id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
121,943,498 | This is a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 03.07.2010, passed by Sh.Girish Kathpalia, learned Additional Sessions Judge, cancelling the bail of the petitioner, granted by the learned Magistrate in respect of FIR Nos.02/2007 and 53/2009 of P.S. Gulabi Bagh, registered under sections 420/468/471 IPC.Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that FIR No.02/2007 was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by his mother Shanti Devi Bansal, alleging that the petitioner has fabricated seals/stamps of Notary public and fraudulently induced Crl.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 1 of 12 her to sign some documents with a view to transfer one half share in property No.29, Rama Park, Delhi, constructed on a piece of land measuring 217.5 sq. yards, which was bequeathed to her by her husband.As a consequence of this, it was shown by the petitioner, to have purchased the said share of her mother.Accordingly, a case under Sections 420 for cheating, 468 for forging documents and 471 IPC, for using fabricated document as genuine, was registered against the present petitioner.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 1 of 12Similar offence was registered vide case FIR No.53/2009 on the basis of a complaint made by one Mr.R.K. Khatri (recorded as DK at various places), Advocate and Notary public that it was his stamps/seals and signatures, which were used by the present petitioner for the purpose of transacting the property, which belonged to his mother in respect of which earlier FIR was registered.The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application not only in the Court of Sessions but also in the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court, which was rejected on 10.12.2009, 31.12.2009 and 29.01.2010 respectively.Since the petitioner was neither arrested nor surrendered, the investigating agency initiated proceedings under section 82 Cr.PC.The present petitioner, left with no option, surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 02.02.2010 and thereafter applied for regular bail before the learned Magistrate.The said bail application was dismissed on Crl.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 2 of 12On 10.03.2010, the petitioner applied to the learned Magistrate for grant of bail in respect of FIR No.53/2009 and he was enlarged on bail.Similar bail order was passed by the learned Magistrate in respect of the other FIR bearing No.02/2007 on 15.03.2010 on the ground that the documents, on the basis of which allegations of cheating were made in both the cases, were the same.It is these bail orders in respect of which three cancellation applications were filed; one by the State and other two by the complainants in the two respective FIRs.The ground for cancellation of bail, which has been adverted to by the learned Sessions Judge is that there was an arbitrary and improper exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate in granting bail to the present petitioner Crl.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 3 of 12 in both these cases.The learned Sessions Judge had also observed the factors, which were factually not correct, were taken into consideration while enlarging the petitioner on bail.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 3 of 12To elucidate this, the order of grant of bail passed by the learned Magistrate, notes that the investigations of the case are complete, while as it has been observed that at the time when the bail orders in respect of two cases were passed, the investigations were not complete and the charge sheets were obviously not filed before the competent Court.The learned Sessions Judge after referring to various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration, while cancelling the bail order, has observed that the bail in the instant case has been granted to the petitioner on considerations, which are arbitrary, bereft of factual support and without due regard to the orders, rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner earlier by the superior Courts.It is this order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which has been assailed by the present petitioner before this Court, in the present revision petition.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State including the counsel for the complainants.I have also gone through the record.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that once the bail is granted to the Crl.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 4 of 12 present petitioner and he has not misused his liberty so as to endanger the holding of a fair investigation or trial then his bail ought not to have been cancelled.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 4 of 12It was contended that the learned Magistrate had mistakenly stated that the petitioner remained in custody for 60 days while as the petitioner had remained in custody for 38 days only including four days of police remand, during which nothing was recovered.Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate.The learned counsel for the petitioner has copiously referred various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as of the Delhi High Court in the petition, regarding the question of cancellation of bail and circumstances in which such a power ought to be invoked by the superior Court although, no such judgment or a copy thereof has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner but I have gone through the said judgments referred to including the judgments referred by the learned APP and the counsel for the complainant.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 5 of 12Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 5 of 12The counsel for the complainants, on the other hand, has contended that the order, which is impugned by the present petitioner regarding cancellation of his bail is not a routine case, where the bail is sought to be cancelled on the ground that there is misuse of liberty by the petitioner but the order is being assailed by the respondents on the ground that the bail was granted in an arbitrary manner without reference to the fact that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected not only by the learned Magistrate but also by the Sessions Court and, therefore, on the ground of judicial propriety, the learned Magistrate ought not to have released the present petitioner on bail without reference to the orders of the superior Court or at least by showing a proper application of mind.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.I have also gone through the impugned judgment.The present petition has been admittedly filed by the petitioner as a revision petition.An order granting bail is an interlocutory order (Refer to Amar Nath Vs.This is on account of the fact that the learned Magistrate has shown great haste in passing the orders regarding grant of bail firstly on 10.03.2010, without taking note of the fact that on 09.03.2010 the petitioner's application for bail had come up before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed as withdrawn earlier.An application is dismissed as withdrawn only when a party finds that its submissions are not bringing the desired result as prayed for, by him.Meaning thereby, as the Sessions Judge was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the said bail application.Rev. No. 350/2010 Page 10 of 12Expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case to have an impact on any bail application filed by the petitioner on a later date. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,219,452 | S.C. Maheshwari, Y.C. Maheshwari, Miss Sandhya Goswamiand P.K. Chakraborty for the Appellants.Prithvi Raj, Prashant Chaudhary and Dalveer Bhandarifor the Respondent.PWs 1 and 5 are the brother and wife respectively ofone Bali 688(the deceased herein).PW-1 and the deceased Bali had acommon 'Chak'.The appellants belonged to a village namedKaulbhandora, which is at a distance of about four furlongsfrom the Chak, situated just adjacent to the road and'Rajbaha'.The appellants used to take the 'Rajbaha' Patriin auction for grazing their cattle.It seems that therewas strained relationship between the appellants and thedeceased for a considerable length of time.According tothe prosecution the cattle belonging to the appellants, whenallowed to enter the 'Patri' (grazing field) used to strayinto the field of Bali and cause damage to the standingcrops.From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1989 of theAllahabad High Court in Crl.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The appellants in criminalappeal No. 251 of 1990 were accused Nos. 3 and 4 before thetrial court, namely, the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge,Meerut, whereas the appellants in criminal appeal No. 307 of1990 were accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the said court.Thesefour appellants along with one Braham Singh (sinceacquitted) took their trial for offences under Sections 302read with section 149 IPC and 323 read with section 149 IPC.Besides, these four appellants were also charged for offenceunder section 147 IPC whilst Braham Singh under section 148IPC.The trial court, on appreciation of the evidenceadduced by the prosecution, found the 5th accused, BrahamSingh, not guilty of any charges and acquitted him.However, these four appellants were found guilty of offencesunder section 302 read with section 34 IPC and under section323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life and to six months' rigorousimprisonment respectively.The High Court on appealpreferred by all the appellants, for the reasons mentionedin its judgment, held that the prosecution has not made outa case punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPCbut only under section 304, Part II, IPC read with section34 and consequently set aside the conviction and thesentence imposed for the offence under section 302 read withsection 34 IPC and instead convicted them under section 304Part II, read with section 34 IPC and sentenced each of themto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.The conviction of all the appellants under section 323 readwith 149 IPC was altered into one under section 323 readwith 34 IPC and the sentence of six months' rigorousimprisonment was retained.The facts of the case which havegiven rise to the present appeals as unfolded by theevidence, can be briefly stated thus:Although Bali made a protest, it did not yield anyresult.On account of this, there was simmering feelingbetween the parties.Added to that, there were certaincriminal prosecutions between the parties, pending for overa period of two years.On 23.12.1976 at about 1 p.m. when Bali along with PWs-1 and 5 was in his field, these appellants each armed with aLathi along with Braham Singh armed with a 'Ballam' camethere.On the exhortation of Chandroo, all other appellantsand Braham Singh attacked Bali with their respective weaponsand caused injuries to him.While PW-3 tried to save herhusband, she too was injured.When PW-1 along with PWs 3and 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence, the assailants tookto their heels.Injured Bali was removed to the Hastinapurhospital for treatment.PW-6, the medical officer attachedto the said hospital examined Bali and found on his personas many as fifteen injuries of which injury No. 15 was astab wound and most of the other injuries were contusions.PW-6 prepared a medical report, Exhibit Ka-6 and on the sameday he examined PW-5 and found on her person 2 contusions inrespect of which he prepared the injury report (Ex. Ka-7).However, Bali succumbed to his injuries on the same day atabout 7.45 p.m. PW-1 lodged a written report (Ex. Ka-1) atabout 8 p.m. before PW-2 a Head Constable attached to theHastinapur Police Station.PW-2 prepared Exhibit Ka-2 onthe basis of Ex. Ka-1 and made G.O. entry i.e. Ex. Ka.-3.PW-9, the then sub-Inspector of Police attached to thePolice Station took up the investigation and examined PW-1and others.He held the inquest over the dead body of thedeceased and prepared Ex. Ka-11, PW-5 could not make anystatement as she was unconscious.The PW-9 inspected thespot and prepared a site plan Ex. Ka.-14 and seized certainmaterial objects including a piece of wood and blood stainearth.PW-7, yet another Medical Officer, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Bali on24.12.1976 and found a number of injuries, as noted in hispost mortem report 689Ex.According to PW-7, the death was due to shock andhaemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by thedeceased.PW-9, after completing the investigation, laidthe chargesheet against all the five accused.Though theappellants admitted the earlier criminal prosecutionsbetween the parties, totally denied their complicity withthe offence of murder.The trial court, however, foundaccused Nos. 1 to 4 (all the appellants herein) alone guiltyof the offence, convicted and sentenced them asaforementioned and acquitted the 5th accused Braham Singh.According to the learned counsel, the prosecution hasshifted the scene of occurrence, changed the time ofoccurrence, unduly delayed the registration of the case andput forth a false explanation for its tardiness both in thematter of registration and investigation of the case; thatPW-9; the investigating officer, has deliberately feignedignorance of the receipt of Ex. Kha-1 in order to shield hisindolence and failure in immediately and promptly taking upthe investigation; that PW-1 and 4 in order to ventilatetheir grievance which they were bearing against theappellant's party on account of the previous 690animosity and simmering feelings that existed between themand to settle their personal scores; that the credibility ofthese two witnesses is impaired and their testimony issuccessfully impeached.The learned defence counsel furtherstates that a thorough and strict scrutiny of the evidencefurnished by PWs-1, 3 and 4 shows that the entireprosecution story in concocted, fanciful and incredible and,as such, it deserves to be rejected with scorn and that boththe courts below have completely pretermitted all thepitfalls in the prosecution and have summarily disposed ofthe case without subjecting the evidence under the usualtest of scrutiny.See also State of U.P. v. Hamik Singh & Ors., [1990] 3SCC 55 and State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh & ORs., [1989] Supp.1 SCC 288 to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was aparty.Bearing the above proposition of law, we shall nowexamine the evidence and see whether the concurrent findingsof fact call for an interference.With regard to the place of occurrence, learned counseldrew our attention to the first information report and tothe evidence of the witnesses including that of PW-9, andpointed out that the prosecution had changed the scene ofoccurrence.In the first information report under column'place of occurrence', it is mentioned as 'Jungle Village,Ganeshpur'.PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted thatthe 'Chak' in which the murder took place is situated in thejungle of village Bhandora and not in the jungle of villageGaneshpur.A suggestion, though denied, has also been madeby the defence to PW-1 that 692they have changed the place of occurrence from Ganeshpur toBhandora.PW-2 who was then the Head Constable attached toHastinapur Police Station, states that on submission of Ex.Ka-1 by PW-1 he prepared a chik report Ex. Ka-2 and that hementioned the place of occurrence as jungle of villageGaneshpur only on the basis of the written report.It is the evidence of PW-9 that he reached villageBhandora and did spot inspection thereby admitting that theplace of occurrence was village Bhandora and not Ganeshpur.a scrutiny of Ex. KA-1 shows that PW-1 did not give thespecific place of occurrence in that earliest document.Itappears from the evidence of PWs 1 and 9 as well as theentry under column No. 2 of the First Information Reportthat the prosecution was probing in darkness even in respectof the place of occurrence.According to the prosecution, theoccurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m. on 23.12.1976.Immediately, after the occurrence, the injured Bali & PW-5were brought to the hospital which is at a distance of threemiles from the scene of occurrence.Ex. Kha-1 was preparedby the Medical Officer i.e. PW-6 on examing Bali.This document Ex. Ka-7 reveals thatPW-5 was examined at about 3.30 p.m. Therefore, the injuredBali could have been examined by PW-6 earlier to 3.30 p.m.It may be mentioned here what PW-1 has stated that theyreached the hospital approx, between 2 and 3 p.m. Themedical officer has opined that the injuries found on theinjured could have been caused within six hours.When aspecific question had been addressed to this medical officer(PW-6) as to whether the injuries could have been caused atabout 5/6 a.m. he would say: "It could have been caused at8'O clock".We are not rejecting the case of theprosecution on this admission of the medical officer statingthat the probable time of the causation of the injuriescould be 8 a.m. But the question would be, even admittingthat the occurrence took place at about 1 p.m., whether theprosecution convincingly and satisfactorily established theguilt of the appellants by leading cogent and reliableevidence.The next important point for determination is whetherthe case has been promptly registered and the investigationproceeded without causing undue delay thereby giving no roomenabling the prosecution party to deliberately concoct acase against these four appellants.It transpires from theevidence of PW-6 that he sent the information under Ex. Kha-1 to the Police Station through his peon intimating the factof Bali having been bought to the hospital with a number ofbleeding injuries in a very serious condition and also ofPW-5 having been admitted in the hospital for treatment ofthe injuries sustained by her and the said document Ex. Kha-1 was sent by 4.30 p.m. on 23.12.1976 itself and thehospital's peon had brought the Receipt evidencing thehanding over of the intimation to the police.According to PW-2,after registration of the case, a death memo was received atthe Police Station at about 8.15 p.m. saying that Bali hadexpired in the hospital at about 7.40 p.m. According to PW-1, the distance between the hospitaland the police station is about 1 or 2 furlongs and that thepolice station is not situated near the hospital.Nonetheless PW-1 would admit when confronted further thatthe distance between the gates of the hospital and thepolice station would be about 50 steps.Be that as it may,the fact ramains that both the hospital and the policestation are situated within a very short distance.Admittedly, neither PW-1 nor any of PWs-3 and 4 went to thepolice station to inform about the occurrence though theyreached the hospital even by 2 p.m. The only explanationgiven by PW-1 is that he was busy enquiring about thecondition of his brother.There wasnothing preventing either PW-1 or any of the other witnessesin going to the police station and informing the police, ifreally they were eye witnesses to the occurrence and were inthe hospital from 2 p.m. onwards, leaving apart PW-5 who wasundergoing treatment in the hospital.The delayedpreparation of Ex. Ka-1 by PW-1 at the hospital after sevenhours of the occurrence and that too after the death of hisbrother, leads to an indelible impression that PW-1 andother interested persons who were enimically disposedtowards the appellants should have prepared Ex. Ka-1 afterdue deliberation and consultation.The abortiveexplanation for not going to the police station for sixhours after reaching the hospital is unworthy of credence.The next and even more important point forconsideration is the much delayed investigation.Theconduct of PW-9 in not taking an immediate action even afterEx.Kha-1 was handed over at the police station by 4.30 p.m.or at any rate after receipt of Ka-1 and the deathintimation creates a suspicion in the veracity of theprosecution case.Though PW-2 admits that he received thedeath intimation by about 8.15 p.m., PW-9, the investigatingofficer, has feigned total ignorance about Ex. Kha-1 statingthus:"Before this F.I.R. no intimation was received at the police station about this occurrence that Bali was injured and admitted in the hospital and his condition was critical.It is wrong that any information was received at the Police Station before this F.I.R. which I am concealing.I do not know whether Ex. Kha-1 was received in the police station or not.During the investigation Ex. Kha-1 never came to my knowledge.This paper came to my knowledge during the investigation and I made a copy of this in the case Diary.I do not know whether this Letter was recorded in the General Diary or not.I have not recorded any statement of the H.M. relating to Ex. Kha-1."PW-2 states that the investigating officertook up the investigation at about 8 p.m. on 23.12.1976 andwent to the hospital and returned to the police stationonly on the next day i.e. 24.12.1976 at 9.50 p.m. PW-9 haslodged in his presence by PW-1 and that he immediately tookup the investigation during the course of which he examinedPW-1 and then come to the hospital where he examined themedical officer Dr. B.D. Goel (PW-6) and saw the dead bodylying in the male ward.He continues to state that as PW-5was in an unconscious condition, he could not examine herand as the light went off, he could not prepare even thePanchnama.PW-4 also states that the investigating officercame to the hospital only in the next morning.PW-6, themedical officer, does not speak of the Sub-Inspector havingcame to the hospital on the night of occurrence and hasstated that he did not remember of the Sub-Inspector or anyconstable reaching the hospital after receipt of the deathintimation or any one examining him on that date.The saidpieces of evidence, namely, the total unawareness of PW-9about the existence of Ex. Kha-1 as well as the entry in thegeneral diary made thereon and the diametricallycontradictory evidence of PW-9 on the one hand and that ofPWs-1,4 and 6 on the other, clearly indicate that either PW-9 did not have any knowledge about the incident till thenext morning or even if he had such knowledge, hedeliberately delayed the investigation; and his presentversion is nothing but a deliberate perjury and as such hisevidence has to be thrown overboard as unworthy of credence.In the cross-examination, it is admitted by PW-9 thathe did not write the names of the appellants/accused in thePanchnama and that he did not try to know the kinds ofweapons that had been used by the assailants.On the basisof this admission a suggestion had been addressed to himthat the FIR relating to this incident, was prepared andlodged only after preparation of the Panchnama therebyindicating that the FIR was anti-dated.We shall now scan the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4examine whether their evidence could be accepted and actedupon.Admittedly, there was deep rooted animosity betweenthe prosecution party and the appellants over a period ofsome years and they have developed bad blood.It is theevidence of PW-1 that there were a number of criminal casesagainst deceased Bali along with one Birbal Kishore and Omiwho were persons of notorious character in that village.Besides, there were some more cases and counter casesbetween the parties.A suggestion has been addressed to PW-1 that his brother Bali was having close connection with oneRamanand who was a known decoit belonging to their villagebut PW-1 has denied the relationship of Bali with Ramanand.PW-4 admits that there was a dispute between Bali and theappellants in which Bali had beaten them and in that case hewas a co-accused along with PW-1 and deceased Bali.PW-3who has been treated as a hostile witness since he did notimplicate all the appellants by their names except Chandroohas admitted that there was a case against Bali and BirbalKishore in which he was a witness on the side of Bali andthat there was a double murder case in which he (PW-3) wasan accused and convicted.In that murder case one Roop 696Ram, cousin of appellant Chndroo was a witness on theprosecution side.Thus it comes out of the evidence ofthese witnesses that all was not well between the partiesand each one was having grudge against the other.As pointed out by Mr. Maheshwari, learned counselappearing for the appellants, the conduct of PW-1 belies hispresence at the sence of occurrence as he did not intervenewhen his brother (deceased) and sister-in-law (PW-5) wereattacked by the appellants and another and if PW-1 hadreally been at the scene, he having been a co-accused alongwith his brother in previous case, would not have beenstanding as a mute spectator without taking any part in theoccurrence in which case he would also have receivedinjuries.In Ex. Ka-1 he has mentioned PWs-3 and 4 as eyewitnesses who were enemically disposed of towards theappellants and who were interested in the prosecution.Asseen from the evidence of these three witnesses, they allbelong to one group either having been co-accused in onecase or other along with Bali or taking up the cause of Baliwhen the latter was involved in other criminal cases.Infact, one sentence in Ex. Ka-1 would indicate that PWs-1, 3and 4 were not at the scene at the time of occurrence butcame to the spot later on.The relevant version in Ex. Ka-1 reads: "On alarm, I and my uncle Chotte Lal and ShivCharan of the village reached the spot and saved them" Ofcourse, he at the next breath would claim to have witnessedthe occurrence.According to PW-1, his deceased brotherand PW-5 were harvesting sugarcane in the field at the timeof occurrence.But PW-9 has deposed that at the time ofspot inspection he did not find any Bugi, Dokra, Phawara,Dranti or harvested sugarcane.This contradictory evidencewhen taken along with our finding with regard to thefixation of the scene of occurrence goes to show that PW-1could not have been present at the scene of occurrence andonly after a deliberation he has posed himself as one of theeye-witnesses and projected PWs 3 and 4 as other eyewitnesses along with him.PW-4 during the course of cross-examination has admitted that except himself, PWs 1 & 5,none reached the scene and people came to the scene ofoccurrence later on.After reaching the hospital along withinjured, PW 4 states that all of them remained in thehospital near the dead body and that he went to the policestation in the morning of the next day at about 7.00 a.m. Aswe have pointed out earlier, PW 3 has not implicated all theappellants except Chandroo by name and as such, he has beentreated 697as a hostile witness.PW 3 is none other than the uncle ofPW 1 and the deceased, therefore, in view of the inherentinfirmities adversely affecting the testimony of these eyewitnesses, it would not be safe to convict the appellants onthe scanty evidence.The author of the earliest documentEx.Ka-1, namely, PW-1 seems to be a man of dubiouscharacter and his evidence is completely tarnished.The presence of PW-2 at the scene isfortified by the injuries found on her person.She states that she wasunconscious for 2 days and that it was she who told PWs 1and 4 as to who were the assailants.Immediately in thenext breath, PW 5 comes forward to say that on the next dayshe told all the facts to the investigating officer andagain became unconscious after coming to know the death ofher husband.To a Court question, she gives a prevaricatinganswer that she was conscious for some time and then becameunconscious.Though at one time, she testifies that she wasbeaten with sticks, she suddenly changes her evidence givinga contradictory version that she did not know whether shewas beaten or not.Though all the witnesses in a parrot-like manner deposed that these 4 appellant along with BrahamSingh armed with ballam attacked the deceased, theirevidence when subjected to strict examination becomesunworthy of credence.The Trial Court on entertaining agrave doubt about the participation of Braham Singh with aballam, acquitted him despite the fact that PW 6 has noted astab wound on the inner side of left thigh measuring 2 x 1 x1.5 cms which injury in the opinion of the medical officercould have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like'ballam!.The acquittal of Braham Singh was not challengedby the prosecution before the High Court, and therefore, weare not called upon to discuss on this aspect of the case. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,945,653 | 19-11-14 40/skp (Allowed in part) C.R.M. No. 10040 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th August, 2014 in connection with Domjur P.S. Case No. 410 of 2014 dated 2.04.2014 under Sections 448/326A/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Chabi Bag & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Sukanta Banerjee ... for the petitioners.Mr. Arup Mondal ... for the State.We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the learned Advocate for the State and we have perused the materials available in the case diary.Considering the materials available in the case diary particularly the F.I.R. and the injury report, we are of the view that the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner no. 3 should be rejected.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner no. 3, namely, Srikanta Majhi, is rejected.The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is allowed.P.C. shall apply.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
121,946,409 | This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.123/14 registered at P.S. Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506- B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)As per prosecution case, the complainant and his son were going to the agricultural field.On the way, Ranveer, Balveer, Badam and Sanman armed with Lathi, Lohangi met and on account of old enmity started abusing the complainant and his son.When the complainant objected, Ranveer gave a Lohangi blow which landed near left eye, Badam gave a Lohangi blow on the right legand Balveer and Sanman gave Lathi blow to the complainant.The accused persons also gave beating to Shishupal.When Roop Singh, Pratipal Singh, Khalak Singh and Sanjay Singh came to save them, they were also beaten by the accused persons by Lathi, Lohangi.On the 2 M.Cr.C. No.42 4 2 / 2 0 1 4 report, Crime No.123/14 under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 506- B/34 of IPC has been registered.The co- accused, Ranveer Singh and Balveer Singh have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.05.2014 in M.Cr.C.No.3586/2014 by this Hon'ble Court.On the ground of parity, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.3 M.Cr. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
34,022,242 | Case diary is available.sh This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.e ad The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No.412/2017 registered by Police Station Dehat, District Pr Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC.a It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that on hy the complaint of the applicant the son of the complainant and ad his relatives are facing trial for offence under Section 302 of IPC.It is submitted that it appears that after the offence M under Section 302 of IPC was registered the complainant of party left the house.It is alleged that when they came back, they found that one Bolero Jeep, T.V., Fridge, and RO rt installed in the house were stolen.It is submitted that the ou applicant has been falsely implicated in order to put pressure C not to depose against the son of the complainant and his family members in a trial which is going on under Section h ig 302 of IPC.The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate H with the Investigating Officer and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.ad Certified copy as per rules.Pr(G.S. AHLUWALIA) a V. JUDGE hy Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR ad Date: 2018.05.25 17:43:49 +05'30' M (alok) of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
34,215,353 | the similar plea of apprehension of assault at Alipore but the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to entertain such plea taken by the respondent and allowed the 4 transfer petition filed by the petitioner.The principle laid down in Soma Choudury (Supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case.It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party lodged a false complaint against the father and brother of the petitioner which adds further insult to her.This should be treated as an additional ground for favouring the petitioner with an order allowing the prayer for transfer of matrimonial suit.The position is well settled that in a proceeding under Section 24 of the C.P.C. arising out of a matrimonial suit for transfer of the suit from one Court to another, convenience of the wife is prime consideration of the Court.However, only inconvenience pleaded by the petitioner apart from other relevant facts and circumstances is not enough to consider a transfer petition in favour of the petitioner.In the instant case, the petitioner has pleaded inconvenience to attend the 6th Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore from Purba Burdwan on the ground that she alone cannot travel a distance of about 107 K.Ms.from Burdwan to Alipore.Secondly, father of the petitioner is ill and thirdly, she has filed other proceedings under Indian Penal Code and P.W.D.V. Act against the opposite party at Burdwan.Jurisdiction of Alipore Court to try Matrimonial Suit No. 2627 of 2018 is not disputed.The opposite party is apprehensive that he may be harassed and even physically assaulted by the father and brother and other associates of the petitioner if he is compelled to attend Burdwan Court to contest the suit, because it is alleged by the opposite party that he was previously assaulted by them and also on one occasion his driver was wrongfully confined by the family members of the petitioner at Burdwan.In the said reported decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to transfer a matrimonial suit from Tripura to Alipore in West Bengal taking into consideration that if the matrimonial suit is allowed to be proceeded with in Tripura, the petitioner would have to travel a distance of about 1800 K.Ms.Apprehension of the husband/opposite party that he might be assaulted in West Bengal by the petitioner and her family members was taken care of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving him the liberty to seek for police help.In the instant case except solitary plea of inconvenience, the petitioner has not raised any ground in support of her prayer to transfer the matrimonial suit from Alipore to Burdwan.Admittedly, the distance of Burdwan and Alipore is 107 K.Ms.Therefore, I am of the considered view that no inconvenience will be caused to the petitioner if she is sufficiently compensated by the opposite party for her travel from Burdwan to Alipore and back.I am not unmindful also to note that conveyance by Rail and through Road between Burdwan and Kolkata is more than satisfactory and anybody can reach either by Rail or through Road within three hours.Therefore, the petitioner does not need to stay in Kolkata to contest the matrimonial suit.For the reasons stated above, the instant revision is dismissed on contest on condition that the opposite party shall bear the cost of conveyance and other incidental expenses of the petitioner and another person who will accompany her on the dates of hearing of the said matrimonial suit.Such conveyance cost and other incidental cost for two persons is assessed at Rs.1,000/- per day.The opposite party is directed to pay such amount of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner on each date of hearing of the suit when she will be present in Court towards her transportation and other incidental cost.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.(Bibek Chaudhury, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
34,225,513 | Item no. 17 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6158 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.2018 in connection with Ranaghat Women Police Station Case No. 34/18 dated 11.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/323/506/406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Rana Ghosh ... Petitioner Mr. Sumanta Das, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ranaghat Women Police Station Case No. 34/18 dated 11.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/323/506/406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the husband of the victim.The victim now resides at her paternal home with her young daughter.The State produces the case diary.Considering the material on record, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody at the moment.However, the petitioner should also pay a reasonable amount on account of maintenance to the wife and daughter.The order for anticipatory 2 bail will be subject to the petitioner paying Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month, being August 2018, by the last day of such month and the future payments in similar manner.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
34,230,172 | Heard on the bail application.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 20-06-2014 in connection with Crime No.267/2014 registered at Police Station Kumbhraj District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Section 376, 323 and 506-B of IPC.According to prosecution case, FIR has been lodged on 20-06-2014 for the incident which has occurred on 19-06-2014 with the prosecutrix having the age of 40 years.When her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Court she has deposed that present applicant has not committed any offence.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.Final disposal of trial shall take time, hence prayed for grant of bail.Prayer for bail was opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the ground that sufficient evidence is available against the 2 M.Cr.C.No.5654/2014 applicant, hence he does not deserve for any bail.2 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
342,366 | I have considered the various points raised on behalf of the applicant in support of this application.Obviously, after having once declined to claim a de novo trial, the applicant had no further right to claim it at a latter stage and the application moved on his behalf on 24th May 1949, was obviously misconceived.The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in rejecting it.The next point raised on behalf of the applicant is that the learned Magistrate was once seen shopping at Delhi during the course of the hearing of this case in the company of one Shri Krishna Gopal Rastogi, advocate, and that when he saw the applicant he made a remark to the said advocate that that was his 'accused.' It is further said that on the following morning, the learned Magistrate was again seen at Delhi accompanied, by a pairokar of the complainant.The learned Magistrate admits that he met Shri Krishna Gopal Rastogi, at Delhi and had some talk with him although he denies that he said anything to him about the applicant.It appears that this lawyer was not appearing on behalf of the complainant at all, but was probably only under training with one of the lawyers who was appearing on behalf of the complainant.The allegation that on another date the learned Magistrate was seen in the company of a pairokar of the complainant at Delhi is very vague.It appears that in an earlier application made by the applicant before the District Magistrate of Meerut for the transfer of this very case, he has described that person as a friend of the complainant and had not mentioned the fact that he was his pairokar.In the affidavit that was filed on behalf of the applicant in support of that application before the District Magistrate he had particularly referred to the Magistrate having been seen in the company of the compalinant's 'vakils' but he made no mention of the fact that he had also been seen in the company of a friend or pairokar of the complainant.The next point raised on behalf of the applicant is that the learned Magistrate did not examine him after the prosecution witnesses had been further cross-examined on his behalf and thus ignored the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C. This may be so, but it cannot be a ground for the transfer of the case.Any irregularity committed by a Magistrate during the course of the trial of a case, need not lead to the inference that be will not try the case with impartiality.It is further pointed out that on two occasions the learned Magistrate issued warrants for the arrest of the applicant.The learned Magistrate explains that this was because Sub-section (8) of Section 526, Criminal P. C., did not apply inasmuch as the application was made after the defence had closed its case.He, however, told the applicant that although he would hear the arguments in the case, he would not pronounce judgment for about a fortnight to enable the applicant to move the High Court and to obtain a stay order. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
34,237,747 | 1 11.2018 7 l . & ss CRM No. 8742 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1st October, 2018 in connection with Dhantala Police Station Case No. 329 of 2018 dated September 18, 2018 under Sections 447/448/323/325/ 307/379/354-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,010 | SANTOSH HEGDE, J.The appellant and 12 others were chargesheeted beforethe learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, for various offences;principal offence amongst them being one punishable underSection 302 IPC for having caused the death of Hari Singh andBharpur Singh in an incident which took place on 4.6.1987 atabout 10 a.m. It is the prosecution case that in regard to certaindisputes the appellants' group and complainant PW-4, NazarSingh's group had in regard to the right to bid for certainShamlat land which was being auctioned on the relevant date,the appellant and other accused persons assaulted the group ofthe complainant, caused injuries to various persons, consequentto which the abovesaid two persons died due to the injuriessuffered in the said attack.The learned Sessions Judge as perhis judgment dated 22.12.1988 convicted 9 of those persons foroffences punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC, andsentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 8 years and to paya fine of Rs.1,000/- each.Being aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the appellants preferred criminal appeals before theHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, and the HighCourt as per its judgment dated 2.11.1995 upheld the convictionof the appellants imposed on them under Section 304, Part II,IPC but on taking into consideration various extenuatingfactors, reduced the said sentence from 8 years to 5 years' RI,maintaining the fine imposed by the Sessions Court.The othersentences imposed on the appellants under other minor chargeswere maintained and were made to run concurrently.Having perceived the difficulty in arguing for a clearacquittal, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for theappellants, in our view rightly, confined the two-fold argumentsto the nature of the offence and the quantum of sentence only.He contended that the courts below erred in coming tothe conclusion that the offence in question was one fallingunder Section 304, Part II, IPC, while if at all a conviction is tobe based, according to him, it could be only under Section 325IPC.Based on the material available on record, he pointed outthat though the appellants had carried sharp-edged and bluntweapons which could cause serious injuries, a perusal of theinjuries caused on the deceased would show that they were notused for the purpose of causing such injuries which in theirknowledge would cause death.In support of this contention, the learned counsel drew ourattention to the injuries found on the deceased and argued thatthese injuries were small in nature and were not deep enough soas to cause a knowledgeable death.He further contended thateven, according to the prosecution the appellants are supposedto have carried weapons like spears, daggers, gandasas, guptietc.and if, as a matter of fact, the appellants were to causeinjuries which in their knowledge would cause death then theinjuries on the deceased would have been more severe injuries.He also contended that since the attack in question wasspontaneous, without there being any personal or individualenmity with the deceased persons, the injuries at the mostcould be attributable to offences punishable under Section 325IPC.We have carefully examined the evidence adduced by theprosecution and also the arguments addressed on behalf of theparties.The learned Sessions Judge who considered theevidence on record, in our opinion, rightly came to theconclusion that the offence in question could not be one thatcould be brought under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC,but the one which would fall under Section 304, Part II, IPC.He found that at least one of the injuries caused on the deceasedwas severe enough to cause death in the ordinary course ofnature.Based on the evidence of the doctor, he held that anincised wound of 3 x x inches on the right side of thescalp just above the left ear which caused the fracture of leftparietal and left temporal bone extending to the frontal andoccipital region could never be treated as an injurycontemplated under Section 325 IPC, but should be held to beone that would cause death which knowledge the appellantmust have had.It is on an analysis of this evidence of the doctorpertaining to the injuries suffered by the two deceased persons,namely, Hari Singh and Bharpur Singh, the learned SessionsJudge came to the conclusion that these accused who have beenfound guilty of having caused those injuries could only beconvicted for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II,IPC.The High Court on re-appreciation of this evidence, hasagreed with the learned Sessions Judge, and we do not find anyinfirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court as well asthe High Court.In our opinion, it would be stretching thedefence case far beyond the limits if we were to conclude thatthe injuries caused on the two deceased persons which wereattributed to the appellants, could be anything other than theone falling under Section 304, Part II, IPC.In the said view ofthe matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findingsrecorded by the two courts below.It was next contended by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learnedcounsel, that the appellants are all aged persons and the incidentin question took place as far back as on 4.6.1987 and theyhaving served some part of the sentence, are entitled to a morehumane consideration, hence, the sentence of 5 years awardedby the High Court should be reduced. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,023,668 | Learned trial court has not properly considered the evidence and material available on record and committed grave error in acquitting the respondents.He further submits that the testimony of complainant Mannu Damor (PW-1) is corroborated by the the statements of Dinesh (PW-2), Ku.Aruna Singh (PW-3) and S.L. Chauhan, DSP (PW-5) but, the learned trial court has erred in disbelieving the statements of aforesaid witnesses.I have perused the record and the judgment passed by the learned trial court.On due consideration of the statements of complainant Mannu Damor (PW-1), the finding recorded in paragraphs No.23 and 33 of the impugned judgment, also considering the entire material and the evidence available on record, in my considered view no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out.For the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, I am of the view that learned trial court has not committed any illegality while acquitting the respondents/accused persons.No case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.Accordingly the petition stands dismissed for want of merits.Certified copy as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,031,674 | hy Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Dayaram @ Dayali Rajak in crime M no.461/2017 registered by P.S.-Baldeogarh, District-ou As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, who is a 14 C years 3 months old minor girl was kidnapped from the h lawful guardianship of her father and was taken to ig Indore, where she was kept in a rented house by main H accused Babu Rajak.Babu Rajak also raped her for a period of 9 months, as a result, she conceived.Thereafter, he gave her certain drugs to induce abortion.The role that has been ascribed to the petitioner is that he is the brother of the main accused Babu Rajak and he and his brother Shibbu used to keep a watch on the house and would not allow the prosecutrix to leave the same.They also used to threatened to kill her and beat her; as such, he actively participated in detention of the prosecutrix in aforesaid house.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sh petitioner is not main accused in the case.The role that has been ascribed to him is limited to helping the main e accused in detaining the prosecutrix in a rented house.Pr Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.a hy Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on ad the ground that the age of the prosecutrix is only 14 M years and 3 months and this is a serious offence.