticket.Thereafter, on instructions from N.H.Dhabi, he and PW105 Nathuba Jadeja changed the number plates of the Qualis vehicle by affixing number plates starting with "AP-11".In the evening of 22 nd November 2005, he sat in the Tata Sumo vehicle along with three officers and followed the luxury bus.He has then spoken about intercepting the luxury bus by the Qualis and abduction of three persons including a lady from that bus by discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan and others.As per his version, abducted lady and Santaram Sharma sat in the Tata Sumo in which he was travelling.Thereafter, two kilometer after Bharuch, that burkha clad lady and Santaram Sharma sat in the Qualis vehicle.(n) According to the prosecution case apart from active role in eliminating Sohrabuddin Shaikh, respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. has played vital role in encountering Tulsiram Prajapati.He had directed PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, for nabbing Tulsiram Prajapati on 26th November 2005 by contacting him through accused Abdul Rehman, Police Inspector.After Tulsiram Prajapati was nabbed by the team of Police Officers including PW61 Ranvijay Singh, Police Inspector and PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada, Police Inspector, from house of PW Chandankumar Jha, Bhilwara, respondent/ discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. told them not to show his arrest for 2 to 3 days.Thereafter on 29 th November 2005, Tulsiram Prajapati was shown to have been arrested in Crime No.214 of 2004 registered with Hathipole Police Station, Udaipur, due to murder of Hamid Lala.Afteravk 20 REVN-430-2017-J.doc completion of his police custody, he was kept at the central jail at Udaipur, where he was threatened by Abdul Rehman, Police Inspector.In conspiracy to eliminate Tulsiram Prajapati, respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. has caused arrest of PW3 Kundan Prajapati - nephew of Tulsiram Prajapati as well as PW4 Vimal Shrivas - friend of PW3 Kundan Prajapati when they wanted to meet Tulsiram Prajapati.They were implicated in false cases in order to prevent their meeting with Tulsiram Prajapati.When Tulsiram Prajapati was to be produced in the concerned court at Ahmedabad, co-accused Mohd.Azam came to be tactfully separated by implicating him in old closed case of scooter theft.In this way, according to the prosecution case, Tulsiram Prajapati was sent all alone to Ahmedabad from Udaipur with selected police guards.(o) According to the prosecution case, Tulsiram Prajapati used to disclose his apprehension of killing in fake encounter by police to inmates of jail at Udaipur, including his nephewavk 21 REVN-430-2017-J.doc PW3 Kundan Prajapati and PW4 Vimal Shrivas, PW42 Rafique @ Bunty, PW Mohd.Azam and PW37 Sharafat Ali.He had expressed same apprehension of killing in fake encounter to his Advocate PW35 Salim Khan.Tulsiram Prajapati had submitted several applications before the concerned court as well as National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, expressing apprehension of killing by police in fake encounter.Thus, according to the prosecution case, under the conspiracy hatched by accused persons, Tulsiram Prajapati was systematically eliminated by sending him to Ahmedabad from Udaipur in custody of four selected guards of choice of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.The prosecution case indicates that during return journey undertaken on 26th December 2006 from Ahmedabad to Udaipur by Udaipur Express, Tulsiram Prajapati was infact not with the escort team headed by Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh.At about 3.00 a.m. of 27th December 2006, show of escape of Tulsiram Prajapati from the custody of the police guards was made.When the train became slow because of turning near Shamalji Railway Station, Tulsiram Prajapati was shown to have escaped from custody of the police guards.It is alleged that two criminals threw chilli powder in eyes of police guards Yaduveer Singh and Kartar Singh when they accompanied Tulsiram Prajapati towards urinal and then along with those two criminals, Tulsiram Prajapati was shown to have escaped from the custody of the Police Guards.Farce of trying to nab him by chasing him and firing bullets was made.According toavk 23 REVN-430-2017-J.doc prosecution, he was not in the custody of those guards.Thereafter, he was infact killed in fake encounter at about 5.00 a.m. of 28th December 2006 by one of the accused named Ashish Kumar Pandya, Police Sub-Inspector of Gujarat Police.(q) Version of other side in respect of encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati reflected from the charge-sheet also needs to be put on record.The FIR of encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati came to be lodged by Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya (co-accused) on 28th December 2006 while at the Cottage Hospital at Ambaji.He reported that at about 11.00 p.m. of 27th December 2006, information was received from the police control room about escape of Tulsiram Prajapati from custody of Udaipur police.Hence, he along with his staff as well as Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh, Police Constables Kartar Singh and Yaduveer Singh of the escort team of Udaipur Police from Rajasthan reached Ambaji and searched absconding accused Tulsiram Prajapati by checking various places including guest houses.Then,avk 24 REVN-430-2017-J.doc after 4.30 a.m. of 28th December 2006, they started patrolling on the road leading towards Sarhad Chapri.At about 5.00 a.m., they saw three persons on the road who were trying to stop the Matador pick up vehicle.That Matador vehicle did not stop.When the police jeep following the Matador vehicle reached at that spot, those three persons tried to stop that jeep.At that time, Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh of Udaipur Police identified one from those three persons as Tulsiram Prajapati.Then, according to the FIR lodged by Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya, Tulsiram Prajapati took out a firearm and fired a bullet which hit on left side of mudguard of the police jeep.Thereafter, Tulsiram Prajapati along with those two persons started running away.Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya further reported that he got down from the jeep and asked those three persons to surrender.At that time, Tulsiram Prajapati turned back and fired one round from the firearm.That bullet hit left upper arm of Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya (co-accused),avk 25 REVN-430-2017-J.doc and therefore, he fired two rounds from his service revolver.Apart from him, Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh and Police Constable Yaduveer Singh also fired from their service weapons causing fall of Tulsiram Prajapati.He was, then, taken to Simji Hospital.(r) The charge-sheet in the instant case reveals that Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya (co-accused) was admitted to the Government hospital Palanpur on 28 th December 2006 with the history of fire arm injury caused at about 5.00 a.m. of that day.Initially, he had taken treatment at Shri Arasuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust Hospital, Ambaji, on 28th December 2006 itself.Certificate of that hospital shows that Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Pandya had sustained a circle wound (2.5 x 2.5 cm) on upper part of left arm withavk 26 REVN-430-2017-J.doc active bleeding and blackness of skin.Small carbon particles were found near that wound.Bleeding was found present apart from sand particles in that wound.Similar are the findings of the Government hospital Palanpur.Medical Officer had opined that the injury was a fire arm injury.Medical Officer of Palanpur had informed police that entry wound was having inverted margin and blackening of skin in wound and tissues were present.Thus, Ashish Kumar Pandya (co-accused), Police Sub-Inspector of Gujarat Police, had also suffered gunshot injuries in alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati.(s) Spot of the incident of alleged encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was inspected.It was found that the shot from the firearm had damaged left side signal light of the jeep of the police party.Its glass was found broken.One cartridge was found lying near the edge of the road.One gun was alsoavk 27 REVN-430-2017-J.doc found lying on the spot of the incident.It was having wooden grip and the same was of 0.314 bore having body made up of steel.One cartridge was also found loaded in the barrel of that gun.With the aid of theirstatements, he argued that even prior to and at the time of fakeencounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N. was at Ahmedabad.Co-accused namelyD.G.Vanzara (discharged accused) also used to visit Udaipur andavk 29 REVN-430-2017-J.docrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. used to makearrangement of his stay at Udaipur.This shows meeting of mindsin conspiracy.He indulged in conspiracy toeliminate Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati.On 6th December 2005, his statement came to berecorded during the investigation of Crime No.5 of 2005registered on the basis of FIR lodged by Abdul Rehman.Hisversion, in his statement dated 6th December 2005 is to the effectthat, in the night intervening 25 th November 2005 and 26thNovember 2005, he accompanied by Police Inspector AbdulRehman, Police Sub-Inspector Himanshu Singh and PoliceInspector Shyam Singh went to the place between Narol circle andVishala circle.Officers of the Anti Terrorist Squad were also withthem.At about 5.00 a.m. of 26 th November 2005, onemotorcyclist came from Narol circle.Police Inspector N.H.Dhabisignaled him to stop and alerted others by shouting that themotorcyclist is Sohrabuddin Shaikh.The motorcyclist did not stopavk 69 REVN-430-2017-J.docand opened fire on the policemen.Hence, police returned fire andSohrabuddin Shaikh was injured, and ultimately died.There is nomention of visit to Hyderabad for abduction in this statement.35 Statements of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja were againrecorded on 14th February 2007 and 15th February 2007, duringinquiry of P.E.No.66 of 2006 by the CID.On 14 th February 2007,he stated that he is not mentally fit to give statement.On 15 thFebruary 2007 he stated that in the night intervening 25 thNovember 2005 and 26th November 2005, he along with PoliceInspector Abdul Rehman and Police Officers Himanshu Singh andSham Singh, went to Narol circle in the Maruti car driven by him.Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi along with the other staff was in otherMaruti car.Thereafter, at 5.00 a.m., Sohrabuddin Shaikh camefrom Narol circle on the motorcycle and he was asked to stop byPolice Inspector N.H.Dhabi.He, thereafter, repeated what he hadstated in his earlier statement dated 6th December 2005, reflectinggenuine return of fire by police causing death of SohrabuddinShaikh.In these statements also, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja has notavk 70 REVN-430-2017-J.docwhispered about visiting Hyderabad and abducting SohrabuddinShaikh and two others.36 Thereafter, on 26th April 2007, statement of PW105Nathuba Jadeja came to be recorded by one T.K.Patel, CID Crimes,Gujarat, at Thaltej, wherein this witness has spoken about hisjourney in detail with PW106 Gurudayal Singh and other accusedpersons to Hyderabad, abduction of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and twoothers from the luxury bus and their subsequent return toAhmedabad.He also stated about encounter of SohrabuddinShaikh in the night intervening 25 th November 2005 and 26thNovember 2005 and the presence of discharged accused RajkumarPandiyan along with other discharged accused persons includingD.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, and respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., Superintendent of Police,Udaipur, on the spot of encounter i.e. between Narol circle andVishala circle.This witness has further stated about disposal ofdead body of Kausarbi in the night of 28 th November 2005 inpresence of discharged accused Rajkumar Pandiyan, D.G.Vanzara,avk 71 REVN-430-2017-J.docDeputy Inspector General, and N.K.Amin.At the end of thisstatement dated 26th April 2007, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja hasallegedly stated that he did not inform anybody about thisincident till date because he is a small employee and has to workunder the higher officers so also because there is danger to his lifefrom higher officers as a result of which he is living underconstant coercion and fear etc.37 Next statement of this witness is in the form of hissworn affidavit dated 22nd May 2007 in the nature of anapplication under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedurefiled before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Ahmedabad.His so called statement dated 26 th April 2007 doesnot contain the facts narrated by him.38 Further statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja is foundin his affidavit dated 25th May 2007 presented before the learnedChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.In his duly swornaffidavit, he has stated that he was not aware about the contentsof his statement dated 14th February 2007 and 15th February 2007and without actually reading those statements, his signature wasobtained thereon.This witness further stated that on 26 th April2007, he was sent in the government vehicle along with AntiTerrorist Squad personnel to CID Office at Gandhi Nagar, wheresenior officers started giving threat to him that he should sign thepre-prepared written note, and that, only after doing so he couldbe tendered pardon.Thereafter, he was taken to Thaltej andmaking a farce of videography by turning video cameras on andavk 73 REVN-430-2017-J.docoff, his statement is shown to have been recorded.The saidstatement (dated 26th April 2007) is under duress and temptation.He had not seen any incident.Prior to this, on 12 thJanuary 2010, under orders of the Honourable Supreme Court,the case was transferred to the CBI and on 1 st February 2010, theFIR came to be registered by the CBI.In the wake of thisdevelopment, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja preferred an application foranticipatory bail.He has, on affidavit, stated therein that on 26 thApril 2007, Police Inspector Rajnish Rai threatened him to givethe purported statement as per his wish, with a threat that else, he(PW105 Nathuba Jadeja) would be arrested.Thatstatement is forcibly extracted under threat of putting him in jailfor the rest of his life.He apprehended that the CBI may try toavk 74 REVN-430-2017-J.docextract forcible confessional statement from him again.Averments in this application under Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure to the effect that he disclosed to the CBI thathis earlier version dated 15th February 2007 was correct versionbut his statement dated 26th April 2007 was forcibly extracted andthat CBI was not ready to accept his correct version, came to bereplied as "No comments" in the reply tendered by the CBI.40 Thereafter, statement dated 11th May 2010 of PW105Nathuba Jadeja is shown to have been recorded by the CBI.Thisstatement dated 11th May 2010 of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja is adverbatim same as per his statement dated 26th April 2007,allegedly recorded at Thaltej by T.K.Patel from CID Crimes,Gujarat.Perusal of the concluding paragraph of this statementdated 11th May 2010 recorded by the CBI makes this aspect clear.It is again written in the statement dated 11 th May 2010 of PW105Nathuba Jadeja that he had not informed about this incident toanybody till date because he is a small employee and has to workunder the higher officers and there is danger to his life fromavk 75 REVN-430-2017-J.dochigher officers, and he lives in fear and danger.These avermentsare, infact, there in the alleged statement dated 26 th April 2007, inwhich the incident was informed to T.K.Patel of the CID Crimes.41 Lastly, on 1st July 2015, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja hasmade his last statement in the matter, which is in the form of anaffidavit placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Mumbai.In this last statement, PW105 Nathuba Jadeja hasreiterated that he witnessed arrival of Sohrabuddin Shaikh atabout 5.00 a.m. of 26th November 2005 on motorcycle from Narolcircle and that when the team of police officers tried to nab him.Soharabuddin Shaikh opened fire from the firearm, and inretaliation the police team opened fire, in which he was injuredand subsequently died.He was, then, initially taken to Gandhi Nagar on26th April 2007 and then to Thaltej, where he was confined.Hisfalse statement was drawn by T.K.Patel from CID Crimes, Gujarat,by repeatedly threatening and intimidating him.He has furtheravk 76 REVN-430-2017-J.docstated on affidavit before the court that even in the year 2010, hewas threatened repeatedly with the prospect of his arrest and lossof his job, if he fails to stick to his version of 26 th April 2007 drawnby T.K.Patel of the CID Crimes, Gujarat.He never visited Hyderabad nor was he part ofthe team which allegedly killed Kausarbi and disposed off herdead body at Village Ellol.He was driver of the Anti TerroristSquad Maruti car, in which members of Rajasthan Police travelledup to Narol circle in morning hours of 26 th November 2005, whereencounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh took place.49 According to the prosecution case, SohrabuddinShaikh and Kausarbi were detained in "Disha Farm House" ownedby PW140 Girishbhai Patel.Statement of this witness shows thaton 23rd November 2005, he was requested by the DeputySuperintendent of Police Parmar to allow him to use the farmhouse.PW150 Dinesh Patel was working as Manager/caretaker ofthat farm house.Statement of this witness shows that in theevening hours of 24th November 2005, one male and one burkhaclad female were brought to the farm house by the Qualis vehicleand they were detained in the office room of the farm house.Twomen were keeping watch on them.In night hours of 25 thNovember 2005, the male person who was detained in the farmhouse was taken out, whereas on 26th November 2005, the burkhaavk 82 REVN-430-2017-J.docclad lady was taken out of the farm house in the Maruti car.This witness has identified thephotographs of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi as persons whowere brought to "Disha Farm House." PW151 Nareshbhai hasdeposed about taking of Kausarbi - the burkha clad lady from theDisha Farm House.This material collected during investigation istotally contrary to the version of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja who haddisclosed to the investigating agency that after 7.00 p.m. of 23 rdNovember 2005, by following the Maruti car of DeputySuperintendent of Police Parmar, they had gone to the farm housewhere Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were detained.REVN-430-2017-J.doc50 PW107 Bhailal Rathod is the driver of DeputySuperintendent of Police Parmar who had led the Qualis vehicle tothe farm house for detaining Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi.PW107 Bhailal Rathod has stated that after office hours of 24 thNovember 2005, he went to Coba circle along with DeputySuperintendent of Police Parmar.From there Qualis vehiclefollowed their Maruti car.Deputy Superintendent of PoliceParmar alighted from the Maruti car and went inside the farmhouse and then the Qualis vehicle also went inside the farmhouse.Moreover, PW107Bhailal Rathod has not spoken about presence ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. in the Qualisvehicle or at the "Disha Farm House" for detaining SohrabuddinShaikh and Kausarbi at that place.There is no evidence evenaccording to the prosecution case to the effect that thoughrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. was present atavk 84 REVN-430-2017-J.docAhmedabad on 24th November 2005, he ever visited the placewhere Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife were detained by GujaratPolice.Thisdid not happen and on 24th November 2005, according toevidence in the charge-sheet, respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. stayed at the Circuit House of Ahmedabad.51 Now let us ascertain from the material gathered by theprosecution as to whether it is seen that respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had taken any part in encounter ofSohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati.On this aspect,PW105 Nathuba Jadeja has stated that in the night intervening25th November 2005 and 26th November 2005, and particularlyaround 1.30 to 2.00 a.m., he drove Police Inspector N.H.Dhabialong with three officers of the Rajasthan Police in the Maruti car.On instructions of Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi, he stopped theavk 85 REVN-430-2017-J.docMaruti car near a big electric pole in between Narol circle andVishala circle.Then, Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi and three officersof Rajasthan Police alighted from that vehicle.He took the Maruticar ahead of that spot and parked it.PW105 Nathuba Jadejafurther stated that at about 2 O'Clock in the night, second Maruticar driven by PW107 Bhailal Rathod came from Narol and stoppednear the electric pole.Some person alighted from that vehicledriven by PW107 Bhailal Rathod.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja statedthat driver of that another Maruti car was PW107 Bhailal Rathod.PW107 Bhailal Rathod then parked that Maruti car behind Maruticar driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja.As per version of PW105Nathuba Jadeja, after sometime he heard sound of firing.Thereafter, they were instructed to reverse the vehicles.Hence,he himself and PW107 Bhailal Rathod reversed their vehicles andreached near the electric pole.One person (Sohrabuddin Shaikh)was lying there in injured condition.He was put in the Maruti cardriven by PW107 Bhailal Rathod.PW107 Bhailal Rathod stated that he then drove theMaruti car to Narol circle and then towards Vishala circle.Thenavk 87 REVN-430-2017-J.doche stopped the car near the electric pole.Police Sub-InspectorChaubey and those two persons alighted from the car.AnotherMaruti car came and stopped there.He then heard sound of firingbullets.Thereafter, Police Inspector N.H.Dhabi called him.Another Maruti car left the spot.He took his car towards PoliceInspector N.H.Dhabi.He saw one motorcycle lying there and alsoone person (Sohrabuddin Shaikh) lying there in injured condition.PW107 Bhailal Rathod further stated that then Police InspectorN.H.Dhabi and Police Sub-Inspector Chaubey kept that injuredperson (Sohrabuddin Shaikh) in his car and they went to civilhospital where that person was declared dead.If statements ofPW105 Nathuba Jadeja and PW107 Bhailal Rathod are read intandem, then version of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja reflects that evenPW107 Bhailal Rathod has witnessed the post event happeningsafter hearing sound of firing.Propercourse of action would have been to obtain CDR of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. for giving clear picture.avk 93REVN-430-2017-J.docSuch CDRs would have shown whether he was in contact withselected few police officers or many senior police officers fromvarious States.56 It is seen from statement of PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada,Station House Officer of Hathipole Police station, that he hadjoined that police station just 2 or 3 days prior to visit ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. to Ahmedabad.Statements of PW24 Dr.Virendra Jhala, AdditionalSuperintendent of Police, Udaipur, and that of PW51 VijendraVyas, Police Inspector of Hathipole Police station, shows thatrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had formed ateam for nabbing Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati andthat team was comprising of Police Inspector Ahdul Rehman andothers.Statements of both these witnesses show that PoliceInspector Abdul Rehman was an expert in phone tapping,identification of locations and nabbing criminals throughtelephonic surveillance.REVN-430-2017-J.doc57 Monthly diary of respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. was sought to be treated as adverse material againsthim for pointing out his involvement in encounter of SohrabuddinShaikh.Bare perusal of that entry reflects thatrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had notparticipated in the encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.This diarycontains averment that respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. had got intimation that in the joint nakabandi byUdaipur and Gujarat Police, at 5.30 a.m., encounter ofSohrabuddin Shaikh took place with the help of Gujarat Police.58 It was urged that once discharged accused no.1D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Terrorist Squad,Ahmedabad, visited Udaipur and respondent/discharged accusedavk 96 REVN-430-2017-J.docno.3 Dinesh M.N. made arrangements for his stay and this factreflects conspiracy to kill Sohrabuddin Shaikh and TulsiramPrajapati.For this purpose, reliance is placed on statement ofPW11 Suresh Mehta and PW12 Phulchand which shows thatduring 27th December 2005 to 30th December 2005, dischargedaccused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, AntiTerrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, visited Circuit House, Udaipur, andthat room was booked at the instance of respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Infact, this visit was after one month ofencounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Discharged accused no.1D.G.Vanzara was the Deputy Inspector General of Police of AntiTerrorist Squad, Ahmedabad.Extending protocol courtesy byreserving room in the name of D.G.Vanzara cannot be termed asan objectionable act raising suspicion.Ultimately, the said visitwas official visit and the stay was documented in the CircuitHouse by official booking.It was not clandestine visit and the staywas not at some secret place or private hotel.It is worthwhile to mention here that theavk 99 REVN-430-2017-J.doccharge-sheet contains no evidence of any person from Hyderabadto show that Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were accompaniedby Tulsiram Prajapati during their stay at Hyderabad or in theirjourney from Hyderabad to Sangli.According to the prosecutioncase, Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife Kausarbi came toHyderabad from Indore in the Maruti van owned by his friendKalimuddin.Thisstatement dated 2nd March 2010 reveals that Saleema Begum issister of Nayeemuddin @ Nayeem and according to the charge-sheet, this Nayeemuddin is infact Kalimuddin.This Kalimuddin @Nayeem, as per statement of Saleema Begum is abscondingaccused in D.I.G. Vyas assassination case.She refused to divulge furtheravk 100 REVN-430-2017-J.docdetails to the CBI by stating that for that purpose she will have totalk with her brother Nayeemuddin.She accepted the fact thatvisit of Sohrabuddin Shaikh to Hyderabad was arranged by herbrother Nayeemuddin.She further stated that she is acquaintedwith Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi but put a rider by statingthat she will disclose further things after consulting her brotherNayeemuddin.As per version of Saleema Begum relatives ofSohrabuddin Shaikh are in their contact, but then this witness hasstated that she would narrate further facts after consultingNayeemuddin @ Kalimuddin.The investigating agency has nottraced out this Nayeemuddin @ Kalimuddin with whomSohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife Kausarbi stayed at Hyderabad.Saleema Begum has not stated that Tulsiram Prajapati was withSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi in their stay at Hyderabad inNovember 2005, but she made it clear that relatives ofSohrabuddin Shaikh were in contact with her.Not a singlewitness from Hyderabad is there to vouch for presence of TulsiramPrajapati at Hyderabad during the relevant period.avk 101REVN-430-2017-J.doc61 Now let us examine whether any grounds forproceeding against respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. can be found from statements of brothers of deceasedSohrabuddin Shaikh viz. revision petitioner Rubabuddin Shaikhand Nayabuddin Shaikh, and to infer availability of prima facieevidence for framing the Charge.By this letter,revision petitioner Rubabuddin has informed that his brotherSohrabuddin Shaikh and his sister-in-law Kausarbi were travellingin the bus of N.J.Travels from Hyderabad to Sangli and Seatnos.29 and 30 were allotted to them.He further stated thatSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were arrested by police.a) Between the night of 22nd and 23rd of November, the Petitioner's brother Shri.Sohrabuddin with his wife Smt.At that time, the Gujarat Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Police and Rajasthan Special Task Force (STF) intercepted the bus and picked up Sri Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi.b) On 26.11.2005 Shri Sohrabuddin was killed by a team consisting of Shri.Rajkumar Pandyan,avk 105 REVN-430-2017-J.doc S.P. ATS and Shri Dineshkumar S.P., Udaipur and some other police personnel under the direct supervision of Shri.D.G. Vanzara, DIG, ATS.Also the above named officers played an active role in causing disappearance of Smt.65 Perusal of the entire pleading in this writ petitionshows that Rubabuddin has not mentioned that Tulsiram Prajapatiwas accompanying his brother Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbiduring their journey by luxury bus from Hyderabad to Sangli inthe night intervening 22nd and 23rd November 2005, though he hasspecifically pleaded seat numbers allotted to Sohrabuddin Shaikhand Kausarbi.Rubabuddin has furtherstated that at that time, Sohrabuddin Shaikh disclosed them thatfrom Indore he along with Kausarbi would go to the place ofKalimuddin at Hyderabad for celebrating Eid.Rubabuddin furtherdisclosed in this statement dated 3rd February 2007 that afterSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi reached Indore, they went toHyderabad by taking Maruti van belonging to Kalimuddin, kept atthe residence of Dr.Prakash Odekar of Indore.Rubabuddin in hisstatement dated 3rd February 2007 further stated thatSohrabuddin Shaikh had telephonically informed him thatKausarbi's health had deteriorated and as per advise of Dr.PrakashOdekar of Indore, he is taking Kausarbi to Sangli for medicaltreatment.Thereafter, on 21st November 2005, at about 6 to 8.30p.m., he had talks with Sohrabuddin Shaikh on a phone call.Inthis statement dated 3rd February 2007 also, Rubabuddin had notwhispered about presence of Tulsiram Prajapati with SohrabuddinShaikh, though allegedly, he was in constant touch withSohrabuddin Shaikh and though Sohrabuddin Shaikh wasdisclosing the facts regarding his stay and journey to him.If reallyavk 107 REVN-430-2017-J.docTulsiram Prajapati was accompanying the couple in their journeyfrom Indore to Hyderabad, in normal course Sohrabuddin Shaikhwould have disclosed this fact to his brothers during theirtelephonic talks.67 On 1st April 2007 another statement of Rubabuddincame to be recorded by the CID.That statement is a detailedstatement running into ten pages.In this statement, Rubabuddinhas disclosed about journey of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbito Indore and disclosure of Sohrabuddin Shaikh to him at thattime that thereafter he would go to the place of his friendKalimuddin at Hyderabad.Rubabuddin further disclosed thattheir journey from Indore to Hyderabad was in the Maruti van ofKalimuddin and Sohrabuddin Shaikh might have stayed at theplace of Kalimuddin at Hyderabad.Rubabuddin also stated thatSohrabuddin Shaikh while at Hyderabad used to talk with himregularly on his mobile phone as well as mobile phone of hisbrother Nayabuddin.Rubabuddin further stated that on 23 rdNovember 2005 Sohrabuddin Shaikh telephonically contactedavk 108 REVN-430-2017-J.docNayabuddin and informed that he and Kausarbi were leaving fromHyderabad for going to Sangli for medical treatment by luxurybus.According to Rubabuddin, Nayabuddin had informed thisfact to him.Up to the year2010, Rubabuddin has not disclosed this fact to anyone.On 8 th July 2006avk 112 REVN-430-2017-J.docstatement of Nayabuddin came to be recorded by the CID.As perhis version, in May 2005, his brother Sohrabuddin Shaikh andsister-in-law Kausarbi had gone to Indore and he then stayed withthem at Indore.Nayabuddin further stated that on 16 th/17thNovember 2005 Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi went toHyderabad and thereafter they used to frequently call him fromHyderabad on his mobile number.On 22nd November 2005 also hereceived call from Sohrabuddin Shaikh, who at that time, was atHyderabad.KA-05-F-5051 of M/s.Sangita Travels.During the course ofinvestigation, while recording their statements, photographs ofSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were shown to the followingwitnesses by the Investigating Officer of the CBI and thesewitnesses identified those photographs as photographs of thecouple abducted from that bus in the night intervening 22 ndNovember 2005 and 23rd November 2005 on its way fromHyderabad to Sangli.a) PW83 Gaziuddin S/o.Jamaluddin Chabukswar - Cleaner of the luxury busb) PW84 Misban Hyder S/o.Ghosuddin Sheikh - Driver of the luxury busavk 119 REVN-430-2017-J.docc) PW85 Mohammed Naimuddin S/o.Booking clerk cum pick up mand) PW100 Sharad Apte - Co-passenger of the luxury buse) PW101 Amit Apte - Co-passenger of the luxury busHowever, photographs of Tulsiram Prajapati were not shown to allthese witnesses by the Investigating Officer for fixing the identityof the third person travelling with Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi.As such, it cannot be inferred that the third persontravelling with Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi in that luxurybus was Tulsiram Prajapati.77 Though according to the prosecution case, TulsiramPrajapati was abducted during bus journey from Hyderabadtowards Sangli in the night intervening 22 nd November 2005 and23rd November 2005, according to the prosecution case, he wasnabbed by PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police,Udaipur, and his team including PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada,Station House Officer, Hathipole, on 26th November 2005 from theavk 120 REVN-430-2017-J.dochouse of Chandan Kumar Jha.How he was released from thecustody of the abductors is not clear from the charge-sheet.Similarly, if it is assumed that he was illegally detained after 23 rdNovember 2005, then charge-sheet contains no evidence in thisregard.Evidence and material collected to show that the thirdperson was Tulsiram Prajapati is totally unsatisfactory.It isaverred that respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.had managed to show that his arrest was on 29 th November 2005.Statement dated 21st June 2011 of PW38 Sudhir Joshi, DeputySuperintendent of Police, Udaipur, shows that in the morning of26th November 2005, he got telephonic call of Police InspectorAbdul Rehman form Ahmedabad and on that telephonic call,respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. informed him toarrest Tulsiram Prajapati.He was given cell phone number oflandlord of Tulsiram Prajapati and was told that TulsiramPrajapati is residing at Bhilwara in the name of Sameer.PW38Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, further stated thatthen he sought permission of PW25 Balmukund Verma, AdditionalSuperintendent of Police and constituted team of Police Officersavk 121 REVN-430-2017-J.docincluding PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada and PW61 Ranvijay Singh.PW38 Sudhir Joshi further stated that he verified the address ofthe person holding that cell phone number by contacting serviceprovider Reliance Telecom.Accordingly, they went to house ofChandan Kumar Jha at Bhilwara and nabbed Tulsiram Prajapati.He was then brought to Hathipole Police Station, Udaipur.PW38Sudhir Joshi further stated that the Superintendent of Policedirected him not to show arrest of Tulsiram Prajapati for 2 to 3days.Similar is the statement of Police Inspector PW61 RanvijaySingh.He has also disclosed that respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N. had directed them not to show arrest ofTulsiram Prajapati for 2 to 3 days.PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada,Police Inspector, Hathipole Police Station, on 16 th July 2011 statedto the CBI that he along with PW38 Sudhir Joshi, DeputySuperintendent of Police, apprehended Tulsiram Prajapati fromBhilwara, but on directions of respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N., arrest was not shown on that date.Thiswitness further stated that respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. had interrogated Tulsiram Prajapati thereafter.avk 122REVN-430-2017-J.docThese oral statements of witnesses are contrary tocontemporaneous documents.On 12th May 2010this witness has stated to the CBI that Tulsiram Prajapati wasarrested from the house of Chandan Kumar Jha situated at AzadNagar, Bhilwara, in presence of PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada, PoliceInspector, and then he was brought to Police Station Hathipole,where he was arrested in Crime No.214 of 2004 regarding murderof Hamid Lala.Similar is the statement dated 16 th September2010 given to the CID.As such, it cannot be said that theimpugned order of discharge is suffering from perversity.avk 128REVN-430-2017-J.doc79 According to the prosecution case, Tulsiram Prajapatiand his co-accused Mohd. Azam were used to be taken togetherfor producing them before the court at Ahmedabad.However, on25th December 2006, Mohd.Azam was not taken along withTulsiram Prajapati but he was maliciously shown as arrested insome old theft case of scooter for facilitating other co-accused inkilling Tulsiram Prajapati and this was done at the instance ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Reliance isbeing placed on statements of PW38 Sudhir Joshi, DeputySuperintendent of Police and PW61 Ranvijay Singh, PoliceInspector of Amba Mata Police Station, for substantiating thiscontention.As per version of PW61 Ranvijay Singh, PoliceInspector, on 21st December 2006, he and PW38 Sudhir Joshi,Deputy Superintendent of Police, were called byrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. They wereinformed that tourism mafias became active and vehicle liftingcases are increasing.As per version of PW52Himmat Singh, Police Inspector, in November 2006respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. formed specialteam of policemen under joint leadership of Abdul Rehman, PoliceInspector, as well as that of PW52 Himmat Singh, PoliceInspector.Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh and PoliceConstables Dalpat Singh, Yaduveer Singh and Kartar Singh werealso members of that special task force.This, according to therevision petitioner, shows that members of the escort team viz.,Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh, Police Constables DalpatSingh, Yaduveer Singh and Kartar Singh were men of confidenceof respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. PW52Himmat Singh, Police Inspector, in his statement further disclosedthat on 25th December 2006, Assistant Sub-Inspector NarayanSingh told him that respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. has ordered him to go for escorting Tulsiram Prajapati andto take Dalpat Singh, Yaduveer Singh and Kartar Singh with him.PW52 Himmat Singh, Police Inspector, then confirmed this factfrom respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. andavk 134 REVN-430-2017-J.docrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. told him not totake entry of this fact in Roznamcha of the police station.Similarly, it was urged that, on earlier occasion 15 to 20 guardswere entrusted for this work of escorting Tulsiram Prajapati.82 Let us now examine whether all this amounts to somephysical manifestation of tacit agreement between the accusedpersons for committing the crime in question and whether suchact on the part of respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. amounts to evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharingthe unlawful design.In this regard, statement of PW109 FatehSingh Kishor Singh recorded by the CBI on 4th July 2012 isrelevant.On the basis of record Fateh Singh Kishor Singh, Sub-Inspector with Reserve Police Line, Udaipur, has spoken aboutdeployment of guards for taking Tulsiram Prajapati and co-accused from Udaipur to Ahmedabad.His statement based ondocumentary evidence reveals that on 3rd July 2006 TulsiramPrajapati, Mohd.Azam and PW41 Sylvester Danial were taken forproduction before the court at Ahmedabad by one police guardavk 135 REVN-430-2017-J.docnamed Laxmanlal.On 17th July 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati, PW41Sylvester Danial and Mohd.Azam were taken from Udaipur toAhmedabad by seven police guards.On 31st July 2006 TulsiramPrajapati along with Mohd. Azam and PW41 Sylvester Danialwere taken from Udaipur to Ahmedabad by six police guards.On24th August 2008, total five accused persons including TulsiramPrajapati were taken to Ahmedabad from Udaipur by eight policeguards.On 10th September 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati, Mohd. Azamand PW41 Sylvester Danial were taken to Ahmedabad fromUdaipur for producing them before the court by six police guards.On 24th September 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati with two others weretaken to Ahmedabad by just five police guards.On 8 th October2006 Tulsiram Prajapati and two others were taken to Ahmedabadby six police guards, whereas on 17th October 2006 they weretaken by just five police guards.On 31 st October 2006 and 13thNovember 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati and Mohd. Azam were takento Ahmedabad by four police guards.However, on 27 th November2006 Tulsiram Prajapati and Mohd. Azam were taken fromUdaipur to Ahmedabad by twenty police guards.On 14 thavk 136 REVN-430-2017-J.docDecember 2006 they were taken by thirteen police guardswhereas on 25th December 2006 Tulsiram Prajapati was taken toAhmedabad by four police guards namely, Assistant Sub-InspectorNarayan Singh, Police Constables Dalpat Singh, Yaduveer Singhand Kartar Singh.Thus, this evidence indicates that as perneed of the situation and availability of the staff, police guardswere used to be deployed for escorting the prisoners.This dataculled out from the record does not reflect any tangible evidenceto infer that on 25th December 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati wasdeliberately entrusted to team of only four police guards.83 Reason for deploying only four police guards fortaking Tulsiram Prajapati to Ahmedabad on 25th December 2006can be found from the material collected and incorporated in thecharge-sheet itself.Deploying police guards for escorting theprisoners from Udaipur Central Jail to various courts in variousStates is a job entrusted to the Reserve Police Line.This ReservePolice Line of Udaipur has its own staff for various worksavk 137 REVN-430-2017-J.docentrusted to it and escorting the prisoners to the court is one ofsuch works.Deployment of police guards for the purpose ofescorting the prisoners to the court is done by the field in-chargeof the rank of Head Constable.If on a particular day there ispaucity of the staff at the Reserve Police Line, then additional staffwas used to be summoned from police stations in the vicinity.Surajpole Police Station is one of such police station and CentralJail of Udaipur falls within territorial jurisdiction of that policestation.Roznamcha of Reserve Police Line, Udaipur, is part ofthe charge-sheet against the accused persons.In the light of this positive versionavk 140 REVN-430-2017-J.docregarding the fact situation of paucity of staff occasioned on 25 thDecember 2006, summoning additional staff comprising ofAssistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singh and others from SurajpolePolice Station as usual, cannot be given any over bearingimportance for treating it as a tacit understanding between theaccused persons, and that too, only for eliminating TulsiramPrajapati by showing his escape from custody of the police guards.Statement of PW35 AdvocateSalim Khan representing Tulsiram Prajapati in Hamid Lala murdercase is also relied by the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner.PW Dinesh Gujjar in his statement dated 27 th June2011 has stated to CBI about recitals of Tulsiram Prajapati to himduring their stay at Udaipur Jail.He stated that TulsiramPrajapati used to abuse Gujarat police and respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. and used to declare that he will killrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. because hisavk 143 REVN-430-2017-J.docbrother and sister-in-law are killed by him.PW Dinesh Gujjarfurther stated that on request of Tulsiram Prajapati, he wroteapplications in English on his behalf to the courts and senior civilofficers.As per statement of this witness, application of TulsiramPrajapati addressed to the National Human Rights Commissionwas drafted by him.He stated that in the last week of November2006, Tulsiram Prajapati had informed him that this time policehad sent extra force with them and the in-charge of the escortingparty gave indication to Tulsiram Prajapati by saying that " vc rsjkuacj gS".Therefore, Tulsiram Prajapati called his nephew PW3Kundan Prajapati and another boy PW4 Vimal Shrivas from Ujjain.On 25th December 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati was reluctant to go toAhmedabad but police took him forcibly.Before leaving TulsiramPrajapati told him that this could be his last meeting.This witnessfurther stated that Tulsiram Prajapati and Mohd.Azam hadinformed him on earlier occasions that they had requested thecourt to sent them back by chaining their legs so that police maynot claim that they had escaped.PW42 Rafique @ Bunty in hisstatement to the CBI has stated that Tulsiram Prajapati disclosedavk 144 REVN-430-2017-J.docto him that police arrested his nephew PW3 Kundan Prajapati andPW4 Vimal Shrivas.Azam at that time.This witness stated that prior to their meetingwith Tulsiram Prajapati, they both were arrested by police.Respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. met them andtold that he has decided to kill Tulsiram Prajapati and then theyboth will also be killed.They were beaten by police and kept inillegal detention.92 Deceased Tulsiram Prajapati had sent writtencomplaint to National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, andhas stated therein that Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh andRajasthan Police have implicated him in several cases and there isconspiracy amongst the Police Officers of these States to bumphim off in any fake encounter by showing that he ran away fromthe custody and subsequently killed in exchange of fire.It isavk 151 REVN-430-2017-J.docaverred that this complaint was not properly attended byrespondent/ discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. which indicatesthat he is one of the conspirators.Allegations in this complaintare general in nature and not against Rajasthan Police inparticular.It is seen from the charge-sheet that the NationalHuman Rights Commission has not sought for any compliancereport from Rajasthan Police.Forwarding letter dated 13 th June2006 of Assistant Registrar (Law) of the said Commission is clear.95 According to the prosecution case, deceased TulsiramPrajapati used to apprehend danger to his life at the hands ofpolice and he used to disclose this fact to all and sundry includinghis relatives, inmates of jail and his advocates.The prosecutionhas alleged that in the last week of November 2006, as the in-charge of the escorting party indicated Tulsiram Prajapati abouthis proposed encounter, he called his nephew PW3 KundanPrajapati and another boy PW4 Vimal Shrivas from Ujjain.Tulsiram Prajapati had also expressed fear of his fake encounter tohis Advocate PW35 Salim Khan.Viewed from this angle, if subsequentdevelopments which took place during the course of trial areconsidered, then undisputedly, witnesses such as PW105 NathubaJadeja, PW22 Bhawarsingh Hada, Police Inspector, PW52 HimmatSingh, Police Inspector, PW Hazarilal Meena, PW37 Sharafat Ali,PW Hiralal, PW2 Sharad Apte, PW Amit Apte, PW7 GaziuddinChabuksawar, PW9 Dineshbhai Koli, PW12 MadhubhaiBandiyawala, PW13 Sajjan Odedera, PW14 Malde Odedera,avk 172 REVN-430-2017-J.docPW17 Premji Cham, PW27 Mohd.Jaffar, PW30 Gurudayal Singh,PW73 Manjusha Apte, PW20 Saleema Begum, PW21Gurubantsingh Bachhansingh Sardar, PW22 Allarakha Shaikh,PW23 Kantiji Chauhan, PW24 Kalpesh Vaghela, PW25 IrfanbhaiGhanchi, PW89 Govind Singh, PW108 Ghanshyam Wadera,PW121 Nasir Hussain and PW31 Bhailal Rathod have turnedhostile to the prosecution and not supported the CBI.PW61Ranvijay Singh, Police Inspector, has also not supported theprosecuting agency but is not declared hostile.Tulsiram Prajapati was allegedlyshot down at about 5.00 a.m. of 28 th December 2006 by accusedPolice Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya.On his report, CrimeNo.115 of 2006 came to be registered with Ambaji Police Stationof Banaskanta of Gujarat.Charge-sheet contains report of medicalexamination of this accused Police Sub-Inspector Ashish KumarPandya.He had suffered fire arm injury in the incident.One gun was also found lying on the spot whereencounter of Tulsiram Prajapati took place.106 On this backdrop, let us take a brief resume of whatis alleged against respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. It is averred against him that he was in constant touch withco-accused D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, Anti TerroristSquad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.He had visited office of the AntiTerrorist Squad, Gujarat, to meet officers thereat.These visitswere by official vehicle after seeking due permission from superiorofficers.Respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. haseven claimed TA/DA for these visits and had stayed atGovernment Circuit house.He had used his good offices forreserving a room in the Circuit house at Udaipur for D.G.Vanzara,Deputy Inspector General, Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad,avk 175 REVN-430-2017-J.docGujarat.It is further averred that respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N. - the then Superintendent of Police, Udaipur,had caused arrest of Tulsiram Prajapati by disclosing hiswhereabouts to PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent ofPolice.It is further averred that respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N., who then was the Superintendent of Police ofUdaipur, sent special team for escorting Tulsiram Prajapati toAhmedabad.Charge-sheet contains evidence that because ofpaucity of staff at Reserve Police Line, additional staff wassummoned by the concerned officer and approved byrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Undisputedly,Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati were abscondingaccused in the murder case of Hamid Lala within jurisdiction ofthe Superintendent of Police, Udaipur.They fired at his officesituated in his house and ran away.This was done to threatenhim and to force him to yield to their ransom demand.TheHonourable Supreme Court further noted that it is the case of thepolice personnel, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by DeputySuperintendent of Police Rajiv Ranjan Singh (accused), thathaving received information about this incident the police set outto arrest the accused.They traced them and asked them tosurrender.However, instead of surrendering, they fired at thepolice.The police had to retaliate to save themselves and in thatavk 186 REVN-430-2017-J.docfour criminals were killed.The rest escaped.The son of thecomplainant was one of those, who were killed.1 By this revision petition, petitioner/First InformantRubabuddin Shaikh - brother of deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh isavk 1 REVN-430-2017-J.docchallenging the order dated 1st August 2017 passed by the learnedSpecial Judge for the CBI, Greater Mumbai, below Exhibit 913,thereby discharging respondent/accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., thethen Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Rajasthan, for want ofevidence and absence of material under Section 227 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure as well as for want of sanction as envisagedby Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.This witness further stated that on reaching Ahmedabad, he went to his room in the Anti Terrorist Squad campus, andavk 17 REVN-430-2017-J.doc thereafter, proceeded on leave due to sickness of his nephew.Thus, statement of this witness PW106 Gurudayal Singh shows that while leaving Ahmedabad by the Qualis vehicle, he was not driving it but it was being driven by PW105 Nathuba Jadeja, whereas PW105 Nathuba Jadeja is stating that PW106 Gurudayal Singh was driving it.He has stated that he was one of the member of the police team which travelled from Hyderabad in three vehicles and abducted Sohrabuddin Shaikh and two others, but he was not driving the vehicle during that period.