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as rt pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in ou the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.C Consequently, this first application for bail under Section h 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of ig the petitioner Dayaram @ Dayali Rajak, is allowed.H It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE esh ad vai VAISHALI AGRAWAL Pr a 2017.11.01 22:18:18 hy-07'00' ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,310,346 | Under an agreement, accused No. 1 took on lease of M/s. Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.The Central Excise duty on excisable goods manufactured is to be paid by the manufacturer and for that purpose he is required to maintain a stock book in form paying RG - 1, a personal ledger Account and maintain sufficient deposit for the purpose of paying excise duty on the goods intended to be removed.The manufacturer is also required to make payments of excise duty by making a debit entry in the personal ledger account and then remove the goods by issuing gate pass in form GP-I. The goods can be removed only by issuing gate pass which is to accompany excisable goods to their first destination.It is alleged that on 4-9-1986 the officers of the Central Excises intercepted two motor vehicles at Mahalaxmi Railway Station while they were carrying glass bottles containing aerated water of the brand names allotted under, Chapter No. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff.Two drivers gave their names and they were informed by the Excise Officers that those were excisable goods whereupon they produced two gate passes.By this Petition under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 in case No. 433/S of 1987 of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bombay, seek a direction quashing the process issued against them along with the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 12 upon a complaint lodged by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, for offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w.Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb), 9(1)(c) read with Section 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(i) and 9-AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as well as offences punishable under Sections 193 r/w. 192Respondent No. 1 - Assistant Collector of Central Excises filed a complaint alleging that he was authorised to file a complaint for offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act and that he was a public servant.The four gate passes showed payment of duty on the bottom valued at Rs. 7500/- and the debit entry No. 134 dated 4-9-1986 having been made in the personal ledger account.by fraudulently showing in the RG-1 and the gate passes that the entire duty on the goods removed had been paid.The goods seized were handed over to accused No. 6 who was a Deputy General Manager of the M/s. Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. at Bombay under a bond. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,034,687 | On 05.12.2013, after receipt of DD No.57-B, PW-13 W/SI Rakhi along with L/Ct.Kamlesh went to House No.S-168, Dhabe Wali Gali, CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 1 of 12 C-3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi where SI Vikas Sahu and Ct.Raj Kumar met her.SI Vikas Sahu introduced the complainant Smt. Sushma to PW-13 SI Rakhi.In the meanwhile, Nazma Khan, who was an official from an NGO, had also arrived at the spot and counselled the complainant.The complainant got her statement recorded in which she stated that on the same day at about 9 PM she was getting mehendi inscribed on her hand in the lane in front of her house when suddenly her child victim "K" came running to her and informed her that the appellant had kissed her and child victim "I" and that the appellant was removing underpant of child victim "I".The complainant stated that on hearing this she along with child victim "K" rushed to the park where she saw that the appellant had removed child victim "I"s underpant down to her knees and was urinating in her presence.On seeing this, the complainant called the mother of child victim "I" through child victim "K" to the park where they apprehended the appellant and brought him to the lane in front of their house and called the police.The complainant further stated that the appellant started apologizing and she along with mother of child victim "I" thrashed the appellant several times after which the appellant managed to escape.Child victim "K" in her examination-in-chief testified that on the fateful day she was playing with child victim "I" outside her house when the appellant took both of them to the nearby park and started kissing them both on their cheeks.She further deposed that the appellant then took off child victim "I"s underpants after which she CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 6 of 12 (child victim "K") ran away from the park and informed her mother (PW-4) about the incident.She then correctly identified the appellant.In her cross-examination, she stated that it was night time and she was playing with child victim "I" when the appellant took them to the nearby park.Child victim "I" who appeared as PW-8 stated in her examination-in-chief that while she was playing with child victim "K" in the lane in front of child victim "K"s house, the appellant came there and took both of them away to the park.She stated that the appellant then took off her and child victim "K"s underpants and kissed them.She further stated that the appellant then urinated in front of them.She further stated that afterwards child victim "K" told her mother about the incident after which her mother came to the park and slapped the appellant twice and called the police.Child victim "I" then correctly identified the appellant.In her cross-examination she stated that it was night time and she knew the appellant as he was residing nearby her house, near the toffee shop.PW-4 deposed that on 05.12.2013 at about 9 PM she was getting henna applied to her hands on the occasion of marriage of her brother- in-law (Dewar) while both the child victims were playing in the lane in front of her house.After some time, her daughter i.e. child victim "K" came running to her and informed her that the appellant had taken her and child victim "I" to the park and had kissed her on the cheek CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 7 of 12 and removed child victim "I"s underpants.She called the mother of child victim "I" and they went to the said park and saw the appellant urinating while holding child victim "I"s hand.She deposed that PW-9 then slapped the appellant twice or thrice and called the police.Thereafter the appellant started to apologize and then fled away.She stated that the police came at the spot and made enquiries from her and other people who had gathered there.Nothing material which could affect the prosecution's case came from her cross-examination.CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 7 of 12PW-9 who is the mother of child victim "I" deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the fateful day at about 9:30 PM, she was cooking at home when child victim "K" who was also residing in their neighbourhood came to her and informed her that the appellant was kissing her daughter i.e. child victim "I" in the park.This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2015 in Sessions Case No.28/14 arising out of FIR no. 834/13 registered under Sections 376(2)(i)/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') whereby the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act').By order dated 8.10.2015, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The police arrived at the scene of crime after all this had happened.CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 1 of 12On the basis of this statement made by the mother of child victim "K", FIR no.834/13 was registered.Both child victims were medically CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 2 of 12 examined at the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and a site plan was prepared, the appellant was arrested on the next day of the incident and his disclosure statement was recorded.Statements of both the child victims were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code').CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 2 of 12The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant.The Trial Court convicted the appellant relying primarily on the testimony of both the child victims.The Trial Court found the testimony of both the child victims to be reliable and corroborating each other and that of the testimony of their respective mothers i.e. PW-4 Sushma (mother of child victim "K") and PW-9 Preeti (mother of child victim "I") who are also eye witnesses in the present case.Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and therefore needs to be set aside.He argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the present case which is clear from the call made by PW-12 Karamvir Singh to PW-1 Ct.Usha Rani informing that a boy aged about 18 years had been apprehended whereas the appellant was about 40 years of age.He further argued that the appellant was not arrested at the spot but was arrested on the next day of the alleged incident.He urged that no parent would allow her daughter to play in the streets at 9 PM during the winter when it gets very dark around 9 PM.He had further urged that the testimony of the child victims were not reliable as both the victims had been tutored by their family members CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 3 of 12 and Police officials.CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 3 of 12He had contended that without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments, the appellant deserves leniency as he had no previous criminal antecedents and has been in jail since the date of arrest and therefore his punishment should be converted to the period prescribed under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.Per contra, Learned APP for the State had argued that the judgment of the Trial Court was based on sound appreciation of evidence and law and therefore does not warrant interference.Learned APP had contended that the testimony of the child witnesses were completely reliable and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses.He argued that the testimony of the child victims proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on three grounds:-i. The testimony of both the child victims cannot be relied upon as they have been tutored by their family members and Police personnel.The appellant was falsely implicated in this case as PW-1 Ct.Usha Rani, who had received the phone call from the father of child victim "I" (PW-12), had testified in her examination-in-chief that PW-12 had informed her over CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 4 of 12 the phone that a male aged about 18 years had been caught as he was found molesting his daughter whereas the appellant at the time of the incident was aged about 40 years.CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 4 of 12Without prejudice to the above stated grounds, the appellant should be punished under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for the offence of Sexual Assault and not under Section 10 for Aggravated Sexual Assault as he had no previous criminal antecedent.Coming to the first issue which is whether the testimony of child witnesses are reliable at all? This question was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 where it was held as under:Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, contended that it is very risky to place reliance on the evidence of PW 1, he being a child witness.The evidence of a child witness is required to be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others may tell him or her as the child is an easy prey to tutoring.Wisdom requires that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on (State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [(2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 579 : JT (2000) 2 SC 107] ).She further deposed that on reaching the park, she saw her daughter's underpants removed till her knees.She deposed that she slapped the appellant and brought him into the 'gali' with the help of PW-4 and called the police.She deposed in her cross-examination that the appellant was apprehended within 30 minutes after police arrived at the spot.After going through the testimony of both the child victims i.e. PW-3 and PW-8 and the testimony of other eye witnesses (PW-4 and PW-9), it is found that they corroborate each other.It is established that the appellant took both the child victims aged 5 and 4 years from the 'gali' to the nearby park where he kissed child victim "K" on her right cheek and removed child victim "I" underpants and urinated in front of them.CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 8 of 12The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code had stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and the real culprit was an 18 year old boy who had fled away from the spot.He emphasised on the testimony of PW-1 Ct.Usha Rani to strengthen his point.PW-1 Usha Rani in her examination-in-chief had stated that in the initial call made to her by PW-12 (father of child victim I) it was stated that an 18 year old boy had been apprehended as he was molesting his daughter.It is important to note here that PW-1 had not seen the appellant at this moment as this was the first call made to the Police reporting the incident.Further, in light of the testimony of both the child victims and PW-4 and PW-9 who had all seen the appellant and caught him red handed at the scene of crime, the identity of the appellant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.Further, no questions were put to PW-12 in his cross-examination as to why he made the assumption that the appellant was aged around 18 years.It was possible that the identity of the appellant was not completely established at the time when the first call to the Police was made, but subsequent events and depositions show that the identity of the appellant is proved beyond all doubts.In the cross-examination of both the victims, the appellant had not disputed his identity.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240 held that whenever an accused had failed to cross-examine any witness on any part of his testimony, the same CRL.A. 1061/2016 Page 9 of 12 must be believed to be true unless proved otherwise. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,310,364 | This repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 20.4.06, in connection of Crime No. 21/96, registered at Police Station Chitrangi, district Sidhi for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 302 and 506-B of IPC.His earlier two applications have been dismissed on merits, vide orders dated 28.8.06 and 11.1.07 in M.Cr.C. No. 6250/06 and M.Cr.C. No. 11011/06 while his third application in this regard was dismissed on account of non compliance of peremptory order dated 2.2.2010 in M.Cr.In the course of arguments, in view of dismissal of his earlier two applications on merits, on making some query, applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer on availability of some new grounds in future.He also prayed for appropriate direction to the trial court to conclude the trial on some early date.Considering such prayer, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.However, the trial court is directed to take an endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same on some early date. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,776,298 | The applicant is a Police Constable.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:03:45 :::Rane 2/3 ABA-2548-2019 (SR.910) 21.11.2019The subject offence came to be registeredon 23rd July, 2019 on the complaint of one, HarshadaGavas.It appears in December, 2018 and June, 2019the complainant filed three written complaints withthe Commissioner of Police.He shall report to the InvestigationOfficer concerned as and when called.5 The applicant shall furnish theparticulars of his latest place of residence andmobile contact number and/or change of residenceor mobile details, if any, to the Investigating ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:03:45 ::: Rane 3/3 ABA-2548-2019 (SR.910) 21.11.2019Officer of the Police Station concerned withinseven days from today;::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:03:45 :::The applicant shall not tamper with theevidence or attempt to influence or contact thecomplainant, witnesses or any person concerned withthe case.(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:03:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 04:03:45 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,780,617 | CWC has separate area where the playschool is being conducted.In respect of visitation rights, CWC has submitted that allnilegaonkar 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 ::: 905-wp-4783.2019.odtsix parents coming at same time disturbs the atmosphere.Petitioners agree to accept the wish of the CWC.AccordinglyPetitioners in WP No. 4848 of 2019, 4850 of 2019 and 4851 of2019 shall meet their respective wards in the evening afterschool hours.The petitioners have filedaffidavits giving their status.Those affidavits are received by thelearned APP and counsel for the CWC in the Court only.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 :::2. Learned APP has invited our attention to the fact thatagainst the petitioner Abhinav (WP No. 4783 of 2019) there weretwo crimes registered.We find that Crime No. 231 of 2019 wasregistered at Model Town Police Station, New Delhi under section341 and 506 read with 34 IPC and it has been quashed by thecompetent court.Similarly Crime No. 85 of 2017 under section341, 323, 509 and 343 IPC registered in the same police stationhas been compounded.We are satisfied that there was no chargefor any offence which may have bearing on the safety or welfareof the child.In other matters there are no criminal antecedents againstany of the petitioners.Two children to be taken to New Delhi as per the said orderare still in Mumbai as after passing of the formal orders, thearrangement of appropriate escort machinery is being made.In the meanwhile, children in WP No. 4851 of 2019, WP no.4850 of 2019 and 4848 of 2019 are attending the municipalschool at Chembur and taking lessons.Other three children arestill not of the age to enable them to take admission and hencecontinue with CWC.In so far as other three children are concerned, thevisitation rights shall be exercised between 12.00 noon till 4.00pm.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 :::Petitioners have already initiated the proceedings foradoption and as the child is with CWC, the concerned CWC isjoined as respondent therein.It is brought to our notice thatthose proceedings cannot continue till specialized adoptionagency under the CWC declares the child free for adoption afterfollowing appropriate procedure.We direct the CWC to appear before the City Civil Court,Mumbai and assist that court in the matter.The Court shallwithin one week from today, make appropriate reference to theSpecialized Adoption Agency under the CWC for this purpose.The specialized adoption agency shall complete thenecessary exercise of obtaining Social investigation Report (SIR)in relation to parents from the respective areas at the earliestand preferably within six weeks from today.In case of petitioners who hail from Delhi, the CWC havingnilegaonkar 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 ::: 905-wp-4783.2019.odtjurisdiction there shall assist the CWC, Mumbai in obtaining thatreport within the same time.Petitioner shall also assist the CWCand specialized adoption agency in the matter of obtaining theSIR.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 :::Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 00:04:44 ::: | ['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,781,056 | The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.7.1992, at about 6 p.m., the deceased Anandilal went to offer a pooja at Chabutara (Platform) of Thakur Baba, one mile away from village Banharikala (Police Station Ajaygarh, District Satna).He was accompanied by Shukla Ahirwar (P.W.9), Rammilan (P.W.1) and other family members and relatives.At about 7 p.m., the respondents alongwith other accused persons reached the spot.The respondent No.1 Maiyadeen told the deceased Anandilal that his son had assaulted the son of the respondent Maiyadeen by Chappal and therefore, he would kill Anandilal and suddenly he gave a blow of Lathi (stick) on his head.Thereafter, all the accused persons brutally assaulted the deceased Anandilal with lathis (sticks).Hence, deceased Anandilal died at the spot.Rammilan who tried to save deceased Anandilal also sustained some injuries caused by various accused persons.Similarly, Munnilal (P.W.2), Prabhu (P.W.5), Hirabai (P.W.4) and Raja Bhaiya (P.W.6) also sustained injuries in saving deceased Anandilal.Rammilan took the body of deceased Anandilal to the Police Station Ajaygarh and informed about the incident.-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya (P.W.6) and gave his reports, Ex.P/30 to Ex.P/33, whereas Dr.U.K.Gupta (P.W.16) examined the injured witness Hirabai and gave his report, Ex.Dead body of the deceased was sent for post- mortem.P.C.Shrivastava (P.W.14) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Anandilal and gave his report, Ex.The police seized lathis from different accused persons.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Ajaygarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panna and ultimately, it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Panna.The respondents abjured their guilt.They took a plea that deceased Anandilal had enmity with so many persons and they had been falsely implicated in the matter.In this connection, Rajkumar Yadav (D.W.1) and Dassu Kontar (D.W.2) were examined as defence witnesses.The witness Munnilal (P.W.2) has stated in para 18 of his cross-examination that the respondent Maiyadeen, Ramswaroop and Tulsiram had assaulted with lathis on the head of deceased Anandilal one by one.However, his version was not corroborated by other witnesses.It is clear from the post-mortem report, Ex.P/29 proved by Dr.Shrivastava that he found 4 injuries on both the hands of the deceased Anandilal.Out of them, right humorous and left ulna and humorous bones were found broken.(12 .9.2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta, J. The State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents No.1 to 5 and 13 after getting leave vide order dated 9.1.1995 against the judgment dated 5.10.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T.No.77/1992, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 or 302/149 of IPC.-:- 2 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995Rammilan, Munnilal, Prabhu, Raja Bhaiya and Hirabai had also been sent for their medico legal examination.V.S.Upadhyay (P.W.15) examined the injured witnesses Rammilan (P.W.1), Munnilal (P.W.2),Additional Sessions Judge, Panna after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted the respondents No.1 and 2 of offence under Sections 325/148 (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced them to jail sentence of the period for which they remained in the custody with fine of Rs.300/- and Rs.200/- respectively for each count of charge.Whereas respondents No.3 to 5 and 13 have been convicted of offence under Section 323/148 of-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 IPC and sentenced to jail sentence of the period for which they remained in the custody with fine of Rs.100/-.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.The present case depends upon the injuries caused to the deceased and other victims alongwith testimony of the eye witnesses.P.C.Shrivastava (P.W.14) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Anandilal and gave his report, Ex.He found following injuries:-Lacerated wound 3" and 1/4" bone deep on the right side of the scalp in parietal region.Effusion of the blood present in this region.Fracture of the right parietal bone present.Blood clots present on the meninges.This injury is fatal.2. Contusion 2" x " on left side of the back in upper part red in colour.Contusion 3" x " on left side of the back in middle part red in colour.Contusion 2" x " on the lateral side of the right arm, middle part red in colour transverse.