(l) After murdering Sohrabuddin Shaikh in the fake encounter, accused no.7 Police Inspector Abdul Rehman from Rajasthan Police filed First Information Report (FIR) with Crime Investigation Department, Crimes, (CID Crimes), Gujarat, alleging that absconding accused Sohrabuddin Shaikh was coming by highway from Surat and upon being asked to surrender he opened fire, and therefore, in retaliation the police also opened fire, due to which Sohrabuddin Shaikhavk 18 REVN-430-2017-J.doc came to be killed.Accordingly Crime No.05 of 2005 came to be registered.Accused no.4 Parmar, Police Officer, investigated the FIR and reported the encounter to be genuine and submitted Abate Summary.According to the prosecution case, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyan, on 27th December 2006, intercepted the cell phone of Tulsiram Prajapati by alleging that said Tushiram Prajapati has escaped from custody of police.This fact is reflected from statement of Arun Kumar Sharma, Deputy Inspector General, Gandhi Nagar.(m) According to the prosecution case though Sohrabuddin Shaikh and others were already nabbed by Gujarat Police in the night intervening 22nd November 2005 and 23rd November 2005, respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. travelled to Ahmedabad on 24th November 2005 on the false pretext that he has secret information and he wants to arrest Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Tulsiram Prajapati was declared dead at that hospital.Accordingly, Crime No.115 of 2006 came to be registered at Police Station Ambaji on the basis of this report lodged by Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya.This was the situation prevalent on the spot of the incident which was on the main road leading from Ambaji to Sarhad Chapri, where according to the prosecution case, Tulsiram Prajapati was eliminated in the fake encounter.During inquest proceedings, the Executive Magistrate recovered a mobile phone, three bullets and sundry items from dead body of Tulsiram Prajapati.(t) It is alleged that fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was done as Tulsiram Prajapati was disclosing to all and sundry as to how he was used by Gujarat Police for nabbing Sohrabuddin Shaikh and as he was an eye witness to abduction of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife Kausarbi.3 I have heard Shri Tiwari, the learned counselappearing for the revision petitioner Rubabuddin - First Informantand brother of deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh.He vehementlyavk 28 REVN-430-2017-J.docargued that Officers of Gujarat and Rajasthan hatched conspiracyprior to abduction of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapatiby being in constant touch with each other.Evidence in thatregard reflects physical manifestation of conspiracy.Respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had interest to nabSohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati.He relied onstatements of PW Rajendra Acharya, Typist with the Anti TerroristSquad, PW27 Dinesh Pawar, Deputy Superintendent of Police,Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, PW11 Suresh Mehta, Managerof Circuit House, Udaipur, PW12 Phoolchand, Assistant Managerof Circuit House, Udaipur, PW24 Dr.Virendra Jhala, AdditionalSuperintendent of Police, Udaipur, PW51 Vijendra Vyas, PoliceInspector, Rajasthan Police, as Station House Officer, HathipolePolice Station and PW16 Rajendra Mishra, AdditionalSuperintendent of Police, Madhya Pradesh.4 Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, further argued that respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. was present on the spot at the time offake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh in the night intervening24th November 2005 and 25th November 2005, as reflected fromstatement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja and this material is sufficientto frame Charge.5 It is further argued that respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. played major role in killing TulsiramPrajapati.Tulsiram Prajapati was nabbed on 26th November 2005from Bhilwara in Rajasthan, on directions ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., by the team ofpolice headed by PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Udaipur.Evidence collected by the prosecution shows thatavk 30 REVN-430-2017-J.docrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had directednot to show arrest of Tulsiram Prajapati for a period of 2 to 3days.After arrest he met Tulsiram Prajapati.Thereafter,respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. plannedelimination of Tulsiram Prajapati.Though Tulsiram Prajapati andMohd. Azam were accused in the case of firing at the office ofPopular Builder registered at Navrangpura Police Station atAhmedabad and were required to be produced before theconcerned court at Ahmedabad, prior to the date fixed for theirappearance before the court, respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. separated Mohd. Azam.This was done by falselyimplicating Mohd. Azam in an old case of theft of the scooter.Then under selected guards, respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. sent Tulsiram Prajapati to Ahmedabad.Only fourguards were sent with him.To substantiate thisavk 31 REVN-430-2017-J.doccontention, Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, placed reliance on statements of PW38 SudhirJoshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan, PW61 RanvijaySingh, Police Inspector, Rajasthan, PW25 Balmukund Verma,Assistant Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, PW22 BhawarsinghHada, Police Inspector, Hathipole Police Station, PW45 RajeevDasot, Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, PW60B.R.Mehta, Record Keeper of the Office of the Superintendent ofPolice, Udaipur, as well as statement of PW Dinesh Gujjar.6 Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, argued that though respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. showed purpose of the visit of 24 thNovember 2005 to Ahmedabad as to arrest of SohrabuddinShaikh, even Investigating Officer Bhawarsingh Hada was nottaken to Ahmedabad nor the case diary of that crime was carriedwith him by respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.avk 32REVN-430-2017-J.doc7 Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner, placed reliance on statements of inmates ofCentral Jail, Udaipur, to demonstrate that they heard narrations ofTulsiram Prajapati about the incident in question as well as hisapprehension that he is going to be killed by police.Shri Tiwari,the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, arguedthat narrations of those inmates of the prison constitutes dyingdeclarations made by Tulsiram Prajapati to them, from time totime.To buttress this submission, he placed reliance onstatements of PW Dinesh Gujjar, PW3 Kundan Prajapati, PW4Vimal Shrivas, PW42 Rafique @ Bunty, PW Ahmad Azam andPW37 Sharafat Ali.8 Reliance is placed on statement of PW Salim Khan,Advocate, to demonstrate several applications submitted byTulsiram Prajapati to the court as well as National Human RightsCommission, New Delhi.It is argued that those applications alsocan be taken as dying declarations of Tulsiram Prajapati.Respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. had not evenavk 33 REVN-430-2017-J.doccared to call for report on the applications of deceased TulsiramPrajapati forwarded by the National Human Rights Commission tothe Office of the Superintendent of Police.It was deliberatelyclassified as Part II and no report was called on it.9 Statement of PW61 Ranvijay Singh is relied todemonstrate that Mohd. Azam was separated by implicating himin a false case of scooter theft and statement of PW52 HimmatSingh is relied to show that thereafter, Tulsiram Prajapati was sentalone to Ahmedabad with escort of only four police personnel.Itis argued that on earlier occasions, about 15 to 20 policemen wereused to be sent for escorting Tulsiram Prajapati.It is argued that,on one occasion, Tulsiram Prajapati and Mohd. Azam wererequired to create a ruckus in the court for their safety.ShriTiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,argued that as Tulsiram Prajapati was disclosing to everybody asto how he was used for nabbing Sohrabuddin Shaikh, he came tobe eliminated under conspiracy by accused persons includingrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.avk 34Accordingly, Sohrabuddin Shaikh and others were abducted andsubsequently killed.Respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. was personally present at the spot of encounter ofSohrabuddin Shaikh.Tulsiram Prajapati named him time andagain.He doctored the encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati byseparating Mohd.Azam and Tulsiram Prajapati was sent alone toAhmedabad for remand with a selected team of only fourpolicemen.Subsequently, he was killed by making show of hisescape from custody.Therefore, no sanction is required toprosecute him.the respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., supportedthe impugned order of discharge by contending that Udaipur isthe border district of Rajasthan and therefore, Superintendent ofPolice of that district needs to contact all adjoining States such asGujarat and Maharashtra for getting information regardingcriminals committing offence in bordering districts of variousStates.Therefore, meeting of Police Officers of such States andvisiting such States by respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. cannot be termed as objectionable acts raisingsuspicion and inferring conspiracy.Visits of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. to Ahmedabad as well asMadhya Pradesh were official visits and not clandestine visits.Those were on getting necessary permission from superior officersand this fact is reflected from the investigation carried out.Thesefacts are reflected in the log book of official vehicle, so also in thediary of the respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Itis further argued that there is no evidence to show presence of therespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. on the spot atavk 37 REVN-430-2017-J.docthe time of alleged encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.The learnedcounsel further argued that the fact as to whether TulsiramPrajapati came to be arrested on 26th November 2005 or 29thNovember 2005 is inconsequential and immaterial.TulsiramPrajapati had escaped from custody of police on 27 th November2006 and respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. wasnot present either in the train from where Tulsiram Prajapatiescaped from the custody nor was he present at the spot ofencounter of Tulsiram Prajapati by Gujarat Police.Infact, as seenfrom the charge-sheet, there is no evidence to infer that TulsiramPrajapati was ever entrusted to Rajasthan Police by Gujarat Police.The entire investigation does not reflect this fact nor stand of theprosecuting agency i.e. CBI is clear on this aspect.If reallyTulsiram Prajapati was abducted by Gujarat Police, then in normalcourse, he would not have been handed over to Rajasthan Police,as he was wanted accused in the crime popularly known asPopular Builder firing case registered at Navrangpura PoliceStation of Ahmedabad.It is alleged that no motive for killingTulsiram Prajapati after a period of more than one year from hisavk 38 REVN-430-2017-J.docarrest is demonstrated by the prosecution.If case of theprosecution is considered as true, then after his abduction withSohrabuddin Shaikh, Tulsiram Prajapati could have been killed bypolice rather than setting him free, then nabbing him, keeping himin judicial custody for more than a year and then encounteringhim.The learned counsel further argued that there is no evidenceon record to show that the third person who was abducted fromthe luxury bus proceeding from Hyderabad towards Sangli wasTulsiram Prajapati.14 Shri Raja Thakare, the learned counsel appearing forrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., further arguedthat statement of PW38 Sudhir Joshi shows that TulsiramPrajapati was arrested on 29th November 2005 from Bhilwara inCrime No.214 of 2004 registered at Police Station Hathipole.Station diary entry to that effect is taken on 29 th November 2005itself.Higher-ups were informed about this arrest thereafter.Arrest memo also reflected arrest on 29th November 2005.avk 39REVN-430-2017-J.doc15 Shri Raja Thakare, the learned counsel appearing forrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., further arguedthat case diary of Crime No.95 of 2004 for offence punishableunder Section 379 of Indian Penal Code shows that complicity ofMohd.Azam in that crime was reflected, and as such, AssistantSub-Inspector Daulat Singh obtained production warrant of Mohd.Recovery is also effected from him, and accordingly,Mohd.Azam was charge-sheeted in that case.19 It is further argued that in the return journey fromAhmedabad to Udaipur, Tulsiram Prajapati escaped from thecustody, and thereafter, as he fired on the police party in themorning hours of 28th December 2006, he was killed in theencounter.(d) The respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. and his team were seen at the scene of offence where the encounter of Sohrabuddin had taken place.(b) On 25th December 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati as well as his co-(c) For taking Tulsiram Prajapati to Ahmedabad on 26 th December 2006, the escort team was allegedly selected and deputed by the respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.(d) Fax sent by Deputy Superintendent of Police Sudhir Joshi to Superintendent of Police Banaskanta about location of the suspect was at the instance of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.In that application, this witness has stated that hisearlier statement dated 26th April 2007 is recorded under duressand temptation against his wish, and as per wish of Officer namedRajnish Rai.REVN-430-2017-J.doc42 Thus, these several statements reflect initial as well aslast stand of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja, to the effect that, he nevervisited Hyderabad nor was he a part of the team, which allegedlyabducted Sohrabuddin Shaikh and two others.He drove theofficial car in the night intervening 25 th November 2005 and 26thNovember 2005, when in the return fire by police, SohrabuddinShaikh was injured and ultimately died.In between first and laststand of this witness it is shown that, he has made statements thathe was one of the members of the police team which went toHyderabad, abducted Sohrabuddin Shaikh and two others,brought them towards Ahmedabad and subsequently in fakeencounter, Sohrabuddin Shaikh was killed and later on his wifewas also killed.43 So far as another accomplice PW106 Gurudayal Singh- driver with the Anti Terrorist Squad is concerned, his statementwas firstly recorded on 19th January 2007 by one Solanki from CIDCrimes.Like statement of PW105 Nathuba Jadeja before the CIDCrimes, this witness has also stated about his visit to Hyderabad.avk 78REVN-430-2017-J.docHe stated about chasing the luxury bus and stopping othervehicles.44 Thereafter, detail statement of this witness came to berecorded by T.K.Patel of CID Crimes, Gujarat, on 4th April 2007where he has spoken about visiting Hyderabad, chasing the luxurybus and abducting persons from the board of that bus.He statedthat a burkha clad lady from that bus along with SantaramSharma sat in the Tata Sumo vehicle in which he was sitting.Hestated that after Bharuch, that lady and Santaram Sharma weremade to sit in another Tata Sumo vehicle.He further stated thatthen, by the Tata Sumo vehicle, he reached the Anti TerroristSquad campus and went to his room.It issomewhat like the one which was recorded on 4 th April 2007.Further statement of this witness came to be recorded on 4 thavk 79 REVN-430-2017-J.docMarch 2010 by the CBI, wherein, he has spoken about his visit toHyderabad by Qualis vehicle, chase of the luxury bus, abductionof Sohrabuddin Shaikh and two others, his travel towardsAhmedabad along with burkha clad lady and Santaram Sharma inTata Sumo vehicle.46 However, ultimately, this witness has tenderedaffidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai,on 1st July 2015, and had disowned the earlier statement made byhim.Like PW105 Nathuba Jadeja, he has also stated that he wasthreatened.He deposed that he was not a part of the team whichallegedly visited Hyderabad.His statement dated 19 th January2007 is a created and is a false statement containing untrueparticulars, showing his visit to Hyderabad in Qualis car.Hefurther stated that, his statement under Section 164 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is not a statement made by him, but that hewas made to sign a type written statement, after he was kept inthe private house of a Muslim family.Even T.K.Patel of CIDCrimes, Gujarat, has insisted him to stick to the story reflected inavk 80 REVN-430-2017-J.dochis statement dated 19th January 2007, failing which he wasthreatened that he would be arrested.PW105 Nathuba Jadeja furtherstated that, discharged accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, DeputyInspector General, discharged accused no.2 Rajkumar Pandiyanavk 86 REVN-430-2017-J.docand the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, were present thereapart from Police Sub-Inspector Chaubey, Santaram Sharma andthree officers from Udaipur.This witness has not disclosed nameof the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, nor has stated that he isin a position to identify that Officer.The prosecution has not evenconducted the Test Identification Parade to confirm that theSuperintendent of Police, Udaipur, mentioned by PW105 NathubaJadeja is infact respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.52 As against this statement of accomplice PW105Nathuba Jadeja, PW107 Bhailal Rathod, who happened to bedriver of Deputy Superintendent of Police Parmar, has stated tothe CBI that at about 2.30 a.m. in the night intervening 25 thNovember 2005 and 26th November 2005, he had taken DeputySuperintendent of Police Parmar and others by Maruti car to Cobacircle.There Police Sub-Inspector Chaubey with two otherpersons came and sat in his car.Face of one of those two personswas covered.Infact, as per versions of both thesewitnesses, the injured was put in the car driven by PW107 BhailalRathod for taking him to the hospital.Thus, if reallyrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. was present onthat spot at the time of the incident, then PW107 Bhailal Rathodavk 88 REVN-430-2017-J.docwould have certainly spoken about his presence.However,statement of PW107 Bhailal Rathod is conspicuously silent aboutpresence of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. onthe spot of the incident, at the time of the alleged fake encounterof Sohrabuddin Shaikh.He did not goanywhere on 25th November 2005 and remained in the CircuitHouse itself, and in the morning of 26th November 2005, he visitedthe office of Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad.REVN-430-2017-J.doc53 This is the evidence gathered by the prosecutingagency to show alleged active involvement ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. in encounter ofSohrabuddin Shaikh.There is no other independent evidenceon this aspect, so as to seek aid of confessional statement ofaccomplice PW105 Nathuba Jadeja.54 Similarly, statement of Rajendra Acharya, EnglishTypist with the Anti Terrorist Squad and that of Dinesh Parmar,Deputy Superintendent of Police, shows that respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. used to visit the office ofavk 90 REVN-430-2017-J.docAnti Terrorist Squad and had visited that office even two monthsprior to the encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Such visits cannotbe considered as part of conspiracy, particularly when such visitsof respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. are reflectedin the official documents and are made after seeking priorpermission of the higher-ups in the department.Letter at ExhibitD-112 dated 19th May 2007 sent by Inspector General of Police tothe CID shows that respondent/ discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. had taken permission of the Inspector General for his visit toAhmedabad.Statement of A.S.Gill, the then Director General ofPolice, Rajasthan, also shows that respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N. had taken permission of even the DirectorGeneral of Police for visiting Ahmedabad.Log book of officialvehicle of respondent/ discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. filedwith the charge-sheet also reflects mention of his visits toAhmedabad.Thus, visits of respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. to Ahmedabad cannot be made capital of and cannotbe construed as visits for conspiring to kill either SohrabuddinShaikh or Tulsiram Prajapati.On the contrary, both these personsavk 91 REVN-430-2017-J.docwere wanted accused in Crime No.214 of 2004 in respect ofmurder of Hamid Lala with Hathipole Police Station of Rajasthan.Statements of inmates of prison show that Tulsiram Prajapatialong with Sohrabuddin Shaikh was indulging in extorting croresof rupees from Marble Traders and Textile Industry of Rajasthan.Therefore, it is, but natural, for Police Officers to search for suchabsconding accused and to visit various places for tracing themout.When such visits are with due permission and welldocumented in all official record, those cannot be branded asclandestine visits for conspiring to kill Sohrabuddin Shaikh andTulsiram Prajapati in fake encounter.Log books of official vehicleof respondent/ discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. corroboratesversion of his driver Puranmal Meena that respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. was at the Circuit House of Ahmedabadin the night intervening 25th November 2005 and 26th November2005 and at day time of 25 th November 2005 he did not goanywhere.Thus, such visits ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. to Ahmedabaddo not constitute ground for framing the Charge as there isnothing objectionable in such visits.55 So far as Call Data Records (CDRs) of co-accusedVanzara reflecting calls between him and respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. are concerned, telephoniccommunication between two senior police officers of two differentStates by themselves does not reflect any conspiracy.Contents ofthose telephonic calls are not with the prosecuting agency.Without any material as regards the conversation betweendischarged accused no.1 D.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General,Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, and respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N., merely on the basis of CDR ofD.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, it cannot be inferred thatsufficient ground is made out for framing the Charge.In the wake of this material, thecircumstance that respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dineshavk 94 REVN-430-2017-J.docM.N. had not taken newly joined Station House Officer PW22Bhawarsingh Hada, Police Inspector of Hathipole Police Stationwith him to Ahmedabad becomes inconsequential and irrelevant.When respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.,Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, had sought permission ofDirector General of Police as well as Inspector General of Police tovisit Ahmedabad, non-disclosure of his visit to Ahmedabad to hissubordinate PW25 Balmukund Verma, Additional Superintendentof Police, cannot be a circumstance to create suspicion againstrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Similarly, casediary of Hamid Lala murder case was not required to be carried byrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. becauseSohrabuddin Shaikh as well as Tulsiram Prajapati were wantedaccused for Gujarat Police in Popular Builder firing case ofNavrangpura Police Station.Therefore, there was no question ofremand by Rajasthan Police, in the event of their arrest in Gujarat.These insignificant aspects cannot be construed as either direct orcircumstantial evidence indicating conspiracy to kill SohrabuddinShaikh or Tulsiram Prajapati.This entry cannot be read as suggested by the revision petitionerto mean that respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.was present on the spot at the time of the encounter or thatencounter took place at his instance.respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. in respect ofmurder of Tulsiram Prajapati.According to the prosecution case,Tulsiram Prajapati was abducted along with Sohrabuddin Shaikhand his wife Kausarbi during their journey from Hyderabad toSangli.The abduction was by intercepting the luxury bus by theQualis vehicle occupied by discharged accused no.2 RajkumarPandiyan, Superintendent of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad,Ahmedabad.Though prosecution case is clear about takingSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi to "Disha Farm House" afterabduction, the same is shrouded in mystery so far as disposal afterabduction of Tulsiram Prajapati is concerned.What happened tohim after abduction is not made clear by the prosecuting agencyCBI, particularly in the light of the fact that he was wantedaccused in Popular Builder firing case at Navrangpura PoliceStation, Ahmedabad, so also in murder case of Hamid Lalaregistered with Hathipole Police Station of Udaipur.Thus, he wasrequired by Gujarat Police as well as Rajasthan Police.If hewas allowed to go by himself, why and how this was done, is aquestion not answered from the papers of investigation.Similarly,if Tulsiram Prajapati was one of prime eye witnesses to abductionof Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi, and Sohrabuddin Shaikhwas to be killed by the accused persons shortly thereafter, thenalso why Tulsiram Prajapati was allowed to go freely is not clearfrom the charge-sheet.60 Now let us examine the charge-sheet in order toascertain evidence collected by the prosecution to demonstratethat the third person who came to be abducted from the luxurybus proceeding from Hyderabad to Sangli was none else butTulsiram Prajapati.Then they stayed with Kalimuddin for celebratingEid at Hyderabad.Statement of this Kalimuddin would havethrown some light on this aspect.However, during investigation,it appears Kalimuddin is not examined by the investigatingagency.We are having statement of Saleema Begum fromHyderabad recorded by the CBI with the charge-sheet.Hisbrother Sohrabuddin Shaikh came to be killed in the encounter on26th November 2005 and Kausarbi is missing.He apprehendedthat Kausarbi might have been killed and prayed for action againstall guilty persons.This letter was then forwarded to the DirectorGeneral of Police, Gujarat, vide letter dated 21 st January 2006 ofthe Assistant Registrar of the Honourable Supreme Court.It wasavk 102 REVN-430-2017-J.docdirected that on conducting inquiry, report be forwarded to theHonourable Supreme Court.Perusal of the first letter ofRubabuddin thus shows that he has not mentioned that duringtheir journey from Hyderabad to Sangli, Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi were accompanied by Tulsiram Prajapati and wastravelling on seat no.31 of the luxury bus.It is a detailedstatement running into five pages.Relevant portion from thirdparagraph of this statement reads thus :"......On the last 23/11/2005 my brother Sohrabuddin and his wife Kaushar bi had seated in the bus for Hyderabad to Sangli of A.J.Travels, thus I was informed by my younger brother Nayabuddin.This my brother had informed Nayabuddin from his mobile phone.Moreover my younger brother Nayabuddin was informed on his mobile phone by Sohrabuddin from S.T.D. phone, when he started from Hyderabad to Sangli and even Nayabuddin had informed me on my mobile phone.REVN-430-2017-J.docRelevant portion from page 5 of the statement reads thus :"......Moreover, I had learnt from the narration of my brother Nayabuddin that on the last 23/11/05, my elder brother Sohrabuddin and his wife Kaushar bi had started to come to Sangli from Hyderabad by Hytrack Travels Bus No.5051 of M.J.Tour and Travels on the Seat Nos.29 and30."63 Perusal of this statement of revision petitionerRubabuddin goes to show that deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh wasin contact with his brothers regularly either from the cell phone orS.T.D. phone.He was communicating the facts regarding hisonward journey to both of them.It is seen that even during hisjourney from Hyderabad to Sangli, deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikhwas in contact with his brothers and had disclosed to themregarding their journey to Sangli.However, this statement ofRubabuddin does not show that Tulsiram Prajapati wasaccompanying Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi as a third personby occupying seat no.31 in that luxury bus.Such fact was not toldavk 104 REVN-430-2017-J.docto him by Sohrabuddin Shaikh.Had Tulsiram Prajapati reallyaccompanied Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi during thisjourney, Sohrabuddin Shaikh would have certainly disclosed it tohis brothers.64 It is seen that on 11th January 2007 revision petitionerRubabuddin has filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Cri.)No.6 of 2007 before the Honourable Supreme Court.Thus, this statement of Rubabuddin given on 1 st April2007, reflects the fact that Rubabuddin and his brotherNayabuddin were in constant touch with Sohrabuddin Shaikh andwere communicating with each other about movements ofSohrabuddin Shaikh after he left for Indore and Hyderabad.However, Rubabuddin had not even remotely averred that hecame to know from Sohrabuddin Shaikh or sister of Nayeemuddin@ Kalimuddin that Tulsiram Prajapati was accompanyingSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi, either during their journeyfrom Indore to Hyderabad or by joining them at Hyderabad.Hehas not stated that Tulsiram Prajapati was with SohrabuddinShaikh and Kausarbi from Hyderabad for going to Sangli thoughthere was telephonic contact of Sohrabuddin Shaikh andNayabuddin on 23rd November 2005, within knowledge of thiswitness.Non-disclosure of this fact by deceased Sohrabuddinavk 109 REVN-430-2017-J.docShaikh to his brothers indicates that Tulsiram Prajapati must notbe with him during this period.68 Now comes the statement dated 18th February 2010 ofRubabuddin recorded by the CBI.Rubabuddin in this statementhas reiterated that when Sohrabuddin Shaikh was at Hyderabad,Sohrabuddin Shaikh was frequently talking with him as well aswith Nayabuddin over mobile phones.Sohrabuddin Shaikh waseven communicating from the S.T.D. phones.Rubabuddinfurther stated that Sohrabuddin Shaikh had lastly phoned him aswell as his brother Nayabuddin in the evening hours of 22 ndNovember 2005 and informed that he is taking Kausarbi to Sanglifor medical treatment.As per version of Rubabuddin, in thisstatement, his brother Nayabuddin told him that he learnt fromKalimuddin's sister that Kalimuddin had gone to see offSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi at the luxury bus at Hyderabad.They had occupied seat nos.29 and 30 of that bus.Mentioning ofonly two seat numbers shows that nobody else was accompanyingthe couple.It needs to be noted that after about 4 years,avk 110 REVN-430-2017-J.docRubabuddin has introduced new fact in this statement dated 18 thFebruary 2010 to the effect that his brother Nayabuddin told himthat from Indore one friend namely Tulsiram Prajapati has alsojoined Sohrabuddin Shaikh for going to Hyderabad.69 Rubabuddin in this statement dated 18th February2010 also disclosed about his meeting with Tulsiram Prajapati inSeptember/October 2006 at Ujjain.As per his version, when heasked Tulsiram Prajapati about death of Sohrabuddin Shaikh,Tulsiram Prajapati told him that he as well as Sohrabuddin Shaikhand Kausarbi had gone to Hyderabad, stayed there withKalimuddin and in the night between 22nd and 23rd November2005, they were going to Sangli for medical treatment of Kausarbiby the luxury bus.Thereafter, according to Rubabuddin, TulsiramPrajapati became emotional and started crying.Thereafter, asstated by Rubabuddin, Tulsiram Prajapati had handed over twoblank papers containing his signatures for writing letters to theHonourable Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court on hisbehalf.REVN-430-2017-J.doc70 It is, thus, clear that for the first time in the year 2010,Rubabuddin is introducing presence of Tulsiram Prajapati withSohrabuddin Shaikh and that too on the basis of informationgiven by his another brother named Nayabuddin.Then, on telephonic call on 23 rd November 2005Sohrabuddin Shaikh told him that he is going from Hyderabad toSangli.This witness further disclosed that after death ofSohrabuddin Shaikh he contacted sister of Kalimuddin and shedisclosed to him that on 23rd November 2005, Kalimuddin haddropped Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi in the luxury busgoing from Hyderabad to Sangli.This witness further stated thatafter some days he received a call from Kalimuddin who told himthat on 22nd November 2005 or 23rd November 2005 he(Kalimuddin) got ticket booked for Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi from Hyderabad to Sangli and during that journey,avk 113 REVN-430-2017-J.docSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were taken by persons whocame in 6 to 7 cars.This statement of Nayabuddin recorded soonafter the incident of death of Sohrabuddin Shaikh does not showthat Tulsiram Prajapati was with Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi at Indore or at Hyderabad.This statement makes it clearthat this witness Nayabuddin has not seen Tulsiram Prajapati inthe company of his brother Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbiwhen they left Indore for Hyderabad.Moreover, soon after deathof Sohrabuddin Shaikh, as per version of Nayabuddin, Kalimuddinhad disclosed to him about last journey of Sohrabuddin Shaikhwith Kausarbi.Statement of this witness Nayabuddin does notshow that Tulsiram Prajapati was with Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi during their stay at Hyderabad or in their journeytowards Sangli.This is, despite the fact that, Nayabuddin claimedto be in frequent touch with Sohrabuddin Shaikh during thisperiod.72 On 31st March 2007 another statement of this witnesscame to be recorded.In this statement also, Nayabuddin has notavk 114 REVN-430-2017-J.docclaimed that from Indore, Tulsiram Prajapati joined his brotherSohrabuddin Shaikh for onward journey to Hyderabad.On thecontrary, he has stated that at Indore, Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi went to Dr.Prakash Odekar and from there they went toHyderabad by Maruti van.He is not speaking about presence ofTulsiram Prajapati with Sohrabuddin Shaikh at Indore or whileleaving Indore for Hyderabad.73 Lastly, on 19th February 2010, statement ofNayabuddin came to be recorded by the CBI in which he hasstated that on or about 14th 15th or 16th November 2005, he hadgone to see off Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausarbi and TulsiramPrajapati at Indore bus stand when they were leaving forHyderabad in white Maruti van belonging to Kalimuddin.Thereis no explanation as to why such an important fact is not disclosedby this brother of deceased Sohrabuddin Shaikh for a long periodof more than 4 years to any authority or even to the court, whenhis another brother had already approached Honourable SupremeCourt in the matter.REVN-430-2017-J.doc74 It is seen from all former statements of Rubabuddin aswell as Nayabuddin that they maintained their version right fromthe year 2006 to 2010 that there was no third person withSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi during their journey fromJharania to Indore and then to Hyderabad and from Hyderabadtowards Sangli.Even this fact is not pleaded in the writ petitionfiled before the Honourable Supreme court by Rubabuddin.However, after about 5 years from the incident, all of a suddenNayabuddin is stating in the year 2010 that he had gone to see offSohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati inNovember 2005 at the bus stand of Indore for their journey toHyderabad.For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution hasnot collected CDRs of telephonic communication betweenSohrabuddin Shaikh and his brothers Rubabuddin andNayabuddin.Sister of Kalimuddin namely Saleema Begum hasnot spoken about presence of any third person with SohrabuddinShaikh and Kausarbi at Hyderabad.Statement of Kalimuddin isnot recorded during the course of investigation.Not a singleavk 116 REVN-430-2017-J.docwitness from Hyderabad is examined to show presence ofTulsiram Prajapati with Sohrabuddin Shaikh at Hyderabad.Thisis the only evidence regarding presence of third person namedTulsiram Prajapati during journey of Sohrabuddin Shaikh andKausarbi from Hyderabad to Sangli, which is introduced in theyear 2010 by Nayabuddin.This material is not at all makingprima facie case against the respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. nor raising any suspicion of having committedalleged offence by him.This version of Nayabuddin made in theyear 2010 by which he introduced presence of Tulsiram Prajapatiwith Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi at Bus Stand of Indore foronwards journey in November 2005 is opposed to common senseas well as contrary to the broader probabilities of the case as seenfrom other material, and as such cannot be accepted as a gospeltruth.75 To crown this all, there is statement of ChandanKumar Jha recorded under Section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.Undisputedly, this witness has maintained this versionavk 117 REVN-430-2017-J.docduring the trial, as stated by learned counsel appearing for theparties.This witnessChandan Kumar Jha has stated to the Judicial Magistrate that hehad leased out one room from his three roomed house havingcommon toilet and bathroom to Tulsiram Prajapati.The question which arose from perusal of thecharge-sheet is whether Tulsiram Prajapati was, therefore, reallyaccompanying Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi during theirjourney from Hyderabad to Sangli on 22nd November 2005, whenhis landlord is stating before the Judical Magistrate that he was atBhilwara at that time.Atleast, there is no prima facie evidence toshow that Tulsiram Prajapati was with Sohrabuddin Shaikh andavk 118 REVN-430-2017-J.docKausarbi in the journey from Hyderabad towards Sangli in thecharge-sheet and as such, no infirmity could be found in theimpugned order of discharge.76 According to the prosecution case, Tulsiram Prajapatialongwith Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi were proceedingfrom Hyderabad to Sangli by luxury bus bearing RegistrationNo.Charge-sheet contains Station Diary entryno.1482 made on 29th November 2005 showing that at 2.30 p.m.,PW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, leftHathipole Police Station for Bhilwara with Police Inspector PW22avk 123 REVN-430-2017-J.docBhawarsingh Hada.Entry no.1498 in the Station Diary showstheir return to Bhilwara after apprehending Tulsiram Prajapati.These entries are signed by PW38 Sudhir Joshi as well as PW22Bhawarsingh Hada, Police Inspector.Statement of PW25Balmukund Verma, Additional Superintendent of Police, showsthat on 29th November 2005, PW38 Sudhir Joshi, DeputySuperintendent of Police, telephonically informed that he receivedinformation about presence of wanted accused Tulsiram Prajapatiat Bhilwara.PW25 Balmukund Verma further stated that heasked PW38 Sudhir Joshi to verify this fact and then at 11.00 p.m.of 29th November 2005, PW38 Sudhir Joshi telephonicallyinformed him about arrest of Tulsiram Prajapati at Bhilwara.Casediary of Crime No.214 of 2004 regarding murder of Hamid Lalacontains the entry that at 2.30 p.m. of 29 th November 2005,information regarding presence of Tulsiram Prajapati at Bhilwarawas received.Official acts areregularly done is wise principle of law even recognized by thelegislature.As such, few statements of some Police Officerscontaining some different version regarding arrest of TulsiramPrajapati cannot be construed as material for raising suspicionabout involvement of respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. in the offence of murder of Tulsiram Prajapati by indulgingin conspiracy.On the contrary,statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, ofChandan Kumar Jha, son of Komal Jha, from whose house atBhilwara, Tulsiram Prajapati was nabbed by PW38 Sudhir Joshi,Deputy Superintendent of Police, shows that Tulsiram Prajapatiwas staying in that house itself for a period of 15 days prior to hisarrest by police.Thus, this statement indicates that atleast fromfifteen days prior to 26th November 2005, Tulsiram Prajapati wasresiding in the house of Chandan Kumar Jha at Bhilwara inRajasthan.This witness has categorically stated that his smallthree room house has only one door and common toilet andbathroom, and therefore, he used to see Tulsiram Prajapati daily.This statement, as such, indicates that Tulsiram Prajapati was atBhilwara atleast from 11th November 2005 and was residing at thehouse of Chandan Kumar Jha.This evidence gathered byinvestigating agency, as such, falsifies theory of abduction ofavk 126 REVN-430-2017-J.docTulsiram Prajapati by Gujarat Police from the luxury bus in thenight intervening 22nd November 2005 and 23rd November 2005.This evidence collected during investigation does not show thatunder conspiracy to kill Tulsiram Prajapati, all this was being doneand events were taking place in succession due to pre-plannedacts designed by accused on meeting of their minds for achievingthe goal.He has not spoken aboutnabbing Tulsiram Prajapati on 26th November 2005 or insistenceof respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. to show hisarrest belatedly.According to the prosecution witnesses includingPW38 Sudhir Joshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was PW22Bhawarsingh Hada, Police Inspector, who had grabbed TulsiramPrajapati at the house of Chandan Kumar Jha.This witness wasthe Investigating Officer of Hamid Lala murder case, in which theavk 127 REVN-430-2017-J.docarrest was effected.As such, there is noimmediate nexus of nabbing Tulsiram Prajapati either on 26 th or29th November 2005 and his death.This aspect is inconsequentialand is not indicative of prima facie case to frame Charge byinferring conspiracy to commit murder of Tulsiram Prajapati.Inthe similar way statement of PW64 Sukhdev Singh, PoliceConstable of Hathipole Police Station, to the effect that he signedArrest Memo of Tulsiram Prajapati on 29th November 2005, is ofno use for inferring conspiracy, the result of which, according tothe prosecution case, took place after more than one year.Thus,this evidence is not indicating any ground for proceeding againstrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. for conspiracyto kill Tulsiram Prajapati in fake encounter.Mohd. Azam of Hamid Lala murder case isencouraging them, and therefore, he should be booked in someold case of vehicle lifting of Police Station Amba Mata.REVN-430-2017-J.docAzam should be then taken in police custody remand.PW61Ranvijay Singh, Police Inspector, further stated that, therefore,Daulat Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Amba Mata Police stationwas instructed accordingly and Crime No.95 of 2004 came to bere-opened.Daulat Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector then applied forproduction warrant for Mohd. Azam.This witness further statedthat on 24th December 2006, respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. called him and told him that at any cost, he wants tosee Mohd. Azam on 25th December 2006 itself.Therefore, onproduction warrant of 25th December 2006, Mohd. Azam wasbrought to the police station and respondent/discharged accusedno.3 Dinesh M.N. told Daulat Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector ofAmba Mata Police Station, to seek his police custody remand onthe ground of recovery of number plate.This is how, according tothe revision petitioner, Mohd. Azam was kept back to facilitateencountering of Tulsiram Prajapati by Gujarat Police.80 In this regard, case diary (D-167 of CBI charge-sheet inthe case of Tulsiram Prajapati murder) and record of theft caseavk 130 REVN-430-2017-J.docbearing Crime No.95 of 2004 of Police station Amba Mata againstMohd.Azam shows that respondent/discharged accused no.3Dinesh M.N. had not played any role in arresting Mohd. Azam inthe said case.Application dated 22nd November 2006 moved forseeking production warrant of Mohd. Azam falsifies thecontention that Mohd. Azam was arrested in a false case at theinstance of respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. Onrecord page 1641 of D-167, the Investigating Officer of the theftcase has stated that on interrogation of one Punit Rathod, name ofMohd.Azam surfaced and therefore, Mohd. Azam came to betaken in custody on production warrant.Record page no.1653 ofD-167 of the charge-sheet shows that PW61 Ranvijay Singh,Station House Officer of Amba Mata Police Station has stated thatthe case was detected, investigated and charge-sheeted.Even if itis assumed that Mohd. Azam was arrested at the behest ofrespondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N., that by itselfwould not lead to raise inference that respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. conspired to kill Tulsiram Prajapati, inorder to make out ground for proceeding against him.The caseavk 131 REVN-430-2017-J.docdiary of that crime filed with the charge-sheet shows that there isentry by the Investigating Officer about Mohd. Azam admittingthe theft.Charge-sheet in thattheft case placed on record shows that number plate of the stolenscooter was recovered as per information given by Mohd. Azam.PW61 Ranvijay Singh, Station House Officer of Amba Mata PoliceStation, has drawn the charge-sheet of that theft case by statingthat Mohd. Azam accepted the fact of having stolen the scooterand on his confessional statement number plate came to berecovered.With such documents in the charge-sheet, it cannot besaid that finding of the learned trial court that there are nosufficient grounds for proceeding against respondent/dischargedaccused no.3 Dinesh M.N. is perverse.Tulsiram Prajapati was to be taken there for the purpose ofproducing him before the court in the firing case of PopularBuilder registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad.According to the prosecution, under conspiracy to eliminateTulsiram Prajapati in fake encounter, co-accused Mohd. Azam wasseparated and kept back on this occasion, so as to facilitate killingof Tulsiram Prajapati.According to the prosecution case, onearlier occasion of such remand, team of about twenty policemenused to be deputed for the purpose of escorting the prisoner, buton this occasion, selected four policemen were entrusted with thejob of escorting Tulsiram Prajapati.Reliance is placed onstatement of PW52 Himmat Singh, Police Inspector of Surajpoleavk 133 REVN-430-2017-J.docPolice Station, to demonstrate this fact.It shows that on25th December 2006 for the purpose of escorting the prisoners,only three staff members, and that too, of the rank of Sub-Inspector were available.Availability of the staff as well as theactual work of deploying police guards for escorting prisoners on25th December 2006 can be gathered from the statement of threewitnesses examined during the course of investigation.(a) Bhawarsingh Rajput, Head Constable (b) PW115 Bhopal SinghRathod, Head Constable and (c) Bhawarsingh Rathod, ReservePolice Inspector.Statement of Bhawarsingh Rathod, Reserveavk 138 REVN-430-2017-J.docPolice Inspector dated 10th June 2011 shows that staff membersdesignated as Battalion Havildar Major were working with him atthe Reserve Police Line who were actually allotting duties to thestaff and deploying the staff members for escorting the prisonersto the court as well as for other works.He further stated that incase of shortage of staff at the Reserve Police Line, request ismade to the Superintendent of Police for extra staff and then theSuperintendent of Police permits use of the staff from other policestations.Central Jail, Udaipur, falls in the territorial jurisdictionof the Police Station Surajpole and as such, whenever extra policeforce is required for escorting duty, those are sent by PoliceStation Surajpole.This is the version of Police Inspector ofReserve Police Line in the matter of escorting duty to the staff.84 PW115 Bhopal Singh, Head Constable, has clarifiedthis situation further.He has stated that as Battalion HavildarMajor working in Reserve Police Line, he used to allot duties tothe staff members and he used to deploy the staff for variousduties.REVN-430-2017-J.doc85 PW Bhawarsingh Kalyansingh Rajput, another PoliceConstable working with Reserve Police Line, stated that beingposted as a Major at Reserve Police Line, he along with hiscolleagues used to deploy guards for escorting the prisoners to thecourt.After the order to that effect is received in the name of theReserve Sub-Inspector and after signature thereon, he and hiscolleagues used to deploy guards for escorting duty.Hisstatement shows that number of prisoners to be taken to the courtwere more on 25th December 2016 and therefore, additional staffcame to be summoned from other Police Stations by sendingrequisition.As per version of Bhawarsingh Kalyansingh Rajput given tothe Investigating Officer on 17 th September 2010, it was he whohad issued guard duty to Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Singhand Police Constables Dalpat Singh, Yaduveer Singh and KartarSingh for escorting prisoner Tulsiram Prajapati from UdaipurCentral Jail to Ahmedabad.Consequently, no sanctity can be attached to versions ofinmates of Central Jail, Udaipur, such as PW30 Mohd.Azam Khan,PW37 Sharafat Ali, PW41 Sylvester Danial, PW187 Rafique @Bunty, Mohd.Hafiz, PW43 Firoz Khan, PW3 Kundan Prajapati,PW4 Vimal Shrivas etc. regarding their narrations in respect of theincident of abduction which they allegedly heard from TulsiramPrajapati while in jail at Udaipur.Truth of statement of TulsiramPrajapati to these witnesses is not established prima facie alsobecause of absence of evidence to show that Tulsiram Prajapatihad accompanied Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi to Hyderabadand was proceeding with them from Hyderabad towards Sangli.avk 142REVN-430-2017-J.doc87 Now let us consider whether recitals of what wasallegedly stated to them by Tulsiram Prajapati documented in thestatements made by prisoners to the Investigating Officer atCentral Jail, Udaipur, constitute dying declarations of TulsiramPrajapati, and therefore, forms sufficient ground for framingCharge against respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.For this purpose, reliance is placed on statement of co-prisonersPW Dinesh Gujjar, PW42 Rafique @ Bunty, PW Mohd.Azam andPW37 Sharafat Ali apart from that of PW3 Kundan Prajapati -nephew of Tulsiram Prajapati as well as PW4 Vimal Shrivas -friend of PW3 Kundan Prajapati.He further stated that when Police InspectorAbdul Rehman met Tulsiram Prajapati in the jail, TulsiramPrajapati uttered that if something happens to his nephew, he willnot spare respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N.,D.G.Vanzara, Churasama, so also Police Inspector Abdul Rehman.88 PW Mohd.Azam Khan in his statement dated 14 thNovember 2011 has confessed about his criminal activities inassociation with Tulsiram Prajapati and Sohrabuddin Shaikh,incident of firing at the office of the Popular Builder atAhmedabad, about activities of extortion carried out by the gangof Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati.He has alsospoken about meeting of Tulsiram Prajapati with dischargedaccused no.1 D.G.Vanzara.As per version of PW Mohd. Azam, on28th November 2006, about 30 to 40 police personnels wereaccompanying them to Ahmedabad, and at Ahmedabad theyshouted in the court that police might kill them.He stated that hehimself and Tulsiram Prajapati had applied for security.He statedavk 145 REVN-430-2017-J.docthat on 26th December 2006, Tulsiram Prajapati hugged him andtold him that it might be their last meeting and the police mightencounter him.PW37 Sharafat Ali in his statement had disclosedthat Tulsiram Prajapati was openly saying that he himself will killD.G.Vanzara, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Terrorist Squad,Ahmedabad, and respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. so also was apprehending danger to his life at the hands ofpolice.In first week of December 2006, Police Inspector AbdulRehman told him that he will receive news of encounter ofTulsiram Prajapati shortly.89 PW35 Advocate Salim Khan has stated to theInvestigating Officer that whenever he used to meet TulsiramPrajapati, Tulsiram Prajapati used to express fear of his liquidationby police.He used to say that Gujarat Police and RajasthanPolice have already killed Sohrabuddin Shaikh and now theymight kill him.This witness has also spoken about applicationssubmitted by Tulsiram Prajapati to various courts.REVN-430-2017-J.doc90 PW3 Kundan Prajapati and PW4 Vimal Shrivasunanimously stated that in December 2005, Tulsiram Prajapatimet them in the court and told that he is used by Gujarat Police toabduct Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausarbi and then he wasallowed to go to Bhilwara.His days are numbered and they willkill him.They further disclosed that on request of Rubabuddin, inthe end of November 2006, they came to Udaipur as there wasapprehension that Tulsiram Prajapati may be killed.They metTulsiram Prajapati in the district court and he told them that heand Mohd. Azam are being taken by train to Ahmedabad.Fifty tosixty policemen were accompanying Tulsiram Prajapati and Mohd.According to this witness, on 22 nd December2006, they were kept in Central Jail, Udaipur.Before leaving, Tulsiram Prajapati told thathe would be killed in the fake encounter and respondent/discharged accused no.3 Dinesh M.N. played game by preventingMohd.Azam from accompanying him.Statement of PW79 Abhay Singh Rathod, Inspector at the office ofthe Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, is also clear on this aspect.To conclude, there is no sufficient ground for framingthe Charge against respondent/discharged accused no.3 DineshM.N. No fault, therefore, can be found in the impugned order ofdischarge.101 Though according to the prosecution case, TulsiramPrajapati was kept at Ahmedabad itself and was not with policepersonnel deputed for escorting him during return journey toavk 166 REVN-430-2017-J.docAhmedabad on 26th December 2006, there is no evidence in thisregard.Both these policepersonnel have categorically stated to the CBI that they do notremember whether accused was in custody of police personnelfrom Rajasthan Police travelling in the last compartment ofUdaipur mail.Voice of three policemenwas being heard but he was unable to see them due to darkness.He was told that those three policemen have gone to nab thecriminals.Medicalcertificate of Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar Pandya (co-accused) shows that he sustained a circle wound of size 2.5 x 2.5cm on upper part of left arm with active bleeding and blackness ofskin.Small carbon particles were also found near that wound.Hehad also sustained another irregular wound of size 3 x 1 cmvertical, 1 cm posterior to wound no.1 with active bleeding.Theavk 174 REVN-430-2017-J.docjeep in which Ashish Kumar Pandya, Police Sub-Inspector, alongwith other policemen was travelling for searching TulsiramPrajapati was found to be damaged due to hitting of bullet.Acartridge was found lying on the edge of the road at the spot ofthe incident.In some case it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence.Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided on conclusion of trial."109 Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel for the First Informantplaced reliance on judgment in the matter of Om Prakash andOthers (supra) for contending that facts of the instant case do notwarrant obtaining sanction for prosecuting the accused.Facts ofthe case of Om Prakash and Others (supra) need to be noted.Inthat matter, Kailashpati Singh - father of deceased Amit PratapSingh @ Munna Singh filed a complaint in the court of the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, against Police Officers namely,Rajiv Rajan Singh - Deputy Superintendent of Police, PradeepKumar and Om Prakash - both Sub-Inspectors, Shyam BihariSingh and Bharat Shukla - both Constables, by alleging that AmitPratap Singh @ Munna Singh was killed by them in a fakeencounter.The accused therein invoked powers of the High Courtunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashingthe proceedings.The Honourable Apex Courtnoted the version of accused police personnel which was to theeffect that one Jeevan Prasad Naredi - a dealer in scrap lodged theFIR to the effect that some miscreants came to his house riding ona motorcycle and armed with firearms. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,695,977 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 15.12.2014 relating to crime No.784/2014 registered at Police Station Ranjh, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC.It is alleged against Bittu that he assaulted the victim Rakesh @ Babboo Thakur on his neck by a sword.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the victim Rakesh.It it alleged that the applicant had a stick with him.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused.No offence under Section 307 or 324 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly with the help of Section 34 of the IPC, whereas remaining offences are bailable.The applicant is in custody since 15.12.2014 without any substantial reason.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.It is directed that the present applicant namely Dharmendra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Jabalpur to appear before the committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