-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 Fracture of the right humorous present.Deformity and swelling present.Lacerated wound " x Limar x Muscle deep on the lateral side of the right arm.Contusion 2" x " on the back of the left forearm middle part red in colour.Contusion 3" x " on the lateral side of the left forearm middle part red in colour.Fracture of the radius and ulna bone present.Deformity and swelling present.Contusion 2" x " in front of the right leg middle part red in colour.Lacerated wound " x " bone deep in front of right leg middle part fracture of the tibia and fibula bone present.Deformity and swelling present.Similarly, Dr.V.S.Upadhyay (P.W.15) has proved the injury reports Ex.P/30 to Ex.P/33 of the victims Rammilan, Munnilal, Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya.The witness Rammilan sustained two injuries, one was on left elbow and second was on back.Fracture was also found on his elbow due to injury caused.Munnilal sustained 5 injuries at right elbow, right arm, forehead, back and buttocks.The victim Prabhu sustained one lacerated wound on his back, whereas Raja Bhaiya sustained a wound on his tongue and an-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 abrasion on his right shoulder.U.K.Gupta (P.W.16) has proved the injury report Ex.P/34 of witness Hirabai.An abrasion was found on the right side of her face and she was complaining about pain on her right chest.Injuries of the witnesses are not described here, for the purpose of the conviction of respondents but, to assess the participation of these witnesses in saving the deceased Anandilal.So far as the injuries caused to the deceased Anandilal are concerned, it would be apparent that he sustained 5-6 fractures on his body including a fracture on right parietal bone and he died due to head injury, hemorrhage and comma.However, Dr.Shrivastava has clearly mentioned that the injury No.1 of the deceased was fatal in nature, whereas injuries No.4, 7, 8 and 9 were grave and fatal.Remaining injuries were simple in nature.In the present case, Rammilan (P.W.1), Munnilal (P.W.2), Narbadiya (P.W.3), Hirabai (P.W.4), Prabhu (P.W.5), Raja Bhaiya (P.W.6), Shukla (P.W.9) were examined as eye witnesses.Out of them, Narbadiya (P.W.3) could not tell about the incident in detail because she did not know each of the appellants by their names.Witness Rammilan, Munnilal, Prabhu, Hirabai and Raja Bhaiya were the injured witnesses, whereas Shukla (P.W.9) was the person, who was present at the spot to do the Pooja for the deceased-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 Anandilal.Shukla (P.W.9) has turned hostile.He has accepted that some of the persons assaulted the deceased Anandilal with lathis and therefore, he died on the spot but, he did not name any of the respondents in his evidence.The learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that if one injury was found on the head of the deceased and it is claimed by the witnesses that more than one assaults had been given on the head then, benefit of doubt is to be given to all the assailants and none of them can be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC because it cannot be ascertained that amongst the respondents who was the author of that fatal head-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 injury.In this connection, the evidence of witness Sipahilal (P.W.7), son of the deceased Anandilal is also relevant.He has stated that Rajkumar, son of the respondent Maiyadeen had informed the invigilator and Sipahilal was caught red handed while he was copying during the examination and a quarrel took place between Sipahilal and Rajkumar.Thereafter, Ramswaroop came and beat the witness Sipahilal.On the next day, Sipahilal while going to the school gave a blow of Chappal on the buttock of-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 son of respondent Maiyadeen.He has further stated that if he would have available at Chabutara (Platform) at the time of pooja then, the respondent would have also killed him.In this context, Ramkumar (D.W.1) son of respondent Maiyadeen was examined who has stated on oath that no such incident took place as described by the witness Sipahilal.It is stated that Sipahilal never assaulted him by a Chhapal.However, in para 8 of his cross-examination, he has accepted that when he informed the invigilator and Sipahilal was caught red handed while copying, a quarrel took place between him and Sipahilal.On his accetance it appears that the evidence given by Sipahilal is acceptable and Ramkumar has not deposed truth before the trial Court.It was suggested that the deceased Anandilal was target of so many persons.Several suggestions were given to the witness Rammilan to show the long criminal history of the deceased Anandilal but, no document could be filed by the respondents to show that the deceased Anandilal had enmity with so many persons.Shukla (P.W.9) who was admittedly present at the spot and who turned hostile was given a suggestion that Anandilal had enmity with different villagers of village but, no specific suggestion was given to him.Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents cannot be-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 accepted that the respondents were falsely implicated on the basis of enmity.Actually, no major enmity was found between the parties and on the basis of a small quarrel which took place between the son of the deceased and son of the respondent Maiyadeen, such a deadly incident had taken place.It was dark in the night but, Rammilan did not accept the suggestion.However, such suggestion was accepted by Shukla.A particular statement has been given by Shukla (P.W.9) that there was darkness because the sky was cloudy.No such suggestion was given to the witnesses Hirabai, Prabhu, Raja Bhaiya and Munnilal that due to non availability of day light, they could not see the actual assailants.No suggestion had been given to the complainant Rammilan that because of presence of clouds in the sky, there was no sufficient light.According to the-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 statement given by Shukla (P.W.9) in para 17, it would be apparent that he accepted the suggestion with the pretext that since there were clouds in the sky therefore, there was darkness otherwise, there was no possibility of darkness at that time.The defence witness Thassu Kondhar (D.W.2) even did not say that there was no sufficient light at the time of the incident or the sky was cloudy.Since no suggestion of clouds in the sky was given to any of the other eye witnesses, it would be apparent that it was a hypothetical suggestion given to the hostile witness Shukla (P.W.9) to obtain a favour to the respondents.Shukla was a person who was a priest of that Chabutara to offer the pooja and therefore, he had to maintain good relations with all the villagers and therefore, it was for him to remain neutral between the parties.Nothing could be brought in the evidence of Shukla, so that any portion of his testimony can be relied when he was declared hostile.Thassu Kondhar (D.W.2) was examined as a defence witness to show that a quarrel took place between the deceased and unknown persons.Thereafter, the injured witnesses had tried to escape and while running towards a safer side they fell and sustained injuries.Initially, this witness was a prosecution witness who was given up on apprehension that he will turn hostile.He too did not say-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 that due to non availability of day light he could not see the actual assailants.It was not a case of robbery and hence crime must have been committed by the known enemies of the deceased.Hence, being resident of same village it was not possible for him that he could not identify the assailants.Also, injuries on Rammilan were not of such nature that they could be caused due to his fall on uneven surface.Hence, it is clear that this witness was a won over witness by the accused and telling a baseless and false story.The incident took place at about 6.30 to 7 p.m. and at 7 p.m., the deceased Anandilal had already been killed.The witnesses have stated that they arranged for a cot and took his dead body to the outpost Hanumatpura Toriya and thereafter to the Police Station Ajaygarh and therefore, FIR was lodged at 10.15 p.m. in the night.Under such circumstances, in the month of July at about 6.30 to 7 p.m. though no sun light was available but, there should have been sufficient light so that the assailants could be identified.Hence, if various injured witnesses have identified the assailants then, their testimony can be believed.Their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that there was no sufficient light to identify the respondents.Also, the FIR, Ex.P/1 was lodged within 3.15 hours of the incident.-:- 14 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 N.K.Parihar (P.W.21) in para 59 that there is a outpost near village Toriya and Hanumatpura, which is known as Hanumatpura Toriya outpost.He has proved that soon after recording the FIR, he sent the carbon copy of FIR to the concerned Magistrate.It was not possible for him to sent the counter of FIR to the concerned Magistrate to his residence because he did not want to disturb the Magistrate in the night but, the counter of FIR was sent on the next day and it was received by the concerned Magistrate on the next day at about 11 a.m. He has shown the photocopy of receipt and gave his statement in para 56 of his cross-examination.Under such circumstances, legal compliance of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is also established and the testimony of Shri Parihar can be accepted that the FIR was recorded at 10.15 p.m. in the night.Since the incident took place without any anticipation and therefore, after sustaining injuries, injured witnesses arranged for a cot to take the deceased to the outpost Hanumatpura and when they found that there was no authorized officer present, who could write down their FIR then, they went to the Police Station Ajaygarh.According to the witnesses they reached Ajaygarh at about 9 to 9.30 p.m. and thereafter, the FIR was lodged.The witnesses have given the account of time consumed by them before lodging the FIR.-:- 15 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 FIR was lodged in delayed manner and therefore, it should be disbelieved.The learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the deceased sustained only 9 injuries and so many accused persons were implicated by the complainant in the FIR and therefore, it appears that the witnesses after having conference decided to implicate the accused persons by lodging a false FIR.However, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate cannot be accepted because if the witnesses would have decided after the conference then, FIR would have lodged against all of the accused persons against whom the charge-sheet was filed.According to the FIR, Ex.P/1, it was lodged against 12 persons, whereas 14 persons were charge-sheeted.-:- 16 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 were falsely implicated after due deliberation.The testimony of the eye witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence.However, Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted 9 accused persons out of 14 and therefore, it is possible that the witnesses could not establish their overt-act in the scene of crime but, it cannot be said that those accused persons did not participate in the crime.If the witnesses could not remember their overt-acts at the time of their evidence then, they only got the benefit of doubt but, no such inference can be drawn that they were falsely implicated by the complainant.The learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has submitted that witnesses have implicated as many as 12-14 persons in the case, whereas they could not state specifically attributed overt-act against the accused persons and therefore, their testimony relating to the respondents may also be discarded.Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 against a particular accused and therefore, their omnibus allegations could not be accepted because a doubt was created in favour of those accused persons.Hence, believable part of evidence given by the witnesses should be accepted while appreciating the evidence.At present, leave is granted against the respondents No.1 to 5 and 13 and therefore, overt-acts of these respondents are to be considered in the present judgment.Also, the respondent Manno has expired during the pendency of this appeal and therefore, the overt-act of-:- 18 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 only five respondents are to be considered in the present appeal.Different eye witnesses have stated against the respondents by which it would be apparent that the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop had assaulted the deceased and thereafter, the witnesses have stated in omnibus manner against the remaining respondents.Though the named FIR, Ex.P/1 was lodged by the complainant Rammilan but, name of this respondent was not mentioned therein.If he was present and participated in the crime then, there was no reason why his name would have been mentioned in the FIR.If the testimony of the witnesses is considered minutely then, each of them has stated that initially Maiyadeen gave a blow with lathi to the deceased Anandilal and thereafter, Ramswaroop also gave a blow.Some of the witnesses like Munnilal have stated that Tulsidas had also given a blow with a lathi to the deceased and thereafter, all the respondents assaulted the victim.By omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, where 14 persons were implicated in the case, it cannot be said that each of such accused would have participated in the crime because their name was not clearly mentioned by the witnesses that they caused any specific injury to the deceased or to any injured witness then, though such an accused was present but, in absence of real proof of his participation, he could not be convicted for any offence done by others.In the present matter, leave was granted against the respondent No.3 Sitaram, whereas there is no specific allegation that Sitaram gave any blow to the deceased Anandilal.The complainant Rammilan (P.W.1) has submitted that Sitaram assaulted the witness Prabhu, whereas Prabhu (P.W.5) has stated that he was beaten up by Ramswaroop.He did not say against Sitaram and therefore,-:- 20 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 there is no injured witness who stated that he was being assaulted by the respondent Sitaram.There is no specific allegation against Sitaram that he assaulted the deceased Anandilal in a particular manner.Hence, by making vague and omnibus allegations, it cannot be said beyond doubt that the respondent Sitaram had participated in the crime.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent Sitaram of the offence under Section 302 of IPC in absence of any evidence to his overt-act that he assaulted the deceased Anandilal or he prevented others in intervention of the crime of murder.So far as the accused Tulsidas is concerned, only Munnilal (P.W.2) has stated that Tulsidas gave a blow on the head of the deceased, whereas remaining eye witnesses Rammilan, Hirabai, Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya did not state against the respondent Tulsidas specifically that he assaulted the deceased and caused injury at a particular portion of his body.They made omnibus allegations against so many accused persons that they had assaulted the deceased Anandilal.Each of the injured witnesses was in a position to state specifically that who assaulted him particularly.Neither of them has stated that the respondent Tulsidas assaulted him.If the witness Munnilal could see that the respondent Tulsidas assaulted the victim on the-:- 21 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 head of the deceased Anandilal then, other 4-5 witnesses would have also corroborated that fact.They corroborated that the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop had assaulted the deceased Anandilal on his head one by one.Under these circumstances, the testimony of Munnilal cannot be accepted beyond doubt that the respondent Tulsidas assaulted either the deceased or to other injured witnesses in preventing them to save the deceased.Under these circumstances, it cannot be said beyond doubt that the respondent Tulsidas had a common intention with the main accused or he participated in the crime.The Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent Tulsidas of offence under Section 302 of IPC.So far as the case of the respondent Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop is concerned, the witnesses have categorically stated that they assaulted the deceased Anandilal and also assaulted injured witnesses.The question arises as to who caused the fatal injury on the head of the deceased Anandilal.Out of different eye witnesses, Rammilan has stated that Maiyadeen opened the assault on deceased Anandilal.Munnilal, Hirabai, Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya have stated that Maiyadeen gave first blow on the head of deceased Anandilal.Munnilal, Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya have stated that again a second blow was given by-:- 22 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 Ramswaroop on the head of the deceased.The learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has submitted that a single injury was found on the head of deceased by Dr.The witnesses have stated about 2-3 blows on the head of the deceased and therefore, it is not clear as to whether the respondent Maiyadeen assaulted on the head of the deceased or the respondent Ramswaroop assaulted on the head of the deceased and therefore, by quoting the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ramlal (supra) it was submitted that both of the accused Maiyadeen as well as Ramswaroop were rightly acquitted by the trial Court of offence under Section 302 of IPC.In the present case, it is clear that a powerful blow was given on the head of the deceased causing his death and therefore, the accused who caused the blow on the head of the deceased had intended to kill the deceased and therefore, it is necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who gave that fatal blow on the head of the deceased.It is clear by considering the injuries of the complainant Rammilan that he immediately intervened in the crime and he also sustained so many injuries.Therefore, he could not see the subsequent event in an attentive manner.The witnesses have stated that first blow was given by Maiyadeen on the head of deceased and thereafter, Ramswaroop also gave a-:- 23 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 blow on the head of deceased Anandilal.In this connection, the statement given by witnesses Hirabai and Prabhu is important.They have stated that Maiyadeen gave a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased Anandilal and therefore, he fell down.The witness Prabhu has cleared further that respondent Maiyadeen assaulted the victim Anandilal when he was being seated and before he could stand, Ramswaroop gave a blow on his head and he fell down.Such a situation was duly corroborated by Raja Bhaiya and Munnilal.Raja Bhaiya was cross-examined in detail and he answered the question of the defence counsel in para 12 of his cross- examination that when the deceased Anandilal received the first blow of lathi caused by the respondent Maiyadeen, he put both the hands on his head and thereafter, Ramswaroop also gave a blow of lathi on the head.Such injuries caused to the arms of the deceased indicates that powerful blows were given by the assailants on the hands.If blows were given on the hands when the deceased Anandilal was lying on the ground then, force of the assault would have also affected the ribs and other parts of the body, which were-:- 24 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 close to the arms but, no rib was found broken.No fatal injury was found on the chest or back of the deceased.Hence, explanation given by the witness Raja Bhaiya appears to be acceptable that after the first fatal blow given on the head of the deceased Anandilal by the respondent Maiyadeen, the deceased put both his hands on the head by way of natural reflex to protect himself from receiving fatal injury there and therefore, the blows given by Ramswaroop had caused fractures on both his hands.If someone suddenly sustains an injury or pain in any part of his body then natural human reflex would be that he immediately hold that portion of body by hands to get the feeling of pain reduced.Hence, the evidence given by Raja Bhaiya in this context is natural and believable.Under these circumstances, if a single injury was found on the head of the deceased and it was claimed by the witnesses that two of the respondents had assaulted the deceased on his head then, such a position is very well explained by the witnesses Raja Bhaiya, Prabhu and Munnilal.Explanation given by these witnesses is duly supported by the medical evidence and therefore, their testimony can be accepted.It is proved beyond doubt that it was the respondent Maiyadeen who gave a powerful fatal blow on the head of the-:- 25 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 deceased, so that he sustained head injury, which caused his death.So far as the intention is concerned, no quarrel had taken place between the parties.The complainant party was offering pooja at Chabutara of Devta and suddenly, the respondent Maiyadeen alongwith other respondents and accused came to the spot and assaulted the deceased in such a forceful manner that while he was trying to get up, he could not stand up properly and fell down on the ground and died at the spot.By causing such a powerful blow to the deceased on the vital part of his body, where a fracture of parietal bone was caused and the deceased died due to head injury, it is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop continued to assault the deceased till he died.Intention of the respondent Maiyadeen was established that he intended to kill deceased Anandilal.In this connection, the contention advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General is acceptable that if the evidence of eye witness is duly corroborated by medical evidence and conduct of the accused shows his intention then, in absence of the motive, the accused can be convicted-:- 26 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 of offence under Section 302 of IPC.-:- 30 -:-Initially the case was prosecuted against 12 to 14 accused persons.However, overt-act of other accused persons could not be established beyond doubt.Hence, possibility cannot be ruled out that other accused persons did not constitute an unlawful assembly to kill the deceased Anandilal.State of Punjab", [AIR 1974-:- 32 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 SC 1256] may be referred, in which it is held that if the accused has been charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC but, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, though there was no specific charge under Section 34 of IPC, this tantamount to irregularity, if no prejudice has been caused to the accused.All the circumstances showing concert and participation in the joint criminal action by all the three appellants were duly put to them in their examination, under Section 342, Cr.P.C., 1898 (At present, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1974).The appellants were fully aware of the matter with which they were charged.No question of prejudice arises.In the light of aforesaid judgment, where it is clear that the respondent Ramswaroop was jointly tried with the respondent Maiyadeen and his joint criminal actions were duly put to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Instead of charge under Section 149 of the Cr.P.C. if he is convicted with help of Section 34 of IPC then, no prejudice would be caused to him.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the respondent Maiyadeen had committed a crime under Section 302 of IPC, whereas the respondent Ramswaroop had committed an offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and therefore, they must be convicted in the-:- 33 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995 present appeal for such offence.Since they have deposited the fine amount on their conviction of offence under Section 325 of IPC, therefore, there is no need to further impose any fine on them.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the State could not show any basis to accept its appeal against the respondents Sitaram, Tulsidas and Bandoo @ Bandi, therefore, appeal filed by the State against these respondents is hereby dismissed.The appeal filed by the State is accepted against the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop.Consequently, they are convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment.The respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop are on bail.They are directed to surrender before the trial Court without any delay, so that their sentence may be executed.