35,697,557 | 4) An amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand) be paid by the Legal Services Sub Committee, High Court Aurangabad, to Advocate Mr. N.P. Bondar, appointed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, in this matter.(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) mahajansb/::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 10:56:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 10:56:19 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,667 | The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th May, 1981 at about 10.30 p.m., C. R. Bose (PW 8) was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DEI-3900 on Station Road, having entered the same from the crossing called New Partap Chowk.He was told by two boys that the road blocked ahead However, he paid no heed to the same but when he reached main Palam Road he found that the road was completely blocked and there was no space to go ahead with the vehicle.So he returned to New Partap Chowk.As he was near it, two boys standing there stopped him.They had a dagger each in their hands and they put the same on his chest and back and bade him to hand over all his belongings.Saying so they removed his purse which contained about Rs. ISO/- from his hip pocket and they also removed his wrist watch HMT make which he was wearing.Another boy also joined them in the meanwhile and all three of them then took away his scooter telling him to stay there and not to raise any alarm.They further told him that they would return his scooter after a few minutes.However, they did not come back.He lodged report Ex. PW8/A at Police Post Dhaula Kuan with regard to this incident and a case under Section 392/397 I. P. C. was registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.The investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Gajender Singh, who was then in charge Police Post Dhaula Kuan.On 10th May 1981 Head Constable Jai Chand and Constable Sardar Singh, who were then posted at Police Station Sultan Puri and were on patrol duty in the area at about 9.45 A.M. noticed that a two wheeler scooter in a damaged condition was lying abandoned in an open plot towards the backside of Shobha Cinema.They enquired from passers-by about the ownership of the scooter but there being no claimant they seized the same vide memo Ex. PW1/4 and deposited it at Police Station Sultan Puri.On 12th May 1981 Inspector Gajender Singh (PW 11) came to know that a two wheeler scooter had been deposited in the Mai Khana of Police Station Sultan Puri.he went there along with the complainant C. R. Bose.The latter identified the said scooter to be his.Therefore, it was taken into custody by Inspector Gajender Singh vide memo Ex. PW11/D.On 3rd June 1981 SI.Chander Kant, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, happened to be on patrol in his area along with constable Mangal Ram (PW 9).He received a secret information at about 6.30 p.m. that a person was going to the liquor vend to sell stolen property.He prepared a raiding party comprising police officials as no member of the public was ready to join the same.On the pointing out of the informer, Hari Shankar alias Pammi appellant was arrested.The latter was then having a cycle and was also wearing a wrist watch (Ex. PA).The police took into possession both the articles vide memo.However, the latter declined to participate in the test identification parade.On the same day, viz., 8th June 1981, the investigating Officer also made an application for holding test parade for identification of the case property viz. wrist watch (Ex. PW 5/D) Shri Khanna fixed 28th June 1981 for identification of the watch.A test identification was accordingly held on 30th July 1981 to which date it had been adjourned.C.R. Bose was called in the Court room and he correctly identified watch Ex. P4 as well as his purse from amongst other articles of similar description.JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.Both the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (for short IPC) by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dt. 30th July.They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each.Feeling aggrieved they have preferred separate appeals mentioned above against their conviction and sentence.Ex. PW 14/A. His disclosure statement Ex. PW 14>B was recorded and a case (FIR No. 245 was registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh.On receiving information that Hari Shanker appellant had been arrested at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Inspector Gajender Singh took him into custody in the instant case from outside the Court of Shri R.N. Jindal on 4th June 1981 as he had been taken there for remand.He again stated that the purse was with Dharam Raj appellant and his statement Ex. PW 2/A was recorded.On 8th June 1981, Inspector Gajender Singh made an application (Ex. PW 5/D) to the concerned Magistrate Shri R.S. Khurana (PW5) for holding a test identification parade of Hari Shankar.On 21st July 1981, SI.Ram Mehar Singh, then posted at Police Station Delhi Cantt., was on patrol in his area along with ASI Yad Ram (PW3).They noticed that Dharam Raj appellant was present at Mod Road and was hurling threats to the public at large that anyone who dared complain to the police against him would not be spared.He was arrested under Section 107/151, Criminal P.C. (for short 'the Code').A spring actuated knife was recovered from his possession and a case under the Arms Act being FIR No. 174 was registered against him.He made disclosure statement Ex. PW 3/A to the effect that he had kept the purse in a box at his house.Kartar Singh (PW 12), a Kabari by profession, also witnessed this incident.On 22nd July 1981 SI.Ram Mehar Singh intimated this fact to Inspector Gajender Singh who again interrogated Dharam Raj and he repeated the disclosure earlier made by him.He then led the police party to his house at Kali Bari Marg on the same day and took put the purse (Ex. P2) from inside the clothes which were lying in a box at his house.The same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. On that very day Inspector Gajender Singh moved application Ex. PW 5/H for holding test identification parade of Dharam Raj appellant.The Magistrate Shri R. S. Khanna fixed 30th July 1981 for holding test identification.Another application was made by the Investigating Officer for test identification of the purse Ex. P.2, As stated above, the purse Ex. P2 was duly identified by C. R. Bose in the test identification.As for identification of Dharam Raj appellant he declined to participate in the same saying that he had been made to sit at the Police Station for a number of days and he had been shown to the witnesses.The third companion of the appellants, namely Ranjit Singh too was arrested by Inspector Gajender Singh on 16th June 1981 under Section 107 151 of the Code and a spring actuated knife was recovered from his possession.He too disclosed that the purse was with Dharam Raj.The crucial question which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is with regard to their identity as the real culprits.As stated above, Hari Shankar appellant was arrested on 3rd June 1981 by Punjabi Bagh Police.He was produced in court for police remand on the next following day viz. 4th June 1981, on which date he was arrested by the Investigating Officer in this case.He was produced m the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate again on 8th June 1981 along with the application Ex. PW 5/E for holding a test identification parade/However, the appellant Han Shankar declined to participate in the test identification.His contention is that he had been already shown to the complainant at the Police Station and, therefore, there was no point in his joining the test identification parade which would have been just farce.I find considerable merit in the contention having regard to the material on record although in application Ex, PW 5/E it was stated by the Investigating Officer that the appellant had .been directed to keep his face muffled but as recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate his face was not muffled when he was produced to Court.Moreover, it was admitted by the Investigating Officer that the appellant had been remanded to police custody for four days.In other words, the appellant had been admittedly in the police custody from 3rd June, 1981, when he was allegedly arrested, uptil 8th June, 1981 when he was produced in Court and a prayer was made for his test identification parade.Thus, the police had ample opportunity to show him to the complainant.An indication to the effect that he might have been shown to the complainant is available from the admission made by the complainant himself.During his cross-, examination Shri Bose stated that, "When my watch was recovered, I went to P. S. Sultan Puri, one of the three accused was at the Police Station but I do not recollect as to who was he, and thereafter I have seen the accused today." Having regard to the version of the prosecution itself that Ranjit Singh and Dharam Raj were arrested by the police on 16th June 1981 and 21st July, 1981 respectively, the reference of Shri Bose to the accused person seen by him at police Station Sultan Pun could possibly be to Hari Shankar appellant by logical process of elimination.Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against Han Shankar appellant for his refusing to participate in the test identification parade and his identification in court by the complainant is valueless.Needless to say that the investigation has to be very fair to the accused but this principle seems to have been thrown to the winds.He was wearing it on his left wrist.As for Dharam Raj appellant, however, the position is substantially different inasmuch as he was arrested on 21st July 1981 and pursuant to the disclosure Ex. PW 3/A he led the police party to his house on the next following day and produced the stolen purse Ex. P2 from inside the clothes which were lying in a box at his house.The evidence of Inspector Gajender Singh and SI.Ram Mehar Singh (PW 7) to this effect is quite clear and cogent and I see no reason to disbelieve them.It is true that according to these witnesses the said purse did not have any special mark of identification but as noticed by the trial Court itself the words "Big Rose Commander" were written inside the purse in golden ink.The upshot of the whole discussion is that the appeal of Hari Shankar succeeds. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,976,685 | The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is a director of M/s. Tools and Equipment (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the assessed").JUDGMENT J. D. JAIN J. - This is an application under s. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint and the proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner under s. 277 of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") now pending in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.As the same did not find place in the list of raw materials lying with the assessed in the factory, it was asked to explain, (i) details of the components, (ii) date on which the same were given by the assessed.In response to the same the assesses-companies managing director, chartered accountant and the accountant put in appearance and confirmed that the said goods were covered in the list of raw materials lying in the factory of the assessed.Thereupon, they were required to furnish a copy of the list of raw materials which was accordingly submitted by the assesseds accountant,.However, further scrutiny of the assessment records revealed that the assessed had already filed one such list of raw materials lying in the factory and the same contained entirely different particulars of the articles lying in the factory from the list subsequently submitted by the assessed.The details of these lists are as under:List A List A Rs.105 H.S. Sheet 37,521.00 6,475 Kg.E.N. Bright 22,008.53 3,960 Kg.E.N. Bars 20,638.53 80,168.06 List B List B Lever clutch shaft 1,651 pcs.9,906.00 E. No. 19 Bar 4,578 Kg.15,521.55 Components of machines 34,102.00 EN 10 Bright Bar 3,960 Kg.20,638.73 80,168.28 On account of material discrepancies in these two lists, the ITO called upon the managing director, the chartered accountant and the accountant of the assessed to explain the same and examined them on solemn affirmation.All of them, however, confirmed the genuineness and correctness of list A but they could not say anything about the veracity of list B without examining in detail the records of the assessed.Shri Rajinder Nath, petitioner, too confirmed that list A was genuine but the could not explain as to how the accountant had prepared the list B. However, he submitted that he had signed the said list in good faith.On further examination the petitioner explained that the components of the value of Rs. 34,102 purchased by the assessed on March 26, 1973, from its allied concern were left out in the original list A because the same had been duly sold, vide invoices bearing Nos. S-289 onwards before the end of the financial year concerned.The assesseds accountant, Shri Wadhwa, too deposed on solemn affirmation that both lists A and B had been signed by the petitioner but explained that he had prepared list B on the basis of information collected by him because the previous accountant, Miss Usha, who had prepared the list A, had left the service of the assessed on account of her marriage in 1974 and he could not lay his hands on any copy of list A. According to him, he had compiled list B on the basis of raw material withdrawn from the bank in the month of March, the purchases made by the assessed in the said month and after adjusting the consumption figures on estimate basis.The ITO was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner and the accountant of the assessed with regard to the circumstances under which list B was complied.The AAC closely scrutinised both the lists marked A & B as well as the account books and other records of the assessed and arrived at the conclusion that the original list of raw materials submitted by the assessed was correct inasmuch as the machine components purchased by the assessed from its allied concern on March 26, 1973, had been disposed of in the month of March, 1973, itself and none of those could be lying in the closing stock of the raw materials.As a necessary corollary he found that the list B prepared by Shri Wadhwa showing these machine components in stock of raw materials could not be correct.So, he allowed the appeal and deleted the trading addition from assessment as being unwarranted.Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order, the revenue went up in appeal to the I.T. Appellate Tribunal but met with no success.In the meanwhile, the ITO, under the authority of the Commissioner, instituted a complaint against the petitioner under s. 277 of the Act. While adverting to the foregoing facts he contended that the explanation furnished by the assessed and the petitioner that the first statement of raw materials was correct was obviously false under the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner signed the verification in the return as well as both the statements of raw materials which were false and which he either knew or believed to be false and/or did not believe to be true and as such he was guilty of an offence punishable under s. 277 of the Act. It may be pertinent to add here that this complaint was filed on March 29, 1976, i.e., even before the Appellate I.T. Commissioner had an occasion to hear the appeal.The constitution of the firm, however, continued changing from time to time but Smt. Janak Rani was throughout shown as one of the partners.He, therefore, cancelled the registration.Feeling aggrieved, the assessed-firm went up in appeal.Thereupon, the assessed-firm preferred a second appeal before the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, which, vide its order dated November 30, 1974, allowed all the seven appeals and set aside the orders of the ITO and the AAC.In the meanwhile, the revenue had filed a complaint against the partners of the assessed-firm under s. 277 of the Act as also under ss. 193, 196, 467 & 471 read with ss. 109, 114, 34 & 37 of the IPC.The Supreme Court after granting special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order proceeded to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1979 forthwith (Uttam Chand v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 909).We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the prosecution.""It was a fortuitous circumstance that when the query was raised by the Income-tax Officer and the answer was demanded in a very limited time, the original list could not be immediately found.In doing so he mistakenly included the purchases made on March 26, 1973 from M/s. Express Exporters and Engg.Still later he observes that:"Let us at this stage examine whether the machine components purchased from M/s. Express Exporters of Engg.(P.) Ltd. on March 26, 1973, were sold under the same invoices Nos. 289, 290, 300 to M/s. M.C. Engineering Co. and M/s. Syntex Tube Works, as maintained by the appellant.The correspondence in this regard and the copies of sales invoices form part of the appellate record.It may be emphasised that the components were of highly specialised type which could not have been of any use to any customer in the open market.It has, therefore, to be inferred as a fact that the components worth Rs. 34,102 from M/s. Express Exporters were in fact sold in the month of March itself, and none of these could be lying in the closing stock of raw materials.Conversely if the original statement marked "A" were to be accepted and the machine components were taken as having been sold off there was no concealment of income as such.Thus, looked at from any angle, the continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioner will be nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same must be quashed.An argument was also advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was open to the ITO to impose penalty on the assessed or, for that matter, the petitioner, under cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, but the Commissioner not having done so, it would be highly improper and unjust on the part of the respondents to insist on proceedings with the criminal complaint. | ['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,668,901 | In Re:- Snkar Biswas & Ors.. .. ... Petitioners.Mr.Krishnendu Bhadra .. for the petitioners.Ratna Ghosh .. for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with.Bongaon P.S. No.657 of 2016 dated 12.07.2016 under sections 186/188/413/414of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 2 | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,680,332 | At that h time, main accused Sagar Thakur kidnapped her on the point of ig knife and made her sit on the motorcycle.Present petitioner H Abhishek was driving the motorcycle.Co-accused Sagar Thakur asked petitioner Abhishek to drive the motorcycle towards the Station.In the way, petitioner Abhishek made the prosecutrix consume some intoxicating tablets.As a result, she became unconscious.Thereafter, both of them raped her and took her to Deori Railway Station.From Deori Railway Station, Sagar Thakur took her to Indore where she stayed with him for about 10 days.During aforesaid period, Sagar used to administer one intoxicating tablet to her everyday as a result she used to become unconscious.During aforesaid period, Sagar Thakur repeatedly raped her.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix sh has in all given two statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and two statements under section 164 of the e ad Code of Criminal Procedure.In that statement, the role that has been ascribed to ad present petitioner was simply to help Sagar Thakur in kidnapping the prosecutrix from the temple in the village to Railway Station M at Deori.It has further been submitted that on the basis of the of aforesaid statement made by the prosecutrix, this Court had granted regular bail to petitioner Abhishek Rajak by order dated rt 12.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.However, after her ou second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal C Procedure, as mentioned above, the police has now registered the h offence under additional sections, namely, 366, 376(2)(n) and 376- ig D of the Indian Penal Code; therefore, an arrest warrant has been H issued by the trial Court against the petitioner.In aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Abhishek Rajak, is allowed.sh It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the e ad sum of Rs.40,000/- and one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before Pr the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying a with the conditions enumerated in Sub section (2) of section 438 hy of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ad Certified copy as per rules.M of (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE rt ou C bBIJU BABY h 2017.10.30 ig 22:29:46 -07'00' H | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,976,810 | (i) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Appavu @ Malaiyappan.P.W.2 is theson of the deceased.They were the residents of Agaram within the jurisdictionof the respondent Vedasandur Police Station.P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the brothersof the deceased.All the accused belonged to the same place.A.1 is the agnateof the deceased.All along in the past,there was a rivalry between the families of A.1 and the deceased regardingquarrying of sand in the river bed.On the date of occurrence, i.e 22.01.1997, at about 06.00 a.m., A.1along with his henchmen attempted to obliterate a lorry truck proceeding tonearby the river which passed through the land of the deceased.On seeing this,the deceased raised his objection and despite the same, they continued to do so.(ii) Immediately, the deceased proceeded to Dindigul to initiate necessaryaction in that regard, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Vedasandur Police Stationand gave a complaint.After doing so, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came back and got down atthe bus stop situate at Thadikombu bridge.At that time, the deceased who travelled in the car of P.W.7,on seeing this, got down from the car.Immediately, on seeing A.1 to A.7, thedeceased began to run and he was chased by all these accused.A.6 to A.8uttered "stab and kill him".A.1 stabbed him on the left side of the neck.Thedeceased was running northwards and all the accused chased him.P.W.1 andP.W.2 raised alarm.After hearing this, P.W.3 accompanied by P.W.4 and P.W.5,came there and took him to his house and all the accused went over to the houseand uttered "Oh! you have not died" and just began to attack him.A.10 attacked P.W.5 Vellaikalai, in whichP.W.5 sustained bleeding injury.A.9 attacked P.W.5 with stick.A.9 to A.11damaged the lorry parked on the western side of the house of P.W.1 while A.12 toA.17 damaged the lorry found on the eastern side of that house.After doingall the above criminal acts, all the accused left the place of occurrence.P.17 was despatched to the Court.(iv) The investigation was taken up by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police ofthat circle and he made an inspection of the place of occurrence.He preparedan observation mahazar Ex.P.18 and a rough sketch Ex.Further, heconducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatarsand prepared Ex.P.23, the inquest report.He also recovered all the materials,objects available from the place of occurrence including sample earth and bloodstained earth.On 22.01.1997, P.W.9, the Doctor attached to Dindigul GovernmentHospital, examined P.W.5, Vellaikalai and issued Ex.P.6, the accident register.He also examined P.W.4, Muthukalai and issued Ex.P.7, the accident register.P.W.9 further examined P.W.1 and noted the injuries in Ex.P.8, the accidentregister.He also examined P.W.3 and issued Ex.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The appellants herein challenged the judgment of the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Dindigul, made in S.C.No.80 of 1998, whereby the appellantsshown as accused Nos.1 to 6, 9 to 11 respectively along with A.7, A.8 and A.12to A.18, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Charges:A.1 to A.6 - S.147, 341, 427 I.P.C A.1 - S.302 I.P.C.A.5, A.9 and A.11 - S.323 I.P.C A.10 - S.324 I.P.C.A.7, A.8 and A.12 to A.18 were acquitted of all the charges levelled as againstthem.A.1 to A.6 were found guilty under Section 147 I.P.C and awarded a fineof Rs.250/- each with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment, underSection 341 I.P.C and awarded a fine of Rs.250/- each with a default sentence ofone week simple imprisonment, under Section 427 I.P.C and awarded a fine ofRs.500/- each in default of which to undergo one month simple imprisonment.A.1was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment with afine of Rs.2,000/- and a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment.A.5, A.9 and A.11 were found guilty under Section 323 I.P.C and awarded a fineof Rs.500/- each in default of which to undergo three months simple imprisonmentand A.10 was found guilty under section 324 I.P.C and awarded a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo three months simple imprisonment.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:WhenP.W.1 and others went nearby the deceased Appavu, they found him dead.No.38 of 1997 came to be registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,427 and 302 I.P.C. Express F.I.R, Ex.P.9, the accident register.Healso examined A.3 and issued Ex.P.10, the accident register.(v) Following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem byP.W.8, the Doctor attached to Dindigul Government Hospital and he gave a post-mortem certificate Ex.P.3, wherein the Doctor opined that the death occurred dueto shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him.(vi) P.W.10, Doctor examined A.12 and issued the wound certificateEx.The Motor Vehicle Inspector made an inspection in respect of both thevehicles and he assessed the damages at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectivelyon both the vehicles and gave Ex.P.16 the certificate in that regard.(vii) Pending investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested A.3 on26.01.1997 and he gave a confessional statement and the admissible portion of itis marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer also arrested the other accusedand recorded the confessional statements.The accused produced the weapons ofthe crime and they have also been recovered.(viii) The material objects recovered from the place of occurrence andfrom the the dead body as well as the material objects recovered from theaccused, including the weapons of crime, were sent for chemical analysis by theInvestigating Officer through the Court concerned to the Forensic ScienceDepartment with the respective requisitions, which resulted in the Chemicalanalysis report Ex.P.14 as well as the Serologist report Ex.P.15 respectively.(ix) On completion of investigation, final report was filed by theInvestigating Officer before the committal court.The case was committed to theCourt of Session and necessary charges were framed.(x) In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution has examined 17 witnesses and relied on 30 exhibits along with 19M.Os.After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the Courtquestioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.The accuseddenied them as false.On the side of the defence, Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked andno witness was examined.(xi) After completion of trial, the trial court heard the arguments ofboth sides, perused the materials available and found A.1 guilty under Section302 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment while A.2 to A.6, A.9 to A.11 were foundguilty as stated above.A.7, A.8 and A.12 to A.18 were acquitted.All theaforesaid accused challenging the judgment of the lower Court brought forth thisappeal.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learnedCounsel for the appellants made the following submissions:(i) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.The reasons whichare adduced by the lower Court to acquit all those accused are equallyapplicable to the appellants also.(ii) According to the prosecution, the occurrence has actually taken placein two parts, one near the bus stop in which P.W.1, the wife of the deceasedand P.W.2, the son of the deceased, were the occurrence witnesses and the otherpart is actually in front of the house of the deceased.P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 wereshown as injured witnesses.It is true that the respective wound certificateshave been produced and they were marked as exhibits.But, the prosecution hasmiserably failed to show to the Court the genesis of the occurrence.Pursuantto the same occurrence, on the complaint given by the accused, a case inCr.No.39 of 1997 came to be registered.It is admitted by the InvestigatingOfficer, P.W.17 in his final report marked as Ex.P.29, that the respective casesin Cr.If to be so, theprosecution should have taken steps to produce the records pertaining toCr.No.39 of 1997, but has filed the wound certificates of A.3 and A.12 whichwere marked as Exs.P.10 and P.11 respectively.However, the prosecution had not explained the injury sustained by A.12 in thecourse of the same transaction.The non-explanation of the injuries sustainedby A.3 and A.12 in the course of the same transaction, is fatal to the case ofthe prosecution.(iii) Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellants that theVillage Administrative Officer has been examined as a witness to the observationmahazar and he has categorically deposed that he went to the scene of occurrenceat 08.30 a.m, where the police officials were present.But, according to theprosecution, the first part has taken place at 08.30 a.m, which would clearlyreveal that the police was at the spot even before the complaint was given.(iv) According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was the author of Ex.But,P.W.1 has categorically denied that she did not go to the police station to giveany complaint.P.W.7, the driver of the car in which the deceased travelled,after fifteen minutes, went to the police station and gave an oral complaint.From the evidence available, it could be seen that there are three complaintsand Ex.P.1 cannot be the first report.The prosecution suppressed the other twocomplaints given.(v) Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellants that in theinstant case, the properties of the accused were set fire.The VillageAdministrative Officer who was the witness to the observation mahazar,categorically admitted that he went over to the place and found that the houseof A.3 was damaged.But, P.W.2 deposed that he did not know about the fireaccident which would clearly show that he is suppressing the entire truth.(vi) Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellants that the houseof the accused was damaged by the P.Ws.Under such circumstances, when acomplaint was given by A.3, a case came to be registered by the respondentpolice and A.3 and A.12 were subjected to medical examination on their arrest.The prosecution should have placed all the materials before the trial Court andthe Court could have come to the correct conclusion on perusal of the entirematerial records.(vii) The prosecution has suppressed the origin of the case and has notproduced all the records pertaining to Cr.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentionsand this Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made byboth sides.It is not a fact in controversy that an incident had taken place at08.30 a.m., on 22.01.1997 in which the deceased Appavu, the husband of P.W.1 wasdone to death.After inquest was made by the Investigating Officer, the deadbody was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor, attached to DindigulGovernment Hospital, who gave a categorical evidence by issuing Ex.P.3, thepost-mortem certificate that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage.Thisfact was never questioned by the appellants before the trial Court.Hence, itcould be recorded so.In order to substantiate the accusations made against the appellantsand others, the prosecution examined five witnesses who are P.W.1 to P.W.5 asoccurrence witnesses.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for theappellants, the occurrence is shown by the prosecution in two parts.The firstpart of the occurrence has taken place near the bus stop in which A.1 attackedthe deceased with a knife and as a direct consequence, he died.P.W.1 and P.W.2were the occurrence witnesses.It is not a fact in controversy that A.1 and the deceased hadquarrelled over taking up sand quarrying prior to the occurrence and one partyhas given a complaint as against the other.From the evidence of P.W.1 andP.W.2, it is quite evident that at 06.00 a.m., on 22.01.1997, A.1 along with hishenchmen made an attempt to obliterate the lorry truck within the field of thedeceased.Despite the objections raised, they have proceeded with their work.Then, the deceased went to Dindigul to give complaint to the officials, whileP.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the respondent police station to give a report.According to both the witnesses, they would deny that they got down from the busstop where the first occurrence had taken place.While P.W.1 and P.W.2 werebeing held and surrounded by the accused, the deceased travelled in a car ofP.W.7 and on seeing this, naturally the deceased got down from the car.Thisfact is also clearly spoken to by P.W.7, the taxi driver and immediately onseeing the accused armed with deadly weapons when he was about to run, it wasA.1 who attacked the deceased on his neck and in a short span of time, he died.So far this is concerned, the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecutionthrough P.W.8, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, stood fully corroboratedand the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 through whom the occurrence was madeexplicit, inspired the confidence of the Court.So far as other part is concerned, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 wereattacked by different accused, in respect of which, the accident register copiesissued by the medical person P.W.9 as stated above were marked.From the oculartestimony of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and also the medical opinioncanvassed by the prosecution, it would be quite clear that those witnesses wereinjured.Even from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would be clearthat in the same process, A.3 and A.12 were injured and wound certificates,Exs.P.10 and P.12, were also issued by the medical person.It is pertinent to point out that the same Investigating Officercategorically admitted that a case was registered at the instance of A.3 inCr.No.39 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 436 I.P.C and theVillage Administrative Officer shown as a witness to the observation mahazar,has categorically spoken to the effect that the roof of the house of A.3 wasdamaged and the house of A.12 was damaged by fire and in that process, A.3 andA.12 have also been injured.It has been rightly pointed out by the learnedCounsel for the appellants that no proper explanation has been tendered.Insofar as second part of the prosecution case is concerned, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4and P.W.5 were injured witnesses and in that regard, they were issued with therespective accident register copies.At the instance of the injured prosecutionwitnesses, the roof of the house of A.3 was damaged and the house of A.12 wasdamaged by fire.However, the prosecution did not place the entire materialspertaining to Cr.No.39 of 1997 for appreciating that part of the case.Now, at this juncture, the non-production of the F.I.R, Statementsunder Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also all material records in Cr.No.39 of 1997, inthe opinion of this Court, would not in any way affect the first part of theprosecution case.The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for theappellants that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring to the notice ofthe Court the genesis of the occurrence, cannot be countenanced.In this case,the prosecution had sufficient evidence pointing towards the genesis of theoccurrence that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 got down from the bus at the bus stop, theaccused surrounded them and on seeing this, the deceased who travelled in thecar, got down and at that time A.1 attacked the deceased on neck with knife andcaused his death.In support of the first part of the occurrence, the prosecution hadsufficient ocular testimony which stood corroborated by medical evidence.In support of the second part of the occurrence, the prosecution had theevidence of number of witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and alsothe documentary evidence in respect of A.3 and A.12 who were injured; but non-production of the material papers pertaining to Cr.No.39 of 1997, did not allowthe Court to take a correct conclusion in respect of the latter part of theoccurrence.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants,insofar as the latter part of the occurrence is concerned, the lower Court hadnot arrived at the correct conclusion.As far as, the first part is concerned,it was A.1 who attacked the deceased on his neck with the knife and caused hisdeath as pointed out above.Insofar as the rest of the accused are concerned, they are entitled foracquittal as the prosecution did not place material papers in Cr.No.39 of 1997before the Court in order to arrive at a correct conclusion.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The judgmentof the lower Court is sustained only in respect of conviction and sentenceimposed on A.1 under Section 302 I.P.C and in all other respects, the judgmentof conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court is set aside and A.1 isacquitted of the other charges and the other appellants are acquitted of all thecharges levelled against them.The fine amounts if any paid by them, shall berefunded to them.The bail bonds executed by A.2 to A.6, A.9 to A.11 shallstand terminated.It is reported that A.1 is on bail.Hence, the SessionsJudge concerned shall take steps to commit him to prison to undergo the lifesentence imposed on him.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul.2.The The Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,681,736 | (ii) The time limit prescribed herein should be strictly adhered to by both parties, therefore, it is needless to mention that, the petitioner shall give his fullest cooperation to the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings within the time stipulated above.' No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.05.08.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rmk Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.17/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 20201.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range, Trichy.2.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.3.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Karur District, Karur.4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, Karur District, Karur.18/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 19/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 R.SURESH KUMAR ,J.rmk W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 05.08.2020 20/6http://www.judis.nic.inThe prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 19.08.2013 in T.P.No.A4/38/2013 and quash the same.While he was working as such, a criminal case in Crime No.868 of 2010 was registered on the file of the Kottar Police Station against the petitioner and some others for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 294(b) and 302 IPC and under Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the Police concerned, where the petitioner has been shown as the fourth accused, against whom, charges were framed for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w 120 (b).3.Simultaneously, the respondent department initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.Accordingly, he was placed under suspension, by an order dated 27.04.2013 and 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 thereafter, on 19.08.2013, charge memo has been issued, where, two charges have been framed against the petitioner.4.To have a easy reference, the relevant charges framed against the petitioner are extracted herein:'jtwhd elj;ij my;yJ newp jtwp ele;J nfhs;Sjy; mbg;gilapy; cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU.b.cjarq;fh;> MAjg;gil f&h; khtl;lk; jw;NghJ jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; vd;gtUf;F vjpuhf Rkj;Jtjw;F fUjg;gl;Ls;s Fiw $wy;fspd; rhuk; Fwpj;j ml;ltiz.jpU.b.cjaFkhUf;Fk; ,ilNa Vw;gl;l Kd;tpNuhjk; fhuzkhf> ePqf ; Sk; cq;fs; rNfhjuUk; jpahfuh[d; kw;Wk; ehd;F vjphpfSld; Nrh;e;J 07.07.2010 md;W fhiy cq;fsJ rNfhjuh; tPl;by; cq;fs; jiyikapy; rjp jpl;lk; jPl;b> me;j rjpjpl;lk;jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp rufk;.” 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 20205.However, the petitioner, on the ground that, since on similar set of charges, a criminal case has already been filed and it is pending, where charge sheet has also been filed, the departmental proceedings on the same set of charges cannot be proceeded, therefore, accordingly, he approached this Court by filing W.P(MD).No.19138 of 2013, where, he sought for a prayer of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings that means, the charge memo, dated 19.08.2013 and quash the same.The Writ Court, after hearing the petitioner and the respondents therein, has passed the following order:6.I have considered the above submissions.Witnesses in both the cases are almost common.In view of the same, I am of the first view that in the event disciplinary proceedings is conducted 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 first, it will cause serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case.7.Subsequently, the trial has been completed in the criminal case and ultimately, by a judgment dated 12.02.2020, the concerned Criminal Court i.e., Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.600 of 2017 has acquitted the petitioner from the said charges i.e., charges for the punishable offences under Sections 120(b) and 302 IPC.8.Since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case, he seems to have approached the respondents to drop the proceedings initiated departmentally, as in respect of the same set 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 2020 of charges since the petitioner has been acquitted, after full fledged trial by the competent Criminal Court, in respect of the very same set of charges in the departmental proceedings, nothing could be made out and therefore, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo, dated 19.08.2013, can be dropped.Therefore, the petitioner has once again sought for indulgence of this Court to quash the charge memo, dated 19.08.2013 and accordingly, this writ petition has been filed with aforesaid prayer.He would also submit that, under Clause 67 of Police Standing Order i.e., PSO 67, what shall be the procedure to be adopted after acquittal in a registered criminal case in respect of a member of the Police service, who are governed under the Police Standing Order is concerned, has been explained.By relying upon the said PSO.No.67, the learned counsel would submit that, if at all, the department decides to proceed further departmentally against the erring person, where, similar set of charges have already been tried in Criminal Court and acquitted, in such circumstances, the specific reasons for proceeding against the erring employee departmentally, has to be identified and recorded.11/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.8564 of 202016.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials placed before this Court.17.Two grounds were urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the first ground, he submitted that, similar set of charges were tried in a Criminal Court, where, the petitioner has been given clear acquittal, therefore, the same set of charges cannot be proceeded further in the departmental proceedings.19.Further, on perusal of the impugned charge memo, where two charges were framed against the petitioner, the first charge, which relates to alleged offence said to have been committed by the petitioner punishable under Sections 120(b) and 302 of IPC, in this context, it can be noted that, in respect of the first charge, ultimately, the charge sheet seems to have been filed only in respect of charges punishable under Section 302 r/w 120 (b) IPC, where, the petitioner have got a clear acquittal. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 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. |
197,684,345 | This appeal has been preferred under section 14-A (2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 by the appellant-Maharajdeen, against the impugned order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Bail Application No.456 of 2019, (Maharajdeen vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.96 of 2019, under sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) Da/Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station - Malhipur, District Shrawasti, whereby bail application has been rejected by the court below.Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Alakhram who was purchaser has also been bailed out.If he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.In view of above as well as taking into account the period of detention, gravity of the offence and role played by the accused appellant, and also taking into consideration that other co-accused Alakhram and Gajadhar have already been bailed out vide orders dated 09.12.2019 and 09.07.2020 passed in Crl.Bail Application Nos.11933 of 2019 and 1774 of 2020 respectively, without expressing on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the District Judge concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.Order Date :- 15.7.2020 P.s. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,685,831 | He is reputed citizen of locality and chance of absconsion is remote.Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience.He undertakes to cooperate in investigation and would make himself available as and when required by the investigating officer and also 4 M.Cr.4 M.Cr.5 M.Cr.7 M.Cr.He submits that different facets of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. have been elaborately dealt with in these judgments and therefore, law is well settled that personal liberty is such sacrosanct that it cannot be sacrificed at the whims and fancies of Investigating Officer.He referred the solemn duty and its constant violation by the Investigating Officer and other officers to curtail the prospects of personal freedom of person by declaring him absconder by issuing cash reward or preparing Farari Panchnama.Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.{Delivered on 12th day of May, 2020}This is first bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein he is apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide Crime No.448/2019 at Police Station Vishwavidyalaya, District Gwalior for alleged offence punishable under Sections 376, 386, 506 of IPC.3 M.Cr.Consequently, he prayed for bail of anticipatory nature.This Court requested Shri V.K. Saxena, learned senior counsel and Shri V.D. Sharma counsel to assist the Court as amicus curiae and resultantly they addressed this Court on following questions raised in this case:i- Whether after being declared as an absconder under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. or by police through Farari Panchnama or through declaration of cash award for apprehension of accused, his application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail before High Court or Sessions Court is maintainable or not ? ii- Whether application for anticipatory bail is barred even after filing of charge-sheet ?Shri Saxena, learned senior counsel was ably assisted by Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Shri Atul Gupta and Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Advocates.C.No.5621/2020 etc. Vs.According to him, such instances render the affected person at the mercy of Police Officer and his personal freedom is compromised.Therefore, personal liberty cannot be curtailed and in support of his submission he referred various judgments to bring home the fact that personal liberty of an individual by way of seeking anticipatory bail can be considered even after 8 M.Cr.C.No.5621/2020 filing of charge-sheet.8 M.Cr.Shri V.D. Sharma, learned amicus curiae also placed his submission while taking history of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by referring Law Commission of India report 41 st of year 1969 which categorically recommended for insertion of provision of anticipatory bail in the old Cr.P.C. of 1898 (earlier provision Section 497-A) and by virtue of same, Section 438 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 is offspring of said report.Union of India, 1977 Cri.Through various judgments relied upon, he tried to bring home the fact that mere abscondence is not sufficient to deny the valuable right of personal freedom of an individual.9 M.Cr.9 M.Cr.Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Amicus Curiae at length and perused the case diary.Here, the factual contours of case indicates that the applicant and prosecutrix are in their forties (aged 41-42 years) and as per the allegations, the applicant was already married and interestingly on the false promise of marriage, he committed rape and as per contents of FIR itself, he solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 16-11-2019 and thereafter continued to live as her husband for some time.As per submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compromise by way of M.Cr.C.No.930/2020 was also filed earlier by the parties to settle their dispute but since the allegation was under Section 376 of IPC also, therefore, the said prayer for settlement was rejected by this Court.Here, the main objection of counsel for the respondent/State and complainant is preparation of Farari Panchnama and declaration of award of Rs.5,000/- over the applicant to secure his arrest and therefore, the respondent/State and complainant 10 M.Cr.C.No.5621/2020 sought dismissal of this application on this ground mainly.13 M.Cr.(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having 18 M.Cr.C.No.5621/2020 committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter- alia, the following factors, namely--18 M.Cr.Certified copy/E-copy as per rules. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