-:- 34 -:-Criminal Appeal No.277 of 1995The respondents Sitaram, Tulsidas and Bandoo @ Bandi are on bail. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,783,968 | RANJAN GOGOI, J.This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgmentdated 10.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta affirming theconviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the learned trial courtunder Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Theaccused-appellant, Chunda Murmu, has been sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC whereas under Sections 364and 201 of IPC each, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor seven years alongwith fine.All the sentences have been directed torun concurrently.It had been further stated, in the complaint filed, thatthough the complainant had searched for his sister, her whereabouts werenot known and that the complainant suspected that she was murdered by herhusband, namely, the accused-appellant.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, P.W.16 – P.K. Dutta, Sub-Inspector of Police, filed the formal FIR – Ex.6 on the basis of whichHabibpur P.S. Case No. 17/90 was registered.In the course ofinvestigation, the accused-appellant was arrested on 15.3.1990 atPalashdanga, whereafter, he was brought to Habibpur Police Station.According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant, while in custody, hadmade a statement that he had murdered his wife and had kept the dead bodyconcealed in the khuti ghar of his father at village Horegram.Thereafter inquestwas held on the dead body which was sent for postmortem examination.Inthe report of the post mortem, the cause of death was mentioned by theDoctor as homicidal throttling.Thereafter, at theconclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against theappellant-accused and his father Charan Murmu under Sections302/364/201/34 of IPC.The father of accused-appellant died and chargesunder the aforesaid Sections of the IPC were framed against the accusedappellant.The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed andclaimed to be tried.In the course of the trial, 16 witnesses wereexamined by the prosecution and none by the defence.However, the accusedappellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the course of which hehad stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case.Thereafter,at the conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant had been convictedand sentenced as aforesaid.We have been elaborately taken through the entire evidence on recordby the learned counsel for the appellant.A consideration of the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses examined in the case would go to show thatthere are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution hassought to bring home the charges levelled on the basis of certaincircumstances that have been unfolded by the witnesses examined.(3) The deceased had left the matrimonial home and went to reside with PW 6 –Bishu Murmu.(5) Despite a vigorous search to locate the deceased, her whereabouts could not be known.(6) That the accused was arrested on 15.03.1990 from Palashdanga and while in police custody he had made a statement that he had killed his wife and kept the body hidden in the kuthi ghar of his father.(7) On the basis of the aforesaid statement the dead body was recovered from the place pointed out by the accused in the presence of PW 15- Block Development Officer and other witnesses including PW 5 - Subhas Soren and PW 6 – Bishu Murmu, who had dug out the dead body, as directed by the police.The short question that needs to be answered is whether all or anyof the aforesaid circumstances have been proved and established and if sowhether on the basis of the said circumstances the conviction and sentenceof the accused is tenable in law?According to the learned counsel, the very factthat the accused appellant was produced before the Magistrate on17.03.1990 would go to show that the prosecution version with regard tohis arrest on 15th March and the alleged statements made by him on thesaid date are extremely doubtful.It is further urged by the learnedcounsel that the alleged statement made by the accused was not in thepresence of police officers but the same was made before the witnessesexamined by the prosecution.It is also contended by the learned counselthat at the time of recovery of the dead body, PW 15- the BlockDevelopment Officer, could not identify the accused.Learned counsel hadfurther pointed out that in the course of the examination of the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., the recovery of the dead body and otherarticles as made by the prosecution had not been put to the accused so asto enable him to explain the said circumstances appearing against him.The fact that the accused and the deceased were married and thatthere were frequent quarrels between the two is not seriously disputed.Insofar as the issue with regard to the arrest of the accusedon 15.03.1990 is concerned we find that, the evidence of PW 16 - theInvestigating Officer of the case does contain an explanation for theproduction of the accused before the learned Magistrate on 17.03.1990despite his arrest on 15th March.If the said evidence of PW 16 is to bereasonably read, the prosecution version of the arrest of the accused on15th of March remains unaffected.From the evidence of InvestigatingOfficer it is also clear that the statement of the accused leading to therecovery of dead body was made while he was in custody and the same was inthe presence of police officers, though, at that time some other personswere also present in the police station.Insofar as the alleged defects in theexamination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, havingperused the record, we find that all incriminating circumstances relevantto the case had been put to the accused and no material irregularitycausing any prejudice to the accused can be attributed to the prosecutionin this regard.All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution,therefore, can be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.We thereforeaffirm the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court.Insofar as the offence under Section 364 IPC is concerned, we haveconsidered the materials on record on the basis of which the aforesaidoffence has been held to be proved.According to us, the action of theaccused in bringing back his wife to the matrimonial home from the houseof PW 6 – Bishu Murmu cannot attract the necessary ingredients of eitherthe offence of kidnapping or abduction so as to attract Section 364 IPC.Consequently this appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
637,865 | P.S. Sri Nagar, District Hamirpur through instant appeal.The prosecution allegations against the appellant in brief are that Pirva (Deceased) father of Nand Kishore (Informant) was murdered in the intervening night of 31/1.11.1991 at about 1 2AM in his house by a that, informant got the FIR (Hxt.Ka 1 ) scribed through Banshi Dhar Pradhan and after covering a distance of 7 Kms lodged it at Police Station SriNagar District Hamirpur on 1.11.1991 at 9.05 AM as crime number 141 of 1991, under Section 460 IPC.Mead Constable Satya Pal Singh, PW 5 prepared chik FIR ( Ext. Ka 2 ) and made G.D. entry ( Ext. Ka 3 ).Both the officers proceeded to the spot and PW 7 prepared inquest report ( Ext. Ka 5), Photo Lash ( Ext. Ka 7), Form 33 (Ext. Ka 8 ) and Chalan Lash ( Ext. Ka Ka.9), under the directions of the 10 and then dispatched the body for post mortem through constables Santosh Kumar and V.C.Punwa.He also prepared recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth ( Ext. Ka.6).10 also prepared site plan on 1.11.1991 and made inspection note.muscle deep, 10 cm.from shoulder tip.I.W. on back 4X2 cm., 10 cm.below Injury No. (14)On internal examination he found that forth and sixth ribs of right side and forth and eighth ribs of left side of the deceased were fractured Chest was filled with blood and both the lungs were lacerated.Peritoneum was cut and semi digested food was present in the stomach and his bladder was empty.Concluding investigation 10 submitted a charge sheet against the appellant on 1.12.91 for offences under Sections 449/302 IPC.Autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 1.11.91 at 4 PM in Government hospital Mahoba by Dr. S.M. Kaskar, PW 6 and he found following ante-mortem injuries on the corpse:1. L.W. on (Rt.) side of chest oblique 8cm below (Rt.) clavicle 2 x I x cavity deep Rib fractured 4th rib.2. l.W. 1.5 X lc.m.X bone deep oblique on (Rt.) side of chest 4 cm.below Injury No. (1).3. l.W. on (Rt.) side of chest 2 X 0.5 cm.X bone dee poblique,5c.m back injury no(1)I.W. on (Rt.) side of chest 2 X 0.5 cm.X bone deep 7cm.below injury No. (1) 6th rib cut & fractured.I.W. on (Rt.) side of Abd.2X 0.5cm.oblique muscle 1 6c.m.below injury no.( 1).I.W. on (Lt.) side of chest cavity deep 1 X 0.5cm.oblique 6 cm.Wound end of (Ltd) clavicle.I.W. on (Lt.) side of chest 3 X 0.5 cm.X bone deep 1 cm.below injury No. (7).I.W. on (L.T) side of chest 1 X 0.5 cm.X cavity deep 3 cm.lot to injury No. (7).9. I.W. 2 X lc.m.X bone deep (oblique 2X1 cm.) 4 cm.To injury No. (8).W. 1 X 0.5 CM.X bone deep (Lt.) side chest oblique 5 cm.above and It.To injury No. (9).I.W. on outer aspect of (Lt.) upper arm 2 X 1 cm., 1 5 cm.below shoulder up.12. I.W. on Lat.aspect of (Lt.) upper arm 3 X 2cm.Below injury No. (11).I.W. on Post, aspect of(Lt.) forearm 3 X lc.m.X muscle deep 17 cm.below elbow.I.W. on back (Lt.) side 4X2 cm.In the estimation of the doctor the cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage because of sustained injuries.During the trial the appellant was charged with offences under Sections 449 and 302 IPC by Session's Judge Hamirpur on 9.4.92 and the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant examined Nand Kishore ( Informant) as P.W 1, Ganshi ( Wife Of deceased and sister of appellant) PW 2, Ganesh Kumari ( Daughter of deceased ) PW 3, Mangal Din PW 4, Head Const.Nand Kishore, informant, P.W 1, deposed in the court that f the appellant who is his maternal uncle (Mama) had committed the murder of the his deceased father regarding which he had lodged the FIR at the police station against a thief and he had not named the appellant as his mother or sister who had seen the incident had not disclosed the name of the appellant as the assailant.He has further deposed that he had not seen the appellant committing murder.Smt. Ganshi P.W 2, wife of the deceased testified before the court that accused appellant is her real brother who had committed murder of her husband by Rapi four years ago.Appellant had come to her house a day before and had asked for five thousand rupees loan from the deceased which was refused by him because the earlier loan was not repaid by the appellant which had annoyed the appellant and he had gone back.In the night of the incident at about 12 AM her daughter woke her up for attending the call of nature and while they were entering into the house after her daughter has eased out appellant pushed her from behind on which she accosted him as to why he is entering into the house like a thief on which the deceased woke up but was assaulted with Rapi by the appellant who after the murder escaped.This incident was witnessed by her daughter also.On being cross examined by the court she stated that informant is her son who had gone to the police station to lodge the report but as she had fainted because of shock of murder after the incident therefore she did not disclose the name of the appellant to him.She further deposed that her parental relatives were alive and they are fanners.Deceased was her third husband as she had left her first husband of village Khandeha and her second husband of village Dharauna had expired.She further stated that her first husband was annoyed with the deceased and so were her parents and brothers.She had got a Pucca House.The deceased was employed in PWD and had four bighas of fanning and he used to lend the money as well.She further testified that the deceased and her daughter were lying on the same cot with dari spread on it and deceased had covered himself with blanket and the corpse of the : deceased was lying like that till the arrival of the investigating officer.She was lying near by on floor and the informant was sleeping in the next room.She also evidenced that a lantern was lighting at the time of the incident which was pointed out to the investigating officer when he was conducting the spot inspection at her pointing out.However she changed her version subsequently and stated that the appellant accused had entered into her house as soon as she opened the door for taking her daughter out for easing and contradicted her previous statement stated a day prior.She also deposed that her clan people were harbouring animosity with her husband as he was rich.She at this stage was declared hostile and was cross examined by APP where upon she had stated that she had told the investigating officer that the accused had threatened her to keep silence and not to raise alarm otherwise she and her whole family will also be annihilated.She also deposed that she was sacred after seeing blood and the cloths of the accused (Dhoti and Kurta) were also stained with blood.On being questioned regarding the contradictory statements given by her she again stated that her previous statement on the earlier day that she had fainted before the incident and therefore could not witness the murder was true and what ever she had stated on the subsequent day was false.Ganesh Kumari PW 3 testified the same facts as was stated by PW 2 and on being questioned by the court stated that her mother had shouted on which her brother (informant) had woke up and she had not heard what her mother had told the informant about the incident in the veranda as she was inside the room.She how ever stated that the incident occurred when she had eased her self and when the incident had taken place her mother had shrieked and had fainted and she had left her mother and had reached to the deceased.She denied the defence suggestion that she had not witnessed the incident and had testified because she was tutored.Mangal Din, PW 4 stated before the court that on the night of the incident he had met one person wearing Dhoti and Kurta which had red spots on it.He had asked as to who was it but no reply was made.New day morning he came to know that the deceased had been murdered.He also evidenced that the fateful night was dark and he was not having any torch etc. and therefore could not recognize as to who that person was.He also denied that he was interrogated by the Investigating officer.He was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution and he had denied the suggestion that he had changed the sides and therefore was testifying falsely.Dr. S.M. Kaskar PW 6 proved his post mortem examination report as Ext, Ka -4 dated 1.11.199land the injuries of the deceased.Nothing material was extracted from him in his cross examination by the defence.SI Surendra Bahadur Singh PW 7 deposed in the court that he had conducted the inquest under the directions of the investigating officer SO Nawab Singh and had prepared inquest report and other allied papers which he had proved as Ext.He also evidenced that during the performance of inquest he had asked the name of the assailant from the informant who had disclosed that his father was done to death by a thief or a miscreant.He also stated the word "Bhadaya" in local dialect means "thief".He also deposed that the body of the deceased was lying on the Kutcha floor and there were no blanket on the body of the deceased.He also evidenced that LO Nawab Singh did not meet him after words and lie had not returned to P.S. along with.Accused appellant in his defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication because of animosity but he led no defence evidence for the same.On the above evidence led in the trial, Additional Session's Judge Special Judge (D.A.A) Hamirpur believed the prosecution version and convicted the appellant for culpable homicide amounting to murder and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life which conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.We have heard Sri M.F. Ansari, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal and Sri Danish Iqbal Faridi, learned brief holder on behalf of state respondent and have gone through the entire record of the appeal including evidences.It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in this case prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant and the evidence led in the trial is self contradictory and can not be relied upon.He further submitted that in the FIR appellant is not named even though he is the real maternal uncle of the informant and real brother of PW 2.He also contended that the investigating officer was not examined in the trial which has caused prejudice to the appellant and the charge sheet and site plan prepared by the IO remained unproved and unexihibitted therefore also conviction of the appellant can not be sustained.He also submitted that the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3, the two eyewitnesses, are so surreal that they can not be believed.He also submitted that absence of blood on the cot on which the deceased was alleged to have been sleeping as well as on the Dari indicates that the witnesses of fact are playing on their imagination and they had not witnesses the incident and that is why PW 2, the wife of the deceased was declared hostile by the prosecution itself.He submitted that non disclosure of the complicity of the appellant till the inquest was over demolishes the prosecution case.Concludingly, he contended that this appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and his conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside and he deserves to be acquitted.Learned state counsel on the other hand contended that the two eye witnesses of the incident are the real sister and real nephew of the appellant and there was no reason for them to falsely implicate the appellant and since the appellant had a strong motive therefore his conviction is proper.He also submitted that the contradictions in the evidence of witnesses are of minor nature and they do not distract the prosecution version even slightly.Summing up his argument he submitted that the appeal of the appellants lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.We have cogitated over the arguments raised by the rival factions.There are two determining factors in this appeal and they are as to whether the appellant was present at the date and time of the incident at the spot and whether he is the malefactor of the murder of the deceased Pirwa? Secondly, whether PW 2 and PW 3, the two eye witnesses on the incident, can be safely relied upon and can it be said that they are wholly reliable witnesses and therefore implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony to convict the appellant? Coalscencing the two factors the determinative residue is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge and bring home the guilt of the accused to the hilt?A critical appreciation of evidences and facts brought forth that the appellant is the real brother of PW 2 SMT.However he is not named in the FIR as the assailant who had murdered the deceased, instead FIR mentions that a thief ( bhadaya) had committed the crime.The record further reveals that till the inquest was completed upto 12 PM on 1.1 1.1991 the name of the appellant was not disclosed by any of the two eye witnesses to any one including the informant and not even to the two police officials, IO Nawab Singh SO and SI Surendra Bahadur Singh PW 7, who were present on the spot.It is recalled here that the incident was alleged to have occurred at 12 A.M. in night of 31/1.11.1991 twelve hours before.Surendra Bahadur Singh SI PW 7 clearly deposed that at the time of performing the inquest he had asked the informant regarding the assistant to which his reply was that the murder was committed by a Thief (Bhudaya).This evidence of PW 7 clearly indicates that till inquest was over no body knew as to who was the assailant.The investigating officer present on the spot was not examined by the prosecution in the trial.Further when we look to the evidences of prosecution witnesses it transpires that PW 1 is not an eye witness of the incident.PW 2 Smt. Ganshi and PW 3 Ganeshi who claimed themselves to be witnesses of the incident did not disclose the name of the appellant to the informant or the two police officials or to any body till the inquest was over.This bizarre conduct of PW 2 and PW 3 makes their testimony suspect.PW 1 Smt. Ganshi, who is wife of the deceased gave an explanation for this lapse that she had fainted after seeing the incident of murder when she was questioned by the court but subsequently resiled from her said statement and testified that no sooner she had opened the door to take out PW 3 to attend the call of nature she was pushed by the appellant and she had fainted that very moment and therefore did not see as to who committed the murder.This statement was again resiled by her, as we will point out later on in this judgment, and atleast at two places in her deposition she had stated that her earlier deposition before the court was not true.She was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross examined by-the APP she admitted that she had informed the IO that the appellant had threatened and warned her not raise alarm other wise she and her whole family will by annihilated and after seeing the blood she had become scared and sat quietly in a corner.How ever no such statement was given by this witness in court and on the contrary she totally denied witnessing the murder.This embellishment had been done by her to over come the non mentioning of the name of the appellant in the FIR and during inquest.Her explanation for not informing the name of the appellant to the informant is thus, unworthy of credence.Attour, how long she had fainted and when she regained consciousness and why no attempt was made by PW 1 and PW 3 to bring her back to senses all are the facts which are shrouded in mystery and indicates that infact PW 2 never fainted and her deposition that she had fainted and therefore could not tell the name of the appellant to the informant is a false statement of fact.Our this view is also cemented because PW 3 contradicted her on this aspect of the allegation and deposed that at the time of incident PW 2 had shacked out and after the incident she had talked with informant PW 1 in varandah and had disclosed the name of the appellant to him and because of aforesaid reason PW 3 had not disclosed the name of the appellant to PW 1 before he proceeded to lodge the FIR.These two contradictory statement by the two eye witnesses does not inspire any confidence at all it and make these witnesses unworthy of credence.Had the appellant been the assailant there was no difficulty in mentioning his name to those police officials at the earliest.Thus non disclosure of the name of the appellant to the police officials at the earliest opportunity makes the complicity of the appellant in the crime doubtful especially in view of above contradictory nature of eye witnesses account and this fact demolishes the prosecution version to a substantial extent.There is no other cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution to prove the said allegation.Learned AGA had argued that there was no reason for false implication of the appellant by the two eye witnesses and therefore the testimony of two eye witnesses can not be discarded.The said submission of the learned AGA does not impress us firstly because there was cause for false implication as the loan money was not paid by the appellant and secondly it is not for us to speculate the cause of false implication of accused once the ' witnesses are not reliable.Non disclosure of name of the appellant makes eye witness account suspect.The case of the prosecution is that the incident in question happened on the afternoon of the 9th whereas Vishal Das stated in his Report that the incident had taken place on the night of the 10th, meaning thereby in the early hours of the 10th.Vishal Das also stated expressly in his Report that he did not know as to who had assaulted Jagdeo and Padum.The inference arising from he, fact that the names of the accused are not mentioned in a First Information Report must vary from case to case but the High court wholly ignored that even the Kotwar of the village had not come to know the names of the assailants though 20 hours had elapsed after the incident had taken place and further that according to him the incident had taken place at night.It is obvious that if he incident had taken place at night the whole superstructure of the prosecution case must fall.The eye-witnesses Mussmat) Dev Kunwar and Mussmat Mahatrin claim to have seen the inciden on the supposition that it happened on the afternoon of the 9thUma Paul and Surjit Kaur have stated in their evidence that Bachni was standing behind Jagdip Singh, when the latter fired the pistol shot at Gurbachan Singh.Significantly, the First Information Report does not refer to the presence of Bachni lat the time when Jagdip Singh fired the pistol shot.The Report doss not also mention that Bachni brought a Gandasi or that she sprinkled kerosene on the dead body of her husband.These tpbviously were embellishments which were later introduced by the two witnesses.The claim of Uma Paul and Surjit Knur is that immediately after Jagdip Singh fired the pistol shot they ran away but they went and stood at a distance of about 20 yards from where they saw the fund stage of the episode.It seems to us impossible to believe that the two witnesses could have continued to stand there to be able to see what later happened under the Neem tree.They must have run away on the heels of the shooting outrage and that explains how they met P.S.I. Darshon Singh almost immediately after the incident.If Bachni had accompanied Jagdip Sinyji when Gurbachan Singh was shot at or if she had brought a Gandasi and sprinkled kerosene on the dead body of Gurbachan Singh, it is hardly likely that Surjit Kaur would have skipped reference to these facts in the statement which she made almost immediately after the incident.The entire prosecution case against the respondent rests on oral evidence of Chanchala (P. W. 6) who claimed to be an eye witness to the murder of Hrudananda, one of the six persons alleged to have been killed by the respondent.The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed her evidence, but the High Court found it difficult to accept her testimony.The evidence suffers from serious infirmities which have been discussed in detail by the High Court.Though according to this witness, she saw the, murderous assault on Hrudananda by the respondent and she also saw the respondent coming out of the adjoining house of Nityananda where the rest of the murders were committed, she did not mention the name of the respondent as the assailant for a day Wand a half.It is not possible to accept the explanation sought to be given on behalf of the prosecution that she did not disclose the name of the respondent as the assailant earlier than 15th June, 1969, on account of fear of the respondent.It is indeed difficult to believe that this witness should not have disclosed the name of the respondent to the police or even to A. Section 1, Madan Das and should have waited till the morning of 15th June, 1969, for giving out the name of the respondent.P.C. It was also submitted that though P.W. 2 stated that he had given the name of A-3 in his statement recorded at the inquest but the name of A-3 does not find mention in exhibit D-7, the statement of P.W. 2 recorded at the inquest.We see force in the aforesaid contention.A perusal of the. statement of P.W. 2 shows that He did not make a mention of the name ofA-3 in his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and also in his statement exhibit D-7 recorded at the inquest.According to P W 2 she in the mid night opened the door to take out PW 3 for attending the call of nature and when she returned back then the appellant pushed her from behind.This fact was turned upside down and PW 2 stated in court that when she opened the door to take PW 3 out she was pushed that very moment and therefore she could not go out at all.This change in statement of this witness is obviously for the reason that she had not seen the murder being committed by any body.Further PW 3 contradicted her and deposed that she had gone out side and came back after attending the call of nature then the accused pushed the informant.Even PW 2 at different places has contradicted her own statement on this aspect and at least on two occasions she deposed that her earlier statement in court was not correct.When these eye witnesses are not sure when they were pushed how they can be relied upon.Another surreal aspect is that according to PW 2, during investigation, she saw the incident and was threatened by the accused not to raise alarm but in her examination in chief she stated that she fainted after the murder was committed but again she deposed that she fainted before the incident occurred and she did not see who committed the murder.These contradictory statement of her deposition makes her testimony untruthful.If she had witnessed the occurrence why she did not comforted her husband as she had stated during investigation and if she fainted before witnessing the incident or their after why she was not brought back to senses by PW 1 and PW 3 who were present on the spot and how long she remained unconscious are all the fact which makes her unreliable witness.Her deposition that she had fainted is contradicted by the testimony of PW 3 who stated in no uncertain words that after the incident she had told the name of the, appellant to PW 1 before he had gone to lodge the FIR.This to us I seems to be last nail in the coffin of her false, Self contradictory and embellished deposition.She was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the APP.All these factors leads us to dub her as an unreliable and untruthful witness and therefore we discard her testimony for the said reason.Coming to PW 2 she is also a faithful liar.She did not disclose to any body that the appellant had committed murder at any point of time.She stated that her mother had seen the incident which is in direct contradiction with the deposition of her mother.She further stated that the deceased was lying on the cot when the incident occurred but the site plan shows that the body of the deceased was lying on the ground and no cot was there in that room.She contradicted her mother by deposing that incident occurred when she was entering in her house after attending the call of nature.No place had been shown in site plan from where she had seen the incident though she stated that she had shown the said place to the IO She was in the company of her mother who as discussed above is untruthful witness.Albeit she stated that she was present on the spot but when PW 7 was conducting the inquest she and her mother were not to be found.From her evidence coupled with the evidence of PW 2 we are of the opinion that neither she nor her mother were at the spot at the time of the incident and therefore we discard her evidence also.There are other important bizarre aspects of the case.It is a night incident but no source of light was found on the spot by the 10 nor the same is in the site plan.Lantern is alleged to have been hanging at the time of incident but the same was not taken in possession nor it's recovery memo was prepared by the IO The prosecution was allowed sufficient time and Dasti Summons were given but it failed to produce the investigating officer as a witness during the trial which had caused serious prejudiced to the accused as they could not contradict the witnesses from their earlier statements nor they could ask the IO regarding light, cot, Dari, Rajai etc. which were alleged to have been present on the spot according to PW 2 and PW 3 but which were not found on the spot by the IO nor taken the custody.It is recalled here that according to the prosecution the incident occurred when the deceased was sleeping on the cot with Dari on it and he had covered himself with Rajai and it was in that posture, while sleeping that he was murdered.All theses missing facts goes to the root of the prosecution case and demolishes it's already tattered fabric.Concludingly, we are of the firm view that the two eye witnesses of the prosecution are wholly unreliable and untruthful witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony to convict the appellant and therefore prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for which he was charged and the appeal must succeed.This appeal is allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,786,831 | "Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.03.2016, DD No.3A at 1.00 a.m in the night was recorded and pursuant to that IO reached the house of the victim where victim complained of rape.She was taken to SGM hospital where she was found pregnant and after counselling victim gave her statement that she is living at the second floor of her rented accommodation where accused Satyavir lives on the first floor.She came back from her village about three months before and accused used to stare at her.About 5-6 days after her returning from the village, she went to the house of accused to take Rs.100/- from him lent by her mother to the accused.Accused made forcible physical relations with her at the point of knife and also threatened to kill her.Since then for about two months, he continued to rape her under threat.She missed her monthly periods and informed her mother who brought pregnancy test kit from the chemist and found UPT positive and called the PCR.On this CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 2 of 13 complaint, present FIR was registered.IO prepared the site plan and arrested the accused and got him medically examined.Ye kehna sahi hai ki meri mummy mai aur accused mai paise lautane ka ya paise dene per nokjhok hoti rehti thi.Ye kehna sahi hai ki paise lene ke baad accused jaldi se use lautata CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 7 of 13 nahi tha aur hume paise lene ke liye uske kai chakkar katne padte the."SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (Oral) CRL.M.A.41316/2019 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.M.A.41315/2019 (for condonation of delay in filing) The present application is filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present leave petition.For the reasons stated in the application, the present application for condonation of delay in filing the present leave petition is allowed.Application stands disposed of.CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 1 of 13Statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded where she reiterated her police complaint.After orders from CWC, the pregnancy was terminated and the samples from the fetus was seized and sent to FSL and awaiting result, present charge sheet was filed against the accused before this Court.Copy supplied to the accused. "CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 2 of 13In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all.Coming to the main incident, the victim claimed that she was raped continuously for one month by the accused in his room and after the first incident, he used to call her by coming to her room when there was none at their respective houses.Why victim went to the house of accused on each and every occasion when he allegedly called her to his room remains unexplained.Further, victim never reported about the alleged incident to her mother.Further, victim never raised any alarm or hue and cry at the time of alleged incidents to rape.In the MLC, there are no injury to show the signs of rape.The FSL result is of no use as the sample of the fetus degraded and no DNA profile could be generated from the sample.Victim admitted in her cross examination that she had a grudge against the accused as he had slapped her and she also bled from ear because of that slap and undertook CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 3 of 13 to teach a lesson to the accused.She did not report the matter to the anyone till her mother found her to be pregnant after pregnancy kit test.Victim admitted that even a small noise from the room of the neighbour can be heard in their room and vice versa yet none of her neighbours ever heard her alarm or hue and cry.She also admitted that there was small dispute with the accused pertaining to money transaction between accused and her parents.She also admitted that accused used to make her understand not to spend time with her friends in closed doors.All these circumstances do not rule out the possibility of false implication.The statement of the victim does not inspire confidence to believe her about the incidents of rape.There is no corroboration to her version.Thus, prosecution has failed to prove any offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Benefit goes to the accused.CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 3 of 13He further submits that the Trial CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 4 of 13 Court failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident.He further submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is a presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act against the respondent-accused and it is for the respondent-accused to prove to the contrary.He further contended that the impugned judgment is a case of legal defects and the trial court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix in its correct perspective, and therefore is liable to be set aside.CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 4 of 13We have heard the learned APP for the State at length and perused the available material on record.CRL.L.P. 645/2019 Page 7 of 13 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,787,483 | Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transfer of the investigation in case FIR No.496/2015, Police Station Hauz Khas to Crime Branch/ DIU or any other Investigating Agency.Status report is on record.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the investigation in the case has not been carried out in a fair manner.Conflicting status reports have been filed before the Courts by the W.P.(Crl.)1662/2016 Page 1 of 3 Investigating Agency.Due to certain pressure from Senior Officers, closure report in the case is likely to be filed.W.P.(Crl.)1662/2016 Page 1 of 3Status report reveals that there are various civil litigations pending between the parties.The petitioner has filed CS(OS) No.1325/2015 against Harinder Singh Gujral and others.The parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties.It is informed that primarily the dispute is over the suit property which has worth in crores.It further discloses that statements of various witnesses have been recorded.The investigation is complete.Allegations in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be substantiated.The FIR in question was lodged on 11.05.2015 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 IPC.After recording the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Sections 354/354B IPC were added.The accused Harinder Singh Gujral joined the investigation.At no stage prior to filing the instant writ petition on 20.05.2016, the petitioner lodged any complaint against the Investigating Agency for not conducting the investigation in a fair manner.When the Investigating Agency after completion of the investigation has come to the conclusion that the allegations could not be substantiated and closure report is to be filed in the Court, the instant petition for change of Investigating Agency has been filed.The petitioner can have its remedy to file protest petition in case the Investigating Agency chooses to file a closure / cancellation report in the said FIR.Of course, the said protest petition will be decided by the concerned Court on merits.W.P.(Crl.)1662/2016 Page 2 of 3Since the investigation is complete, no change of Investigating Agency is called for.The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of the case.W.P.(Crl.)1662/2016 Page 3 of 3 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,791,332 | (J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarunShri Sujat Ali, learned counsel for the Objector.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.94/2017 registered at Police Station- Ajaygarh, District Panna (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 376, 456, 506-II of IPC.If he failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
637,970 | The respondent Durga Prasad was working as a Turner in theRailway Workshop at Gorakhpur.On April 2, 1968 he wasfound in possession of a steel rod and two pieces of mouldedbrass shells belonging to the Railway.After thepreparation of a recovery memo the respondent was forwardedto the Railway Protection Force Post where a case wasregistered against him under section 3(a) of the Act.Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the8th February, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.Gajai Singh, Sub-inspector, Railway Protection Forceinquired into the case under section 8(1) of the Act, duringthe course of which he recorded the statements of threepersons: Rakshak Indra Deo Yadav, Rakshak Jagannath Pandeyand R. K. Nandi.The statements were read over to thesepersons and their signatures were obtained thereon.Twoothers, G. S. Tripathi and Kamla Kant Yadav wrote out theirstatements in their own hand and handed over the same toGajai Singh.The respondent pleaded not guilty but the learned SpecialRailway Magistrate, First Class, Gorakhpur convicted himunder section 3(a) of the Act and sentenced him to undergorigorous imprisonment for fifteen months. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
63,797,054 | KURIAN, J.:Appellant is the second accused in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2001 on the fileof the Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok.He was charged along with oneRanjit Roy under Sections 302, 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).According to theprosecution:“These two accused persons were already in need of money for their expensesas Durga Roy (Burman) had already borrowed much cash from his master SujitBasak before completing his works and he had nothing to get from his masterfor few days.The money problem became more serious when on 5.7.2001 theaccused person received telephonic call from the father of Ranjit Roystating that his mother is seriously ill at home and he should return homeimmediately.That night both the accused persons slept late discussingabout their monetary problems.Next day (i.e. 6.7.2001) in the morning,Ranjit Roy went to the rented room.Shibu Barman had already left for hisjob.After some time Durga Roy (Barman) also arrived in the room.Both ofthem were under the strong impression that Lalan Prasad had enough money inhis house as he was engaged in lottery business and both his sons were alsoworking.Therefore, the two accused persons made a plan to steal money fromLalan Prasad’s house as he was already left for job.The accused persons had hot discussion with Raju Kumar, elder son ofdeceased in connection with use of bathing soap for toilet purposes.As already stated, hewas found in the house of deceased in the morning on the date ofoccurrence.In the said house, no other inmate was present except thedeceased.He was a co-tenant along with Shibu PW4 in respect of one roombelonging to the deceased.She is specific and categoric of that datebecause it was the first death anniversary of her father-in-law.Theaccused were in fact not absconding.By0900 hrs, both the sons also left for their daily works.Then only thedeceased Manorama Devi remained in the house besides the two accusedpersons.The two accused persons decided to kill the deceased Manorama Deviin order to steal money from her house as she was the only person presentin the house.Deceased Manorama Devi was inside the room of her sons whenaccused Durga Roy (Barman) pretended to talk to her, thereby diverting hermind.At that moment, the other accused Ranjit Roy came from his roombringing a strip (sic) of cloth and quietly went behind the deceasedManorama Devi and on getting the opportunity, the accd.Ranjit Roy quietlyput the strip round the neck of the deceased and strangulated her.As thevictim became unconscious, he encircled the ligature twice on her neck andtightly made a knot on the back of the neck (sic) as a result she died onthe spot due to strangulation by ligature.Then leaving the dead body onthe floor, the accused persons searched the house and took away one wristwatch “SITCO” and cash Rs.2300/- and fled away from P.O. At about 1200 hrs,the accused persons were seen by one Mrs. Kakulay Biswas w/o.ParusothamBiswas, at Tenzing and Tenzing, Gangtok going towards Deorali side.AccusedDurga Roy, who was known to her, told her that they were going home.Thenthey never came back to Gangtok.” (Emphasis supplied)It is thus further case of the prosecution that the appellant herein madeExhibit P6-disclosure statement while in custody on 12.07.2001:“My true statement is that on 6/7/01 Friday that the Watch which I hadstolen after murdering the Lottery Seller’s wife, I have kept the same inNJP.I can hand over the said Watch to Police.I have kept the said Watchin homes at NJP.(illegible) Accused Durga Roy WitnessA/P. R.N. Chamling Building Brij Kishore Prasad M.G. Marg, gangtok, Ext.P-6(a) Occupation : Lottery Agent.On the basis of above disclosure made on 12.7.2001, recovery of the watchwas made on 17.07.2001, as per Annexure-P5 memo.The two witnesses inExhibit P6 are witnesses to the seizure also.The Sessions Court, as perjudgment dated 31.12.2002, convicted both the accused under Section302/380/34 IPC.In appeal, the High Court of Sikkim, by judgment dated 15.12.2003,acquitted the first accused Ranjit Roy for the following reasons:At this stage, it is relevant to state that the appellants werecharged under section 302/34 IPC and have been found guilty thereunder.Toinvoke the aid of section 34 IPC, it is necessary that the criminal actcomplained against was done in furtherance of the common intention of allthe accused persons.The common intention implies prior meeting of mind.Itcan also be formed suddenly at the spot.The prosecution has not laid anyevidence on this score.So far as appellant no.1 Ranjit Roy is concerned, there is noevidence against him except that in the morning on the date of occurrencehe was present in the house of the deceased and remain absconded till hewas arrested on 8th July, 2001 at New Jalpaiguri.An act of absconding isno doubt a relevant piece of evidence but the said act does not by itselflead to a conclusion that he is guilty.There is no other incriminatingmaterial against him to connect with the offence.The suspicion howeverstrong be cannot take the place of proof.For reasons aforesaid, we areinclined to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its caseagainst appellant no.1 Ranjit Roy beyond reasonable doubt.He is,therefore, entitled to be acquitted on the benefit of doubt.” (Emphasis supplied)However, in the case of second accused-appellant herein, it was held by thecourt as follows:In the present case, the charge against both the appellants isspecific in the sense that in furtherance of their common intention theycommitted the murder of the deceased.With the acquittal of appellant no.1Ranjit Roy the charge of sharing common intention fails.Shibu PW4 deposed that he had gone to the houseof the deceased at 2.30 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. to find out if he was present inhis room but he did not find him and his room was locked.He gave recovery to the Sitco wrist which was foundmissing on the date of occurrence.Having regard to the abovecircumstances, we have no hesitation to hold, that he (appellant no.2 DurgaRoy) after committing murder of the deceased also committed the theft ofthe wrist watch exhibit IX.He is, therefore, clearly guilty of offencespunishable under sections 302 and 380 IPC.The conviction recorded by theSessions Judge under sections 302/380/34 IPC is hereby converted to oneunder sections 302 and 380 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counselappearing for the State of Sikkim.The basis of maintaining the conviction against the appellant herein who isthe second accused is:i. He was in the house of the deceased in the morning on the date ofoccurrence.No other inmate was present except the deceased.The co-tenant had deposed that when he went to the house of thedeceased between 2.30 – 2.45 p.m. on the same day, he could not find theappellant and room was locked.v. He gave recovery of the wrist watch belonging to husband of thedeceased which was allegedly found missing on the date of occurrence.On these grounds, it was concluded that the appellant/accused aftercommitting the murder of the deceased, also committed theft of the wristwatch and, hence, he was guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302and 380 IPC.We are afraid, none of the circumstances by itself would lead to theirresistible conclusion that the appellant herein is the author of thecrimes under Sections 302 and 380 IPC.It is in evidence of PWs 3 and 4 -the key witnesses that apart from the appellant, one Ranjit Roy was alsoseen in the house of the deceased and, according to prosecution also, asnoted in their report, it was Ranjit Roy-accused no.1 “who quietly put astrip of cloth round the neck of the deceased and strangulated her”.It isin evidence that both the accused belonged to New Jalpaiguri.It is thecase of the prosecution itself that the first accused had received amessage on the evening of 5.7.2001 that his mother was seriously ill andshe was at home.PW-13 Kakulay does not support the case of theprosecution that she had seen the accused in the afternoon of 4th July,2001 as proceeding to Siliguri.They had gone to their native placeNew Jalpaiguri and they were arrested from their respective homes only.The only other ground is that of recovery under Section 27 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence Act”), recovery ofthe wrist watch which was alleged to have been stolen by the appellant.From the evidence available on record, we find it extremely difficult toplace reliance on that recovery for many reasons.The wrist watch belongsto PW1, the husband of the deceased.PWs 2 and 3 are the sons of thedeceased and were staying with PW1 and the deceased.PWs 1, 2 and 3 do nothave a case that the wrist watch belonging to PW1 had been stolen by theappellant.They do not also have a case about the money that has beenallegedly taken by the accused after committing murder.There is not even awhisper in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 regarding the theft of either thewrist watch or the cash except for the identification of the wrist watch byPW1 as belonging to him.There is not even a reference to the allegedmissing of the wrist watch since 06.07.2001 or the loss of cash.It is onlyin the evidence of PW16-the investigating officer that the accused had amotive of committing theft after murdering Smt. Manorama Devi and that anamount of Rs.2,300/- and wrist watch belonging to PW1 had been taken by theaccused.Exhibit P5-recovery memo says that the wrist watch had been handed over tothe investigating officer by the mother of the appellant.However, ExhibitP6-disclosure statement recorded on 12.07.2001 which has already beenextracted above, though, not admissible as such, states that the appellanthad kept the wrist watch in his house at New Jalpaiguri and that he couldhandover the same to the police.The investigating officer examined asPW16 states that the wrist watch was recovered from the house of theappellant.It is not explained as to how the mother of the appellant cameinto custody of the wrist watch which had been allegedly kept inconcealment by the appellant in his house.She was not examined.The witnesses to the disclosurestatement as well as seizure memo PWs 11 and 12 have very clearly stated intheir evidence that their signatures were obtained on some papers which hadalready been filled up by the police and that no statement had been givenby the appellant in their presence.Another significant aspect in the case is that all ornaments worn by thedeceased were on the body and nothing had been removed.If the accused hada motive to commit theft, it is only normal that they would lay their handson the jewellery as well.On the basis of the evidence we have discussed above, we find it extremelydifficult to hold that the prosecution has laid a foundation for aneffective prosecution and has proved beyond doubt that it is the appellantwho committed the murder of Manorama Devi.It has to be noted that thiscase is set up only on circumstantial evidence.All the circumstancesshould lead to, without breaking the chain, the involvement of the accusedand the accused only.On the only ground that the accused was seen with thedeceased in the morning of the date of incident and that they were not seenin that place for another two days, cannot, by themselves, lead to theconclusion that it is the appellant who authored the crime.‘To abscond’ means, go away secretly or illegally and hurriedly to escapefrom custody or avoid arrest.It has come in evidence that the accused hadtold others that they were from their place of work at Gangtok to theirhome at New Jalpaiguri.They were admittedly taken into custody from theirrespective houses only, at New Jalpaiguri on the third day of the incident. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,332,735 | Heard on I.A. No.356/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.3- Veer Singh.Appellant No.3 Veer Singh has been convicted and sentenced as under Name Conviction Sentence Fine In lieu of amount appellant Veer 148 IPC Three Rs.3,000/- 3 Singh Years' RI month's RI 307 of IPC Seven Rs.10,000/- 6 for injured Years' RI months' Parmai and RI under Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act 307 of IPC Seven Rs.10,000/- 6 for injured Years' RI months' Udaiveer RI read with Section 149 and under Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act 395 read Seven Rs.10,000/- 6 with Years' RI months' Section RI 397 and 2 Cra.1295.2016 under Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act 333 of IPC Five Rs.5,000/- 5 read with Years' RI months' Section 149 RI of IPC and under Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act 332 read Three Rs.2,000/- 3 with Years' RI months' Section 149 RI of IPC Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that appellant No.3- Veer Singh was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.Initially, one constable, namely, Parmai Singh (PW-1) had lodged a Dehati Nalisi against unknown persons.Names of four to five persons were mentioned in the document but there was no name of appellant No.3 in that document.The main witnesses, namely, Parmai Prasad (PW-1) and Udayveer Singh Bhadoriya (PW-9) did not state about appellant No.3 about his overt act to show his common intention with the main accused persons.There are fair chances of success of this appeal, thus, appellant No.3- Veer Singh prays for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Subject to deposit of fine amount and if appellant No.3- Veer Singh furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court that he shall appear before the office of this Court on 09.03.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance till disposal of the present appeal, then appellant No.3- Veer Singh shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till disposal of this appeal.Certified Copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,349,157 | The gravamen of indictment against the accused was asunder:(a) Kanaklaxmi ("the deceased"), the sister of MalleshamDasari ("the frst informant") and Rajeshwari Karampuri, wasthe wife of the accused.They were blessed with son Arun anddaughter Sukanya.They were residing at plot no.12 JaylaxmiNagar, Shelgi.The accused was given in to the vice ofconsuming liquor.The accused was also not gainfully employed.The accused used to rake up quarrels with the deceasedfrequently.The deceased ran the household out of the incomeshe generated by rolling bidis.(b) On 16th February, 2012, the frst informant wasapprised on telephone by Nagraj Dasari, a cousin, that thedeceased was critically ill and he should reach Solapurimmediately.Nagraj had also informed Rajeshwari.The latter,who resided at Vidi Gharkul, Hydrabad Road, Solapur,immediately rushed to the house of the deceased at JaylaxmiNagar.She found that the deceased lay supine on thefoor.On inquiry, it was informed that the deceased had takenill and died.Rajeshwari noticed that there were marks of injuryon the throat of the deceased.Thus, Rajeshwari approachedJodbhavi Peth Police Station, Solapur and apprised the police.Inquest was held.Thebody was sent for postmortem examination.The autopsysurgeon opined that the probable cause of death wascompression around the neck.(c) In the meanwhile, Mallesham Dasari, the frstinformant, reached Solapur from Sirsilla (Andhra Pradesh),where he had been residing since one year prior to theoccurrence.After noticing the situation of the dead body of thedeceased and ascertaining the facts, Mallesham lodged reportagainst the accused of having committed the murder of thedeceased in her matrimonial home prior to 7.00 am.RESERVED ON : 8th October, 2020 PRONOUNCED ON: 29th October, 2020JUDGMENT : (Per: N.J. Jamadar, J.)This appeal takes exception to the judgment and orderdated 3rd January, 2014, passed by the learned AdditiionalSessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.124 of 2012,whereby and whereunder the appellant - accused came to beconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") and sentenced tosuffer imprisonment for life and pay fne of Rs.5,000/- withdefault stipulation.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOC(d) Crime was registered at CR No.20 of 2012 for theoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code.TheInvestigating Offcer interrogated the witnesses and recordedtheir statements.The accused came to be arrested.Postmortemreport was obtained.After fnding the complicity of the accusedcharge-sheet came to be lodged against the accused for theoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code.(e) Charge was framed against the accused for theoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code.Theaccused abjured his guilt and claimed for trial.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOC(f) At the trial, the prosecution examined six witnessesincluding Rajeshwari (PW-2); the sister and Mallesham (PW-3);the brother of the deceased, Dr. Naim Akhtar Anis Ahmad(PW-6); the autopsy surgeon and Mr. Sikandar Nadaf (PW-5); thethen Senior Police Inspector, who furnished the details ofinvestigation.After the closure of the prosecution evidenceaccused was examined under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure ("the Code").The accused did not lead anyevidence in his defence which consisted of false implication.Anendeavour was made by the accused to deny that the deceasedwas in his custody on the night of occurrence by asserting, inhis examination under Section 313 of the Code, that at the timeof alleged occurrence he was not present in their house.After appraisal of the evidence and material on record thelearned Sessions Judge was persuaded to enter the fnding ofguilt.It was, inter alia, held that the accused failed to explainthe circumstances in which the deceased met the homicidaldeath when only accused and deceased were present in theirhome at the time of the occurrence.The failure of the accusedto substantiate the claim that at the time of the allegedoccurrence he was not present at home and was, in fact, onduty at Mandhoni Weaving Mill, Akkalkot Road, Solapur wasreckoned as an additional link in the chain of circumstances 4/18 CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOCwhich incriminate the accused.Thus, the accused wasconvicted and sentenced, as indicated above.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfed with the impugnedjudgment of conviction and order of sentence the accused haspreferred this appeal.We have heard Mr. Inamdar, the learned Counsel for theAppellant, who has been appointed to espouse the cause of theappellant and Ms. Shinde, the learned APP, at considerablelength.With the assistance of the learned Counsels, we havealso perused the evidence and material on record.The learned AdditionalSessions Judge lost sight of the principles which govern theaspect of basing a fnding of conviction on the strength ofcircumstantial evidence.Admittedly, the brothers of the accused were residing inthe adjacent rooms, and the accused and deceased were muchmarried, and had children, who had crossed 10 years of age.In opposition to this, Ms. Shinde, the learned APP, stoutlysubmitted that the impugned judgment and order, being wellmerited, does not warrant any interference.There is evidence toindicate that on the night, preceding morning on which thedeceased was found dead in her house, there was nobody exceptthe accused with the deceased.In this backdrop, it wasincumbent upon the accused to explain the circumstances inwhich the deceased met the death.Not only the accused failedto offer a plausible explanation but also made an abortiveattempt to show that the deceased died by suicide and that theaccused was away from home on the night of the allegedoccurrence.The falsity of both these explanation is borne outby the evidence and material on record.Thus, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge committed no error in returning thefnding of guilt, canvassed Ms. Shinde.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOCAs the nature of death which the deceased met was soughtto be put in contest, we deem it appropriate to deal with the saidaspect, at the threshold.Before adverting to deal with theevidence of autopsy surgeon, we fnd it expedient to note theevidence of Rajeshwari Karampuri (PW-2), the sister of thedeceased.After apprising the Court about the nature of the maritalrelationship between the accused and the deceased and theirsituation in life, Rajeshwari (PW-2) claimed to have rushed tothe house of the deceased, on the morning of 16 th February,2012, upon being informed by Nagraj Dasari, her cousin.Rajeshwari (PW-2) claimed to have found the deceased lying inher house.She affrmed that she noticed ligature mark on thethroat of the deceased.She further affrmed that, on enquiry,the sister-in-law of the deceased informed her that the deceasedwas unwell.Though Rajeshwari (PW-2) conceded that she did notreport the police that the accused committed the murder of thedeceased, yet she did not cave in to the suggestion that thedeceased committed suicide as she was suffering from stomachailments.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOCIt is evident that Rajeshwari (PW-2) realised that thedeceased had died in suspicious circumstances.Her suspicionwas stoked by the fact that marks of injury were visible on thethroat of the deceased.Rajeshwari (PW-2) found the explanationthat the deceased died as she was unwell unpalatable.Thus,Rajeshwari (PW-2) approached the police and lodged the report.It would be contextually relevant to note that the inquest(Exhibit-11), which was admitted in evidence by the defence,records that a ligature mark of 1.5 cm.with circumference ofaround 27 cm. was found over neck of the deceased.At this stage, recourse to the testimony of autopsy surgeonDr.Naim Akhtar (PW-6) become imperative.Upon externalexamination, Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6) claimed to have foundfollowing injuries:(i) Abrasion 2 X 1 cm., over right side of gastic region red in colour.(ii) Ligature mark over neck with circumference of 29 cm., 8 cm., from right mastoid region, 8 cm from left mastoid, 1 cm., from mentum and of maximum thickness of 1 cm, and Bare over 8 cm., over left anterior part of neck running obliquely downward and forward, dark hard, parchament like skin of ligature mark.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOC Upon internal examination, Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6)claimed to have noticed haemotoma under rightsternocleidomastoid muscles.In the opinion of Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6), the external andinternal injuries found on the persons of the deceased werepossible if a person compresses the neck by rope or cloth etc.He further affrmed that in majority of the cases, the aforesaidinjuries were not possible by hanging.Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6)thus opined that the probable cause of death was compressionaround the neck.Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6) categorically declinedthat the ligature mark found on the person of the deceasedcould have been caused by self-hanging.The suggestion thatthe deceased might have died a suicidal death, was fatlydenied.The evidence of Dr. Naim Akhtar (PW-6) leads to aninescapable inference that the deceased met an unnaturaldeath.It is pertinent to note that an endeavour was made onbehalf of the accused to demonstrate that the deceased died bysuicide.Apart from the medical evidence, there is circumstantialevidence in the nature of recovery of the blood stained clothes ofthe deceased and a pillow cover which had blood stains thereon.CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOCThe seizure of blood stained pillow evidenced by panchnama(Exhibit-21) was sought to be established by examiningSubhash Pandhare (PW-4).The CA report (Exhibit-26) revealedthat the saree which the deceased wore had moderate numberof blood stains ranging from 0.1 cm.to 5 cm.in diameter,spread at places.Whereas the pillow cover had one blood stainof about 2 cm.in diameter situated at corner.Though the bloodgroup could not be identifed.Yet the blood stains were ofhuman origin.To add to this, the CA report (Exhibit-31) revealsthat violet fbers were detected on the slides containing thematerial lifted from around the ligature mark.The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that as therewas material to indicate that only accused and the deceasedwere residing in the room on the night of the occurrence andthe deceased met a homicidal death, onus lay upon the accusedto explain the circumstances in which the deceased died.Drawing support from the provisions contained in Section 106of the Indian Evidence Act and the failure of the accused to offera plausible explanation despite being confronted with theincriminating material under Section 313 of the Code, thelearned Sessions Judge was persuaded to hold that only theaccused was the author of the homicidal death of his deceasedwife.It was for theprosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.Thefact that the accused did not lead any evidence in support of theexplanation, furnished in his examination under Section 313 of 11/18 CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOCthe Code that on the night of the occurrence the accused wasworking at Mandhoni Weaving Mills, Akkalkot Road, could nothave been construed as one relieving the prosecution of itsprimary burden of establishing the charge.Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light onthe content and scope of this provision and it reads:"(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket.The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecyinside a house, the initial burden to establish the case wouldundoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature andamount of evidence to be led by it to establish the chargecannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases ofcircumstantial evidence.The burden would be of acomparatively lighter character.In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fre after sprinkling kerosene.The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time.The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fre.A half-hearted attempt was made to showthat the deceased met a suicidal death without putting concretesuggestion to the prosecution witnesses.In the face ofpositive evidence to show that on the night of occurrence theaccused and the deceased were the only inhabitants of the saidhouse, which is ordinary abode of the accused, the baldassertion that, on the night of occurrence, the accused wasworking in Mandhoni Weaving Mill, was rightly held by the trialcourt to be unworthy of credence.The learned Sessions Judgewas thus justifed in observing that the false explanationsoffered by the accused constituted additional incriminatingcircumstances against the accused.The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that thelearned Sessions Judge appreciated the circumstantial evidence 17/18 CRIAPPEAL-305-2015.DOC in the correct perspective.Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.The appeal stands dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,353,043 | (Passed on 06.02.2017) Per : Sujoy Paul J.In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P/6) whereby the department has decided on revocation of suspension and upon reinstatement of petitioner, he will not get any amount beyond the subsistence allowance which has already been paid to him.However, the suspension period (17.07.1996 to 19.12.2010) was regularized and it was held that the said period shall be treated as period of service for all practical purposes including for grant of annual increments.In nutshell, except the pay and allowances for the aforesaid period, the other benefits have been extended to the petitioner.The Magistrate by judgment dated 25.4.2003, convicted the petitioner under sections 147,325/149 and 323/149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo for RI 3 years,2 years and 1 year with fine 200/-,500/- and 300/- respectively.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the appeal in part and altered the sentence under section 323/149 IPC for RI 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/-.The petitioner then preferred a revision before this court.After judgment of this court, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/3) seeking reinstatement.The Executive Engineer concerned, in turn, sent the report to the competent authority by communication dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P/4).Thereafter, by order dated 20.12.2010, the petitioner was reinstated.It was made clear that a separate order would be passed for regularizing the period of suspension.Thereafter, by order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P/6), the suspension period was confined only upto the extent of grant of subsistence allowance.The petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get full salary during the suspension period.The suspension period ought to have been decided as per Fundamental Rule 54-B.Per contra, Ms Sonali Shrivastav, PL supported the impugned order.The petitioner has undergone the criminal trial because of his own conduct.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated hereinabove.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,359,167 | This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.404 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Sathankulam, Tuticorin District, pursuant to the amicable settlement effectedbetween the parties.If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford towait for a logical conclusion.The antecedents of the accused have also to betaken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of the joint memo of compromise dated16.12.2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inC.C.No.404 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Sathankulam, Tuticorin District in respect of the petitioners/Accused aloneare hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint memo of compromise dated 16.12.2015 shall form part of this order.The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Tuticorin DistrictThe Inspector of Police, Nazereth Police Station, Tuticorin District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,365,209 | a Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of hy the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner ad Sanjay Singh Kushwaha in crime no. 493/2017 registered by M P.S.- Badwara, District- Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-B, 376, 511, 506 and 392 of the of Indian Penal Code.rt As per the prosecution case as reflected in the first ou information report, the prosecutrix is a 29 years old married woman with three children.At about 07:00 p.m. on C 07.10.2017 when her husband and children were not at home, h the petitioner, who was acquainted with the prosecutrix, ig arrived at her residence.caught hold of the prosecutrix, tore H away her blouse, he pushed up her saree and mounted her.He tried to rape her.When the prosecutrix tried to shout, he clamped her mouth shut with his hand.of (1) in the first information report, the prosecutrix has not mentioned anything about robbery;rt (2) in her statement under section 164, she has improved her ou statement and introduced a completely new story by telling C that the petitioner demanded and took away Rs.2,00,000/- and the ornaments;h ig (3) no ornaments were seized during investigation; H (4) only a small abrasion on her shoulder, has been found in the medical examination of the prosecutrix; (5) there appears to be more to the incident than meets the eye;(5) the petitioner has been in custody since 09.10.2017,-in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with sh one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all e ad dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Pr a Certified copy as per rules.hy ad (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE M of rt Digitally signed by BIJU BABY b 2017.11.23 21:03:28 Date:-08'00' C h ig H | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,366,094 | This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.87 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019 on the file of the first respondent, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District, as against the petitioners.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 120(b), 406 and 420 of IPC., as against the petitioners.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.11.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsd To 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.16327 of 20191.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.vsd CRL.O.P(MD)No.16327 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9723 of 2019 6/7http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P(MD)No.16327 of 2019 11.11.2019 | ['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