197,688,021 | Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. Maheshwari) Judge PK | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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. |
55,604,714 | The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus -(i) At the relevant point of time, the appellants and Santosh Singh (since deceased), a retired Military personnel, were residing in village Paraswada.Their agricultural lands were contiguously situated.The land adjacent to the house of Munna, though owned by Santosh Singh, was being used by Munna for various household purposes.Nearly four months prior to the incident in question, Santosh Singh had converted that land into a barn.This led to animosity between them.(ii) On 12/5/1991, at about 11, Santosh Singh set fire to garbage after collecting the same in his field.Seeing the fire spreading towards his house, appellant Munna raised objection and thereupon Santosh Singh with the assistance of co-villagers extinguished the fire.Thereafter, one Sardar Tari alias Avtar Singh (PW6) came to the house of Santosh Singh to purchase Wheat and paid the price thereof in advance.Santosh Singh came out of the house to see Avtar Singh off.He accompanied Avtar Singh up to the outskirts of the Village.While returning home, his way was obstructed by the appellants and co-accused Dashrath and Preetam.All of them surrounded him and started hurling abuses for his act of setting fire to the garbage.(f) a pair of plastic shoes,(g) blood stained soil and control earth(h) hair lying on the ground and bloodstained hair that were cut from the scalp of the deceased.(22.10.2009) These appeals are interlinked, as preferred against a common judgment-dated 03.01.1995 passed by Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.274/91 whereby the appellants and the co-accused Preetam, though tried jointly with co-accused Dashrath for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with S.34 of the IPC, were convicted and sentenced as under -The proceedings against co-accused Dashrath had abated consequent to his death during trial and no appeal has been preferred by the co-convict Preetam.For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to by their respective names only.In the course of the quarrel, appellant Athai, co-convict Preetam and Dashrath (since deceased) caused Santosh Singh to fall down and appellant Munna threw down a heavy stone on the head of Santosh.Sustaining head injury, Santosh breathed his last at the spot only.:: 3 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995(iii) It was upon the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2) recorded by Head Constable Ashwini Kumar (PW11) that a case in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC was registered.After inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur for post mortem.Dr. N.K.Shrivastava (since dead) conducted the autopsy and opined that cause of death was the head injury.During investigation, Head Constable Ashwini Kumar (PW11) prepared the spot map (Ex.P/4) and seized the following articles therefrom :-(a) a blood stained stone, 16 inches in length and respectively 7,9,5,6 inches in breadth;(b) cash amount of Rs.2000/-,(c) a key,(d) a yellow coloured Gamchcha(e) a pair of slippers,(iv) Appellants and the co-accused were apprehended.The seized stone was forwarded to the autopsy surgeon for examination.He opined that the head injury that was found fatal to the deceased could be inflicted by the stone.Seized ordinary and blood stained soil, hair, stone, Gamchcha, and blood stained clothes of the deceased, as preserved by the autopsy surgeon, were sent to FSL Sagar for forensic examination.The appellants as well as co-accused Preetam abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.In the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they further pleaded that in a drunken condition, Santosh Singh had outraged modesty of Asha, the wife of co-accused Preetam and during scuffle, he had fallen down and had sustained the head injury.Attention was also invited :: 4 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995 to the fact that on the fateful day, appellant Munna had gone to the Police Station which is situated at a distance of 13 Kms.from the spot to inform that the fire ignited by Santosh Singh had flared up.To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including Paramjeet Singh (PW2), Munna (PW3), Rajpal (PW4), Suraj (PW5) and Asha Mishra (PW8) as eyewitnesses to the incident.The defence was sought to be substantiated by producing Asha (DW1) and by referring to the contents of the corresponding report (Ex.P/15).Raj Kumar Awasthy (DW2), a Constable, said to have taken appellant Munna from Dhanvantari Nagar to Police Station for lodging the report, was also examined.Upon a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that none of the accused persons had any intention to cause death of Santosh Singh.She was further of the view that appellant Athai, co-accused Preetam and Dashrarth (since dead) had only shared a common intention to cause simple hurt to Santosh Singh.Accordingly, she proceeded to convict the appellants and the co-accused Preetam for different offences as indicated hereinabove.Legality and propriety of the convictions have been assailed primarily on the ground of what is termed as mis-appreciation of evidence on record.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, on one hand, the presence of so-called eye-witnesses at the spot was doubtful and on the other, probability of defence was clearly proved.As pointed out already, the Autopsy Surgeon :: 5 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995 Dr. N.K. Shrivastava could not be examined consequent to his death.Although, his colleague namely Dr. A.C. Nagpal (PW15) was able to prove that the post mortem report (Ex.P/14) was prepared and signed by Dr. N.K. Shrivastava yet, in the cross-examination, he admitted that Santosh Singh was first brought to the hospital and was admitted there.However, the medical expert clearly ruled out the possibility that the head injury could be sustained due to an accidental fall on a stony surface.Coming to the other evidence on record, it may be observed that Paramjeet Singh (PW2) claimed to have witnessed the occurrence along with Rajpal.According to him, only ten minutes after departure of his father Santosh Singh and Sardar Tari alias Avtar Singh (PW6) from his house, Rajpal had come there to take his tractor on hire basis and as per the request made by Rajpal, both of them proceeded towards the pond to meet Santosh Singh.Rajpal (PW4) also substantially corroborated the evidence of Paramjeet but their evidence suffered from material inconsistencies.This apart, conduct of Paramjeet in fleeing away even after witnessing a joint assault on his 65-year-old father was apparently unnatural and improbable in the light of the following admissions -(a) Aged about 30 years, he was having a well built physique.(b) He was accompanied by Rajpal (PW4) who was of 35 years of age.(c) He was able to see the appellants and the co-accused hurling filthy abuses at his father; causing him to fall down and Munna @ Pancham enforcing a violent fall of stone at his head.(d) None of the assailants was armed with any deadly weapon.:: 6 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995(e) He rushed towards the spot where his father was lying in an injured condition, but was driven off by the appellants and his companions who, while pursuing him, had expressed their intention to kill him also.(f) He was owning a motorcycle and a scooter but he did not prefer to go to the police station or to have recourse to police authorities by sending Rajpal on any of the two wheelers.Although, Munna Singh (PW3) came forward to support the prosecution version that the appellants and co-accused were involved in a joint assault on Santosh Singh yet, he did not corroborate the assertion made by Paramjeet Singh (PW2) and supported by Rajpal (PW4) that it was he who had apprised them of the post-assault situation at the scene.On the contrary, he clearly stated that he had seen Paramjeet and Rajpal proceeding towards the spot.It was also not disputed that all the three were jointly facing prosecution in criminal cases.As such, the material infirmities in the evidence of these apparently interested witnesses were sufficient to suggest that none of them was able to witness the murderous assault on Santosh Singh.However, the other witness namely Suraj (PW5) did not spring from a tainted source.He vividly described as to how Santosh Singh was made to fall down by Athai, Dashrath and Preetam and had sustained the head injury due to impact of the stone thrown down at his head by appellant Munna.He was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited so as to suggest that he was, in any way, interested in securing conviction of the appellants on absolutely false grounds.Further, no supportive evidence was brought on record to substantiate the suggestion that he had already served as a labourer at the fields of Santosh Singh.He also denied the half-hearted suggestion that Santosh Singh had fallen down while outraging :: 7 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995 modesty of Asha Singh.The eyewitness account rendered by him did not suffer from any serious discrepancy.There was nothing inherently, improbable or unnatural to render his presence as grazier of cattle at a distance of nearly 60 paces from the spot, doubtful.Statement of Asha Mishra (PW8) that after catching hold of the front position of Asha's body, Santosh had pulled up her Sari was not in conformity with the testimony of Asha Bai to the effect that Santosh had fallen down while attempting to denude her.This apart, Rajkumar Awasthy (DW2), who had taken Munna to the police station was also not convincing for the following reasons -(i) His presence in the police station as companion of Munna was not recorded in the corresponding Roznamacha.(ii) The contents of the report (Ex.P/10) reflected that the villagers were busy in extinguishing fire that had assumed significant proportions.To sum up, even after ignoring the corroborative testimony of Paramjeet, Rajpal and Munna, a clear, cogent and reliable evidence of Suraj (PW5), who was neither a related nor an interested witness, was sufficient to bring home the complicity of appellant Munna in :: 8 ::Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995 causing death of Santosh Singh whereas the probability of defence was not established.Accordingly, his conviction for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder deserves to be maintained as well-merited.Adverting to the culpability of appellant Athai, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that he was entitled to be acquitted in view of the fact that the allegation found proved against him was of a trivial nature.(a) not only to acts, which are accidental but also to deliberate acts, which cause harm or is intended to cause harm or is known to be likely to cause harmHowever, as elucidated further, -"S.95 of IPC is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivial character.This brings me to the question of sentence awarded to appellant Munna, who has already suffered imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 2 months.In the result, -(i) Criminal Appeal No.77/1995 preferred by appellant Athai stands dismissed.The impugned conviction and the consequent sentence are hereby affirmed.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.194/1995 filed by appellant Munna is allowed in part.Criminal Appeal Nos.77/1995 & 194/1995 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,605,375 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.It is seen that this petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector in Muthupettai village.During 2010, when there was heavy floods in that area, the Government sanctioned around Rs.30Lakhs for disbursement of aid to various villagers in Muthupettai area.It was found that there were serious irregularities in the disbursement of amount to the affected victims and therefore, a preliminary enquiry was conducted at the collectorate level and the District Collector, Thiruthuraipoondi by his Proceedings dated 09.05.2011 had directed the conduct of departmental action against certain revenue officials in this regard.Thereafter, the respondent Police registered a regular case in Crime No.3 of 2011 and after completing the investigation, filed final report in C.C.No.8 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi against [1] Karthik[A1], [2] Muniyasamy [A2], Mahendran [A3-petitioner herein], [4] Jayasimman[A4] and [5] Kamalathiyagarajan [A5] for offences under Section 120B, 409, 408, 467, 468, 471 and 477[A] r/w 120B IPC.He also submitted that even in the departmental action that has been initiated against the petitioner, he has been charged only for dereliction of duty and not for the aforesaid misconducts.Vijayakumar, learned counsel placed strong reliance on the unreported Judgment of this Court in P.Thangaraju Vs State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Dharmapuri, wherein, this Court in paragraph No.34 has stated as follows:The records available would reveal that the following irregularities were noted in the R.D.O.'s file [i] A common note was submitted to the RDO without mentioning the names of the applicants, merits and demerits of each case were not discussed and certificate to the effect that the passports, family cards, etc. were scrutinised at the Divisional Officers level is not available in the file; [ii] the RDO, Dharmapuri has not inspected even a single case to find out the proper utilisation of loan amount.Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, without making proper inspection, without verifying the identity of the persons who made loan applications and without verifying the identity certificates by means of photos in their family cards, passports and without proper documents, the loans have been sanctioned in violation of the procedures and the amount has been misappropriated.The final report filed by the Police states that a sum of Rs.30lakhs was sanctioned for disbursement to the victims and it was entrusted to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, namely, Muniyasamy [A2].However, the allegation against the revenue officials is that they, in collusion with Karthik[A1] and Muniyasamy [A2], prepared false list of alleged victims, on the strength of which, the amount has been distributed to even non-existent persons.The guidelines dated 03.12.2008 issued by the Government states that the District Collector shall be assisted by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officers in preparing the list of villages for identification, for disbursement of relief amount.As regards the identification of individual beneficiaries, it is not the duty of the District Collector to go house to house and find out, who has been affected.He has to place reliance on the inspection that has been conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, who are the persons required to have their ears to the ground.Under such circumstances, the trial Court is directed to obtain a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties and proceed with the trial expeditiously.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime Branch,Tiruvarur. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,610,536 | ____________________________________________________________________ Judgment ( Passed on this 25th day of May, 2018 ) The present Criminal Appeal is arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2003 passed by the 12 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.177/2003, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the present appellant under Section 304(2) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3,000/- and further four months additional rigorous imprisonment by way of default stipulation.The facts of the case reveal that on 18.03.2003 at 12:40 pm, the informants Mukesh and Siddhu were returning to their home and in front of the house of the appellant Santosh, Santosh has applied gulal (colour) to Siddhu and all of a sudden, a fight took place.When the informant's son Mukesh and another son Yogesh tried to intervene in the matter, appellant Santosh gave a kick to Yogesh, due to which, he received injuries and he was brought to M.Y. Hospital and an oral report was lodged on the same day at Criminal Appeal No.256/2004 2 1:15 pm at Police Station-M.I.G. Indore and crime was registered as Crime No.289/2003, but unfortunately, Yogesh expired.Criminal Appeal No.256/2004 2Investigation was carried out by the police and Mukesh (P.W-2) has stated before the trial Court that scuffle took place and a blow was given at sensitive place, which resulted in injury and ultimately in death.The prosecution witnesses Mahesh (P.W-4), Pramila Bai (P.W-6), Ravi (P.W-8) and Arjun (P.W-12) have supported the case of the prosecution.Siddhu (P.W-3) has categorically stated in his statement that the fight took place all of a sudden and it was Santosh, who has given fatal blow at sensitive place resulting in injury and ultimately in death.Ashok (P.W-1) father of the deceased Yogesh has stated that Santosh has given fatal blow to his son, which resulted in his death.Mukesh (P.W-2) was also present at the time of incident and has stated that the fight took place all of a sudden and gulal (colour) was being forcibly applied to the deceased.Siddhu (P.W-3) was the person, who was with the deceased Yogesh and they were returning home together and he has also supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated that Santosh was the person, who gave blow to Yogesh at sensitive place as well as over his chest.Mahesh (P.W-4), who was also an eye-witness and he has also supported the prosecution case.Dr. Bharat Prakash, M.Y. Hospital, who performed the postmortem, has stated that there were two injuries.He has also testified that the death has taken place on account of the injuries.The learned Judge after careful consideration of the entire Criminal Appeal No.256/2004 3 evidence, as the incident was proved by the witnesses and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, has convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 304 (2) of the IPC.Criminal Appeal No.256/2004 3In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, this Court doesn't find any reason to reverse the findings arrived at by the trial Court.The bail and bonds stand discharged.With the aforesaid, the present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,617,693 | Reserved on 05/12/2019 Passed on 06/01/2020 This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt.Hoshangabad in S.T.No.558/2017, whereby learned I ASJ framed charge against the applicant/accused Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar and co-accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506 (II) of the IPC.Thus, he committed suicide.On that Police registered inquest No.24/2017 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and enquire into the matter.During the enquiry, Police recorded the statements of Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai.On that, it was found that the deceased Kailash Patel had borrowed money from applicant Raghvendra and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhav Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 2 Singh two months prior to the incident.They were asking for more money by putting undue pressure on him and they had also threatened him that if he will not give them money, then they would kill him.Due to which he had very scared of them.Because of which deceased Kailash Patel committed suicide.On that Police registered Crime No.236/2017 at Police Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 506, 34 of the IPC against applicant Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh and investigated the matter.During investigation Police recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Smt. Narmadi Bai, Nanakram, Bhagwat Singh Gujar & Rambabu and filed charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused before the JMFC, on that criminal case was registered.On that S.T.No.558/2017 was registered.During trial, learned I A.S.J. vide order dated 12/04/2018 framed charges against the applicant and co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506 (II) of the IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the charge-sheet no offence under Section 306, 506 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.There is no specific allegation with respect to the role of the applicant as mentioned in the FIR as well as in the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation.It appears that Police only on the basis of the certain vague assertion made by the prosecution witnesses proceeded against the applicant.In the so-called oral dying declaration (Suicide Note), of the deceased and the statements of prosecution witnesses or in the FIR there is nothing which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide.There is no reference to any positive act which the applicant has committed and instigated the deceased to commit suicide.There is no evidence on record to show as to indicate that applicant in any way goaded, urged or provoked the deceased or threatened Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 3 him to take such a step and as such charge of offence under Section 306/34, 506 (II) of the IPC would not be made out against applicant.On the strength of aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays that the order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt.Hoshangabad in S.T.No.558/2017, whereby learned I A.S.J. framed charge against the applicant/accused Raghvendra @ Lalu Gujar for the offence offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506(II) of the IPC be set aside and applicant be discharged from that charges.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai, it appears that the applicant and co-accused used to harassed deceased Kailash Patel and threatened him and pressurised him to gave excess money, due to which he committed suicide.Even, prior to his death the deceased had told that fact to the prosecution witnesses.In the case diary statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Rambabu, Bhagwat Singh, Nanakram and Smt. Narmadi Bai, it is mentioned that after consuming poisonous substance by the deceased when they were taking him to the hospital, he told them that he (Deceased Kailash Patel) had borrowed money from applicant Raghvendra and co- accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhur Singh two months prior to the incident.They demanded that money back from him and pressurised him to repay that amount and also threatened him that if he will not return the money, they would kill him.So, due to the harassment, he (Deceased Kailash Patel) consumed poisonous substance.So from the statements of prosecution witnesses offence under Section 306/34, 506 of the IPC prima facie made out against the applicant.At this stage this Court has no right to evaluate the statement of prosecution witnesses on merit.So, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 506(II) of the IPC, hence the petition be dismissed.In the instant case also from the statements of prosecution witnesses it only appears that the deceased Kailash Patel had borrowed money from Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 6 applicant Raghvendra and co-accused Deepak Purviya, Santosh Purviya, Neelesh Purviya and Madhav Singh two months prior to the incident.They were asking for more money by putting undue pressure on him and they had also threatened to kill him if he did not give them money.Due to this he was very scared of them and committed suicide.Likewise for proving the offence under Section 506 of IPC, words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it does not appear from the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses that the deceased felt, as a reasonable man, that the applicant was going to convert his words in action.It is also not clear from the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses if any Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 08/01/2020 10:19:59 7 annoyance or criminal intimidation was caused to the deceased.So offence under section 506 part II is also not made out against that applicant from the charge-sheet.The impugned order dated 12/04/2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, Distt.Hoshangabad framing charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 & 506 part II of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,621,269 | The applicants have filed the present revision u/s. 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.9.2020 passed by Special Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.137/2020 whereby charges u/s. 341, 504, 307/34, 506 Part II of the IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been framed against them.2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :(i) Initially, the complainant - Mukesh Bachhda had lodged a complaint at Police Station Raghvi, District Ujjain on 18.7.2020 at 21.55 to the effect that he is resident of Village Khurchanya Pratap, Mahidpur and working as a labourer, he was called by Ghanshyam Verma for dinner at Ghosla.Near about at 8.30 pm, he went to Ghosla and near Hero Honda Showroom, he met Ghanshyam Verma and while they were talking, Bharat, Mahendra @ Makhan also came there and started abusing him by filthy language and addressed him by his caste.When he objected then Ghanshyam also abused him by filthy language and addressed him by caste and when he objected them, Ghanshyam caught hold him and Bharat and Mahendra @ Makhan assaulted him by fists and legs, due to which, he THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.Mansingh & another.V/s.-: 2 :-sustained injuries on his back, hands, neck and chest.(ii) On 24.7.2020, the complainant - Mukesh has lodged another FIR at 13.20 in the same Police Station alleging that near about at 12.00 while he was returning to his village and when he reached to Khurchanya Pratap Choupati, Kundan Sharma armed with sword, Rajesh Patel and Bharat Patel both armed with sticks stopped him and started abusing him by filthy language and made aspersion by his caste.They said that as to why he has lodged the report earlier against one of them.Being dissatisfied by his reply, with an intention to kill him, Kundan Sharma gave a blow by the sword on his front head, Rajesh gave a blow by stick on his left part of his head, and Bharat gave a blow by stick on his thigh.(iii) After registration of the aforesaid FIR, Mukesh was medically examined by Medical Officer, PHC, Khedakhajuriya, District Ujjain on 24.7.2020 and he found lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 3 cm.(l x d) on the frontal region of the head.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.-: 3 :-The injury was cleaned and dressed by him and thereafter referred the injured to C.H., Ujjain for further examination.Mukesh was again examined at Shrimant Madhavrao Scindia District Hospital, Ujjain on 24.7.2020 at 4.30 pm.and treatment was given to him.In the District Hospital, Ujjain, X-ray of Mukesh was carried out and as per the report of Radiologist, no bony injury was found on the skull and chest.(iv) The SDOP, Mahidpur vide letter dated 18.8.2020 made a query from the Medical Officer, Ujjain about the nature of injuries sustained by Mukesh.The Medical Officer gave an opinion on 19.8.2020 that all the injuries are simple in nature.On 21.8.2020, the Medical Officer gave an opinion that the victim Mukesh sustained superficial injuries and the injuries are not severe to cause the death of the victim.(v) The police arrested the present applicants and Kundan Sharma in the subsequent FIR.The Police have recorded the statements of all the accused u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that Kundan Sharma caused the injury by the sword; Rajesh caused the injury by sticks.On disclosure made by Kundan Sharma, the sword was recovered; on the disclosure made by present applicants, two sticks were recovered.Statement u/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. of victim Mukesh was recorded in which, he has disclosed that Kundan Sharma was carrying the sword and Rajesh and Bharat both were carrying sticks.Kundan Sharma caused the injury on his head by sword and Rajesh caused the injury by stick on his left side THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.Mansingh & another.V/s.State of M.P. & another.-: 4 :-of the head and Bharat caused the injury by stick by stick on his thigh with an intention to kill him.Statements of Jagdish, Kamal and Jitendra have also been recorded as eye-witnesses.(vi) Thereafter, the prosecution has filed the challan.Vide order dated 22.9.2020, learned Special Judge has framed the charges, u/s. 307, 294, 506, 341 and 34 of the IPC and u/s. 3(1)(d), 3(2)(g), and 3(2)(va), 3(v) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities), against the applicants and one other.Hence, the present revision before this Court.V/s.State of M.P. & another.-: 5 :-said that prima facie offence u/s. 307 is made out.He, therefore, prayed that the charge u/s. 307 of the IPC against the applicants is liable to be quashed.On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the State, opposes the prayer by submitting that the applicants have committed the offence twice within a short period.Earlier, they assaulted the victim by fists and legs and for which he lodged the report.Being upset by the aforesaid report, the applicants again abused and assaulted him using sword and sticks.For an offence u/s. 307 of the IPC, the intention and knowledge have to be seen and not nature the injuries.The applicants with an intention to kill the complainant gave a blow by sticks on his head and thigh of the victim, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge u/s. 307 of the IPC apart from other charges.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.As per version of the complainant - Mukesh in the subsequent FIR registered on 24.7.2020, Kundan Sharma was armed with a sword; present applicants - Rajesh and Bharat both were armed with sticks.Firstly they abused him by filthy language and insuted him by caste and thereafter, with an intention to kill him, Kundan Sharma gave a blow by the sword on his head; Rajesh gave a blow by stick on the left side of his head; and Bharat gave a blow by stick on his thigh.The incident THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.took place on 24.7.2020 near about at 12.00 and the victim was medically examined at 2 pm.by the Medical Officer who found lacerated would measuring 5 cm x 3 cm deep on temporal region of the head.Another wound measuring 4 cm x 2 cm deep on the parietal temporal region was also found.Firstly, there has to be an intention or knowledge to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.If at the third stage, the attempt fails, the crime is not completed and attempt to commit a crime must be established by intention or preparation of its commission.To convict u/s. 307, if there is an intent coupled with an overt act in execution thereof, but it is not sufficient that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted as held by the Apex Court in the case of R. Prakash V/s.The police have recovered the sword and sticks from the applicants and Kundan Sharma.Kundan Sharma gave a blow by the sword on the head of victim and applicant - Rajesh gave a blow by stick on the head of the victim, due to which, he sustained lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 3 cm deep cut on the head.As per 161 statement of the complainant, the accused came to threaten him .had there been THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2083/2020 Rajesh S/o.Mansingh & another.V/s.State of M.P. & another.-: 8 :-the intention to murder they would have given the repeated blow by the sword and stick. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,627,924 | In brief the prosecution case was that F.I.R. (exhibit Ka1) scribed by informant Dhankesh Kumar, son of Nanaku Ram, resident Village Sarsai Bujurg, Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur, dated 10.5.1996 was submitted at P.S. Khaga with this contention that informant is a member of Scheduled Caste (Chamar).His medical shop was situated at G.T. Road, village Brahman within the area of Gram Panchayat Iskuri adjacent to Dwivedi Aata Chakki.At about 8.30 A.M. his compounder was present at his medical shop when Birendra (the present convict appellant) and his brother came at above shop and asked for some medicines including Glucose bottle and injections but the compounder was not aware of medicines, hence he refused to give above things, but the same were forcibly taken away by the appellant and that was protested by compounder.He was slapped with abuse that whenever doctor comes, he be sent to his residence.When informant came at his shop things were apprised to him.He went to the house of Birendra and asked as to why he had beaten his compounder and taken his medicines? Birendra, Surendra, his younger brother Siddhu and wife of Birendra attacked over him.He was badly beaten by hands, fists, shoes and sticks.He fell down on the ground.Then after they abused him by taking name of the caste "Chamar Jaban Ladata Hai" and threat for closing shop in future, otherwise to face firearm shot, was extended.The informant became unconscious, someone of village brought him in front of his shop.The appellant is on bail.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri Ajit Ray, learned AGA for the State and perused the lower court's record.The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it.Neither conviction nor acquittal for offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. was there in the judgment.There was no evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the appellant but a severe sentence, as above, was passed against the evidence on record, hence this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and sentence made therein.He was taken by Tempo to police station by few villagers, where report was got lodged.Offence u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act was exclusively triable by Special Court, hence this was committed to the above Court by the Magistrate concerned.Special Court under SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, after hearing learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for accused -appellant levelled charges vide order dated 5.9.2000 against Birendra Tiwari for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act as follows:"I, Veer Bhadra Singh, II Addl.Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, do hereby charge you Virendra Tiwari as follows:-Firstly, that you on 10.6.1996 at about 8.30 A.M. in the shop of the complainant Dhankesh Kumar on G.T. Road situated within the limits of village Iskuri, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court;Secondly, that you on the aforesaid date, time and place intentionally insulted to the complainant and thereby gave provocation to him intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public piece or to commit any other offence and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 504 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court;Thirdly, that you on the aforesaid date, time and place committed the offence of criminal intimidation and threats to the complainant to cause his death or grievous hurt and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this court;Fourthly, that you on the aforesaid date, time and place not being a member of Scheduled Caste intentionally insulted and intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant, a member of Scheduled Caste in a place within public view and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) SC.St. Act and within the cognizance of this court.And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charges.(Veer Bhadra Singh) II Addl.Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.The charges were read over and explained to the accused person in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Prosecution examined PW1-Informant Dhankesh Kumar, PW2- Ramanuj, PW3- Dr. K. L. Pandey, PW4- S.I. Chhatrapal Singh and PW5- Constable Sabhajeet Shukla.For having explanation, if any, over incriminating evidence led by prosecution and for obtaining version of accused, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was got recorded.Appellant Birendra Tiwari admitted himself to be Brahman but he was not aware of the caste of the informant.Rest evidence were said to be wrong and a false concoction.He has said "Amrish Ke Dukan Ke Bagal Men Mere Bhai Surendra Ki Dukan Hai.Wadi Ka Wahan Baithna Rahna Hai.Amrish Ke Ranjish Ke Wajah Se Ranjishan Mere Khilaph Paisa Pane Ke Liye Doctor Se Mukadama Kayam Karaya Hai." In defence no evidence was led by appellant.After hearing learned counsel for both sides impugned judgment of conviction was passed in which appellant Birendra Tiwari was sentenced as above.Learned AGA appearing for the State argued that though charge punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. was framed along with section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act but the Trial Court has specifically held at page no. 7 of the judgment that offences punishable under section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act were proved beyond doubt against convict appellant and then after arguments were heard over quantum of sentence and the sentence, as above, was passed under above sections.Hence writing of acquittal for offence charged u/s 506 I.P.C. was not needed and learned Trial court has rightly done so.Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm over nose towards left side with bleeding.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm left forearm on the back side.7 cm above left elbow.This was of radish in colour.Complaint of pain over chest with no apparent external injury for which x-ray was advised.Complaint of pain over abdomen with no apparent mark of injury for which x-ray was advised.Injuries 3 and 4 were kept under observation and x-ray was advised.Injuries 1 and 2 were simple.These injury may be of 8.30 A.M. of 10.5.1996 and they may be of hands, fists, shoes and sticks.In cross examination it has been said that injured has come himself to this Medical Officer, though this was with letter of police station.Injury nos. 1 and 2 were at one side and this may occur because of falling over hard substance.Possibility of those injuries which may occur due to fall over hard substance has been proved by medical expert by evidence but no x-ray report or supplementary report has been proved for showing nature of injury nos. 3 and 4, whereas injury nos. 1 and 2 were held to be simple and they were on one side, which may occur because of fall over hard substance.This witness has formally proved chick FIR (Ext. Ka2) and G.D. Entry (Ext. Ka4) for which there is no contradiction, exaggeration and embellishment.In cross-examination he has accepted that injured was having injury over his person.It was examined and entered in general diary entry but no police constable was sent along with this injured for getting medically examined and treated.PW5 is constable and he has formally proved the investigation made by I.O. Dheeraj Singh as a secondary evidence.He has said that he is acquainted with handwriting and signature of Circle Officer Dheeraj Singh.Site plan paper no. 8/1 and 8/2 is in handwriting and signature of above Dheeraj Singh.These papers were proved by prosecution by secondary evidence, whereas no evidence is there, as to why secondary evidence was taken.What was the reason because of which this Investigating Officer could not be examined? But as no cross-examination by learned counsel for defence was made, hence formal proof by secondary evidence is there.PW1-Informant Dhankesh Kumar is victim and is witness of second occurrence, which was said to have occurred at the residence of accused Birendra Tiwari.The first one was at the shop of this witness when he was absent and his compounder PW2- Ramanuj was present but report of occurrence, which occurred at the shop, was not lodged and when second occurrence took place then this report was got lodged.Hence testimony of this witness is regarding second occurrence for which conviction and sentence of the appellant has been awarded.This witness has said in his examination in chief that shop of medical of this witness is situated behind G.T. Road in between village Panchayat Iskuri.But he is having no certificate of any registered medical practitioner, even then he was practicing in medical side.Seven years back at about 8.00 A.M., exact date and time is not under remembrance of this witness, when Ramanuj, his compounder, was present at medical shop of this witness, when accused Birendra Tiwari came at above shop and asked for Glucose, saline set, siring and injection.These were not given by the compounder.But he replied that when this witness would come above things would be given because he was not aware of those things.Then the accused had beaten above compounder and had taken away above medicines forcibly.For this occurrence, which was the first occurrence, there is variation of time.PW2 has said that it was about 5.30 A.M. when Surendra and his brother (present accused-appellant) had come to medical shop and asked for those medicines but the doctor was not available, hence the same was not given except a tablet Perinorm.He asked the compounder to be for treatment of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) or to send doctor whenever he comes for treatment of his ailing sister-in-law (Bhabhi) (wife of accused Birendra Tiwari) but when neither compounder nor doctor went there then this accused Birendra Tiwari came at the shop and asked for those medical equipment, which were not given and he forcibly took them and when protested he gave assault by hands and fists.But nowhere this has been said by that witness that the above compounder was a member of Scheduled Caste community nor this case was lodged for first occurrence, rather this PW1 i.e. doctor, who was without any medical degree or license for medical practice, was doing medical practice as quake, came at his shop.He went at the house of accused at 8.30 A.M. and lodged protest regarding forceful taking of medicines then this accused Birendra Tiwari became furious and said "ITNE MEN MULJIM NE KAHA KI TUM CHAMAR HO KAR MERE DARWAJE PAR ULAHANA DENE AAYE HO.YAH KAH KAR MULJIM NE MUJHE MARNA SHURU KAR DIYA.MAIN GIR GAYA.USKE BAD AUR PHIR KIS KISNE MUJHE MARA NAHI BATA SAKTA HUN.ISKE BAD MUJHE WAHAN SE KOI AADMI MERE DUKAN KE PAAS CHHOD AAYA.MUJHE KAUN CHHOD AAYA NAHI MALOOM.PHIR KUCHH DER BAD MUJHE HOSH AA GAYA AUR GAON WA AASPAAS KE LOG AA GAYE TATHA MUJHE TEMPO DWARA PAHILE THANE LE GAYE.WAHIN MAINE F.I.R. KIYA." This report was exhibited as Ext. Ka1 and is under signature of this witness.Meaning thereby this assault was made by Birendra Tiwari alone under knowledge of this witness, whereas it has been written in the F.I.R. that all four persons had beaten him and persons, who had beaten him were Birendra Tiwari, Surendra, his younger brother Siddhu and wife of Birendra Tiwari.They all gave assault by hands, fists, shoes, and danda.He was fallen down on the earth and then after riding over his chest this was said by accused-appellant "SALE CHAMAR JAWAN LADATA HAI AUR AAJ KE BAD DUKAN KHOLA TO GOLI MAAR DUNGA." These two versions regarding abuse punishable u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act are entirely different with material contradictions.Though, investigation resulted in filing of charge sheet against Birendra Tiwari only, who stood at trial but this witness got Exhibit Ka1 lodged and in his oral testimony before trial court he said that "ITNE MEN MULJIM NE KAHA KI TUM CHAMAR HO KAR MERE DARWAJE PAR ULAHANA DENE AAYE HO.USKE BAD AUR PHIR KIS KISNE MUJHE MARA NAHI BATA SAKTA HUN." Meaning thereby who was accused and who did so has not been given in examination in chief.At page 4 in paragraph no. 5 of examination in chief this witness has further said that he was beaten by hands and is not aware as to subsequently by which thing he was beaten. "MUJHE PAHLE GHUSON SE MARA PHIR KIS CHIJ SE MARA GAYA, NAHIN MALOOM HAI.MERA DAKTARI PARIKSHAN HUA THA." Meaning thereby it was an assault by hand i.e. entirely against contention of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1).In cross-examination he has admitted that he was having a license of Vaidhya Visharad but was not having license as a registered practitioner.He was having no register of entry of treatment of patient made by him.Under statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. he has said assault only by Birendra Tiwari, whereas in the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1) assault by five persons has been said.This too is material contradiction.He has further developed story that it was under pressure of Circle Officer that he has given statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. But he has admitted that no complaint about such pressure was made to Magistrate or any higher police officer.This has been specifically admitted by him that he has received Rs. 6250/- from the Government for this assault.Upon over all appreciation of his testimony it appears that there are material contradictions in his testimony and he is not a wholly reliable witness.PW2-Ramanuj, who in utter contradiction of contention of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1) has stated on oath that first occurrence was of 5.30 A.M. of 10.5.1996 when he was present at the medical shop of Dhankesh and Dhankesh was not there.He was at shop when Surendra Tiwari came and asked for medicine for treatment of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), (wife of Birendra Tiwari), who was ailing.He requested this witness to be with him for treatment but this witness refused as he had no knowledge of medicine and assured him that at the moment doctor would come, he would attend her.Surendra went from the shop, but when none reached, he again came and asked for medicine, injection, siring, etc. and requested this witness to be with him for treatment but again this was refused.He asked for Avil tablet but this witness gave perinorm.He again went.This witness then said that thereafter Birendra Tiwari came and asked that patient was dying but this compounder or doctor could not attend her then he slapped him and took Glucose, siring and injection set and went from the shop with a direction that whenever doctor comes he be sent to attend patient.This was first instance for which no case was lodged nor any medical examination was done nor with any specific accusation that as to which medicine was taken away by accused.Whatever was said was natural conduct of an attendant of a patient, who was ailing of acute disease, but the doctor or compounder was not paying any heed.When doctor (PW1) came he narrated the same to him then both of them went to some other person for lodging protest, who advised them to lodge protest with Birendra Tiwari then these two went at the door of Birendra Tiwari, where he was sitting on a cot and there the doctor asked "BHAI SAHAB KYA HUA.Medical report reveals injuries, as discussed above.Injured said that it was accused, who had assaulted.Charge sheet against Birendra Tiwari was filed but assault by three persons has been said by this witness and this witness was not beaten.Whereas Medical officer has proved that two injuries found on the person of injured were simple, situated at one side and may occur due to fall on land.Rest two were complaint of pain.Both of these witnesses have said that the informant had fallen on the ground.Meaning thereby both these injuries were caused by falling on land.In cross-examination this PW2 has said that he too was a quake to a job of compounder, without any training and certificate.There are material contradictions in the testimony of this witness.Only these two witnesses of fact are there and both of them are not reliable.For punishment u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.Hence, insult or humiliation in any place within public view is condition precedent for punishment u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Both of these two witnesses i.e. informant-PW1 and PW2- Ramanuj have said in their testimonies that this occurrence was at the home of accused Birendra Tiwari where both of them had gone and Birendra was sitting over a cot at his home.Meaning thereby this was not a place of public view.Surendra Tiwari and Birendra Tiwari had gone to the medical shop of informant and had repeatedly requested for attending ailing wife of Birendra Tiwari and for giving medical help but they did not care for it then under anxiety and mental agony of ailment of his wife this Birendra Tiwari went and brought medicines from shop with a request for sending doctor for attending his ailing wife.Meaning thereby till then there was no intention to insult on the basis of caste, whereas for conviction u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act intentional insult or intimidation or humiliation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe at a place within public view is an essential ingredient.In the impugned judgment conviction u/s 504 I.P.C. with a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded, whereas section 504 I.P.C. provides for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace i.e. whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.Hence the essential ingredient for punishment u/s 504 I.P.C. is intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace for which there is no cogent and sufficient evidence.The alleged occurrence took place when informant went at the house of accused in the morning where his ailing wife was in need of treatment but no treatment was offered, rather protest was lodged.Then under above situation this occurrence took place, which was not an intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.Moreso, only two witnesses of fact are PW1 and PW2 and their testimonies are not consistent.There are material contradictions, exaggerations and embellishments.Hence the learned trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law and has wrongly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.This appeal merits its allowance.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.Order Date :- 11.4.2019 Pcl | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
55,629,574 | P.C.(commonly known as "bail by default").In case the special court does allow the extension of the period for completion of investigation beyond ninety days within its jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the arrestee or detenue (accused) cannot claim bail by default on the expiry of ninety days, such right, by virtue of the order of extension, being postponed to the expiry of the extended period that has been allowed, the cap, of course, being the period of one hundred and eighty days.Before coming to the issues of law which arise for consideration, the background narrative must be set out at this stage.Since the arrest is in a case involving cognizable offences under MCOCA, the period of ninety days would apply for Crl.A. 311/2017 Page 7 of 50 purposes of regulating his continued detention in terms of modified provision of Section 167 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute that 1.3.2017 would be the ninetieth day.A. 311/2017 Page 7 of 5028.2.2017 Present: Shri Ravindra Kumar, Ld. APP for State Shri Mehmood Pracha, Shri R.H.A.The report of the public prosecutor for extending the period of investigation moved on 28.2.2017, and a fresh application of the investigating officer for extension of the judicial custody, were placed before the District and Sessions judge, New Delhi.He passed the following order:-01.03.2017 File is put up before me Sh.Rakesh Pandit, Ld.PHC, New Delhi is on leave today on account of unwellness.Present: Sh.Devender Kumar, Ld.Chief PP for the State alongwith Sh.Ravindra Kumar, Ltd. Addl.PP Hridaya Bhushan.Accused produced from JC.Mehmood Pracha and Sh.On 28.2.2017, three applications were moved.One application was by the public prosecutor praying for the period of "filing charge-sheet" against the appellant to be "extended upto 15.3.2017", this being in the nature of "report envisaged by the second proviso to Section 167(2).The second application was moved by the investigating officer seeking extension of the judicial custody.The additional sessions judge presiding over the special court passed the following order vis--vis the two applications:Sikander and Shri Prateek Gupta counsels for accused Rambeer Shokeen Accused from JC.ACP Special Cell Hirdey Bhushan in person.An application for further extension of JC beyond 90 days and for seeking further extension of time for investigation beyond period of 90 days.Copy of Order be given dasti.The third application moved on 28.2.2017 was on behalf of the appellant seeking release on bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. claiming the period of ninety days had expired.This Crl.A. 311/2017 Page 8 of 50 application was kept pending to be considered later.A. 311/2017 Page 8 of 50On 1.3.2017, the additional sessions judge presiding over the Court was on leave of absence from duty.R.H.A. Sikander, Ltd. Counsels for the accused Rambeer Shokeen.Reply has been filed on behalf of accused Rambeer Shokeen to the application moved on behalf of the State seeking extension of time for filing the charge sheet.Copy supplied.An application has been moved on behalf of State seeking extension of JC of the accused above named.As Ld.Merits of the application dated 28.02.2017 shall be decided by the concerned court.Chief PP for the State submits that he has not been supplied with the copy of the application moved on behalf of the accused Rambeer Shokeen under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of statutory bail.The Ld. Counsel for the accused is directed to supply the copy Crl.A. 311/2017 Page 9 of 50 of the same during the course of the day against proper receipt.A. 311/2017 Page 9 of 50Put up on 07.03.2017 for further proceedings.On 4.3.2017, the investigating officer moved an application seeking permission of the special court to "interrogate" the appellant in jail against the background of facts concerning declarations statedly made by him about his immovable and moveable assets in the affidavit submitted before the election commission in the context of election to Delhi Legislative Assembly wherein he was a candidate.This request was also placed before the District and Sessions Judge on 4.3.2017 since the additional sessions judge presiding over the special court was away to Cuttack, Odisha to participate in National Judicial Seminar, upon being nominated by this Court.On 7.3.2017, the report of the public prosecutor, moved on 28.2.2017, for extension of the period of investigation in terms of second proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and the application of the appellant, moved on 2.3.2017, for release on bail by default in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. were taken up for consideration.Arguments were heard by the special court and the order reserved to be Crl.A. 311/2017 Page 10 of 50 pronounced on 8.3.2017, the judicial custody of appellant being extended till such date.A. 311/2017 Page 10 of 50It is admitted fact that a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the appellant (charge-sheet) was submitted in the special court by the investigating officer and the special court, by order passed on the said report on 8.3.2017, took cognizance, adjourning the case to 18.3.2017, extending the judicial remand accordingly.The order passed by the special court on 8.3.2017 reads thus:-Present: Sh.Ravindera Kumar Ltd. APP for State.Mehmood Pracha, Sh.R.H.A. Sikander and Prateek Gupta Counsel for accused Rambeer Shokeen.IO ACP Hirdey Bhushan in person.Accused Ramber Shokkeen from JC.Supplementary charge-sheet filed with respect to accused Ramber Shokeen.Charge-sheet perused.I take cognizance of the offences involved.Copies of documents supplied with respect to the charge-sheet against Rambeer Shokeen.Time sought by IO to supply copy of earlier charge-sheet against other accused persons.Same be supplied within 7 working days.Considering the fact that supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed against the accused Ramber Shokeen, so the application regarding extension of time dated 28.02.2017 become infructuous and thus dismissed as infructuous.Put up for arguments/order on application u/sec.A. 311/2017 Page 11 of 50By the appeal at hand, challenge is brought to the orders dated 1.3.2017 and 4.3.2017 of the District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi and orders dated 7.3.2017 and 14.3.2017 of the special court under MCOCA.The respondent-State has submitted its response in the form of status report of the investigating police officer.Arguments on both sides have been heard at length in the light of facts and circumstances set out above.By deferring a decision on the report of the public prosecutor to 07.03.2017, the District & Sessions Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, for no explicable reasons.A. 311/2017 Page 40 of 50As already noted, the submissions of the parties - public prosecutor and the counsel for the appellant - on the request for enlargement of time for completion of investigation made through the report of the public prosecutor were heard by the special court on 07.03.2017, this alongside the request of the appellant for release on bail by default.The short order passed on 08.03.2017 has been extracted earlier.The appellant had been Crl.A. 311/2017 Page 41 of 50 noticed on the application and he had filed a response resisting the request.There should never be a vacuum.A. 311/2017 Page 50 of 50 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,192,461 | The case of the prosecution is that, on- the morning of 13-5-1973 there was a quarrel at the public water tap between Bhola Nath (aged 20 years) and Mohd. Sayeed deceased (aged 25 years).Some persons including Abdul Hamid (P.W. 4) separated them.But Bihola Nath threatened to kill Mohd. Sayeed before he went away.At about 5 p. m. that very evening when, he was going to his house Abdul Hamid (P.W. 4) saw Gopi Kishan (appellant in Cr. A. 102/74) and Raj Kumar (accused who has been acquitted) catching hold of the deceased.Raj Kumar had a chain in his hand and Gopi Kishan was abusing the deceased Bhola Nath, who was having an open knife in his hand stabbed the deceased and all the three accused ran away.The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Mohd. Hamid (P.W. 4), Mom Uddin (P.W. 5) and Jamal Mohd. (P.W. 6).The deceased had fallen down in the Patli Galli at Chowk Bara Dari (where he was stabbed).The deceased placed a handkerchief on his wound and went towards Jagdish's dairy but fell down.Not only blood stains but also the said handkerchief were removed from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was taken in a cycle rickshaw to the Irwin Hospital by Mohd. Sultan (P.W. 8), uncle of the deceased.Mohd. Sayeed (P.W. 9).son of P.W. 4, rushed to the Police Station and made a statement as per Ex. P.W. 1/A at 5.05 p. m. that "a serious quarrel was going on in Bara Dari"; no detail of the incident or names of persons involved therein were mentioned.Rajpal Singh (P.W. 1) the duty officer at the Police Station Hauz Qazi, which is only one furlong away from the science of occurrence, recorded the statement of P.W. 9 (Exhibit P.W. 1/A).Soon thereafter, at 5.25 p. m. a telephonic call was received by him from a Constable at Irwin Hospital about the deceased having been admitted in injured condition.P.W. 8 had accompanied the deceased to the hospital.The deceased was admitted at 5.20 p. m. in the hospital.His general condition was poor.There was a stab on the left side of his chest 1.5 c. m. long obliquely placed; he was bleeding profusely and there was peripheral circulatory failure.The injured was gasping; his pulse was feeble.He was sent immediately for resuscitation but life ebbed out at 5,40 p.m. On receipt of another telephonic message from the hospital at 6.30 p.m. P.W. 1 converted the offence previously registered under Section 307/34, I.P.C. into Section 302/34, I.P.C.Immediately after recording Ex. P.W. 1/A S. I. Rajpal Singh (P.W. 1) had sent ASI Ranbir Singh to the spot for inquiry, who completed recording the statement of Abdul Hamid (P.W. 4) by 5.35 p. m.; the same (marked as P.W. 1/D) was received at the Police Station by P.W. 1 at 5.45 p. m., who recorded a formal F. I. R. on that basis.According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P.W. 13/A) the following injuries were noticed:(1) Incised wound superficial partial skin deep 1X03 c. m. in the back and upper part of rt.forearm oblique in direction.(2) Abrasion as if caused by a sharp object 0.8 X 0.3 c. m. in the inner and middle part of rt.(3) Small, transverse, linear abrasions, 4.0 c. m. and 3.5 c. m. one over other, 2.5 c. m. apart, situated at the rt.side part of chest just inside and below rt.(4) Incised punctured wound, 2X0.6 c. m. oblique, in the left outer surface of chest, midaxillary line over 6th inter costal space X chest cavity deep, directed upwards slightly and medially in chest cavity.The upper outer angle is acute, while inner lower angle is rounded.Death was due to haemorrhage and shock consequent on stab injury to lung and heart (injury No. 4), which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The accused is said to have made a disclosure statement (as per Exhibit P.W. 10/A) to the Police Inspector Bhim Singh (P.W. 16) that he had kept the knife near Chhaju Colony Shahdara adjacent to a coconut tree in the field in the bushes and that he would get the same recovered after pointing it out.This statement is said to have been made in the presence of Shuja Uddin (P.W. 10) and Mohd. Asfeen (P.W. 11) which was seized under a memo (Ex. P.W. 1/C).The said knife was not even sent for serological examination because it was not said to contain blood stains.It was not shown to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem or even to any other doctor who was examined.The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly did not attach any weight to the recovery of the said knife in the view that it did not contain blood stains.Without any blood stains on it there is no guarantee that the same was used in this case.It is needless, therefore, to be detained by the said recovery even though Mr. Frank Anthony, learned Counsel for Bhola Nath, went the length of contending that a knife had been "falsely planted" by the Police in this case.The appellants in both the appeals completely denied the participation in the crime.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted Raj Kumar; P.Ws. 5 and 6 omitted to identify him altogether; even P.W. 4 did not identify him firmly.Despite some lapses both in the investigation and in the manner in which the trial was conducted (to which reference will be made later) it seems to us that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 4 that it was Bhola Nath who stabbed the deceased especially when he had made a statement to that effect (Ex. P.W. 1/D) which had been recorded within about half an hour of the occurrence and had been received at the P. S. by P.W. 1 at about 5.45 p.m. Ranbir Singh who had been deputed by P.W. 1 to enquire had reached the scene within a few minutes, the Police Station being only a furlong from the scene of occurrence and P.W. 9 having rushed to the Police -Station immediately after the fatal quarrel began that evening.There seems to be really no basis for this contention.The suggestion to P.W. 1 himself was that the formal F. I. R. was recorded at 8 p. m., not 5.45 p. m, According to Punjab Police Rule 24.5 the F. I. R. shall be filled in the printed Form 24.5 with pages serially numbered with three carbon copies (each of the four pages of the register bearing the same serial number); one of them is to be sent to the Head Magistrate.Since such a report is to be sent in a case of murder the occasion for sending it arose only after 6 30 p. m. when the fact of death was reported from the Irwin Hospital to the Police Station.The copy which was sent to the Magistrate is not being exhibited by the prosecution in cases arising within the Union Territory of Delhi unless some doubts are thrown on this.The experience of one of us (R. N. Aggarwal, J.) as District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, confirms this practice.As a fact it was contended by Mr. Frank Anthony, that whereas P.W. 9 stated that he had seen the deceased lying injured a large number of persons had collected and that he then rushed to the Police Station since he apprehended danger, P.W. 4 had stated that he had sent P.W. 9 to lodge a report at the Police Station "at the time a quarrel had started".But what P.W. 4 had meant was explained by him further: it was incorrect to suggest that P.W. 9 had left for the Police Station to lodge a report at the end of the quarrel.P. W. 9 stated that he had not talked to his father before he went to the Police Station, so that P.W. 4, was present at the spot; P.W. 4 also swore that he did not tell P.W. 9 the names of the assailants as to what report was to be lodged.P.W. 4 had also stated that within about 20 minutes after the injured was taken to the hospital one person returned and told them that he had died.He knew about this fact when his ruqa (Exhibit P.W. 1/D) was recorded.It being admitted that one standing near the tap could not witness anything happening in the lane any statement attributed to P.W. 4 concerning his going to the tap when the incident happened cannot be read as meaning that he was near the tap itself when he witnessed the entire occurrence, he asserted that he did so.It was not suggested to him that he was staying only near the tap and for that reason he could not have witnessed what happened in the lane because of his being near the tap.The presence of P.W. 4 Abdul Hamid at the place of occurrence is but natural.He resides in the same locality and on Sunday at about the time of occurrence he had gone to the public tap for taking water.His evidence finds full corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 5 Moin Uddin, the post-mortem report of the doctor and the recovery of the knife from Bhola accused.It is fair to state that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had believed the evidence pertaining to the disclosure by Bhola Nath and recovery of the knife this would not avail the prosecution in the absence of human blood stains on the knife.The post-mortem report would only show that he had been stabbed in the sixth inter-coastal space, which ended fatally, with a sharp edged weapon.Ex. P-2 had not been proved to be the knife in this case but it could admit of no doubt that the deceased came by the said injury as a result of a sharp edged weapon being used against him.The injury was ante mortem, not postmortem.To this extent there has been some support for the testimony of P.W. 4 concerning the deceased having come by the said injury.Regarding the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerning "full corroboration" by the evidence of Moin Uddin P.W. 5 it has to be noticed that even he, like P.W. 4, failed to identify Raj Kumar at the trial and this was the reason for declaring him hostile to the prosecution; he had not been, however, examined in the committing Court.Jamal Mohd. (P.W. 6), the third alleged eye-witness, went the length of saying that he did not see any of the persons quarrelling at about 5 P. M. on that day.In these circumstances the only question is whether one can safely act on the testimony of Abdul Hamid that Bhola Nath gave that fatal blow to the deceased.The fact that signature was taken to the statement of facts in the inquest report is not such as to lead to the inference that an effort had been made to tie him to such a statement and that he was not free to state the truth later on; in his case he had also given the signed ruqa concerning the facts of the occurrence.This report was signed by the witnesses at the hospital according to the evidence of Inspector Bhim Singh (P.W. 16) and it was not signed by Abdul Hamid at his residence.Advantage was sought to be taken of the admission of Abdul Hamid that he did not go to the hospital on the following day and that his signatures were got on certain papers by the Police at his residence the following day; it was not clarified what papers were thus signed; no specific question was put to him concerning (his signing the inquest report.We do not feel impelled to take a different view of the case merely because it was solicited on behalf of the appellant Bhola Nath in the cross-examination of Moin Uddin (P.W. 5), obviously in answer to a suggestion in that leading form, as follows:It is correct that Abdul Hamid P.W. arrived at the spot after Sultan had left along with the injured in the rickshaw (after P.W. 5 was treated as hostile).is concerned we do not find that the evidence or proved circumstances are sufficient to warrant his conviction under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The statement in the ruqa given by Abdul Hamid (P.W. 4) was that Gopi and Rai had caught hold of the deceased and Gopi said to Bhola "Dekhta Kaya Hai, saaley Ko jaan se maar do".Before the committing Court Abdul Hamid only said he heard those words; he did not identify Gopi as the person who uttered them.At the trial he pointed to Gopi and said "he is perhaps that Gopi". | ['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. |
119,246,440 | Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were granted patta with respect to Gaon Sabha land and opp.party No.2 wanted to grab the same from the applicants and had also assaulted the applicants for which an FIR was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No.338 of 2011 on 1.9.2011 for offence under Section 307/452 I.P.C., a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the accompanying affidavit.He further pointed out that the wife of applicant No.1 Smt. Monika Devi also received gunshot injury on her person.Notice on behalf of opp.party No. 1 has been accepted by the learned AGA.Issue notice to opp.party No.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the petition. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,262,298 | Learned Panel Lawyer further pointed out that in the year 2018 also, the deceased has lodged an FIR against the petitioner for beating her, which was registered as a non- cognizable offence under Section 323 & 504 of IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after 27 years of marriage and having 7 daughters, out of whom 2 have been married and are residing happily in their in-laws house, it is hard to believe that someone may kill his wife.It is further stated that there is no direct or indirect inculpatory evidence against the petitioner in the case.The dead body was found in the open field.Rupali and other daughters of the petitioner have stated that the deceased had gone to the field to deliver food to the petitioner, but after some time, the petitioner had come back home alone with the food, she had taken.He remained at the house for about 2 hours, had food at home and left the home at about 12 hours stating that he was going to the bank.After about 2 hours, he came back and went to sleep.After waking up he inquired about his wife as she had not come back home by that time.He has no criminal antecedent.He is a permanent resident of Khargone.There is no possibility of his absconding.As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.2. on 02/05/2020, the wife of the petitioner was found dead in their field.Postmortem revealed that death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.The police have produced 16 years old daughter of the petitioner - Rupali before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has stated before the Court that her parents were not enjoying good relations and for the past 2-3 days, the petitioner was thrashing and bashing her mother.In their police statement, her sisters Khushi 12 years, Shivani 19 years, sister-in-law Mayabai, father-in-law Mansharam and Jeevan Bai all have stated that the petitioner used to beat his wife and threaten to kill her, 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.46420 of 2020 Surendra Vs.He went for a search along with her sister-in-law (Bhabi) and found her dead in the field.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the dead body was found in the open field.The petitioner was not present on the spot at the relevant point of time and it is very well clear from the statement of the witnesses 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.46420 of 2020 Surendra Vs.State of M.P.particularly from the statement of daughter Rupali.Both husband and wife lived together for 27 long years.They blessed with 7 daughters.No serious dispute was ever reported to any of the authorities.Petty domestic disputes or discords were not so serious that the petitioner can take such a drastic step.There is no one in the house to look after the 5 unmarried daughters.There is no reason for the petitioner to kill her wife.On the fateful day, the wife was alone at the field.It is quite possible that taking advantage of her loneliness somebody might have tried to misbehave with her and on her protest might have strangulated her.Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.For the last 6 months, he is in jail.Charge-sheet has been filed, the trial is likely to take time.He is ready to comply with the conditions to be imposed by the Court, therefore, he be granted bail.I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, long married life of the deceased and the petitioner, nature of the dispute between them, place of occurrence and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to 4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.46420 of 2020 Surendra Vs.State of M.P.allow the bail. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,192,658 | (2) The case against accused 1 was: the deceased Kanda Pannadi was a ryot cultivating Naduvakadu on lease from one Murugana Goundan.To the west of this land is the land of Ramana Goundan called Parambukorai.The accused Semalai Pannadi was the Tannirkatti of the deceased Kanada Pannadi till Chitrai last year when his services were dispensed with.Thereafter he became the Thannirkatti of Rama Goundan.These lands were irrigated with the water of Puthuvaikal.This water was diverted to these lands by Koppus.Parambukorai of Ramana Goundan in irrigated through the southern koppu and the land of the deceased through the middle koppu.It is the case both for the prosecution as well as the accused that on 15-6-1958 transplantation was going on in Parambukorai, supervised by the Thannirkatti accused.The deceased, when he came to the field in the morning found that there was overflow of water into Parambukorai and there was no water flowing into his land.The water was flowing into Parambukorai through the legitimate southern koppu.The deceased therefore went to the southern koppu and blocked it in order to divert the water into the middle koppu from the Puthuvaikal.The accused removed the block.In fact the deceased was closing and the accused was removing the block for about ten minutes and there was an exchange of hot and absence words.The accused had a spade in his hand and he hit the deceased on his head with the wooden portion of the spade.The deceased fell down into the koppu.P.W. 1 who had accompanied Kanda Pannadi, raised an alarm and tried to interfere and sustained an injury.The accused left the place with his spade westwards.P.W. 3, the Thannirkatti of a neighbouring land, witnessed this.JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.He was convicted under S. 304 (Part II) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.But he has not preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence.The alarm raised by P.W. 1 brought to the scene P.W. 2 and some women including P.W. 7 who were working in the vicinity.P.W. 1 and others lifted the deceased and laid him on the ridge and administered some cold rice water to him.On P.W. 1's information Palani Panadi (P.W. 8), the eldest brother of the deceased, came there.The deceased was taken in a cart to Gobichettipalayam police station.There he gave a report to the head constable P.W. 6, implicating this accused as his assailant.He was sent to the hospital.In that statement Kanda Pannadi implicated this accused as his assailant.Kanda Pannadi died in the hospital on 21-6-1958 at 4 a. m.(3) The case for the accused was: "Kanda Pannadi blocked the flow of water at the pali and we exchanged words for sometime.He closed the pali and I opened it.There is a place there about, chest high.He pushed me and I pushed him.He was standing on the raised portion and I was standing on the lower portion.I pulled his hands after he pulled me.Then he fell down on the cement construction and sustained an injury on the head.He got up and went.I went southwards to my land to attend to my work.Kanda Pannadi went away walking."(4) The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has affirmatively and satisfactorily proved that the deceased Kanda Pannadi was hit with a spade by this accused which brought about the fracture of the whole of the right temporal bone and the right and left parietal bones, resulting in injury to the brain necessarily bringing about fatal result."In an appeal against acquittal the accused is entitled to ask the court to consider all the evidence before it and all the possible grounds which may be raised against the conviction.P. C. and set aside the conviction."Bearing these principles in mind, and examining the facts of this case, we hold that the prosecution has affirmatively and satisfactorily proved that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on the deceased with a spade which resulted in his death.P.W. 8 has come and learnt of what had happened and taken the deceased to the Gobichettipalayam police station.In the first information report given by the injured man himself, he has implicated this accused as his assailant.In the dying declaration recorded from him subsequently, he has implicated this accused as his assailant. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
119,269,869 | Prosecution story in brief is that Kamlesh, Rakesh, Prakash, Kartar Singh and deceased Kamal Singh used to come Sagar from their Village Sironja for study.Accused Jaggi @ Jagdish was resident of village Lodhipura.Aforesaid village is on the way between Sagar and Sironja.Two days before from the date of incident deceased Kamal Singh had torn book of accused Dalpat.On this, there was quarrel between them.On 30/11/1994 at around 11 O'clock Kamlesh, Rakesh, Prakash, Kartar Singh and Kamal Singh were going to school at Sagar Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 2 from their village, near Lodhipura, accused Jaggi @ Jagdish and other persons had quarrel with them, thereafter, they had rushed to the control room, near police station civil lines.Accused Jaggi @ Jagdish, Dalpat, Mohan and Ramji chased them on two bicycles.Thereafter, they had committed maarpeet with Kamal Singh.Dalpat had inflicted blows of knife at Kamal Singh, he fell down thereafter, Dalpat tried to kill Kamlesh S/o Ramcharan, he ran away from the spot.He entered into the Bungalow of Mr. R.S. Gupta, Dy.Present appellant also reached there, thereafter accused Dalpat inflicted blows of knife to injured Kamlesh in the Aagan.Mr. R.S. Gupta, catch hold accused Dalpat.Police Personnel also came there and they catch hold present appellant and Dalpat.Injured persons and deceased were sent to district hospital Sagar.Distance between our village and Sagar is near about 8 kms.Village Lodhipura is on the way between our village and Sagar.On 29/11/1994 Kamal Singh had torn one page of book of Dalpat.On 30/11/1994 when we were going to Sagar then on the way near flour mill at village Lodhipura Rakesh and Dhan Singh told that why we had quarrel with Dalpat Yesterday, thereafter, they had beaten Kamal Singh and Kartar Singh.They slapped them, we went to police line near Sagar University.Accused persons Jaggi @ Jagdish, Ramji, Mohan and Dalpat also came there on their bicycles.They parked their bicycles under koha tree.They had beaten me and Rakesh and slapped us.At that time Dalpat had taken out knife from his pocket.Kamal Singh ran upto some distance, at that time Dalpat inflicted two blows at Kamal Singh.One is on the chest and one other on back side.Jaggi @ Jagdish also tried to beat him.I ran away and entered in to bungalow of Dy.Commissioner and near the gate I received a blow of knife on my chest inflicted by Dalpat who had inflicted another blow I could not see.Commissioner catch hold hand of Dalpat.Thereafter, some persons came there, they had taken me out side from the bungalow of Dy.Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 4 Commissioner.Other persons had taken us on auto to police station and from there to hospital.We were referred to Bhopal.On the way to Bhopal Kamal Singh was died.Police seized my shirt and recorded my statement in the evening at District Hospital Sagar which is Ex. P/26, I signed the same.Another witness PW/3 R.S. Gupta, Dy.Commissioner deposed that on 30/11/1994 I was at my house.At around 11.15 in the afternoon I was talking to milkman.He used to provide milk to me.At that time three boys came running towards my house.Two boys were chasing one boy.One boy who was running forward, entered into my house and he requested to save me.One boy entered into my house who was chasing.He crossed Barandah and reached at the Aagan, thereafter another boy had inflicted blows by knife.I catch hold hand and thereafter, 15-20 persons came there.Police constables were also there.I handed over the boy with knife to the police constable.I make phone call to Gopalganj Police Station.I could not remember the names of boys who were present at my house.TI police station was present there.He prepared spot map.Plain earth and red earth was also seized from the place of incident.5. PW/9 Ramakant deposed that on 30/11/1994 I and Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 5 another constable Jagat Singh were going to tea stall to take tea, three boys running there.One boy running forward and other two boys were chasing him.We entered into the bungalow of Dy.Commissioner where in the Aagan one boy was lying and Dy.Commissioner was holding the second boy.He had knife in his hand.PW/14 Prakash another witness.He also deposed that Dalpat had taken out a knife from his pocket and he had inflicted blow at Kamal Singh then Kamlesh ran away from the Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 6 spot.He entered into Bungalow of Dy.One incised injury 2 cm.X 1 cm.on back side it was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.PW/10 Dr. Ajay Badonya, deposed that I examined Kamal Singh on 30/11/1994 and noticed one incised injury on back side.Patient was referred to Hamidiya Hospital, Bahopal.Side of chest posterior auxilary line at the level of 9th rib.There was injury in left lung.The deceased was died due to asphyxia and shock due to injury suffered by him.In the present case the deceased injured and other students were going to school.On the way the accused persons stopped them thereafter some of them slapped two boys.In that event accused Dalpat had inflicted two blows of knife at the deceased Kamal Singh.Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines reached at the hospital.He recorded Dehati Nalsi as per version of Kamlesh and also recorded dying declaration of deceased Kamal Singh which is in the form of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and conducted investigation.After investigation charge-sheet was filed.Present appellant abjured his guilt during trial and pleaded innocence.Accused Dalpat was minor he was tried separately by Juvenile court.It is informed by Dy.Government Advocate that accused Dalpat has been died.Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 3He deposed that on 30/11/1994 in the afternoon I, Kamal Singh, Prakash and Kartar Singh were going to school.We were walking.Both the boys entered into Bungalow of Dy.I and Jagat Singh reached at the Bungalow of Dy.Jagat Singh had taken out the knife from his hand thereafter we had taken both the boys outside of bungalow.Injured person told the name of boy who was inflicted blow of knife Dalpat.Boy who was standing outside the bungalow told his name Jaggi @ Jagdish.Another boy was also lying near bungalow he was injured.We had taken both the injured persons to police station Gopalganj.PW/2 Rakesh deposed the same facts as deposed by PW/11 that Dalpat had inflicted two blows at Kamal Singh by knife and thereafter other persons had ran away.Commissioner and Jaggi @ Jagdish had inflicted blow at Kamlesh.Same facts have been deposed by PW/ 15 Kartar Singh.He deposed that I examined Kamlesh and noticed following injuries on his person:(1) One incised injury 3 cm.x cm.on the chest.(2) One incised injury 5 cm.x 1 cm.on back side.Injuries were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.Report is Ex. P/10 and I signed the same.He further deposed that other injured Kamal Singh was also examined I noticed one injury.He further deposed that on the same day I examined Kamlesh and noticed two incised injuries on the person, one on the chest and another on back side.PW/2 Dr. M.K. Choubey, who performed postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that I noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased.Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 7 (1)One incised wound on back side on 8 th thoracie vertebrae.(2)Stitched wound on Rt.PW/17 C.L. Sharma, investigating officer deposed that I was posted on 30/11/1994 as Town Inspector at Civil Line Police Station, Sagar.I received telephonic massage in regard to quarrel.Thereafter I reached at District Hospital and I recorded Dehati Nalsi as per version of Kamlesh which is Ex. P/26, I signed the same.I also recorded dying declaration of Kamal Singh which is Ex. P/16, I signed the same, thereafter I prepared spot map Ex. P/18 and another spot map Ex. P/19 and I signed the same.I seized plain earth and red earth.From the possession of accused, shirt was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/24, I signed the same.From the evidence of injured witness PW/11, it is clear that earlier there was quarrel when they were going to school.Two persons slapped Kamlesh and Kamal Singh, thereafter, they ran away from the place.They reached at Police Station, accused Jagdish and other two persons came there on bicycle and at that time Dalpat had taken out knife from his pocket and when Kamal Singh ran away upto some distance he had Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 8 inflicted two blows on chest and back side.Same facts have been deposed by other witnesses students PW/ 12 and PW/15 who were also accompanying the injured persons.Thereafter, injured Kamal Singh ran away and he entered into the bungalow of Dy.In the court yard of bungalow of Dy.There is no evidence that present appellant had inflicted blow to the deceased by knife.The deceased in his dying declaration also deposed that Dalpat had inflicted blows by knife.From the present appellant no knife was seized by the police.Thereafter Kamlesh ran away from the spot.Present appellant and another accused Dalpat had chasing him.Dalpat entered into the bungalow of Dy.Commissioner where the injured boy had entered before the accused he was tried to save himself and in the courtyard Dalpat inflicted blows by knife to the injured persons.Present appellant was standing outside of bungalow.In view of the aforesaid evidence, and sequence of events, in our opinion present appellant Jaggi @ Jagdish is not liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of 34 of IPC.At that time there was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased because he was not having any weapon.The present appellant is liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Cr.A. No. 1035/1995 15 Section 307 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC because he had chased injured person along with main accused Dalpat and Dalpat after entering into bungalow of Dy.Commissioner inflicted blows of knife at the injured person.Present appellant was standing outside of bungalow.Hence, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly convicted the present appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC.We further hold that conviction of the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC is not proper.Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant Jaggi @ Jagdish is partly allowed.The appellant is acquitted from the charge of Section 302/34 of IPC and sentence awarded by the trial court is hereby set-aside. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,343,783 | Both the above sentences shall run concurrently.Factual matrix of the case, as discernible from the record appears to be that first informant Pappu son of Nanhkey Raidas, resident of village-Jaraua, P.S-Beniganj, District Hardoi lodged the written report at P.S. Beniganj, District Hardoi to the effect that accused Guddu Raidas son of Sitaram Raidas enticed away his daughter aged about five years and took her to maize field where he sexually assaulted her.Her daughter came back home weepingly and told her mother that Guddu Raidas has teased her.First informant and his wife Pootana Devi inquired about the matter with accused Guddu Raidas, whereupon he abused them and began to run away from the place when he was caught with the help of co-villagers Ram Prasad son of Ram Swaroop, Jai Karan son of Chowdhary, Nahnkey son of Tarra, Lalta son of Nanhoo.The first informant came to the police station along with the victim, his wife and the accused (Guddu Raidas).Report be lodged and action be taken.On external examination, no mark of injury was found.Secondary sex character not developed.On internal examination, lacerated wound present on vagina size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x .25 cm at 6 O'clock position reaching to forchete.Hymen freshly torn bleeding/oozing present from edges.Vaginal smear taken by swab stick, which was painful.This medical examination report is dated 9.8.2011 which is Exhibit Ka-4 on record.Consequently, supplementary medical report was prepared and x-ray was done.On x-ray of right wrist, two carpel bones were seen.Cuneiform starts appearing.In the supplementary report, no spermatozoa was seen.PW-1 is the first informant and he did come in direct contact with the victim after the occurrence when the victim came back home with tears in her eyes.He was only informed about the incident by her wife about the incident.Heard Sri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel and amicus curiae for the appellant and Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order of conviction dated 24.7.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.9, Hardoi in S.T. No.708 of 2011, State of U.P. Versus Vs.On the basis of entries made in the Check FIR, case was registered against the appellant at P.S. Beniganj at aforesaid crime number vide entry made in Report No.26 at 5.05 P.M. under Sections 376, 504 IPC.Copy of the concerned GD is Exhibit Ka-3 on record.The victim was medically examined by Dr. Nasreen Rasool, at Women Hospital, Hardoi on 9.8.2011 at 8 P.M. who found following injury on the person of the victim.Vaginal smear taken and sent to pathology, district hospital, Hardoi for presence of spermatozoa and gonorrhoea.She was also referred for x-ray examination for determination of her age.Only RHC and polymorph in plenty were seen.On the basis of x-ray examination report and supplementary report, age of the victim was assessed to be about 3-4 years and her injury on vagina was stated to be caused as a result of commission of rape.After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet in aforesaid case crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant Guddu Raidas, which charge sheet is Exhibit Ka-9 on record.Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was made over for trial court for disposal.The appellant was heard on the point of charge and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charge under Sections 376 and 504 IPC.Charge was accordingly framed and read over to the accused, who abjured charge and opted for trial.In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses.Pappu PW-1 is the complainant.She has stated description of incident, as narrated to her by the victim.The trial court also tested competency of victim but after initial inquiry, the trial court observed that the victim is not competent to be a witness because of her tender age.Dr. Nasreen Rasool P.W.5 is the Medical Officer, who medically examined the victim and also prepared the supplementary report and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-4 and 5, respectively.Dr. R.C. Gupta PW-6 is Radiologist.Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused termed his implication false due to enmity.In reply to question no.8, he has stated that at the relevant point of time, he was on the maize field.Defence has led ocular testimony of one Babloo son of Girish D.W.1 regarding the fact that first informant's wife Putana Devi was plucking cucumber from accused's field, therefore, he informed the accused about her act and then accused reached to the spot where some altercation took place and in the scuffle, daughter of the first informant fell down on the stump of maize from lap of her mother, due to which, she sustained injuries.After evidence of D.W.1, no further evidence was given, therefore, evidence for the parties was closed.The trial court after hearing the parties, appraising the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and imposed the aforesaid sentences upon the appellant.Consequently this appeal.It has been vociferously submitted on behalf of the appellant that as per information of the victim herself, she has nowhere stated that she was raped by the appellant.Here the injury caused on the private part of the victim is self speaking and hymen was found torn freshly.The appellant on being inquired about the incident tried to escape from the place, however, he was overpowered and caught with the help of villagers.It is obvious that the learned trial court also tested competency of the victim as to whether she can be treated to be a competent witness or not.Site plan, Exhibit Ka-7 shows the damaged maize crop and place 'X' has been marked as the place where the incident allegedly took place.The prosecution witnesses of fact Pappu and Putana Devi have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively.Pappu PW-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that Guddu Raidas was seen enticing away his minor daughter by his younger brother and his wife, thereafter her daughter came back home weepingly.Blood was oozing out from her private part.The victim told her mother that 'Guddu Raidas nay mere saath murahi ki hai".At this, informant's wife enquired from Guddu Raidas about the matter, whereupon Guddu Raidas abused her.An alarm was raised by his wife whereupon the appellant was caught with the help of other co-villagers and he was taken to the police station where the informant dictated the report to one person and after the contents were read over to him, he marked his thumb impression on it.He has been cross-examined, wherein testimony has come forth that the first information report was dictated by Daroga Ji and was taken down by another person.However, he has stated in his cross-examination that he was narrated about the incident by his wife and younger brother's wife Rinki and then only facts were dictated by him to a man, who wrote the FIR.From the testimony of PW-1, it emerges out that Daroga Ji initially inquired from the wife of the first informant and then the matter was dictated to one person.Further, that the report was dictated as soon as he reached at the police station.He admitted that at the time of incident, he was at village Bhayangaon.He was told about the incident around 2 p.m. by his younger brother's wife Rinki at Bhayangaon.He has admitted that Rinki and Guddu Raidas are not on speaking terms.He has also stated that he is deposing in court only at the instance of his wife and his younger brother's wife Rinki.It is obvious that P.W.1 at the most is the first informant and he only lodged report after he was informed about the incident by his wife and his younger brother's wife Rinki.Impact of such first information report shall be discussed only after appraisal of testimony of another prosecution witness of fact Smt. Pootana P.W.2 the wife of first informant.As per her deposition, she has stated that her daughter was aged about 5 years, at that point of time near about 2 p.m. her daughter was playing outside the house when appellant enticed her away and took her to his maize field on the pretext of giving her cucumber.When her daughter came back home, she was weeping and blood was oozing out from her private part and blood stains were also seen on her vests and underwear, which she wore at that time.On inquiry being made as to how blood is oozing out, she informed that 'Guddu Raidas nay mera saath murai ki thi'.When she inquired about the matter from Guddu then he abused her and started running away when he was caught with the help of villagers.Thereafter she informed about the incident to her husband and went to the police station where her husband lodged the report.Thereafter, medical examination of her daughter took place at the district hospital Hordoi.She has been cross-examined, wherein she has stated that she is an illiterate woman, she cannot recall the date on which the incident took place.She has stated on page-3 of her cross-examination that no dispute ever took place between her husband and the appellant.The dispute took place between the appellant and her 'devrani' Rinki.Rinki and Guddu Raidas are not on speaking terms.She has also stated that she was also not on speaking terms with Guddu Raidas.Guddu Raidas resided behind her house.She has stated that at that point of time when Guddu Raidas enticed away her daughter, she was preparing food.She used to prepare food around 10-11 a.m. Her daughter went out of house around 2 P.M. and she was playing there for about an hour.After an hour or so her daughter came back home weeping and blood was oozing out from her private part and blood stains were also seen on her vests and underwear, which she wore at that time.At that point of time, her husband was at village Bhayangaon.She along with Rinki went to Bhayngaon and her brother-in-law (Dewar) also accompanied her.They arrived Bhayangaon in the afternoon.It has been stated that the distance between Bhayangaon and her village is about three kilometers (one kose).She and Rinki narrated the incident to her husband from where they went to the police station.They reached police station in the evening.She has also stated on page-7 that Daroga Ji dictated FIR to some person.She does not know his name.At the same place, she has stated that the contents were dictated by her husband and herself which only was written in the first information report.Pinki did not ask to write name of Guddu Raidas in the FIR.She has denied the suggestion that the FIR was dictated by Pinki.She has also stated that Daroga Ji took into possession blood stained clothes of the victim.It has also been suggested by the appellant that victim fell down on the stumps of maize field when she sustained injuries on her private part which caused bleeding.She has also denied suggestion that she has lodged report against Guddu Raidas at the instance of villagers.She has also stated that her daughter remained under treatment for three days in the hospital.She has also stated that Pinki and Rinki is the same person/woman.In the wake of above testimony, it has been contended by the appellant that the FIR was dictated by Daroga Ji and PW-2 was tutored to give specific testimony against the appellant because PW-2 and her sister-in-law Rinki were not on speaking terms with the appellant.Here entirety of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 when taken as a whole reflects that the first information report was no doubt dictated inside the police station where the appellant was also present as he was taken to the police station by the first informant and his wife; but it is obvious that it was dictated by none other than the first informant and his wife and it was that narration, which was taken down by the person who wrote the report.Had it not been so how can defence suggest that the FIR was in fact dictated by Rinki or was lodged at the instance of Rinki.It is due to above specific suggestion by the appellant that this Court sees no reason to act on the contention so raised.No doubt, it is a case where there is no direct testimony of rape but for the offence of rape as to whether it was in fact committed by the appellant or not, appraisal of testimony of formal prosecution witness, particularly that of doctor assumes enormous importance.Thus, scrutiny of contents of medical examination vis-a-vis circumstances of the case and the testimony of Babloo DW-1, who has also narrated about some another incident in the maize field of appellant on the very same day has to be cautiously made in order to draw just conclusion on point of commission of offence of rape.A lacerated wound was present on vagina size 1 cm x .5 cm x .25 cm at 6 O'clock position reaching forchetea, hymen freshly torn and bleeding and oozing present from edges.Supplementary report Exhibit Ka-5 reflects that injury may be caused due to commission of rape.In the supplementary report, age of the victim is assessed to be 3-4 years.Dr. Nasreen Rasool, P.W.5 has also proved the above injuries and she has stated that after getting general anesthesia, two stiches were applied on the wound and dressing was done.In her examination-in-chief, this witness has specifically stated that this wound on the vagina is possible due to commission of rape.In her cross-examination, she has been specifically asked question whether such injury can be caused by falling of victim on a stump in maize field, whereupon, this witness has replied that after such fall, the wound will be severe and deep.But this wound cannot be caused by falling on the stump in the maize field.She has also stated that she found hymen freshly torn.No further suggestion has been given that this wound cannot be caused by rape.At this juncture, it would be relevant to enter into appraisal of testimony of Babloo DW-1 who has stated in his examination-in-chief that it was around 1/1.30 p.m. he was returning home for taking lunch then he went for taking bath; at that point of time, appellant Guddu Raidas also came home and began to take his food.The wife of first informant had gone to the maize field of Guddu Raidas for plucking cucumber.He informed about the same to Guddu Raidas that wife of Pappu is plucking cucumber from his field.Guddu Raidas immediately went to his field where some altercation took place with Pappu's wife.Guddu Raidas pushed Pappu's wife due to which her daughter, who was in her lap was thrown away and she fell on the stump in maize field and blood oozed out, then Pappu's wife began to weep, whereupon Ram Prasad son of Ram Swaroop, Jai Karan son of Chowdahary, Nanhakkey son of Tarra, Lalta son of Nanhoo of the same village beat up Guddu Raidas with kicks and fists and danda which caused injury to Guddu Raidas.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he informed the appellant about plucking of cucumber.He has been suggested that he being nephew of appellant is deposing falsely in court.He has stated in his cross-examination on page-2 that he told about plucking of cucumber by Pappu's wife to the appellant and went for bathing.He stated that as soon as he told Guddu Raidas about this fact Guddu Raidas went to his field and he (DW-1) started bathing.If it is so, then it is obvious that the very location of maize field of Guddu Raidas is situated at a short distance from his house.When this witness was in process of bathing then Guddu Raidas might have reached his field.This obviously shows that this witness was not present on the spot when Guddu Raidas reached to his maize field, therefore, his testimony about scuffle and altercation between Guddu Raidas and the wife of first informant before him stands falsified.On the contrary, this testimony is fair enough to indicate that the appellant was beaten up by several villagers and was caught by them.Obviously, it was the appellant and the appellant alone who committed the rape.Claim of enmity between wife of first informant and her sister-in-law Rinki and the appellant has been suggested to be the motivating factor for false implication.The claim so raised is neither proved nor inferable from circumstances.It can be observed that the first informant could have levelled serious allegations against the appellant by involving his wife either as victim or as an eye witness of the incident but that is not the fact.Here very narration of fact in vernacular language to the first informant's wife by the victim coupled with injury on her private part is in itself exclusively independent circumstance pointing to the nature of offence perpetrated and the perpetrator-who is none else than the appellant.Here in the present scenario, the prosecutrix is a child who on account of her tender age cannot be expected to come out with minute details of the incident but only this much was fair enough that she attributed act of causing injury to the appellant.The factum of rape being committed as suggested by the doctor witness P.W.5 has not been specifically challenged.Testimony of DW-1 is on the face improved and arranged one and the same is not supported from the facts and circumstances of the case.Therefore, the trial court has drawn just conclusion based on evidence, facts and circumstances on record and the same need no interference by this Court.Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned trial court for its intimation and necessary follow-up action.Dt: 10.05.2016 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