823,698 | The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unlesshis presence is required in connection with any other case.sraTo:(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, wife of the detenu by name Murali whowas incarcerated at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, by anorder of detention dated 14.7.2007 of the second respondentunder the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (TamilNadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a 'Goonda', has filedthis Habeas Corpus Petition to call for the records inconnection with the order of detention dated 14.7.2007passed in No.322/2007, to set aside the same and to directthe respondents to produce him before this Court and set himat liberty.The ground case, based on which the impugned orderof detention has been made, is that on 08.06.2007, due toprevious enmity, the detenu along with his associatesinflicted cut injuries on the deceased, brother of thecomplainant and the deceased succumbed to the cut injuries.Remarks were called for from thedetaining authority on 21.8.2007, who, in turn, called forparawar remarks from the sponsoring authority and on receiptof the same, it was sent to the Government on 27.8.2007.Thereafter, the file was submitted on 29.8.2007 and it wasconsidered by the Under Secretary and the AdditionalSecretary on the same day.The Minister concerned dealt withthe file on 30.8.2007 and rejected the same.However, therejection letter was prepared only on 6.9.2007, after adelay of seven days, which is not properly explained.We are, therefore, inclined to allow thispetition.In the result, the order of detention is set aside.The Commissioner of Police Chennai.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,371,543 | There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Doghat District Baghpat and the order dated 26.6.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.249 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Doghat District Baghpat.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR which was lodged by the informant/brother of the victim, is that his sister Km.Neelam aged about 16 years was enticed away by the revisionist Sanjay and his uncle (Phupha) namely Balram.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the entire allegations made in the FIR are totally false and fabricated.No such incident ever took place.The revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the victim was sent for medical examination in which no injury either external or internal was found on her body and the radiological age of the victim was found to be 17 years.The victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on 10.4.2018 has developed a new story other than her statement given under Section 161 CrPC.There is material contradiction in the statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC.The police during the course of investigation added Section 376-D IPC in the present case.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.The appeal is disposed of accordingly." | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,377,496 | 2.A tender agreement dated 21.01.2008 was entered into between the Ministry of Railways and M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering Project Ltd, Chennai for Designing, Supply, Erection, Testing and Commissioning of 25KV, 50Hz Single Phase, Traction Overhead Equipments, Switching Stations, Booster Transformer Stations and LT Supply Transformer Stations in Tiruchirappalli (Excl)- Madurai (Incl) section of Southern Railway under RE Project, Chennai.The petitioner is facing trial in C.C No.28 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC.When the contract works were being carried out, an accident occurred on 12.12.2012 at about 10.00 A.M near Madura Coats at Madurai.An Insulator Pipe fell down on one Raju who was working under the bridge.Unfortunately, the said Raju was not wearing any helmet.He suffered head injury and died as a result.In this regard, Crime No. 1046 of 2012 was registered on the file of the Railway Police Station, Madurai Railway Junction.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be filed against three persons.Cognizance of the offences was taken and the case itself was taken up for trial in C.C No.28 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.To quash the same, this criminal original petition has been filed.The Ministry of Railways had entrusted the work of carrying out certain works to M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering Project Ltd, Chennai.The second accused was the Project Manager while the third accused was the Contract Supervisor.The petitioner was not having any field responsibility.When the principal employer had entrusted the works to a contractor, if anything occurs, the principal employer can be made vicariously liable for damages.When it comes to penal liability under IPC, the principal employer cannot be made vicariously liable.4.I also went through the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC.By no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be made liable.Even if all the materials enclosed along with the final report are taken to be true, still no case is made out against the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 herein.The offence under section 304 (A) of IPC can be said to be made out only if the accused can be said to have caused the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.In this case, the deceased was not wearing helmet.Works were being supervised by the other two accused.The petitioner was nowhere in the picture.The essential ingredients of Section 304 (A) IPC are not present in this case.Therefore, making the petitioner to undergo the agony of criminal trial, can only be characterized as an abuse of legal process as far as the petitioner is concerned.Therefore, the impugned prosecution stands quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned.The criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Madurai Railway Junction, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.Skm Crl OP(MD)No.22212 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015 19.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
823,786 | JUDGMENT Jahagirdar, J.The Petitioner was offended by the contents of that article and therefore he filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, charging the accused with offences punishable Under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the complaint he has mentioned several parts of the article in the Marmik issue which according to him are objectionable for the grounds mentioned in that complaint.He alleges that the article contains several insulting words and threats and he says that looking at the nature of the insult and threats and in the present climate of murder, violence and terrorism, a serious view ought to be taken of those offences so as to restore a sense of security in him in relation to the threats of the accused.The complainant was examined in the first place on 20th of August 1976 and again on 1st October 1976, before framing the charge.After framing the charge he was offered for cross-examination and it appears that he was in the witness box for two days and was subjected to cross-examination for nearly eight hours.The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 15th December 1976 rejected the application filed on behalf of the complainant and overruling the objection allowed the accused to put the objected question in the cross-examination. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,379,808 | It is the story of the e ad prosecution that the prosecutrix, who used to live with her Pr parents at Seoni had come to Bhopal with the said Bhaiyalal to a work as labourer.It is the further case of the prosecutrix that on hy 4.5.2009 the prosecutrix was brought to the Police Station Kolar ad Road by her mother and it was informed that she was working as M a labourer at Sarvadharm Sector, Bhopal where she came to know of present appellant Hira, who was also working on the same site rt and developed acquaintance.ou C (Delivered on this the 5th day of January, 2018) h ig This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of H Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12/7/2013 passed by the 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.622/2009, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the night of a hy 12.2.2009 at around 8 Oclock the present appellant enticed ad and abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor from Kaveri Colony, M Kolar Road Bimakunj, Bhopal and took her to Village Alot of Chamola District Ujjain and sold her to co-accused Ramesh, who rt in turn raped her and kept her with him for around three months.ou Co-accused Ramesh and Prahlad Suryavanshi had already been C tried in different ST No.622/2009 wherein the co-accused h Prahalad Suryavanshi has been acquitted whereas co-accused ig Ramesh has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of H IPC, and since the present appellant Hiralal @ Hira was absconding at the time of trial of co-accused persons, hence his case was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and was tried separately.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.2.2009 a missing person report was lodged by Narayan, who is the father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Kolar Road to the effect that on 15.2.2009 he was informed by one Bhaiyalal on phone that his daughter is missing since 12.2.2009, who at around 8:00 in the sh night had gone to answer the natures call.On 12.2.2009 when she had gone to ou answer the natures call, the present appellant met her and C asked her to marry with him and when she refused, then Hira and h co-accused Prahalad forcefully took her to Ujjain from a jeep and ig from Ujjain they went to Hiras brother-in-law Mohan and on H 14.2.2009 Hira and Mohan sold the prosecutrix to Ramesh and Nagu Maharaj and went away from there.It is further the story of the prosecution that Ramesh and Nagu Maharaj took her to Village Dokarkheda District Jhalawad (Rajasthan) where Ramesh kept her as his wife for around three months and had also raped her during this period.There she also came to know one Arjun and with the help of Arjun and his friend Narayan, she came back to Ujjain from where she called her mother and neighbour Mahesh Chourasiya on phone who came to Ujjain, took her to sh Bhopal and lodged a report on 4.5.2009 at Police Station Kolar e ad Road vide Crime No.168/2009 under Sections 363, 366, 376/34, Pr 506 of IPC against the accused persons Hira, Mohan, Prahalad, a Ramesh and Nagu Maharaj.A charge sheet was filed against the accused Ramesh and since ad the present appellant Hira and other co-accused Nagu Maharaj M were absconding at that time, hence the investigation was kept of pending against them under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and during rt the investigation present appellant Hira was also arrested and ou subsequently the charge sheet was also filed against him.After C recording of the evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court has h convicted and sentenced the present appellant as aforesaid and ig being aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been filed H before this Court.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that firstly the prosecutrix was not minor as projected by the prosecution and secondly she was a consenting party, because she was travelling with the accused persons by public transport and was also working as a labourer while alleged to be in the custody of the accused persons and during all this period, she neither tried to run away from the custody of the accused persons nor had informed any person to help her.Thus, her statement cannot sh accepted, hence it is prayed that the present appellant may be e ad acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted a that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not committed any hy illegality in convicting the present appellant and has rightly ad arrived at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was minor at the M time of incident, hence her consent has no significance.7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the ig record.So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, in her deposition dated 6.5.2009 she has stated her age to be 16 years, although there is nothing on record to prove her age.In such circumstances only reliable evidence is the ossification test carried out by Dr. M.K.Jain (PW-2), who had conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix on 6.5.2009 and has opined her age between 15 to 17 years.Thus, taking into account this aspect of the matter and as has been held by the Honble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that in ossification test, there is always sh of margin of error of two years on either side is possible.In such e ad circumstances, by giving benefit of doubt the age of the Pr prosecutrix can be considered to be that of 19 years.In such a circumstances, the conviction under Section 366-A of IPC cannot hy be sustained.However, merely proving the prosecutrix to be ad major cannot be ground of presuming that she was also a M consenting party and for that specific evidence has to be led by of the accused persons to prove their innocence on the basis of the rt consent of the prosecutrix.A bare perusal of the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW-1) C reveals that she was living at Bhopal with one Bhaiyalal, whereas h her parents were residing at Seoni.Bhaiyalal and the prosecutrix ig were also working as a labourer whereas the prosecutrix H developed acquaintance with the present appellant and in the night of the incident, Hiralal approached her and proposed to marry her and when she refused, he and co-accused Prahlad forcefully took her to Ujjain from a jeep and from Ujjain they went to Hiras brother-in-law Mohan and on 14.2.2009 Hira and Mohan sold the prosecutrix for sixty thousand to Ramesh and Nagu Maharaj and went away from there.Thereafter Ramesh and Nagu Maharaj took her to Village Dokarkheda District Jhalawad (Rajasthan) where Ramesh kept her as his wife for around three sh months and had also raped her.The prosecutrix has also stated e ad that when she refused for the first time, she was also beaten by Pr Ramesh.She has further stated that when she was working with a Ramesh at Dokarkheda, she came to know one Arjun and with the hy help of Arjun and his friend Narayan, she came back to Ujjain ad where she called her mother and neighbour Mahesh Chourasiya M on phone and narrated the entire incident.Thus even though the of appellant Hiralal has not committed rape with the prosecutrix, but rt still he is the main accused, who abducted the prosecutrix and ou sold her to Ramesyh and Nagu Maharaj.She h has also stated that Hiralal had also told her that she should tell ig others that he is her brother and he is getting her to marry H Ramesh.She has reiterated her earlier statement that she came to know Arjun at Dokarkheda, who helped her to come to Ujjain.Nothing substantial could be extracted from the cross examination of the prosecutrix.In the cross examination a question was put to the prosecutrix that whether she had gone with Hiralal on her own volition and had also gone with Ramesh on her own will to which she has denied.In such circumstances, the prosecution has been able to make h out the case against the appellant but instead of Section 366-A of ig IPC the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 366 of H IPC.Even if the prosecutrix did not complain or raise alarm when she had an opportunity, in that case also her consent cannot be presumed taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, and also her age as opined by Dr.M.K.Jain (PW-2) to be 15 to 17 years and even assuming the same to be 19 years, it can be safely presumed that she had no knowledge of wordily affairs and cannot be said to be a consenting party.ig (Subodh Abhyankar) Judge H 05/01/2018 Ansari Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2018.01.08 20:35:30 -08'00' | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,285,629 | The petitioners, Dr.Ritu Rawat, Medical Superintendent, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals and Dr.Rajeev Puri, Consultant ENT seek quashing of complaint in case No.495/1/2007 and orders dated 2nd CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 1 of 36 March, 2007 and 17th March, 2007 passed in the said complaint case under Section 304(II)/304A/34 IPC.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 1 of 36The complainants are respondents No.1 & 2, grandfather and mother of Late Aditya Pal who was suffering from Recurrent Laryngeal Papillomatosis.The respondents contended in their complaint that on 3rd October, 2005 late Aditya Pal was again admitted in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and during the procedure one of the pulses caused a luminescence in the airway leading to withdrawal of the procedure as the deceased suffered laser burns in the airway and he was shifted to ventilator support in Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU).For the laser burns during the procedure, he was stabilized initially in O.T and then shifted to ICU for further management where he was put on mechanical ventilator and allegedly started on IV antibiotics and vigorous supportive care (inotopes and IV fluids).CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 2 of 36CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 2 of 36The complainants have alleged that the child continued to remain under the treatment till 26th October, 2005 on which day he ultimately expired.It has been contended that the Trachestomy suction was found to be blood stained and volume was increasing.The complainants categorically asserted that the laser equipment operated by petitioner No.2 and maintained by petitioner No.1 and other accused, Indraprashtha Medical Corporation Limited and Anne Moncure, Managing Director, was unfit and defective.It was contended that its poor upkeep and maintenance along with deficient knowledge in running the machine, both at the time of procedure during its normal usage and after its mall-function during the course of operation, caused serious burn injuries.Some of the relevant allegations made in the complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners are as under:-That the laser equipment operated by the accused No.4 and maintained by accused Nos.1-3 was unfit and defective.Its poor upkeep and maintenance along with deficient knowledge in running the machine both at the time of procedure during its normal usage and after its malfunction during the course of operation caused serious burn injuries leading to a hole in the traches of the child Aditya Pal which led to further secondary complication and his untimely death.That the accused No.1 is a company running Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and Accused No.2 is its Managing Director whereas accused No.3 is its Medical Superintendent and both the accused No.2 and 3 are directly and vicariously responsible for the day to day affairs, maintenance and upkeep of the hospital, its equipments and further to ensure that the services being CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 3 of 36 rendered are upto the mark and of good standard quality as per established medical norms.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 3 of 36That accused No.4 who performed the procedure was criminally negligent and incompetent to carry the operation of the given nature.Moreover, due to grossly negligent and inapt handling of the situation, the child was not treated properly and rather suffered serious injuries leading to his death at his hands.That even after the serious burn injuries which resulted from culpable negligence at the hospital there was dismal failure to take necessary care warranted by the situation having arisen from lack of exercise of proper care and due precaution incumbent on the accused.The child was ignored, no proper treatment was offered and eventually the child expired due to the acts and omissions of the accused.In fact, the attending doctor lacked the kind of skill required for handling such spoilt cases as also requisite remedial treatment was not administered despite the complainant having agreed and offered to bear all possible expenses to save the most precious life of the only son and the only hope of a widowed mother."The respondents no.1 & 2 has categorically asserted that the petitioner No.2 was grossly negligent and his inapt handling of the situation, as the child was not treated properly and he suffered serious injuries and even after that he was not looked after properly, ultimately led to his death.The respondents are categorical that even after the serious burn injuries which resulted from culpable negligence there was dismal failure to take necessary care warranted by the situation having arisen from lack of exercise of proper care and due precaution incumbent on the accused.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 4 of 36CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 4 of 36After the demise of Aditya Pal post mortem on his body was conducted at AIIMS by a board consisting of Dr.Sudhir Gupta, Associate Professor, Dr.B.L.Chaudhary, Senior Resident and Dr.The relevant observations of the post mortem report as detailed in the complaint are as follows:-Put up for 17.3.2007 at 2 PM at the request of the counsel."After the complaint was filed, the learned M.M directed the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar to give the status report.After the post mortem report the police had sought an opinion from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, pursuant to which a board was constituted to examine the laser machines and treatment papers of the deceased.The medical board comprised of Dr.Sudhir Bahadur, Professor of ENT, Chairman; Dr.Adarsh Kumar, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Member; Dr.Biplab Mishra, Assistant Prop. of Surgery; Mr.S.K.Kamboj, Senior Technical Officer and Dr.The medical board also sought few clarifications from Dr. Sudhir Gupta who was the Chairman of the board which had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased.MY- 600102951035 with its accessories on 15th June, 2006 for examination from Sub Inspector Hari Prakash, Police Station Sarita Vihar, New CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 8 of 36 Delhi.On 17th July, 2006 machine was tested and it was found to be functioning normally and all the accessories were also found to be working properly and correct as per its functions.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 8 of 36The report dated 29th July, 2006 was given by All India Institute of Medical Science by the Medical Board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences consisting of Dr.Sudhir Bahadur, Professor of ENT; Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine; Dr. Biplab Mishra, Assistant Professor of Surgery; Mr.S.K. Kamboj, Sr.Technical Officer and Dr. Raja Dutta, Department of Hospital Administration.The Medical Board in the said report stipulated that in view of the post mortem report No. 1313/05 of the deceased and of the request of Investigating Officer by letter No.NIL dated 5th June, 2006, few clarifications were to be sought from Dr.Sudhir Gupta, Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, who was the Chairman of the Board which had conducted the post-mortem and had held the case to be res ipsa loquitur/a case of gross medical negligence and requested Dr.Despite the request of the Medical Board to Dr.K.Lathita and Dr.The laser spark which occurred in the airway at the site of surgery and which caused burn injuries in the airway, although very rare, is known to occur with the incidence of 0.5% to 1.5% in the U.S.A. Post explosion treatment including treatment provided in the PICU and the ward was as per standard treatment protocol.The same may be recommended to the Government in all Delhi hospitals.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 10