203,450 | The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the complainant.P.Ws. 2 and 3 came from Andhra Pradesh to eke their livelihood.They along with others were staying in Venkateshwara Kalyanamandapam, New Washermenpet, Chennai.. They were brought for the work of loading and unloading of goods in Chennai Port.About 28 persons were staying there.Out of 28 persons, 8 persons were in one group, wherein P.W.1 was in that group and 20 others were in another group.All the accused questioned about the same.The deceased felt sorry for the same but the accused persons were not satisfied.They took the wooden clubs and attacked him.When P.Ws.1 to 3 intervened, they were also assaulted by the accused.All the accused dragged the deceased to the nearby water tank and attacked him indiscriminately.The same was informed to the Supervisor of the Kalyanamandapam.The Supervisor along with others took the deceased to the Apollo Hospital.Since they could not meet the expenses, they took him to the Government Hospital, where P.W.8 doctor was on duty.The deceased was admitted at about 11.55 p.m.(b) P.W.1 after leaving him in the hospital, proceeded to the respondent Police station and he gave Ex.P1 complaint.Since he gave an oral complaint in telugu, he took the assistance of P.W.6 who knew telugu.P.W.6 translated the same.P26 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.He recovered the material objects M.Os.4 and 5 bricks and granite stones respectively under a cover of mahazar.(d) Pending investigation, a message was received from the Hospital that Srinivasan died at about 6.40 a.m. Then, the case was altered to section 302 IPC and the amended F.I.R. Ex.P29 was despatched to Court.The inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.30 inquest report.The dead body was subjected to post mortem.P.W.13 doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion in Ex.P23 post mortem certificate wherein he has opinion that the deceased would appeared to have died out of multiple injuries sustained by him.Pending investigation, the accused were arrested and they gave confessional statement pursuant to which the material objects, weapon of crime-wooden clubs were recovered.They were sent for judicial remand.(e) P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined by P.W.10 doctor and he issued accident register copy Exs.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, made in S.C.No.427 of 2008 whereby the appellants five in number, stood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 324 IPC (4 counts) and awarded life imprisonment each and one year rigorous imprisonment each respectively along with fine and default sentences.The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, a case came to be registered by P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police of the Respondent Police Station in Crime No.299/2008 under sections 324, 307 and 506(2) IPC The express F.I.R. Ex.P25 was despatched to Court.(c) Following the same P.W.17, Inspector of Police on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, went to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P 7 and 8 respectively which were marked.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(f) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and relied on 41 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false.No defence witnesses were examined on the side of the defence.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable and rendered the judgement of conviction and sentence as referred to above.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 10.00 p.m. on 20.7.2008 in which P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured apart from the deceased.Though the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 as injured witnesses, no medical evidence was produced in so far as P.W.1 was concerned.The claims of the prosecution was that P.W.1 was by name Ramakrishnan and it was he who went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 report.P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police would also claim that it was P.W.1 who came there and gave the report in telugu and with the assistance of P.W.6, it was translated to Tamil.But at the time of cross examination P.W.1 has categorically admitted that he was not Ramakrishnan at all.Hence, it would be quite clear that Ex.and the same is doubtful.This would also indicate that P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.P.W.8 is the doctor who categorically examined the deceased.A perusal of Ex.P4 would clearly indicate that the deceased died due to falling from the height of 15 feet.One injury was noticed and it was contusion over occipital region.Thus, it would clearly indicate that he did not sustain any injury at the instance of anybody else but due to falling from the higher place.Further, it is further seen that though the prosecution claimed that the case was registered by P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police at about 2.00 a.m., it has reached the Metropolitan Magistrate at 11.00 a.m. Thus, there was a delay of 9 hours.The prosecution had no explanation to offer for this delay.The inordinate delay remains unexplained.Added further learned counsel, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined by the doctor at about 12.55 p.m. on 21.7.2008 Their statements were recorded by P.w.10 doctor in Ex.P7 and P8 accident register respectively in which they have categorically stated that they were attacked by 5 unknown person.But the F.I.R. at the earlier at 2.00 a.m. in which the names of the assailants, 5 in number, were clearly mentioned.Thus, it would go to show that the police was unable to fix the accused till P.Ws.2 and 3 were actually examined by P.W.10 doctor whose statement was recorded in Exs.Further, though the investigator has claimed that the material objects were recovered following the confessional statement recorded from the accused, P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated that the wooden clubs were found available in the place of occurrence and they were recovered by the police immediately.All would go to show that the recovery and the confessional statement cannot but be false.The prosecution in all the records have mentioned the assailants as unknown persons but in the earliest document, F.I.R., the names of the accused were mentioned which would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court has taken an erroneous view and convicted the accused.The prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused/appellants.Hence, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquittal.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.On the death of Srinivasan, the case which was registered under section 307 IPC was altered to section 302 IPC.P.W.17 investigator, after conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased prepared the inquest report Ex.P.30. and made a requisition for conduct of post mortem.P.W.13 doctor conducted post mortem and gave his opinion as witness before the Court and also through the contents of the post mortem certificate that the deceased died of multiple injuries sustained by him.Thus, it would be quite clear that Srinivasan met unnatural death due to the incident that had taken place on 20.7.2008 at 10.00 p.m and the prosecution was successful enough to prove the same.Insofar as the charges levelled against the appellants are concerned, on scrutiny of the material available, the Court is afraid whether it could sustain the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court.The prosecution marched three witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 as eye witnesses and they are not only eye witnesses but as injured witnesses.Insofar as P.W.1 was concerned, no medical opinion was canvassed or documentary evidence was placed before the Court.The consistent claim of the prosecution was that P.W.1 by name Ramakrishnan gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by the respondent Police but at the time of cross examination, P.W.1 has categorically stated that he was not Ramakrishnan.This part of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with non-production of the medical evidence as to the alleged injuries sustained by him would cast a doubt whether he could have been at the place of occurrence or he could have been injured at the time of incident as claimed by the prosecution.It is highly doubtful whether Ex.P1 itself would have come into existence on the basis of the report given by P.W.1 as putforth by the prosecution.Further, the case came to be registered at about 2.00 a.m. in which the names of 5 assailants are mentioned therein.But the investigator would claim that he examined all the witnesses between 2 and 6 a.m. and their statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C The statements recorded was also to the effect that the names of all the five assailants were noted therein.It is a matter of surprise to note that P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were medically examined by P.W.8 doctor at 12.55 p.m. on 21.7.2008 have mentioned to the doctor that they were attacked by 5 unknown person.There is no reason for them to inform to the doctor that they were attacked by unknown person.It is quite clear that till the time they were examined by the medical person, the assailants were not known.Insofar as P.W.1 is concerned, it is doubtful whether he could have been in the place of occurrence.P.Ws. 2 and 3 had stated to P.W.8 doctor that all the five persons who attacked them were unknown, hence, it is doubtful how the names of five persons came in Ex.P1 complaint.As could be seen from the available materials the deceased died at 6.40 a.m. on 21.7.2008 and the case which was originally registered under section 307 IPC at 2.00 a.m. has reached the Metropolitan Magistrate at 11.00 a.m. There was a delay of 9 hours which is inordinate and one would naturally expect the prosecution to explain the same but the prosecution had no explanation to offer.Therefore, the claim of the investigator that they were recovered pursuant to the confession cannot but be false.All would go to show that the prosecution has not successfully proved the case.The prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused but the trial court has taken an erroneous view and found the accused guilty.This Court is of the considered opinion that the accused are entitled for acquittal and the judgment of the trial Court has got to be made undone by upsetting the same. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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. |
20,351,399 | Mr. P. D. Bachate, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:12 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018 others.odt WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2387 OF 2018Ambajogai, District : Beed.Baliram Jaganath Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.3. Vishnu Sudhu Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Ravi Vishnu Munde, Age: Major, Occu.:Housewife, R/o: As above.Balu Vishnu Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Ajay Bapurao Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Lalita Vishnu Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Kanchan Jaganath Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Jaishree Balaji Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:12 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018Surekha Balaji Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Rajabhau Balaji Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Babita Balaji Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.13 Balaji Somnath Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Bapurao Maruti Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Ajay @ Sambhaji Bhagirath Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Education, R/o: Chandapur, Tq.: Ambajogai, District: BeedSudhakar Re3shmaji Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Vasant Shankar Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Satish Vinayak Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Dharmaraj Vinayak Gitte, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above. ... APPLICANTS V E R S U S ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:12 ::: 4 936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:12 :::The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Parali (Rural) Police Station, Tq.Parali, District: Beed.Sahaji Madhav Munde, Age : 67 years, Occ: Agri, R/o: Ambeltek, Tq.Ambajogai, District: Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ...Mr. P. D. Bachate, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2389 OF 2018Ambajogai, District : Beed.Vaijanath s/o Sahaji Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Chandrakant @ Bibishan s/o Vishnu Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Sanjivani w/o Vaijanath Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Ashabai w/o Udhav Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018Sahaji Madhav Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Sathyabhama w/o Sahaji Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Madhubala w/o Balaji Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Nivruti s/o Vaijanath Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Rushikesh Vaijanath Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Education, R/o: As above.Shamal Chandrakant Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above.Balaji s/o.Manaji Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Tukaram Keshav Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Niwas s/o Vishnu Nagergoje, ... APPLICANTS V E R S U SThe State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Parali (Rural) Police Station, Tq.Parali, District: Beed.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::Ambajogai, District : Beed.Hanumant Sayas Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Bagwant Sayas Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Saudagar Manohar Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Laximan Manohar Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Rushikesh Vaijanath Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Education, R/o: As above.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018Santosh Vankati Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Balaji Manohar Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Govind Aana Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o: As above.Sanjivani Vaijanath Munde, Age: Major, Occu.: Household, R/o: As above.Shivmala Govind Nagergoje, Age: Major, Occu.: Housewife, R/o: As above. ... APPLICANTS V E R S U SThe State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Parali (Rural) Police Station, Tq.Ambajogai, District: Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ...Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018 others.odt CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per T. V. Nalawade, J. ) .Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.2 All the proceedings are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of FIR.The first proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.231 of 2016, registered with Parali (Rural) Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The second proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.25 of 2016, registered in the same police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The third proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.26 of 2016, registered in the same police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and the ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 ::: 9 936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018 others.odtlast proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No.229 of 2016, registered in the same police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 336, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::3 During arguments, the learned counsels for Applicants and first informants submitted that the parties are from same village and they have settled the dispute.The learned APP strongly opposed the applications by contending that in Criminal Application No.2387 of 2018 grievous injuries were sustained by one person and as many as four persons were injured in the incident.4 The submissions made do not show that the Applicants in all the applications have bad antecedents.This Court has carefully gone through the contents of the FIR and the reason behind starting of the dispute.In view of the reason behind starting of the dispute and as the parties are from same village and they want to live peaceful life in future by settling the dispute, this Court holds that relief needs to be granted to the Applicants in all the applications.In the result, the following order is passed:::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::936 to 939 Application 2386 of 2018 others.odt O R D E R I. All the applications are allowed.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] ndm ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:43:13 ::: | ['Section 324 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', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,352,223 | [Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in order Memo No.07/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 02.01.2014, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Thiru Appu @ Jayaprakash son of Krishnamoorthy, aged 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 02.01.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:i)Adverse case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr.No.1079/2013475, 380 I.P.C2P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr.No.1248/2013379 IPC3P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr.No.1721/2013379 IPC4P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr.No.1473/2013379 IPC5P-5 M.K.B Nagar P.S Cr.No.1474/2013379 IPC(ii) Ground Case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr.No.2201/2013341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C.,3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials.In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS.STATE OF MANIPUR] .5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.7.Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz., paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:" 4.I am aware that Thiru.He has not moved any bail application for P-6 Kodingaiyur Police Station Crime Nos.1079/2013, 1248/2013, 1721/2013 and 2201/2013 so far.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Appu @ Jayaprakash is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime Nos.1079/2013, 1248/2013, 1721/2013 and 2201/2013 before the appropriate Court.In a similar case registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C., at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1640/2011 bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in Memo No.07/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 02.01.2014 passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, viz., Thiru Appu @ Jayaprakash son of Krishnamoorthy who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,aged 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,354,789 | State of M.P.) leaving her child.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This application has been filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.329/17 registered at Police Station Dehat, Bhind for the offences punishable under sections 304B and 498A read with 34 of the IPC and section 3 read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Applicant is father-in-law of Suman (since deceased) whose marriage was solemnized with his son Brijkishore.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that applicant along with other accused persons subjected Suman to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand of Sofaset and Washing Machine in dowry to such an extent that she was left with no other option except to commit suicide by hanging after eleven months of her marriage.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated.Deceased Suman was a mentally retarded woman and her treatment was going on.It is also submitted that report of the incident was lodged by elder brother of Brijkishore.Besides, it is submitted that applicant is a Government servant and if taken into custody, his career would be severely jeopardized.In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection by contending that deceased had a baby and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment to such an extent, that she was constrained to take the extreme step 2 M.Cr.C.No.8345/2017 (Malkhan Singh Vs. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,355,267 | The petitioner shall appear and mark his appearance before the concerned trial Court once every week till conclusion of the trial.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge ojha YOGENDRA OJHA 2019.03.15 19:43:56 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,364,913 | (Delivered on the 17th day of March, 2015) The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Seoni in Special Case No.45/2001 whereby each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 452, 323/34 (5 counts), 506 (II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as Special Act) and sentenced to one year's RI with fine of Rs.100, one year's RI, one year's RI and one year's RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively.The prosecutions case, in short, is that on 29.8.2001 at about 9:00 AM Sakaram (PW-12) was present in his house at Village Chikhli (Police Station Amarwada District Chhindwara).The appellants along with so many persons came to the spot in search of Sukhram (PW-4).However, Sukhram was not present in his house, and therefore on shouting of the appellants, Sakaram came out of the house and then the appellants assaulted him.When various victims like Sudama Bai, Jethu, Narayanwati Bai and Jay Kumkar had intervened, the appellants had also assaulted them.The appellants had also given a threat to them.Sakaram went to the Police Station Chhapara and lodged an FIR Ex.He had also mentioned in the FIR that the appellants were abusing the victims with the words relating to their caste.The victims were sent for their medico legal examination.He found simple injuries to them.He also found simple injuries to these two persons.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Seoni, who committed the case to the Special Court.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter.On the previous day of the incident, Sukhram and Dhyani assaulted one Dudhram and to counter that case, a false report was lodged against the appellants.In defence Barati (DW-1) and Head Constable Ganaram (DW-2) were examined.The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Witnesses Jay Kumar (PW-1), Sudama Bai (PW-2), Narayanwati Bai (PW-3), Balram (PW-5), Hirpa (PW-6), Jethu (PW-10) and Sakaram (PW-12) were examined as eye-witnesses.Out of them, Balram has turned hostile.All the witnesses have stated that the appellants along with 200 persons were searching Sukhram (PW-4).Sakaram went out of his house on hearing the noise and thereafter the appellants started assaulting the victims.None of these witnesses have stated that those 6-7 victims were assaulted by the appellants in the house.If the spot map Ex.P-16 is perused, in which it is mentioned that except Sakaram, all other victims had sustained injuries at place F in the map Ex.P-16, which is an open place, whereas Sakaram has admitted that on hearing shouting, he came outside.It was not possible for 200 persons to go inside of the room of Sakaram, therefore there is no evidence that the appellants entered in the house of either Sakaram or Sukhram.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 452 of IPC.Similarly, the witnesses who sustained the injuries have stated about the incident.They did not say that the appellants gave any threat after the incident.If it is presumed that the appellants gave any threat for future, then these witnesses who were examined before the trial Court after approximately 4-6 months of the incident, did not say that the appellants executed their threat thereafter.Hence, the prosecution could not prove that any threat was given by the appellants and if it is presumed that it was given, then it does not fall within the purview of criminal intimidation.Hence, the appellants could not be convicted of offence under Section 506 (II) of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for such offence.Similarly, Sakaram (PW-12) has stated that the appellants were abusing him with the words related to his caste, but Jethu (PW-10) has stated that the appellants were abusing with filthy language.He did not say that they abused Sakaram with the words related to his caste.Similarly, Sudama Bai, Narayanwati Bai, Hirpa etc. did not state that the appellants uttered any word relating to the caste of Sakaram, and therefore in absence of any corroboration, the testimony of Sakaram cannot be accepted that he was being abused with the words relating to his caste.If the entire defence case as well as the prosecution story along with admission done by the various witnesses is considered, it appears that the appellants were searching one Sukhram (PW-4), who was the culprit of crime committed by him in the previous evening with one Dudhram, and therefore the present quarrel took place in revenge of previous incident.The quarrel did not take place on the basis of caste of the complainant.Hence, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that the appellants had caused any insult of the victim Sakaram on the basis of his caste.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.After considering the evidence of Jethu, Narayanwati Bai, Sudama Bai and Sakaram along with timely lodged FIR Ex.P-17 and the medical reports Ex.P-3 to P-5 proved by Dr. D. Banerjee (PW-7) and the medical reports Ex.P-18 and P-19 proved by Dr. R.K.Vishwakarma (PW-14), the testimony of the complainant is acceptable that the appellants had assaulted the victims by sticks causing them injuries.It is true that the previous incident was done by Sukhram in the previous evening and the appellants were in search of Sukhram.However, due to that previous incident, they did not have any right of private defence nor any sudden or grave provocation was there so that the appellants could have assaulted the victims specially when Sukhram was not present in the house.The appellants assaulted the victims without any right of private defence and without any sudden or grave provocation.After one assault, they could know the result of that overt-act, but they continued in beating the various victims, and therefore it is established by the evidence that the appellants have voluntarily caused hurt to five victims, and therefore the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for five count charges under Section 323 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, each of the appellant was the first offender, who remained in the custody for ten days during the trial.They have faced the trial and appeal for last 13 years.Under such circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants may be accepted that the appellants may not be sent back to the jail again, but it would be proper that an appropriate fine be imposed upon the appellants for each count charge under Section 323 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants for the offence under Sections 452, 506 (II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside.They are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.However, their conviction of offence under Section 323 of IPC (5 counts) is hereby maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody by imposing fine of Rs.400/- upon each of the appellant for each count charge of Section 323 of IPC.Hence each of the appellant has to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- before the trial Court. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
203,664 | The victim one Zulfikar All along with one Md. Hussain, being the defacto complainant, P.W.I; one Govinda Raju, being P.W.2 and one Abdul Majid, being P.W.3, on the fateful day, i.e., 25th February, 19.8 at around 9.30 p.m. were all gossiping sitting in front of the shop, namely, Santosh Jewellery at Phoenix Bay, Port Blair.While doing so the victim intended to smoke cigarette, so all the four as above went around 11.30 p.m. to the shop of Azad All, appellant No. 1, situated near the house of one Smt. Fathima.Obviouslyu the shop was then closed.The defacto complainant knocked at the door of the shop and called Sazad, being the appellant No. 2 herein who used to stay inside there, to open the shop.None responded to the call of defacto complainant though lights were on inside the shop room.All of them were standing and taking in front of the house of one Fathima at that point of time.After 15 minutes the accused Sazad came out from the rear side of the shop room and on his asking victim told that he had knocked the door of the shop at the late hours of the night for he needed a cigarette.Thus the incident started with exchange of words followed by altercation between these two.Meanwhile, another accusd Azad came out and Joined altercation and started abusing Zulfikar All for knocking the door of the shop at the late hours of the night, this subsequently turned into scuffle between them.Md. Hussain, P.W.I, Abdul Majid, P.W.3 and Govinda Raju, P.W.2 tried to pacify and separate them.Both the accused persons being infuriated had told that they would do away with Zulfikar (victim) and Sazad then went inside the shop and brought a sword like weapon called 'Dah'.Appellant No. 1 then asked him to finish off victim and Sazad instantly struck one blow on the left backside of the neck and two blows on the right and left hands of the deceased with the said weapon.The victim then fell down on the ground and started bleeding profusely.Thereafter Sazad went back to the shop with Dah.However it appears from the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that the victim after having sustained injury as above tried to reach his house which was not far from the place of occurrence.However on his way he fell down near his house on the gravels stacked in front of his house.There the victim was heard saying to his mother that both the accused together assaulted him and he would not survive and soon thereafter he became unconscious.His maternal uncle brought a towel and drapped around injured neck to stop bleeding.Thereafter he was taken to G. B. Pant Hospital at Port Blair.JUDGMENT Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.In this appeal we find the appellant were arraingned and subsequently convicted for the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge awarded punishment of life imprisonment (rigorous) and also a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.The prosecution story of the case, in short, is as follows :-The Investigating Officer immediately on receipt of F.I.R. at 3 a.m. on 26th February, 19.8 started investigation.He collected blood stained asphalt at the place of occurrence, seized the incriminating weapon with blood stain, one pair of chappal with blood stain, blood stained shirt and lungi of Sazad.The blood found on materials were chemically examined and report was submitted.Post Mortem Report was also prepared and submitted.There were as may as 22 witnesses apart from the material exhibits and documentary evidence to establish charge.There was no witness on behalf of the defence.However, it appears from the trend of the cross-examination as well as the statements made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused persons, that the plea of defence was that victim, P.W.I, P.W.2 and P.W.3, were all highly intoxicated on the fateful day and they caused unwarranted disturbances knocking at the door of the shop in the late hours of the night.They displaced empty soft drink bottles kept in front of the shop.Both the accused persons protested against such unruly behaviour particularly in the midnight that resulted in altercation.They were assaulted by the above person with fists and blows, as such they had sustained injuries.While making unsuccessful bid to hit the appellant P.W. 1 inflicted injuries by mistake in the darkness on the neck and hands of the deceased.The learned Session Judge, however, upon considering all aspects dlsbelived the defence plea as nothing had been proved by them.Moreover, the story of Inflicting injury by P.W. 1 on the body of the deceased victim was not corroborated either by the circumstance or by any material evidence.Trial Court upon analysis of the entire evidence came to finding that the appellant No. 2 with the aid and assistance of the appellant No. 1 in furtherance of their common intention to kill him had inflicted fatal injury on the neck of the deceased.Their motive would be apparent from the fact that there was animosity between the family of the victim and the appellants in connection with sale of a plot of land which originally belonged to their uncle Imtiaz All.The accused persons thus had sufficient reason to cause injuries on the person of Zulflkar Ali.It was further found that the accused, Sazad, while giving blow of Dah on the neck of Zulfikar had requisite knowledge and intention that such injury would cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.The two other injuries which Zulfikar received on his both arms might have been received by him while trying to block repeated blows of 'Dah' by raising hands and the intention of Sazad Ali to kill Zulfikar is very much evident as he struck blows at least thrice on victim with the said 'Dah' which was a deadly sharp weapon to cause fatal injury on the victim.The accused No. 2 did not give any blow below the waist of the victim so that it can be stated that he gave those blows on Zulfikar as self defence.Therefore, the learned trial Judge convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and did not consider as to whether the case could be fallen under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, even though he noted the fact and evidence in support, thereof, that the incident did not happen suddenly, but there was altercation followed by scuffle when the accused persons received some fist blows on their face, accused Sazad Ali got infuriated and rushed to the back side of their shop to bring sword like 'Dah'.The learned lawyer for the appellants contends while assailing the judgment and sentence that proecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.The learned trial Judge wrongly disbelieved the fact that the defacto complaint to conceal his own crime has falsely implicated the appellants.Injuries on the person of the victim were inflicted accidentally by the defacto complainant who indeed wanted to inflict injury on the persons of both the appellants with the 'Dah' that was kept in scooter and subsequently it was brought out for this purpose.In the seizure memo the I.O. falsely recorded the 'Dah' was recovered from the appellant No. 2 in collusion with defacto complainant.The incriminating weapon 'Dah' was recovered and seized from the custody of the appellant No. 2 and the same was found to be blood stained.The wearing apparels of the appellant's and those of victim were seized and recovered by the Investigating Officer and the same were found to be blood stained.The towel which was drapped around on the neck of the victim to stop bleeding and a pair of hawai chappal which was recovered from the place of occurrence, were found to be with blood stained.The blood stained asphalt and controlling asphalt were also recovered.All these blood were chemically examined and tested and the same was found to be of human blood.The blood group of the offending weapon and that of found on wearing apparels of the accused and towel recovered from the neck of the victim were the same group of the blood.Three eyewitnesses who withstood cross-examination successfully stated that the appellant No. 2 inflicted three injuries on the back of the neck and the hands respectively of the victim.The injury on the neck was found to be fatal and this has also been stated by the Doctor P.W. 12 who examined first at the time of admission and also the Doctor, P.W. 13 who conducted post motem.The learned trial Judge examining all evidence and materials found that motive and intention was to kill the victim, so in this case the conviction and sentence is justified under the law.We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have carefully examined the materials placed before us.After giving due consideration of the same it appears to us that initially the victim sustained grievous injury and then he succumbed to the same ultimatel.Following are the questions which are required to be considered for disposal of the appeal.1. Are the accused persons responsible for causing death of Zulfikar Ali?Three eye-witnesses, P.W.I, P.W.2, P.W.3, have categorically stated in their evidence that they saw Sazad Ali inflicting injuries with the 'Dah' thrice.In the cross-examination their testimony to this extent stand remain unshaken.The defence has not explained as to how the wearing apparels of the accused were got blood stained.The defence has not explained either as to why the incriminating weapon came in their possession which, if we go by the version of the defence that the same was brought out by the P.W. 1 from his scooter, should not have been in their possession or produced by the appellants.It, therefore, necessarily follows that the weapon could be produced by one of the accused persons because the said 'Dah' belonged to the accused persons and the same was not brought by P.Ws.1,2,3 and Zulflkar Ali.Moreover, the testimony of the three eyewitnesses are consistently the same, stating that the 'Dah' was brought by Sazad Ali from the backside of the shop room.The incident took place near the betel shop of the appellant No. 1 admittedly.None of the appellants had gone to attack the victm at any other place.Admittedly, there were altercation amongst them, the victim on the one hand and the appellants on the other hand.From the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 there were scuffle amongst these persons.They were four in number and in the midnight four persons came Jointly to start altercation with the two persons.So the provocation was there in the heat of passion upon the sudden quarrel.The appeal is allowed to that extent.Sujit Barman Roy, J. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
20,368,951 | Vinay Kumar (PW-3) in his deposition has stated that a year prior to his deposition, one late winter night, at about 12.00 to 12.30 A.M., he was driving his motorcycle from LNJP Hospital.PW-3 made a call to the police, upon which the PCR van arrived at the spot.The injured was in a moribund state yet alive and breathing.Thereafter, PW-3 left the spot.The said witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor as he refused to identify Vinod Kumar, one of the assailants, and support that Vinod Kumar was apprehended by him at the spot and was later on handed over to the PCR officers.In the cross-examination he denied that any of the accused was apprehended by him at the crime spot.On the other hand, he exhorted that the assailants scurried away after stabbing.He even denied the suggestion given by the Public Prosecutor that the police officers had taken away one canvas bag containing one diary of green colour, another diary having read colour, an I Card, mobile phone and Rs.3,800/- which the deceased was carrying.Vinay Kumar (PW-3), however, identified his signatures at point A of Exhibit PW-3/B, which is the seizure memo.He further identified his signatures on Exhibit PW-3/C, the seizure memo of the slippers (chappal) which was worn by the deceased.Vinay Kumar CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 3 of 10 (PW-3) was confronted with his statement (Exhibit PW-3/A) but did not accept the same and has stated that Insp.V.S. Malik (PW-25) had obtained his signatures on a blank paper.In (Ex. PW-3/A) it is recorded that one Vinay Kumar was coming on his motorcycle at about 12.15 A.M. at night and near ganda nala, Gokul Puri flyover he saw one person caught amongst three-four boys, who were stabbing him with knives/daggers.He halted his motorcycle and rushed to save the person.Upon this, the boys with the knives/daggers ran towards ganda nala but one boy who was trying to snatch a bag from the injured person was caught by PW-3 at the spot itself.Subsequently, he came to know that the name of the said assailant was Vinod Kumar.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 3 of 10Vinay Kumar (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief identified the appellant-Gagan as one of the assailants.The other assailants have not been arrested and brought to trial.Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.:The appellant Gagan by the impugned judgment dated 29th March, 2011 stands convicted under Sections 302 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).By the order of sentence dated 31 st March, 2011, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 411 IPC.To put it succinctly, the prosecution case is that the appellant- Gagan along with two or three other boys in the night of 22nd December, 2008, at about 12.15 A.M., tried to loot belongings of Chutkou @ Nanku and, in the process, wielded stab injuries resulting in his death.At this CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 1 of 10 stage, we record that the co-accused Vinod Kumar has been acquitted, by the same impugned judgment.This relevant aspect has been considered and examined later on.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 1 of 10To curtail prolixity we would like to refer first to the prosecution version.In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the statement of Vinay Kumar (PW-3), the complainant on whose statement FIR No. 405/2008, Police Station Gokul Puri (Ex. PW-8/B) was recorded.The prosecution asserted upon the disclosure made by the appellant-Gagan (Ex. PW-7/A) pursuant to which alleged blood stained T-shirt worn by the appellant-Gagan, the knife used in the incident and the wrist watch snatched from the deceased Chutkou were recovered.Reliance is placed upon FSL Report (Exhibit PW-18/A and B) as per which blood group A was detected on the appellant's T-shirt.The only bar is that the order of acquittal passed in favour of Vinod Kumar cannot be set aside unless an appeal has been preferred against his acquittal.The legal proposition is undoubtedly correct and supported by Sunder Singh (supra) and other authorities.When he reached ganda nala, Gokul Puri, he saw a group of three-four people were stabbing a person.PW-3 stopped the motorcycle and saw the said persons, under the gleaming head light of the motorcycle.When the head light flashed on the assailants, i.e., the boys, they ran away towards ganda nala.The PCR van reached the spot.The occurrence was seen by three-four other persons, who were on cycles.We may note here that the said three-four persons, who had come on the cycles, were not produced by the police possibly because their whereabouts and details could not be ascertained.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 2 of 10Thus, at the time of identification there were only two accused, i.e., Vinod Kumar, who was caught at the spot as per police version and the present appellant-Gagan.Appellant-Gagan was arrested by the police on 15th January, 2009 at 9.45 P.M. vide arrest memo (Exhibit PW-14/A).The appellant was, therefore, arrested nearly 24 days after the occurrence.The appellant refused to participate in the TIP proceedings (Exhibit PW-16/C) conducted by Mr. Lalit Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-16).It is recorded in Exhibit PW-16/A that the appellant-Gagan had refused to participate as he purported that he was CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 4 of 10 shown to the witness, at the police station, and his photograph was taken by the police.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 4 of 10As per the court testimony, Vinay Kumar (PW-3) stopped the motorcycle and then ran towards the assailants, who on seeing him ran away.He could see the assailants as the head light of his motorcycle was on.At best, therefore, Vinay Kumar (PW-3) had a fleeting glimpse of the assailants when they were scurrying away.He did not have a chance to have a considerable look at the assailants and was not involved in any scuffle at close range with them.The emanating light from the approaching motorcycle's head light would have been visible to the assailants too.In the present case, only one of the assailants, other than Vinod Kumar who has been acquitted, as per the police was caught and charge sheeted.Vinay Kumar (PW-3) did not identify Vinod Kumar in the court, the assailant allegedly caught at the spot, but identified the appellant-Gagan, the only other person, who was standing trial as an accused.Vinay Kumar (PW-3) does not appear to us to be a reliable witness and the said identification is debatable and susceptible.It is discernible that he has gone out of the way to help Vinod Kumar and not identify him, even though Vinod Kumar was apprehended by him and then arrested by the police, at the crime spot.Keeping in view the conduct of Vinay Kumar CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 5 of 10 (PW-3), it is plausible that he may have identified the present appellant as he was the only other accused facing the trial.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 5 of 10Inspector V.S. Malik (PW-25), the investigating officer, in his deposition, has not averred to the effect that he had searched for the appellant-accused Gagan, other co-accused Bhim and the co-associates but they could not be traced in spite of the best efforts.The deposition merely states that on 15th January, 2009 he was present with Head Constable Ajesh and Head Constable Yoginder Singh when one person Raghuvir met and told them that he knew Gagan who was standing near Hanuman Mandir, Loni, Gole Chakkar.There Gagan was apprehended and, thereafter, his disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-7/A) was recorded.On the basis of disclosure statement, T-shirt, which the appellant-Gagan had worn at the time of occurrence was recovered vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-7/C).The said seizure memo is dated 15th January, 2009 and records that the same was seized from House No. B-488, Gokul Puri, Delhi which is the residence of the appellant.It is difficult to perceive that the appellant would have kept and not washed his alleged blood stained T-shirt and it would be recovered after about 23/24 days.The recovery of the said blood stained T-shirt is thus a suspect and doubtful.This in turn creates doubt about the FLS reports (Exhibit PW-18/A and B) and renders them unreliable.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 6 of 10The disclosure statement of the appellant-Gagan (Exhibit PW-7/A) purportedly records that the appellant had hidden the knife used in the crime and the stolen wrist watch in a polythene bag.As per the prosecution, the knife and the wrist watch were seized on 30th January, 2009 vide memo Exhibit PW-14/D from bushes near Pooja Colony, Loni, U.P. The said watch was identified by Madhav Raj (PW-1) in the TIP proceedings (Exhibit PW-16/A and 15/A) in the court.Madhav Raj (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased, who had identified his dead body.He has stated that he was a resident of Karnailganj, District Bhonda, U.P. and the deceased was living in Delhi for last 10-12 years and had received the said watch at the time of his wedding.The watch was not in a working condition when he identified it before the Magistrate.In the cross- examination, PW-1 has admitted that such watches were easily available in the open market and the shown watch did not have any leather strap.There is a prolonged duration, thereafter, of more than 7 days in the alleged recovery.Further, the alleged recovery is only of one allegedly stolen article and the said article, i.e., the wrist watch is easily available in the market.In the FSL report (Exhibit PW-18/A and B) on the knife, which was allegedly found and wrapped in the polythene, human blood could be detected but the grouping could not be ascertained as there was no reaction.No other property was recovered.Therefore, it would be incongruous to implicate the appellant on the basis of said recoveries.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 7 of 10This leaves prosecution case standing solely on PW-3's statement but we cannot say that PW-3 is a completely reliable witness.We have no doubt that he was present at the spot and had the occasion to witness the occurrence but his identification of the appellant Gagan makes us uneasy and in doubt.PW1 in the court has stated that he saw the assailants running away in the head light of the motor cycle.There was no interaction of the PW1 with the appellant.The said witness does not appear to be wholly reliable and, therefore, we have to be cautious before we accept his statement.Implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony regarding identification of the appellant Gagan.The Supreme Court, however, observed that the CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 8 of 10 said witness had extremely limited opportunity of seeing the accused who was fleeing from the place of occurrence on a scooter.It was probable that the identification was based merely on a hunch.Deposition of eye-witnesses necessarily depends upon the credibility and reliability of the said witness.The statement made by him in the court and to what extent the deposition regarding identification should be accepted as truthful, will necessarily vary from case to case or purported eye-witness to eye-witness.Investigating Officer and his team had not deposed in their statements in the Court that they have visited the appellant Gagan's residence and he was not available.The police file, however, indicates that police officials had visited house of Gagan and had spoken to his father who had stated that his son Gagan has not been coming to the house.Thus, the prosecution version regarding the manner and mode in which Gagan was caught and recoveries were made is untenable.CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 9 of 10In view of the aforesaid position, we are inclined to and grant benefit of doubt to the appellant, as the case against him has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.The appellant will be released forthwith, unless required to be detained, in accordance with law, in any other case.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 11, 2013 VKR/kkb CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 10 of 10CRL.A. No. 1062/2011 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,037,144 | Jai Narain s/o Dwarika is his cousin brother.Accused Kalahu is his uncle.A long drawn enmity on account of landed property was existing between Kalahu and Jai Narain and litigation was going on between them.Harish Chandra works at some brick-kiln and is engaged to mould bricks.It so happened on 18.5.1989 at about 10:00 p.m. Satyadeo Dubey, who is 'munim' (one who takes care of account of any institution) at the brick-kiln came to the spot along with Jai Narain and said to the informant that he had taken Rs.900/- in advance from the owner of the brick-kiln but he is not working at the brick-kiln.Satyadeo Dubey began to abuse him.At this moment, the aforesaid two accused Jawahar and Sagar arrived at the house of Harish Chandra.Sagar was possessing lathi while Jawahar was possessing spear in his hand and said that they (informant side) are humiliating them by calling Satyadeo Dubey there on the spot and altercation ensued place between them, whereupon Dukh Haran, and Ram Pratap son of Harish Chandra's uncle also reached on the spot and tried to intervene and pacify them, but the accused did not listen to them.In the meanwhile, accused Sagar gave lathi blow on the head of the informant Harish Chandra causing injury on his person.Jai Narain tried to control the situation by interfering when he was assaulted with spear by Jawahar, which caused injuries on his left side of chest, on the arm and head.The incident was witnessed by the persons present over there.After committing the offence, the accused ran away from the spot.Jai Narain was seriously injured.Therefore, he was brought to the District Hospital, Gorakhpur for treatment where he was medically examined by the Medical Officer on emergency duty, at 2:30 a.m. on 19.05.1989, the very same night.Injury was kept under observation.X-ray advised.The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Jawahar and Sagar, both sons of Kalahu, resident of Village Kathaicha, Police Station Khajni, Post Office-Unwar, District Gorakhpur against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.9.1991 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No.334 of 1990 (State vs. Kalahu & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.46 of 1989, under Sections 323 and 307 IPC, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, whereby appellant no.1 Jawahar was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, whereas, appellant no.2 Sagar was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC.Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Stream of events leading up to this stage as gathered from the record is found to be rooted in the written report Exhibit Ka-1 lodged by informant Harish Chandra s/o Ram Awadh Bhar resident of Village Kathaicha Bindan, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur on 19.5.1989 at 12:40 hours against the appellants with the allegations that the informant and his brother Jai Narain are resident of same village.He prepared injury report of Jai Narain (Exhibit Ka-11).Looking to the nature of injuries he was referred for further treatment to the Medical College, Gorakhpur, then Jai Narain was shifted to Medical College, Gorakhpur where he was admitted and given treatment.It was also described in the report that after disengaging himself from above schedule of treatment and sparing time the informant has come to the police station to lodge the report.Consequently, relevant entries were also made in the concerned general diary of the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid police station at Serial No. 20 and the case was registered on 19.05.1989 at aforesaid crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC at Police Station-Khajni, District Gorakhpur A copy of G.D.However, the record reflects that Jai Narain was examined by Dr. A.K. Singh, PW-9 at 2:30 a.m. at District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 19.5.1989 wherein the following injuries were found:-Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep on the left side of top of the head, 6 cm above from the nose.Traumatic swelling 7 cm x 2 cm on the left side forehead just above from the left eyebrow.Punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the left side chest, 5 cm below from the left nipple.Punctured wound 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on the left side axilla, injury was kept under observation.Advised X-ray.Duration was fresh.It was opined by the doctor that injury nos.1 and 2 were caused by blunt object and injury nos.3,4 and 5 were caused by sharp pointed weapon.Record further reflects that injured Harish Chandra was examined by Dr. S.C. Gupta PW-8 at District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 20.5.1989 at 6:10 p.m. wherein the following injury was noted:-Septic wound injury on the right side head 11 cm above of right ear.In the opinion of the doctor, cause, nature and duration of the injury cannot be mentioned since there was septic in the wound.The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of various persons and arrested both the accused on 20.5.1989 and effectuated recovery of spear and lathi at the pointing out of Jawahar.Lathi was recovered at the pointing out of Sagar, whereas, spear was recovered at the pointing out of Jai Narain.The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Exhibit - Ka-8 and the accused along with recovered weapons were taken to the police station (Khajni) and entry whereof was made in the concerned general diary at the police station, which is Exhibit - Ka-6 and accused were placed under detention.As a sequel to that, the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred for conduction and disposal of the trial to the aforesaid trial court - i.e. - VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, who after hearing the accused and the prosecution on point of charge and perusing the record was satisfied with prima facie case against the accused and, accordingly, framed charges under Sections 323, 307, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC.Charges were read over and explained to the accused who abjured the charges and opted for trial.Thereafter, the prosecution was required to adduce its testimony in support of the charge in order to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.In turn, the prosecution produced in all nine witnesses, reference of whom is given here in below:Harish Chandra (PW-1) is the injured-informant, he has lodged the written report.Dukh Haran (PW-2) is witness of fact.Jai Narain PW-3 is another injured witness.Hari Lal (PW-4) is witness of fact of collection of simple and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and also fact of arrest and recovery made from the accused.Poojan (PW-5) has turned hostile.He has not supported factum of recovery imputed against the appellants.Badama Yadav PW-6 has noted relevant entries in the concerned Check FIR and the concerned G.D. on 19.5.1989 at Police Station-Khajni at 12:40 hours.S.I. Baijnath Ram (PW-7) is the Investigating officer, he has detailed about the various steps, he took in completing the investigation.Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they gave various reasons for their false implication and denied fact of recovery from them and claimed that they have been arrested from their home.Their implication in this case is on account of enmity.No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced by the defence.The Trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the various aspects of the case recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused Sagar to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and the accused Jawahar to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC.Resultantly, this appeal.The lodging of the first information report at 12:40 hours on 19.5.1989 is indicative of fact that police personnels were consulted by the informant prior to the lodging of the first information report as he had reached to the Police Station-Khajni in the very night of the incident (18.5.1989) itself.The trial court failed to take note of aforesaid vital aspects of the case and erroneously convicted the appellants.The first information report was lodged by the informant after taking precaution for treatment of the injured Jai Narain.Therefore, lodging of the first information report cannot be said to be ante time.It has been further added by the learned AGA that the incident has been described by the prosecution witnesses with all particulars.The learned trial Judge while appreciating merit of the case was impressed by consistency of the aforesaid facts and proof of the same, therefore, rightly recorded conviction and awarded just sentence against the appellants.Also considered the rival submissions.In the light of the submission raised by both the sides, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused under Sections 323, 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?The contents of the written report Exhibit Ka-1 are explicitly indicative of fact that after the incident took place, the informant - say Harish Chandra PW-1 - was busy in the treatment of the injured Jai Narain as the injured Jai Narain was first taken to Sadar Hospital, Gorakhpur where his condition deteriorated, therefore, he was referred by the Doctor to Medical College, Gorakhpur then the injured was taken to the Medical College, Gorakhpur, where he was admitted and was undergoing treatment.It was after all that, the informant came to the Police Station Khajni to lodge the first information report.If it is the correct fact situation then the specific fact of the time of occurrence may be taken note of at this juncture.The incident took place at 10:00 p.m. on 18.5.1989 in Village-Kathaicha, Bindan and the first information report was lodged next day on 19.5.1989 at 12:40 hours.It means that the first information report was lodged by the informant in the afternoon of 19.5.1989 due to fact that he was busy in treatment of Jai Narain.The injury report of the injured Jai Narain Exhibit Ka-11 is indicative of fact that Jai Narain was examined at District Hospital, Gorakhpur on 19.5.1989 at 2:30 a.m. and he was brought by his son Devendra.As per testimony of Jai Narain PW-3, after the incident took place, he was taken to the District Hospital, Gorakhpur by his wife, Devendra, Harish Chandra where he was given treatment and considering his serious condition he was referred to the Medical College, Gorakhpur.If it is exactly so, that Harish Chandra accompanied him to the District Hospital Gorakhpur, and from there to Medical College Gorakhpur then the testimony of Harish Chandra PW-1 appears to be in direct contrast to the fact that the report was lodged at 12:40 hours on 19.5.1989 at Case Crime No. 46 of 1989 at Police Station-Khajni, District Gorakhpur.Here testimony of the informant Harish Chandra PW-1 may be taken note of.Bare perusal of his testimony reflects that he (Harish Chandra) lodged the first information report in the night of the incident itself and he went to the Police Station-Khajni after the incident where he lodged the report and obtained a copy of the report.The description of the incident appears in his testimony on page 20 of the paper book, wherein he has stated that after the incident took place, the injured Jai Narain was taken to the District Hospital Gorakhpur by his family members, whereas, he started for the police station, he met with a person of Village - Phutahana and narrated him the entire incident then he wrote the report and after hearing its contents - the informant Harish Chandra PW-1 made his endorsement on it and lodged the written report at the Police Station-Khajni in the very night itself and he was given a copy of the report by the Constable at the very moment.Daroga Ji was also present at the police station.Daroga Ji inquired about the incident from him at the police station itself.In this view of the matter, either of the two versions may be correct but not both the versions.As per FIR if after taking the injured Jai Narain first to the District Hospital Gorakhpur then from there to the Medical College, Gorakhpur and it was only after getting him admitted there, the informant spared time for himself and the report was lodged at the police station then the description appearing in the testimony of Harish Chandra PW-1 runs counter to and in sheer contrast in explicit terms to the contents and description of the report lodged at the Police Station-Khajni, the very same night soon after the occurrence.Further, if the report was lodged on 19.5.1989 at 12:40 hours then there is no plausible reason as to how and why the medical examination of Harish Chandra PW-1 was deferred till the evening of 20th May, 1989 when he was medically examined by Dr. S.C. Gupta at District Hospital, Gorakhpur at 6:10 p.m. (on 20.5.1989).Surprisingly, he presented himself for medical examination and no majroobi chitthi (letter) was sent for the same to the hospital from the police station.Here, the testimony of the Investigating Officer PW-7 S.I. Baijnath Ram becomes relevant.In his cross-examination on Page 40 of the paper book, he has testified to the ambit that he did not see any injury on the person of the injured-informant-Harish Chandra-at the time of the lodging of the first information report although he recorded statement of PW-1-Harish Chandra soon after the lodging of the first information report.He has further testified to the extent that after taking statement of the informant, he went to the spot along with the informant, whereas, Harish Chandra PW-1 has categorically stated on Page 26 of the paper book, in his cross examination, that after lodging of the report at the police station in the night, he returned to his home on foot around 5:00 a.m. and then he started for Gorakhpur.He has further testified that his medical examination was not conducted after he lodged the report, but it was conducted after two days.But no explanation worthy of its sort has been extended for his belated medical examination.Harish Chandra PW-1 has denied the fact that he ever dictated in the written report Exhibit Ka-1 about the fact that he took Jai Narain first to Sadar Hospital from where he was referred to the medical college after his condition deteriorated and then he took Jai Narain to Medical College from the District Hospital.He has been suggested by the defence about aforesaid contents appearing in his report whereupon he has testified that in case any such description is contained in the written report - Exhibit Ka-1 - that he accompanied injured Jai Narain to the District Hospital and to the Medical College Gorakhpur then he cannot assign any plausible reason/explanation for the same.He has further stated, on Page 25 of the paper-book, that Daroga Ji visited his village the following day after the lodging of the first information report and at that point of time, he was at his home.On page 26 of the paper-book, he has testified to the effect that he was at his home around 5.30 a.m. If it is exactly so, then the lodging of the FIR at 12:40 hours on 19.5.1989 per se becomes ante-time.Surprisingly, on the same page, he has testified in his cross-examination that Daroga Ji never recorded his statement.Statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) does not match with the testimony of PW-1 that the Investigating Officer accompanied the informant to his village after the report had been lodged.He has categorically stated that on 19.5.1989 he was posted at Police Station-Khajni as Constable-Moharrir and on the basis of the written report, he prepared the Check FIR at 12:40 hours and he has proved the Check FIR Exhibit (Ka-4).If the testimonial version of Harish Chandra PW-1 is taken to be correct that he lodged the report at the police station sometime in the mid-night soon after the incident (at 10:00 p.m. on 18.5.1989) then version of Constable Badama Yadav PW-6 who noted the FIR and the concerned general diary entry, cannot be believed to be correct.In case Constable Badama Yadav PW-6 is believed to be correct then testimony of Harish Chandra PW-1 regarding lodging of FIR in the mid-night is rendered wholly unbelievable and he becomes unreliable witness.It is surprising that the prosecution witnesses have not come out specifically about the exact time when the first information report was lodged.This aspect renders FIR ante time and the incident becomes dubious as to when it, in fact, took place.Medical examination of Harish Chandra PW-1 done by PW-8 on 20.5.1989 at 6:10 p.m., obviously, appears to be part of some conspiracy to deliberately implicate the accused-appellants in this case on account of long drawn enmity based on landed property and on going litigation between the informant's side and the accused-appellants.In view of above scrutiny, it is established that the FIR in this case becomes ante-time thus rendering the entire incident dubious.The surprising aspect of the case is that the Investigating Officer PW-7 S.I. Baijnath Ram though recovered the blood stained spear on 20.5.1989, did not send the same for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Similarly, the blood stained soil and the simple soil which were allegedly collected on the spot by the investigating officer were also not sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Therefore, the fact of the very recovery of the spear imputed against Jawahar fades away into oblivion.Poojan PW-5 who is stated to be a witness of fact of recovery of the weapon at the instance of accused Jawahar has turned hostile and he has denied fact that he ever witnessed any such recovery, whereas, testimony of the Investigating Officer PW-7 has come forth to the ambit that at the time of recovery, two witnesses Hari Ram and Poojan were present on the spot.The factum of recovery would have been consistently proved if the recovered spear having blood stain on it would have been sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory but the same has not been done in the present case.Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood mark found on the spear was blood of a human being.It is surprising that the investigating officer PW-7 has not noted the relevant time as to when he stared from the police station to the place of occurrence and when he completed part of the investigation on the particular date on the spot.In view of fact that the blood stained soil was not sent for chemical examination, the place of occurrence also becomes dubious.Surprisingly, the recovery memo which was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 20.5.1989 does not contain the actual time when the arrest was made and the recovery was effectuated by him.This by itself puts into dark the very validity and the authenticity of the recovery memo itself.Thus, the recovery memo Exhibit Ka-3 loses its legal force and becomes piece of waste paper.PW-9 has expressed opinion in his cross examination to the ambit that possibility of causing two injuries namely injuries no.4 and 5 give way to use of two different weapons.It means that both these injuries might have been caused by two different weapons.This specific testimony goes to show that it is not clear as to how, and in what manner and by what weapon, injury nos.3, 4 and 5 were inflicted upon the injured Jai Narain.This piece of testimony of PW-9 goes unimpeachable.Therefore, ocular testimony in the shape of description of the incident given by the injured witnesses cannot be said to be consistent version of the incident in view of categorical testimony of PW-9 in his cross examination when he expressed opinion about use of two weapons for causing injury nos.4 and 5 upon the injured.The above discussion is fair enough to throw lot of doubt on the actual occurrence particularly as to the time when the incident took place and when the first information report was lodged infact by the informant.May be that two injured sustained injuries, but it cannot be said that the injury was received by both the injured at the time and place alleged in the written report because the lodging of the first information report becomes ante time and the testimony of the Investigating Officer is fraught with a number of contradictions which allude to the inference that the police was hand in glove with the informant side.Admittedly, it is a case wherein the dispute on account of landed property and long drawn litigation was existing between both the sides.The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.Lot of doubts are created because of inconsistent description of the prosecution witnesses when compared with the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case.Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Judge appears to be erroneous and against material on record and the trial Judge misread into evidence vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case when he recorded conviction and passed sentence.The prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.In criminal jurisprudence, it is settled principle of law that testimony and circumstances of the case must positively point out guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in case the evidence when taken as a whole and applied to the facts and circumstance of the case appears to be shaky, vacillating and full of improvements then charge framed against the accused will lose its legal significance and the accused will be entitled for acquittal.Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.09.1991 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No.334 of 1990 State of U.P. Vs.Kalahu and others, arising out of Case Crime No.46 of 1989, under Sections 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Khajni, District- Gorakhpur, is set aside.Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,655,236 | The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Electronics Complex P.S.Case No.92 of 2014 dated 13.09.2014 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.We have gone through the same.It appears that there was an agreement for installation of a lift and for which the petitioners received 35 per cent of the consideration amount.They brought the some components of the lift, but has not finished the work.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall at once be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.5000/- each on condition that after release, they shall surrender before the concerned court within two weeks thereafter.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.) | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,666,556 | By means of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner (Original Complainant) has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 24-1-1991, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, in Summary Trial Case No. 489 of 1988, acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 337, 323, 504, r/w 34, IPC.In short, the prosecution case is that on 30-10-1987, at about 4.30 p.m. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention caused hurt to complainant Haridas Nivrutti Shinde in front of their house situated at Nirala vasti in the district of Solapur.The allegation is that the respondent no. 1 hurled a stone which struck on the forehead of the complainant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted him with fists and kicks and also abused him.After the complainant had lodged his FIR, he was medically examined and was found to have suffered a contused lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the forehead and an abrasion over the 4th ring finger of the right hand.After the usual investigation, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were charge-sheeted.The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were tried for offences punishable under sections 337, 323 and 504, IPC.Vide the impugned Judgment, they were acquitted under section 337, IPC because, as observed in para 7 of the said Judgment, the stone was intentionally hurled by respondent No. 1 on the forehead of the complainant and an offence under section 337, IPC contemplates of a rash or negligent act.They were acquitted under section 504, IPC because, what were the abuses hurled by them, has not been disclosed in evidence by the witnesses.Finally, they were acquitted under section 323, IPC on the ground that the said offence is a non-cognizable one and consequently, no investigation could have proceeded without previous order of a Magistrate, as contemplated by section 155(2), Cr.P.C.In spite of the fact that the matter has been called out continuously from 9-6-1997, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, are not present.The matter was once called out and was passed over.Still, counsel for the said parties are not present.Consequently, with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent No. 5 - State of Maharashtra, I am disposing of this revision application on merits.I have thoughtfully evaluated the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on all the three counts. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,657,320 | Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Mohan Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.He submits that co-accused Ram Gopal, who is said to have fled away from the place of occurrence has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.7.2014 in Crl.The applicant has no criminal history.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Raksha Ram involved in Case Crime No. 78 of 2013 under Sections 376-Gha I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, police station Tarabganj, District Gonda be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.Order Date :- 15.5.2015 shiraz | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,657,617 | C.R.M. 5888 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07/08/2018 in connection with Dewandighi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2018 dated 18/06/2018 under Sections 447/323/324/325/379/506/34 gd of the Indian Penal Code and added Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sk Khursid Ahamed & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Santanu Maji Ms. Snigdha Saha ...for the petitioners.Mr. Ashok Das ...for the State.The ribs of one of the victims were broken.The petitioners say that two rivals groups clashed.This is a matter where a complaint and counter-complaint have been filed.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the 2 petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,666,591 | JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.This judgment shall also dispose of Cr.Reference No. 4/97 and Cr.The two accused Santosh and Molai have been found guilty of committing offences of gang rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code and for committing murder of the victim Ku.The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Molai was employed as a guard in Central Jail, Rewa at the time of this incident while accused Santosh was a convict in S.T. No. 97/87 for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 363, Indian Penal Code and was undergoing the sentences in Central Jail, Rewa for those offences for 7 years, 4 years and 3 years R. I. respectively.R. S. Somvanshi (P.W.6), father of Ku.Naveen, was residing with his family in Qr.A few days before the incident, his wife with some children, had gone out of station.Shri Somvanshi, along with his daughters Ku.Naveen, aged 16 years and Ku.Pratibha (PW 3) aged 12 years, was residing in the quarter.In the adjoining Qr.No. 3 another Assistant Jailor R. K. Mishra along with his wife and daughter Ku.Ruchi Mishra (PW1) aged 14 years were residing.On the opposite adjoining Qr.No. 1 some guards were residing.Naveen was student of X class.The two accused used to come to the house of Shri Somvanshi for doing domestic work.Pratibha had gone to her school at 7 a.m. on the date of incident.The two accused came to the house as usual for domestic work after Pratibha had gone to school.Somvanshi was in the house and about 9 a.m. he went to his duty leaving behind Ku.Naveen in the house and both the accused were working in the house.In the neighbourhood R. K. Mishra had also gone to duty and in his house his wife Shobha and daughter Ruchi were present.PW.4 Shailendra s/o another Assistant Jailor Shyamsingh and Krishnakumar son of Pathak, another Assistant Jailor, were playing cricket in front of their quarters.At about 10 a.m. Smt. Shobha and Ku.Ruchi heard some shrieks from the quarter of Somvanshi.They also heard dogs bark.Even Shailendra and Krishnakumar heard the shrieks.The boys went to the quarter of Somvanshi but could not notice anything special.At about 11 a.m. Ruchi Mishra went to return a cassette to Ku.She called Ku.Naveen but got no reply.She noticed that both the accused were standing outside the quarter of Somvanshi.They told Ruchi that Naveen was not in the quarter, she had gone with some girl friend.At that time the ball of Shailendra got rolled towards quarter of Somvanshi.Both the boys went towards that quarter to look for their ball.They noticed both the accused standing infront of the quarter.A short time thereafter Ku.Ruchi again came and noticed accused Santosh taking cycle of Ku.Naveen towards the back of the quarter.At about 12 noon, Ku.Pratibha, sister of Naveen, came to her house and found both the accused in the house but she could not find Naveen in the house.She asked both the accused about Naveen.They told her that Naveen had gone on her cycle to the house of some girl friend.Pratibha noticed that the room in which she had kept her clothes had been locked.She wanted to take bath but could not.Thereafter Santosh went to the jail.At about 12.30 Molai told Pratibha that two Samosas had been kept for her and that Naveen had called for Samosas.Pratibha took one Samosa and cooked the meals.At about 1 p.m. Molai also left the house.At 1.30 p.m. Somvanshi returned home.Pratibha told him that the accused persons had told her that Naveen had gone to her girl friend on her cycle.Shri Somvanshi went away to his duty at 3 p.m. and returned home at 6 p.m. Still Naveen had not returned home.By that time both the accused had come back for domestic work.They told Somvanshi that Naveen had gone to her girl friend.Somvanshi got worried and he and his neighbours searched for Naveen but could not find her.Even Molai joined them in the search.Santosh went to his barrack.The next morning Somvanshi went to the back of the quarter to milk the cow.He noticed that the cover of the septic tank had become slightly displaced.He became suspicious and got the cover removed and peeped in.He noticed the blue colour frock of Naveen floating in the septic tank.Somvanshi went to the police station and lodged report Ex. P-l.The police came to the spot and got out the body of Ku.Naveen from the septic tank.A cloth was tied up around her neck.There was a cut wound on her abdomen arid her intestines had come out.It appears that she had been murdered and the body had been thrown in the septic tank.Blood stained earth was noticed near the tank.The autopsy on the body disclosed that the girl had been raped before death and then she had been strangulated and stabbed in the stomach and thus murdered.The doctor prepared slides from the vaginal discharge for chemical examination.Her clothes were sealed and seized.Since the circumstances and the clues of investigation pointed the needle of suspicion towards these accused they were interrogated.Santosh made a disclosure statement and led to recovery of one handkerchief and one Chaddi and a piece of Khadi having semen and blood stains, concealed in the Parchhi where the cow fodder were used to be kept.On his further disclosure, a lady cycle was recovered from below the water in the septic tank.Accused Molai also made a disclosure statement and on his disclosure a piece of Pajji, one bed-sheet, one Pajji with semen and blood stains were recovered concealed in the fodder room.On his disclosure a knife stained with blood was recovered from the heap of cow dung cakes.On medical examination of Santosh, nail scrap injuries were noticed below his left eye, neck and below his right ear and also on the right wrist.The piece of cloth which had been found tied to the neck of the deceased was in fact a piece of Chaddi, while the piece of cloth which was recovered at the instance of Molai was also a piece of Chaddi and the report of F.S.L. Sagar is that piece Ex. D-4 recovered from the neck of the deceased and the piece -F recovered at the instance of Molai are part of one Chaddi.The report is Ex.The expert at F.S.L. Sagar noticed that the knife A, piece of Pajji, F. Chadar-G, recovered at the instance of Molai, cloth piece-E recovered at the instance of Santosh, clothes K-l, K-2 and K-3 of the deceased and slides M-l, M-2 and M-3 of the deceased had blood on them.The conviction of the accused has been based on circumstantial evidence disclosed from evidence of R. S. Somvanshi (PW 6), Pratibha (PW 3), Ruchi (PW 1), Shobha Mishra (PW 2), Shailendra (PW 4), R. P. Shrivastava (PW 8).PW 7 Shyamji Singh, Assistant Jailor and the neighbour of the deceased, was witness to the recovery of the dead body, the inquest proceedings, disclosure statement (Ex.P-6) of Santosh on interrogation by police and disclosure statement Ex. P-7 by Molai.A knife was recovered at the instance of Molai.19 Abhiman Singh, S.I. had recorded the FIR Ex. P-2 on the written report Ex.P-1 given by Somvanshi.He recovered the dead body of the girl from the septic tank, the body was floating in the tank.A piece of Pajji was found tied around her neck.He prepared the plan of the site.PW 16 M. L. Pavaiya also reached there and took over the further investigation.He had prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses.He interrogated the two accused and made recoveries at their instance in the presence of the witnesses.(vi) There were bruise marks on libia majora and libia minora.The hymen was found torn and there was bleeding from the vagina with some blood mixed matter on the vagina of which slides were prepared.All the injuries were found ante mortem.The stab wound had been caused by some sharp pointed object.The death occurred within 18-36 hours of the post-mortem examination.The piece of cloth which was a piece of Chaddi was found tied around the neck.One part of this cloth was elastic and the main cloth was synthetic.The cause of death was found to be strangulation and stab injuries.(i) that these two accused were in the house with Ku.Naveen after 9 a.m. after Somvanshi went to his duty,(vii) Naveen was strangulated with a piece of Chaddi with elastic attached to it.The other part of this Chaddi was disclosed by Molai as having been concealed in the cattle Parchhi and he led to its recovery.This piece has been found to be part of the Chaddi found on the neck of the deceased,(viii) the various pieces of clothes and Chaddi got recovered by these accused on their disclosure had blood stains on them,(ix) accused Molai led to recovery of knife Art. A having blood stains on it.He knew it concealed in the cow-dung cakes and produced it.So he was the author of the concealment of the knife.The stab on the dead body could be caused by it.(x) Molai led to recovery of Chadar, Article-G which he concealed.This had blood and semen stains.(xi) The handkerchief which was produced by Santosh from Fodder house had semen stains on it,(xii) the girl had been raped before being strangulated and stabbed.This is clear from her medical examination and the teeth mark on her cheek.(xiii) The vaginal slides showed blood as well as spermatozoa.(xiv) Accused Santosh led to recovery of lady cycle from under the septic tank where the dead body had been found.It was not visible when the body which was floating had been taken out.The depth of the septic tank was about 10 feet and its length was about 8 feet as stated by Somvanshi.The trial Court found these circumstances established beyond doubt and the only inference possible was that these accused were the joint perpetrators of the crime.The accused examined two witnesses, DW 1 Rakraj Sondhiya chief guard at Central Jail, Rewa.Molai was also a guard under him.He asserted that on 20-2-1996 Molai was on duty at cloth godown.The evidence on record fully established that these accused concealed and took steps to destroy vital pieces of evidence of rape and murder.They threw body as well as cycle in the septic tank.This is how he took advantage of that faith.Naveen daughter of R. S. Somvanshi an Assistant Jailor, in Qr.Both have been sentenced to death for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine they are to further undergo R.I. for 2 months each.They have been further found guilty of offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of fine further R.I. for 2 months each.A. 525/97 has been filed by one of the accused Molai.The other accused has not filed any appeal against the judgment and sentence.Further handkerchief-C, Chaddi-D, recovered at the instance of Santosh, Pajji piece-F, Chaddi-H recovered at the instance of Molai, frock K-l recovered from the body of the deceased, slides M-l, M-2 and M-3 had human semen and spermatozoa on them.It was also opined that the blood on F and the semen stains on C, D, F, H and K-l were not sufficient for analysis.He got the two accused medically examined.Abrasion was result of clawing with the nails.He sent the recovered articles and sealed parcels to F.S.L. Sagar.PW 13 Babulal, head constable, recorded the formal F.I.R.PW 10 Dr. Sharma had conducted autopsy along with Dr. Kapoor and Dr. Mishra on the body of the deceased on 21-2-1996 at 12.30 pm.and found the following injuries :-(i) A bruise with abrasion on the right maxillary and cheek area crescent shape looking to be from deep kissing with intermitant marks of teeth size 2 cm x 2 cm,(ii) abrasion of right mendibulor region 4 cm.right to the medial line size 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.(iii) abrasion with bruise present just below the left lower eye lid in lateral aspect 1 cm x 1/2 cm.(iv) stab wound present 10 cm.below the xiphoid process, on the upper portion on stomach upto the depth of stomach a cut wound 18 cm.in length on the wall of the stomach.The intestines had been cut.Peritoneum had been cut.The intestines were coming out of the wound.(v) marks of strangulation were present at the neck above and over thyroid cartilage horizontally, length 33 cm.with breadth 2 cm.x 2.5 cm.varying with graved marks redish in colour margins inflammed.The neck tissue below it showed eitigmusis.Strangulation was ante-mortem.These were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.The prosecution had also examined two more witnesses i.e. PW 5 Shatrughan and PW 9 Pretiraja.These were convicts in jail before whom Santosh confessed having committed a blunder on the night of 20-2-1996 while Santosh was lying in the same barrack.(ii) about 10 a.m. shrieks had been heard from the side of the house,(iii) about 11 a.m. these accused falsely told Ku.Ruchi and also to Shailendra that Naveen had gone to some friend,(iv) at about 12 noon these accused told Pratibha, the sister of Naveen, that she had gone on cycle to her girl friend,(v) accused Santosh was seen by Ku.Mishra around 11.30 a.m. taking cycle of Naveen towards back of her house.Thus the accused had made false statement about the whereabouts of Naveen and her cycle to witnesses,(vi) accused Santosh had nail injuries on his neck and other parts of body showing struggle against him by somebody with the fingers,Both of them raped her and murdered her.The defence set up by the accused is that they never worked at the house of Somvanshi on any duties nor on the date of this incident.Santosh said that he was a convict in the jail on a charge of rape undergoing sentence.However, he was working in the garden along with 4 other convicts under survilence of a guard and did not work in the house of Somvanshi.He had some scratch injuries but they were caused by the police official who arrested him on 21st.Molai also denied his presence as domestic help at the house of Somvanshi.He urged that he was on duty of cloth godwon of the jail from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. and after closing the godown he went to the Court on duly as he was to appear in the Court of magistrate Shri Shrivastava and after attending there at 12.30 p.m. he went to his village Medgaon.He admitted in cross examination by the State counsel that the convicts who go to work in gardens outside the jail or in the gardens of the officers, they work there on the instructions of the officers.There are gardens outside the houses of 5-6 Assistant Jailors.During the time of this incident Somvanshi was incharge of the cloth godown and whenever he sent Molai to work at his house, Molai worked at his house.Statement of DW 2, is not relevant.He had made some allegations against integrity of Somvanshi.Apparently defence evidence is inconsequential and rather indicates that accused persons used to work at the house of Somvanshi.Santosh used to work at the garden of Somvanshi while Molai used to work in the house.The contention of the learned counsel for both the prisoners is that all the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court have not been established by irrefutable evidence and there is doubt on various aspects of the circumstances.Thus it is urged that in the FIR Ex. P.1 lodged by Somvanshi which is a written complaint sent by him to the S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa, there is no mention of any suspicion against any of these accused.The argument is that this is incongruous if his daughter Pratibha (PW 3) had told him that the accused had informed her that Naveen had gone to her friend on cycle.The argument is that if Pratibha had so informed Raghuvanshi he would have at once suspected the accused persons on seeing the dead body of Naveen.Secondly, it is argued that in the disclosure statement of Molai, in Exs. P-6 and P-7 the place of interrogation is mentioned as Central Jail Rewa colony, whereas according to the investigating officer Shri Pavaiya (PW 16) he had interrogated both these accused inside the jail in the presence of the witnesses.Even PW 7 Shyamji Singh who is Assistant Jailor and neighbour of the deceased and a witness to the disclosure statement asserted that both the accused were interrogated by the investigating officer in the jail office in his presence and they made their disclosure there.So the argument is that the place of interrogation recorded in Exs. P-6 and P-7, is contrary to the testimony of these witnesses.So it should be taken as doubtful as to where the interrogation was made and that the evidence is suspicion that this accused made any disclosure statement leading to the discovery of incriminating material.In the same context it is further argued that if Ruchi Mishra had seen Santosh taking the cycle of the deceased towards the back of the house, she would have disclosed that fact to the police or to the father of the deceased after coming to know the murder of Naveen and if she had told so the police must have searched for the cycle in the gutter and they must have recovered the cycle from there along with the dead body.Thus the alleged disclosure about cycle by Molai is a doubtful piece of evidence.It is further argued that both the accused were in the house when Somvanshi returned home from his duty at 6 p.m. If they were guilty they would not have come to the house and would have run away.Molai even helped Somvanshi in searching for the girl.So their conduct was innocent.It is further argued that the circumstances which have come on record, even if they be taken on their face value, do not lead to only one inference of guilt of the accused, somebody else could have come to the house and committed this act.Even if these accused are presumed to have been working somewhere outside the house as the witness claimed to have seen them only in the compound of the house.Lastly, the argument is that at least it is uncertain as to who raped the girl, who strangulated her and who stabbed her.Even if Santosh be considered the person who raped because of nail injuries on his face and arm, the participation of Molai in the rape and murder is not established and he should be given benefit of doubt or in any case Section 34, Indian Penal Code is not attracted against him.It is also argued, for the same reason, that the accused do not deserve death sentence in the background of such evidence.The learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the entire evidence of witnesses as also the documents on record.We have heard their comments at length on the reliability and weight of the evidence of various witnesses and the documents.It is important to note that both the accused totally denied their presence in the house that day or that they were working in the house of Somvanshi that day while the girl Naveen was in the house.This was a total false stand taken by them.On perusal of the evidence of PW 6 Somvanshi, PW 3 Pratibha, PW 1 Ruchi, PW 2 Shobhna, PW 4 Shailendra and even DW 1 Sondhiya, chief guard of Central Jail, Rewa, the trial Court found it established that these 2 accused had been working in the house of Somvanshi as domestic help.Santosh had been working in the garden of that house.Molai had been working in the house.He was a guard in the workshop which was under charge of Somvanshi and on his asking he had been working in the house.We have perused the evidence and find it established that these 2 accused had been working in the house of Somvanshi when this incident had occurred and even on the date of this incident they were working in the house.Somvanshi had left them in the house with Naveen alone in the house at 9 a.m. Pratibha had gone to her school that morning at 7.30 a.m. and returned by 12 noon.The accused have falsely denied their presence in the house that day.There is no reason to doubt the testimony of Ruchi Mishra that these accused told her that Naveen had gone to her friend's house.In the cross examination of this witness no infirmity had been brought out.Ruchi had inquired about Naveen from these accused at about 11 a.m. and a short time thereafter she had seen Santosh taking the cycle of Naveen towards the back of the house.Ruchi was not told by these accused that Naveen had gone on her cycle.It was only told to Pratibha that Naveen had gone on her cycle.Pratibha had informed her father about it.There is no reason to doubt her.These accused, thus gave false explanations to both these girls about the whereabouts of Naveen.They did so deliberately.The contention of the counsel for these accused that in the FIR there is no mention of any suspicion about these accused or what they told to Pratibha, does not create any dent in this part of the case of the prosecution.It is to be kept in mind that Pratibha had told her father at 3 p.m. that the accused had told her that Naveen had gone to her friend's house.So, the father had no reason to become suspicious about her life.Even on return from duty at 6 p.m. the position remained the same and Naveen had not returned home.Next morning the body of Naveen with frock was noticed in the septic tank.The body had not been taken out and at that sudden and shocking discovery, the father could hardly connect the accused with the crime.Considering no suspicion against the accused, Pratibha had only told him that the accused had informed her that Naveen had gone to her friend's house.The father could not suddenly reach a conclusion as to how the body of his daughter was in the septic tank.The septic tank, as has come in evidence, was about 8 feet across and 10 feet deep.When the accused had helped him in search of the girl, the reaction of his mind, in taking no suspicion against the accused, was justified and the omission of the fact as to what Pratibha had told him about the information given by these accused, not been recorded in the written report made by him to police, was but natural.At least this omission cannot raise any doubt about the testimony of Pratibha.This testimony of Pratibha as to what the accused had informed her about Naveen is to be further looked into in the light of testimony of Ku.Ruchi to whom also the accused gave the same information.Somvanshi had no talks with Ruchi before informing the police.Thus we are of the view that the trial Court was justified in concluding that these accused gave false explanation to Pratibha and Ruchi about Naveen having gone to her friend's house while she had been raped and done to death.It is of importance that Ruchi as well as her mother had heard the shriek 'Eeeh' from the side of the house of Somvanshi at 10 a.m. The dog of Somvanshi had also barked.They had come out but found nothing unusual.So they went back to their home.Even Shailendra (PW 4) heard such a shriek and came to see but noticed nothing.The accused were in the house just outside.This was noticed by Shailendra at about 11 a.m. when his ball rolled towards the garden of Somvanshi.He and his friend picked up the ball and went away.Counsel for the accused suggested to Ruchi that she had not mentioned about hearing the shriek from the house of Somvanshi in her police statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code where it is omitted.She only asserted that she does not know why it is omitted from the statement but she had narrated it.No such omission has been brought out in the testimony of Shobha (PW 2) or Shailendra (PW 4) who had asserted about hearing of such shrieks.The factum of such a shriek having been heard is thus established though it does not show whose shriek it was.The accused persons were at the house when Somvanshi had left the house at 9 a.m. with the girl inside.They were noticed outside the house at 10-30 a.m. as well as at 11 a.m. The false explanations given by these accused to Pratibha and Ruchi about Naveen indicates their guilty mind.25. Let us consider whether the disclosure statements were made by these 2 accused.They were interrogated one by one in the office of the Central Jail Rewa.This is narrated by Pavaiya and also by Shyamji Singh.These witnesses have no reason to depose falsely.If they were creating false evidence about disclosure by accused and recovery of material evidence at their instance, they could have spoken in line with the background of disclosure P-6 and P-7 that the interrogation was made in the colony.They have stated that disclosure was made in the office of the jail.Shri Pavaiya who prepared these 2 documents has stated that word 'colony' after the words 'Central Jail Rewa' appears to have been recorded by some mistake in these documents.In view of this explanation we have no reason to discard his testimony or that of PW 7 Shyamji Singh.PW 7 have explained that entire jail complex is called jail colony.From evidence of these witnesses we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in prosecution evidence that these accused were interrogated by the investigating officer and they made disclosure statements which are Exs. P-6 and P-7 respectively.They made disclosures about various incriminating articles.Santosh made disclosure about handkerchief, Chaddi, a piece of Khadi cloth and ladies cycle having been kept by him' in different places.Molai made disclosure about piece of Pajji i.e. Chaddi, bed-sheet, knife and a Chaddi.These had been concealed in the fodder house and the knife in the cow-dung cake heep.Both these accused respectively led the police party to the spots of concealment of these articles and they got these articles recovered.The cycle was recovered after putting a Kanta in the septic tank.We find that the objection of the counsel for the accused that the cycle should have been found by the police ordinarily when the body was recovered from the septic tank, does not have merit in it.Septic tank was 10 feet deep with 8 feet width.The body was floating above the water.The police had taken out the body.There is nothing on record to suggest that any body had gone into the septic tank.That is not natural also as nobody would lower himself inside the dirty sullage of septic tank and the body would have been taken out with the help of some ropes 'Kantas' and other means.So by that time it could not have come to the notice of police that cycle was lying at the bottom of the septic tank.The size of the cycle is such that in such a big septic tank it could settle in the bottom.Santosh disclosed about it and got the cycle recovered.The fact that Ruchi had seen Santosh taking the cycle to the back of the house could at best lead the investigating agency to question him regarding the cycle.They did question him and recovered the cycle from the tank.This was recovered on 21-2-1996 vide memo Ex.So we find no infirmity in this evidence of the prosecution.We find that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence regarding disclosure statement made by Santosh and Molai respectively.Proper assessment has been made regarding recovery of handkerchief, Chaddi and piece of khadi cloth and ladies cycle at the instance of Santosh.The articles other than ladies cycle were recovered from the fodder house of Somvanshi.Santosh had concealed them there.Molai led to recovery of piece of Pajji and Chaddi and a complete Chaddi and a bed-sheet from the fodder house.These were having blood and seminal stains.He also led to the recovery of knife from the cow-dung.It had blood stains.The piece of Pajji recovered was found to be piece of the same pajji with which the girl had been strangulated.The opinion of the expert of F.S.L. Sagar on that aspect are clear and have been rightly accepted and acted upon.We find no infirmity in that evidence.This leads to inference of active involvement of Molai also in this rape and murder.The medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon and result of medical examination of Santosh have important bearing on the result of the case.The result of autopsy clearly suggested that the victim had been raped.Teeth marks on her cheek suggest that biting kiss was made on her face.She was strangulated and also stabbed with a knife to put her life to an end, after the rape.The fact that there are nail scrap marks on the neck, face, below the ear and right wrist of Santosh suggests that the girl had resisted but the accused with their brutal force had over-powered her and after misusing her, sniffed out life from her.From the close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we find that all the circumstances enumerated by the trial Court which we have noticed in the earlier part of the judgment have been established beyond any reasonable doubt.The participation of the 2 accused is inferable not only from the fact that they were with this girl in the house but also they gave false explanation to Pratibha and Ruchi and also further by the fact that the piece of Pajji which was used to strangulate her was part of same Pajji the other part of which had been concealed by Molai in the fodder house and which too had blood stains and semen stains on it.So his involvement in the crime is also apparent and so 'active'.The involvement of Santosh being also very active in this entire transaction is established by the further facts that he had thrown down the cycle of the girl in the septic tank, he raped her as is clear from the nail marks on his neck, face and wrist for which he has no explanation to give.Both these accused are coming out with false explanations and false denials.The assertion of appellant's counsel that their conduct in helping Molai joining in the search for the victim, shows their innocence, is misplaced.None but them was in house from 9 a.m. to 12 noon when Pratibha came.The entire transaction of rape and murder was a single one committed by both these accused.They both participated actively.It appears that while one strangulated her the other knifed her.They both raped her.We do not know which one of them had strangulated her and which one had stabbed.But they both participated fully.Both of them thus committed offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and Section 302, Indian Penal Code in the alternative Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.We find that the trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offence.They removed the blood stains and concealed clothings having blood marks and semen marks in the fodder room and also the knife in the cow dung heep.So they caused the evidence of commission of offence to disappear with intention to screen themselves from punishment.Thus they have been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201, Indian Penal Code.They knew that this offence which they committed was punishable with death.So they could be punished under Section 201 Part II, Indian Penal Code with imprisonment upto 7 years.They have been sentenced to R.I. for 7 years each under this provision.The only other question is whether they deserve the sentences of death or not.The accused persons at the relevant time were expected to look after the girl.Her father had left her under their care.They were expected to look after her, as their father.Instead they raped and killed her and threw her body in the septic tank.She tried to protect herself but as a weak female how much could she resist.Molai was a guard at the workshop where Somvanshi was incharge.He had the faith of Somvanshi.(i) These accused were present in the house as domestic help,(ii) Ku.(vi) The accused persons not only committed gang-rape on her but also murdered her by strangulating and by stabbing her,(vii) They put the dead body in the septic tank and concealed the clothes which had tell-tale marks of blood and semen,(viii) They spoke lie to conceal their crime,(ix) The entire offence was extremely brutal in character and carried out in a demonic manner suggesting extreme depravity of character on their part.The present is a case which falls in the category of rarest of rare cases.The society may, in case of lesser option, lose faith in the efficacy of justice system.The ends of justice in this case cry for extreme penalty of death to both the accused and nothing short.We confirm the conviction on all the counts i.e. under Section 376(2)(g) as well as under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and also under Section 201, Indian Penal Code.We confirm the death sentence of both the accused for the offence under Section 302 as well as under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 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. |
166,660,956 | (i) P.W.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, working in CB-CID, Chennai.On 25.02.2000, at about 10.30 hours, based on the direction issued by the higher officials, P.W.1, along with two other Head Constables were on patrol near Ellis road and Wallajah road junction, Triplicane, Chennai.At that time, they found the second accused in this case standing there, after seeing the police, the second accused tried to escape from the spot.Immediately, P.W.1 caught hold of the second accused and enquired him, and the second accused informed him them that he purchased some counterfeit currency notes from Chettikulam Disco Mani, Kothanar Ramasamy and the first accused and he has intended to use the counterfeit currency notes.P.W.1 searched the second accused in the presence of witnesses and found 15 numbers of 500 rupees currency notes in his packet.Since all the currency notes looks like counterfeit currency, P.W.1 took the second accused along with witnesses to the CB-CID Police and file a special report [Ex.P1] before the Inspector of Police.(ii).P.W.6, the Inspector of Police in the CB-CID, Counterfeit Currency Prevention Wing.Based on the special report submitted by P.W.1, registered a criminal case in Crime No.1 of 2000 for the offences under section 489 (b) and 489 (c) of IPC and prepared a first information report (Ex.B.7).Then he seized the counterfeit currency notes and also recorded the statement of the second accused in the presence of other witnesses.In the mean time, the first accused was arrested in respect of another criminal case in crime No.120/2000 on the file of Kovilpatti Police Station for the offence under section 489(a) & 489(d) IPC.P.W.2 is the witness to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes and confession statement of the second accused.P.W.3 is the Village Administrative Officer at Kovilpatti.He spoke about the arrest of the first accused and also recovery of Xerox machines and 500 rupees denomination counterfeit currency notes in respect of another crime.The Accused 1 and 2, in Sessions Case No.347/2001, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai, are the appellants herein.They stood charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 498(b) and 498(c) IPC.The Trial Court, by judgement dated 30.12.2003, found the Accused 1 and 2 guilty and convicted them under section 120(b) IPC and sentenced them to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigours imprisonment; convicted them under section 489(b) IPC and sentenced them to under rigorous imprisonment for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment, and convicted them under Section 489(c) IPC, sentenced them to undergo 9 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The statement of the first accused was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, Chennai, while the first accused was produced on PT warrant.Then, he examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements and also sent the counterfeit currency notes for chemical examination at Nasik and obtained a report and after completion of investigation, he filed a final report.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above, the accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 6 witness were examined, 7 documents were exhibited and 3 materials objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Sub Inspector of Police working in CB-CID Branch, Counterfeit Currency Notes Preventive Section.According to him, while he was on patrol on 25.02.2000, on suspicion enquired the second accused and the second accused admitted that he has purchased counterfeit currency notes from three persons, namely, Chettikulam Disco Mani, Kothanar Ramasamy and the first accused and the second accused intended to use the same.Then, he recovered 15 numbers of 500 rupees counterfeit currency notes in the presence of witnesses and produced the accused before P.W.6 along with the special report.P.W.4 was working as Assistant in Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.He sent the counterfeit currency notes for chemical examination.P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti Police Station.He spoke about the arrest of the first accused and recovery of Xerox machines and 500 rupee denomination counterfeit currency notes in respect of another Crime No.120 of 2000 on the file of Kovilpatti Police Station for the offence under section 489 (a) and 489 (d) IPC. P.W.6 is the Inspector of Police working in the respondent police station.He registered a case and prepared first information report, arrested the accused recovered the counterfeit currency notes, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.With the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.The accused did not examine any witness and not exhibited any documents on their side.Considering the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.On 09.10.2017, there was no representation for the second accused.In the said circumstances, Ms.Swathi Subramaniam, Advocate is appointed as legal aid counsel for the first appellant.I have heard Ms.Swadhi Subramaniam, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the first accused and Mr.Habeeb Rahman, learned counsel for the second accused and Mr.R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.The learned counsel for the first appellant contended that the first appellant was arrested in respect of another Crime No.120 of 2000 on the file of Kovilpatti Police Station for the offence under Sections 498-A and 498-D IPC and some materials was seized.P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police, working in Kovilpatti station alone deposed about it.Except the evidence of P.W.5.,absolutely there is no materials available on record to show about the amount and recovery in the said Crime No.120 of 2000, the alleged confession statement of the first accused in the said crime number also not marked.The learned counsel for the first appellant further submitted that the first accused was convicted under Section 120(b), on the ground that both the accused conspiracy together in selling the counterfeit currency notes.To prove the conspiracy, the prosecution has relied upon the confession of the second accused.But, the confession of the second accused, it is only shows that the second accused did not receive any counterfeit currency notes from the first accused and in fact he has only purchased the counterfeit currency notes from one Chettikulam Disco Mani, Kothanar Ramasamy, but both of them were not added as accused in this case.Apart from that absolutely there is no material available on record to show that it is only the first accused has sold the counterfeit currency notes to the second accused and there is conspiracy between the first accused and second accused.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the trial Court framed charges against the first accused only for the offence under Section 489-B IPC, the Trial Court convicted the appellants both under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC, that apart the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 489-B is only 7 years, but the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 489-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo 9 years rigorous imprisonment.Pointing it out the same, the learned counsel for the first accused sought to set aside the judgment passed by the lower Court.The learned counsel appearing for the second accused would contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the second accused.P.W.2 recovery witness is only a stock witness.Even though number of public were present in Bells road and Wallajah Road Junction, Triplicane, as admitted by the prosecution, but no independent witness to the arrest and recovery of counterfeit currency notes was exchanged.Apart from that there is no materials available on record to show that the appellant had to requisite mens rea, he intended to sell the counterfeit currency notes.In the absence of any evidence that the appellant has knowledge about the counterfeit currency notes, the second appellant cannot be convicted under Section 489-C IPC.The learned counsel appearing for the second appellant further submitted that even though the trial Court framed charges against the second appellant only for the offence under Section 489(C) IPC.The Trial Court convicted him under Section 489(B) and 489(C) IPC, and sentenced him to 9 years rigorous imprisonment against the maximum sentence of 7 years for the offence under Section 489(C) IPC, on those grounds, the learned counsel for the second appellant sought to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.Per contra, Mr.R.Sekar, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the second accused was arrested on suspicion and he was found in possession of 15 numbers of counterfeit currency notes of 500 rupees denomination, and on enquiry, he voluntarily given confession and based on that, crime was registered and recovered counterfeit currency notes were sent for chemical examination, which proved that all the currency notes are counterfeit currency notes.The first appellant given a voluntary confession that he only sold the counterfeit currency notes to the second appellant.The second accused also has given confession that he has received the counterfeit currency note from the first accused.In the above circumstances, the first accused is implicated in this case.Even though there is no specific charge has been framed by the Court below for the offence against the accused.Based on the materials available on record, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC, and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below.I have considered the rival submissions.The case of the prosecution is that the second accused was found in possession of 16 Nos. of 500 denomination counterfeit currency notes, P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, on suspicion, said to have enquired the second accused, at that time, the second accused voluntarily admitted that he has purchased the counterfeit currency note from the first accused and two other persons and he has intended to use the same.Thereafter, P.W.1 took the second accused to the police station and submitted a special report and based on that P.W.6, the Inspector of Police registered a crime against him.Based on the disclosure statement of the second accused, the first accused was also implicated in this case.The further case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 have entered in to a criminal conspiracy to use the counterfeit currency and in furtherance of the above conspiracy, the first accused said to have handed over the counterfeit currency note to the second accused, in turn the second accused intended to use the counterfeit currency notes.The first accused was implicated in this case only based on the confession given by the second accused.Apart from that the confession of the second accused, absolutely there is no materials available on record to prove the charge against the first accused.It is settled law that the confessions of the accused can not be the sole basis for conviction, but it can be used to support or lend assurance to other evidence available against the co-accused.Apart from that a perusal of confession of the second accused, it could be seen that one Kazhugumalai Chettikulam Disco Mani, Kothanar Mani and one Ramasamy told him that the first accused is in possession of counterfeit currency.Then, he has purchased 15 numbers of 500 denomination counterfeit currency notes from one Disco Mani and Ramasamy, he has not stated anything in his confession that he has purchased counterfeit currency notes from the first accused.Even from the confession of the second accused, absolutely there is no material to show that he has purchased counterfeit currency notes from the first accused.Apart from that it is the evidence of P.W.5, the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti Police Station, that the first accused was arrested at Kovilpatti in another Crime No.120 of 2000, which was registered against him for the offence under Sections 489-A and 489-D IPC, in the said crime, Xerox machines and some counterfeit currency notes were seized from him, but the Xerox machines and counterfeit currency notes were not marked before the Trial Court.Even the confession statement of the first accused was also not marked before the Trial Court.Even in the evidence of P.W.6, the investigating officer, he has only stated that he examined the first accused in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai while he was produced under PT warrant.In the above circumstances, absolutely there is no materials available on record to show that it is only the first accused sold the counterfeit currency note to the second accused.So far as the second accused is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that while he was on patrol, on suspicion, he has arrested the second accused and counterfeit currency notes were seized from him, later he was charged with for the offence under Section 489-C IPC, for possession of counterfeit currency notes.In order to prove the charge under Section 489-C IPC, the prosecution has established that the accused has knowledge about the counterfeit currency and he had the intention to use the same.Mere Possession of counterfeit currency alone will not attract the offence under Section 489-C IPC.Except the evidence of P.W.1, absolutely there is no evidence available on record to show that the second appellant had any mens rea to use the counterfeit currency notes.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in UMASHANKAR Vs.The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect The learned trial judge on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to P.W. 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea."'Aprt from that the second accused said to have purchased counterfeit currency notes from one Disco Mani and one Kothanar Ramasamy.Both of them were not made an accused and absolutely there is no investigation regarding the purchase of counterfeit currency notes by the second accused.So far as the next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that even though no specific charge has been framed against the first accused, the trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 489-C IPC and imposed a sentence to 9 years rigorous imprisonment against the maximum sentence of 7 years as prescribed under Section 489 Cr.P.C. Likewise, the learned counsel for the second appellant has also contended that the trial Court convicted the second accused for the offence under Section 489-B IPC and sentenced to 9 years rigorous imprisonment against the maximum sentence of 7 years as prescribed under Section 489 Cr.P.C. I find much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the trial Court without framing charges properly and without any evidence mechanically convicted the second accused under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC.Apart from that the trial Court also imposed a sentence for 9 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 489-C IPC against maximum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment prescribed for the offence under Section 489-C IPC and the trial Court has convicted the accused on a total non application of mind.So far as the charge under Section 120-B IPC is concerned, considering all the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that absolutely there is no materials available to show that both the accused conspired together to commit them illegal act and in furtherance of the above said conspiracy, the second accused sell the counterfeit currency notes and hence the conviction under Section 120-B also is liable to be set aside.Considering the above materials, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled for acquittal.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused in S.C.No.347 of 2001 dated 30.12.2003 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Chennai is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and bail bond, if any, paid by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts, if any, paid by them are ordered to be refunded forthwith.Before parting with the case, I appreciate the valuable assistant rendered by the Legal Aid counsel Ms.Swathi Subramanian, a recently enrolled young lawyer thoroughly prepared and presented the case neatly.The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the fees as per Rules.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai.2.The Inspector of Police, CB-CID Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., rrg Crl.A.No.320 of 2004 | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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. |
166,664 | The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:(i) PW.1 is the father and PW.2 is the brother of the deceased.PW.1 wasliving with all his family members.Drainage water from the house of PW.1 shall be takenthrough the vacant site of the said Periyasamy, in respect of which, there was along standing quarrel between the family of PW.1 and Periyasamy.(ii) On 23.8.2006 in the morning hours, Guruvammal was removing drainagewater, which was passing through the site of Periyasamy.There arose a quarrelbetween the deceased and accused/appellant and the deceased gave an assurancethat he would lay a pipe in order to remove the drainage water.However, theaccused/appellant made a vow that he would finish off the deceased.On thevery day at about 8.00 p.m., the accused/appellant came with an aruval andattempted on the life of the deceased.PW.2 and others pacified him.On thenext morning at about 7.00 a.m., on 24.8.2006, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 went toattend nature's call.At that time, the deceased also came.There theaccused/appellant appeared with MO.5 and attacked the deceased on his buttock.The deceased who fell down, woke up and tried to escape but the accused chasedhim and attacked him on different parts of the body.PW.1 and PW.2 attempted torescue but the accused threatened them.As a result of the injuries sustained,the deceased died on the spot.The accused run away from the place ofoccurrence.(iii) PW.1 accompanied with PW.2 went to the respondent police station.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PW.17 was on duty at about 8.30 a.m., when PW.1gave Ex.P.1 complaint and on the basis of which, a case came to be registered inCrime No.517/2006 under Section 302 IPC.P.16 F.I.R was despatched to theCourt and to the higher officials.(iv) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., on 24.8.2006 at about 9.00 a.m.,PW.19, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, tookup investigation and proceeded to the spot and made an inspection and preparedan Observation Mahazar Ex.P.9 and a Rough Sketch Ex.He conducted inqueston the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and preparedan inquest report Ex.P.19 in their presence.Then, the dead body was sent forthe purpose of autopsy.(v) PW.12 Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam,conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued post-mortemCertificate Ex.P.4 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to havedied of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.(vi) Pending investigation, the investigating officer arrested theaccused/appellant on 28.8.2006 at about 7.45 hours when he voluntarily cameforward to give a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses and theadmissible part of the same was marked as Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division,Virudhunagar District dated 13.2.2008 made in S.C.No.19 of 2007 wherein the soleaccused/appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 (2)IPC and on trial, he was found guilty of charge of murder and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default toundergo one year simple imprisonment, and the appellant was acquitted of thecharge under Section 506(2) IPC.,.MO.3 shirt and MO.4 Lungi were recovered from the accused/appellant.Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand.(vii) All the material objects recovered from the accused and also weaponof the crime were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in two reportsviz., Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.6 and Serological Report Ex.(viii) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer fileda final report.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessarycharges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 20 witnesses and relied on 21 Exhibits and 12 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of theaccused.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after hearing thearguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available onrecord, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonabledoubts in respect of the charge of murder and found the accused guilty of thecharge of murder.However, the trial Judge acquitted the accused under Section506 (2)IPC.Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused/appellant, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, theprosecution came with a story that the accused/appellant attacked the deceasedon 24.8.2006 in the morning hours and PW.1 and PW.2 were examined as eye-witnesses, who are close relatives of the deceased, and there was a long pendingquarrel in the removal of drainage water and in the said circumstances, they hada grudge and hence, they came forward to give false evidence against theaccused/appellant and the learned counsel pointing to the evidence would submitthat there was a lot of discrepancies on the material particulars and therefore,coupled with the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased, the evidenceshould have been rejected by the trial Court but the trial Court has miserablyfailed to do so.Apart from that the evidence of these witnesses was nevercorroborated by the medical evidence.The alleged recovery of MO.5 was nothingbut an introduction for the purpose of strengthening the prosecution case but invain.The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.The learned counsel for the appellant would add that even as per thenarration of the prosecution case on the previous night, there was a quarrel inwhich the deceased had used filthy language not only against theaccused/appellant but also his family members, in particular his sister.Evenafter his sister was pacified, she was weeping on the utterance and the same wasactually lingering in his mind and being provoked by the same, he had committedthe act of murder in the dawn of the next day.This legal aspect hasgot to be considered by the Court.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State onthe above contentions.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.It is not in controversy that one Rajesh Kannan was done to death inthe incident at about 7.30 a.m., on 24.8.2006 at the place as put-forth by theprosecution.He gavePost-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.4 wherein he has opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked thedeceased with MO.5 Aruval and caused instantaneous death, the prosecutionexamined PW.1 and PW.2 as eye-witnesses and they are closely related to thedeceased.It is well settled that merely because of the relationship of thewitnesses to the deceased, the evidence cannot be rejected but before acceptanceof such evidence, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny.Evenafter the application of the test, the Court is satisfied that their evidencehas got to be accepted as their evidence inspires the confidence of the Court.Hence, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in accepting their evidence.Theevidence of these witnesses was to the effect that there was quarrel on theprevious day in which the deceased uttered filthy language not only against theaccused but against his family members and there was exchange of words and theywere pacified.In the next morning, PW.1 and PW.2 went to attend nature's call.The accused came with the aruval and attacked the deceased and caused his death.Despite the cross examination in full, the evidence of these witnesses remainunshaken.That apart, the ocular testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 stood fullycorroborated by the medical evidence.Yet another circumstance which is strong against the accused/appellantwas the recovery of MO.5, Aruval.When he was arrested, the same was recoveredby the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses and the recoveryof the weapon Mo.5 Aruval pursuant to the confessional statement given by theaccused would be pointing to the nexus of the crime of the accused.In short,it can be stated that the prosecution evidence is pointing to the guilt of theaccused.The occurrence had taken place at about 8.00 p.m.,.At thatjuncture, the deceased had not only spoken ill of the accused appellant but alsohis family members and also touched the morality of the accused/appellant.Therefore, all these were actually disturbing and perpetrating theaccused/appellant and in the next morning, the incident had taken place.Thus,it is quite clear that it was due to provocation, which was made by the deceasedand that too the words which was spoken in filthy language against theaccused/appellant and against his family members and also in particular, hissister, which was actually lingering in his mind.Under the circumstances, theact of the accused cannot be termed as murder but culpable homicide notamounting to murder.Hence, the act of the accused would fall under Section 304(Part - I) IPC and awarding seven years of rigorous imprisonment would meet theends of justice.Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is modified and theconviction of the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified into oneunder Section 304 (Part I) IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment issubstituted by seven years rigorous imprisonment.The imprisonment alreadyundergone by the accused/appellant is ordered to be given set off.The CriminalAppeal is disposed of accordingly.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District.2.Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.(Crime No.517/2006)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
166,665,244 | are indulging in unauthorized construction and neither the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the 'Corporation') nor the Officer-in-Charge, Ekbalpur Police Station has taken any action to stop such construction.Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the Corporation submits, on instructions, that stop work notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the 'Act') was issued on 29th October, 2015 with a request to the officer-in-charge to ensure that the person responsible or any other person who has conspired to indulge in unauthorized construction is not permitted to proceed any 2 further.He was also informed that proceedings under Section 401(A) of the Act for demolition would be started soon.Instruction furnished to Mr. Shaikh, learned advocate for the State by the officer-in-charge reveals that several F.I.R.s have been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Corporation (F.I.R. Nos. 471 dated 2nd November, 2015; 17 dated 11th January, 2016; 69 dated 8th February, 2016; 103 dated 26th February, 2016 and 264 dated 11th May, 2016).It also reveals that the petitioner and the private respondents have lodged F.I.R.s and counter-F.I.R.s giving rise to Ekbalpur PS F.I.R. No. 468 dated 1st November, 2015 under Sections 120B/448/506/509, Indian Penal Code and Ekbalpur PS F.I.R. No. 469 dated 1st November, 2015 under Sections 341/323/506, Indian Penal Code, investigation whereof have resulted in submission of charge-sheets before the relevant magistrate.Learned advocate representing the private respondents submits that on the occasion of milud-un-nabi it was considered expedient to construct bamboo structure on the roof of the disputed premises, but the same has since been dismantled after the ceremony was over and that the private respondents have no further intention to make any construction on the roof.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.( Dipankar Datta, J. ) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,666,726 | The" facts leading to this reference are ; The petitioner Chockalingam Chettiar, a native of Kandavarayanpettai village, Tirupattur taluk in Ramanathapuram District was employed as an agent of "Chetty" by the Gonakelle, El Teb and Demmeria Estates.The practice is for the Superintendents of these Estates to draw cheques in favour of this Chockalingam Chettiar on the Imperial Bank of India and the Mercantile Bank of India at Colombo and Chockalingam Chettiai would cash those cheques and disburse the amounts to the labourers employed in the said estates who apparently are mostly Tamilians.It is the case for these Estates that the said Chockalingam Chettiar after cashing in the amounts dishonestly converted to his own use roughly Rs. 60,000 and decamped to his native place in India.The Government of Ceylon have sent a requisition to the Government of India for the extradition of this Chockalingam Chettiar.Thereupon, under instructions from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, the Madras State Government, Home Department in their memo dated 25-7-1959 directed the Additional District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram to hold an enquiry and to report the result to the Government.The accused Chockalingam Chettiar was apprehended by the issue of a warrant by Sri E. C. P. Prabhakar, I. A. S., and released on bail.The accused at the next hearing was asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him as found in the requisition.The accused was represented by an advocate.On the examination of the accused being over, the Inspector of Police, Ceylon, who filed the charge-sheet before the Chief Magistrate of Ceylon was examined and cross-examined.The written statement of the accused was filed on 5-9-1959, and both the parties closed their case.JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.On a reference made by our 'learned brother Somasundaram, J. whether Ch.Thereupon complaints have been given to the Colombo Police for an offence Under Section 392 of the Ceylon Penal Code (corresponding to S, 409, IPC) an extraditable offence and they have been investigated and a charge sheet has been filed before the Chief Magistrate of Colombo, On account; of this Chockkalingam Chettiar having left for India, the Chief Magistrate, Colombo recorded the evidence in his absence and has apparently reported the matter to the Government of Ceylon. | ['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,933,514 | [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.42/2017 dated 02.02.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Ramesh, aged 23 years, S/o.Rajendran, residing at No.11, Bajanaikoil Street, 1st Street, Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai-26 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :S-9 Pazhavanthangal Police Station Crime No.1592/2016 registered under Section 379 of IPC.ii.S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station Crime No.1582/2016 registered under Section 379 of IPC.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 30.11.2016, one Natarajan, S/o.Vijayaraj, residing at No.5/14, Seven Well Street, Butt Road, Chennai-16, as de facto complainant has given a complaint in St. Thomas Mount Police Station, wherein, it is alleged that in the place of occurrence, the present detenu and another have unlawfully restrained the de facto complainant and by showing a deadly weapon, avulsed a sum of Rs.1,000/- and also a gold ring from the de facto complainant and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.1649/2016 under Sections 341, 294[b], 323, 427, 397 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.Rajendran, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,934,668 | This criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.2. Accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.92 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, are the petitioners herein.A thumb nail sketch of facts is that the complainant one Ambikapathi Udayar has given a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, against his son/A.1 and his brother's sons/A.2 to A.5 alleging that they have fabricated a Will and thereafter, entered into a Partition Deed and A.6 and A.7 have attested the said partition deed.On perusal of the complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, it is seen that the complainant/Ambikapathi Udayar, S/o.Ariyaputhira Udayar has specifically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 to 5, who are none other than his son and his brother's son respectively, have executed a partition deed on the basis of the alleged Will said to have been executed by one Ariyaputhira Udayar (father of the complainant) and they have fabricated the partition deed dated 05.04.2007 while the said Ariyaputhira Udayar did not execute any Will during his life time and died intestate on 10.05.1997 and during the life time of the said Ariyaputhira Udayar, a partition was effected among his father and other sons including the complainant, who is one of the sons of Ariyaputhira Udayar on 09.12.1987 and in the said partition deed, A schedule property was allotted to the share of the complainant's father Ariyaputhira Udayar and A.1 to A.5 have created a forged document under the guise that a Will was said to have been executed by Ariyaputhira Udayar during his life time bequeathing the properties mentioned in the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 and has registered the same in the Sub-Registrar Office of Omalur and effected partition based on the alleged partition will deed, and therefore, A.1 to A.5 have committed an offence punishable under Sections 102-B, 420 and 468 of IPC.The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, while allowing the above said criminal revision petition, has observed as follows:-"(1) the complainant did not produce the alleged Will before this Court.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.92 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, against the petitioners/A.6 and A.7, is quashed and the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are discharged from the case.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,935,905 | The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 15th July, 2008 passed in Sessions Case no. 53 of 2004 by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli.The trial Court held that the prosecution has proved that Rekha (the deceased) was subjected to cruelty by coercing her and her parents to meet the unlawful demand of Rs 1,00,000/- by the accused in furtherance of their common intention and the deceased committed suicide as a result of abetment at the instance of the accused no. 3 and 4 (Appellant no. 2 and 3 herein).The facts, briefly stated, are thus :-Rekha (deceased) was married with Prashant Laxman Puttewar (Appellant no.1) on 13/05/2001 and was residing at Chamorshi in a joint family consisting of parents -Laxman, Shalutai and sister Rajani (Appellant no.3).It is the case of prosecution that the deceased was harassed on the pretext that demand of money in the sum of Rs. One lac for the construction of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 4 apeal489.08.odt the house was not complied with by her parents.The demand was made on phone on 8th February 2004 calling upon mother of the deceased to bring the amount immediately.During that night itself, a phone call was received from the neighbour of the appellants that Rekha has hanged herself.The dead body was referred for post mortem examination.Cause of death was mentioned as cardio- respiratory arrest due to asphyxia because of hanging.During the course of investigation, the statements were recorded.3 was demanding money for construction of house; her husband was also demanding money and she was receiving phone calls ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 7 apeal489.08.odt from her daughter Rekha that the accused are ill-treating her.She also stated that accused no.4 (sister -in -law) has demanded the sum of Rs. One lac during the same night for construction of the house.She had lodged a complaint (Ex.27).Her evidence indicated that Rekha was brought up in Nagpur and took education in Nagpur.The incident occurred at about 2 a.m. to 3 a. m. The F.I.R. was registered by the Police Station at about 18.15 hrs.The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this Section when such harassment is caused to coerce her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and continuing misbehavior with her on account of the failure by her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demand.Greedy Husband and vicious in-laws with insatiable urge for dowry may have ways and means to obtain easy pecuniary advantage for themselves by coercing a married woman on some or other pretext to raise the demand from her parents/close relatives and if demand is not satisfied, to behave in callous, heartless manner with her so as to drive her to commit suicide or endanger her life, both mentally and/or physically.The appellants (Original Accused nos. 1, 3 and 4) were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 3 apeal489.08.odt simple imprisonment for 10 days.Appellants nos. 2 and 3 herein were also convicted in addition under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.Appellant no. 2 herein was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 5000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months; while for the same offence, Appellant no. 3 herein was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 1000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 10 days.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::The mother of the deceased, who went to Chamorshi, lodged the complaint.The offence was registered as Crime no.27 of 2004 at Police Station, Chamorshi.The documents of loan were collected.Clothes of the deceased were also seized.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Upon completion of the investigation, the accused were charge sheeted.The accused defended the prosecution case on the ground that the deceased was born and brought up in Nagpur city and she was frustrated because she had to marry Prashant against her wish and was required to stay at a small place like Chamorshi.The accused denied the charge.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Mr.I.S.Charlewar, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case in the trial Court was not proved beyond reasonable doubts as, according to him, the impugned conviction was based upon the documents (Ex.36) seized by the police from the Bank of India, Yenapur branch -which were - the record of Home loan application, permission granted to Shalutai Laxman Padmagiriwar by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Chamorshi, Solvency Certificate issued by the Talathi, guarantee in the form of revenue extract of land Gat no.1130/1 at Chamorshi etc.. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the said documents by themselves were not sufficient to base the conviction of the appellants for serious accusations as there were no independent witnesses to sustain the Charge.According to the learned Advocate, the interested statements of witnesses from Nagpur should not have been relied upon to base the conviction in respect of the incident of suicide occurred at Chamorshi.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Ms R.A.Deshpande, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences being committed by the appellants.The learned A.P.P. argued that the trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the offences charged against them.I have perused the record.The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its case.Kripashankar Shivnarayan Mishra (PW-1) deposed about the Spot Panchanama as well as the Inquest Panchanama (Exhs. 20 and 21), which were not disputed.Dr. Milind Ramteke (PW-2) gave evidence about post mortem report (Ex.25) to mention that deceased Rekha died due to cardio-respiratory arrest.This evidence was also not disputed.The defence disputed the evidence of first informant Shobhabai Gainewar (Mother of Rekha) (PW-3) who stated that accused no.Neighbour of the accused had phoned at 2 a.m. during the same night.Shobhabai (PW-3) when confronted in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::examination about the Sumo Vehicle, she replied that the Vehicle had become functionless, but it was not so stated to the police.Narayan Gainewar (Father of the deceased) (PW-4) stated in the evidence that, in the year 2003, when his daughter came, she had told him that the accused are ill-treating and harassing her to fulfill the demand of Rs One lac.According to witness Varsha, she had received phone call from Rajani (sister-in-law of Rekha) asking for any elderly person in the house.When Varsha told her that she will call her mother-in-law (Rekha's Mother), Rajani told her that Rs.One lac should be sent immediately.At that time, there was ongoing quarrel heard between the mother-in-law of Rekha and Rekha.Then Varsha called her mother-in -law (Rekha's Mother), who had made a phone call at Rekha's house.Rajani had received the call with whom mother-in -law had a talk.The mother-in-law requested for to give phone to Rekha, but Rajani did not give the phone to Rekha.The mother-in-law was also told to send the amount of Rs. One lac.When the mother-in law asked Rajani to give phone to her mother, she had not given phone to her mother and disconnected the phone call.During the same night, a phone call was received from the neighbor of the accused that Rekha died in the house as a result of hanging.Thus, Varsha deposed that the accused were ill-treating Rekha to bring money from her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 9 apeal489.08.odt father and therefore, she committed suicide.In her cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::examination, it is brought on record that all the accused had attended the 'Barsa' (Naming) Ceremony of her son at Nagpur and Rekha and her husband had come to Nagpur on 03/12/2003 to attend one marriage and had stayed for five to six days.She also flatly denied the suggestions put to her about the phone call and talks which she had with sister-in-law of Rekha.examination remained fruitlessly futile as the evidence of Varsha remained unshaken.Malati Thakre (PW-5) and Vachchalla (PW-6) (Neighbourers of Shobhabai (PW-3) although were declared hostile to the prosecution case, they did corroborate what Varsha deposed.According to Malati (PW5), at the night of the incident when Rekha died, till about 8 p. m., Shobha (PW-3) was sitting at her house and Varsha (PW-9) had come in her house to call her and then Shobhatai (PW3) left.After receiving the phone call, Shobhatai returned to her house and told her that she received phone call from mother-in-law of Rekha making demand of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 10 apeal489.08.odt money.The witness also clarified further when cross-examined that there was demand of Rs One lac for construction of house and Shobhatai had told her about the quarrel heard on phone on the night of the incident between Rekha and her mother-in-law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Vachchala (PW-6) deposed that 2/3 months prior to the death of Rekha, Rekha had visited her house and told her about the ill-treatment and harassment given by her in-laws and demand of Rs One lac from her husband for construction of house.examination of the witnesses on behalf of the defence was unproductive and nothing was elicited which could damage the prosecution version.After dealing with the facts in the matter, now let us consider the legal position.It was introduced in the Code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983).In some of the cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminates in suicide or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitutes only a small fraction involving such cruelty.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::13 apeal489.08.odt Therefore, it was proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C') and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with the cases of dowry deaths, but also the cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, the in-laws and the relatives.Anyone who aids, instigates or abets it, is punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Bhimrao Bharne ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 15 apeal489.08.odt and Ors.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::There is no doubt that; the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual and it also depends on the social and economic status to which the parties belong.It is also true that cruelty may not be physical and even mental torture and abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty, in the instant case, the father of deceased has spoken of complaint; of beating by Sunita.However, as observed above, his evidence is found to be exaggerating and contradictory to the seizure memo.PW 5 Baby speaks bare minimum on the point of alleged cruelty.Moreover, she is a married sister of deceased Sunita and is not expected to possess knowledge in respect of alleged harassment to Sunita.On the point of cruelty, evidence of PW 6 Vimal can also not be accepted.In answer to a question, she has deposed in cross-examination that Sunita had gone to Ghatanji prior to 2-3 days of the incident.However, according to PW 4 Narayan, father of the deceased, the incident occurred on the day on which Sunita returned from Ghatanji place of her husband.Thus, in absence of direct oral or documentary evidence, the prosecution case cannot be accepted on the basis of hear-say evidence."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Shri Charlewar then made a reference to the ruling in Kailash Baburao Pandit and Ors.vs. The State of Maharashtra ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 17 apeal489.08.odt and Anr., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2462 wherein, in paras 33 and 34, it is observed thus-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::In the case of State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418), the Apex Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: 18 apeal489.08.odt should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record, it will have to be said that both the appellants subjected the deceased - Mangala to matrimonial cruelty during the period of her consortium with the husband.The willful conduct of the appellants was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit the suicide.In the present case, the witnesses have corroborated each other.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::It is in the evidence that - Appellant no.3 Rajani had called Varsha (PW-9) on phone for to get elderly person - her mother-in-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::21 apeal489.08.odt law (mother of Rekha) for to immediately comply with the unlawful demand of Rs One lac, while appellant no.2 was heard on phone, engaged in quarrel with Rekha on that fateful night.The appellants by their conduct created such a situation just prior to the death of unfortunate Rekha which drove her to end her life by hanging herself.The appellants further by their wilful omission did nothing needful for to save life of Rekha.Even after Rekha's death, her dead body had to be brought to her parent's home at Nagpur for cremating it.Thus, the appellants herein committed the offence of cruelty which constrained deceased Rekha to end her own life.Learned trial Judge has ably appreciated the evidence to answer the points for determination and also to impose separate punishments against the appellants using judicial discretion.The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 :::Learned A.P.P. opposes the request.Since the Appellants want to challenge the present Judgment and Order before the Apex Court, the operative portion of the Judgment shall remain suspended for a period of six weeks from today.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:59:15 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,937,862 | Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.Heard N.S.Chahar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri D.K.Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Bail Application No.4058 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.26 of 2019 under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that through 156(3) Cr.P.C. application the FIR was got registered by one Nahar Singh.This FIR was came into existence after almost three months from the date of incident.The applicants is not named in the FIR.Name of the applicants figure up in the confessional statement of the accused Kapil, who in his statement have stated that the applicants and other co-accused hatched the conspiracy for eliminating the deceased.There is no other evidence for implicating the applicant in committing the offence.Besides this there is recovery of small piece of "Danda" at the joint pointing out of Prashant, Manish and Rohit from the barren WELL.Except this there is no direct evidence implicating the applicant in commission of the offence.It is contended by the counsel that the entire prosecution story hinges the broken links of the circumstantial evidence and on the confession statement of the co-accused.There is no ocular testimony in this case showing the complicity of the applicants in commission of the offence.The applicants are languishing in jail since 09.06.2019 having no criminal antecedent to their credit.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicants-Rohit Solanki @ Param and Manish Solanki be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 05.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Abhishek Sri. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,939,377 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Though the prosecutrix is shown to be 7 years of age but, no external or internal injury was found on her person to confirm her allegations.FIR was lodged with delay of two days.It appears that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter due to previous enmity.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 26.6.2014, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.It is directed that the present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits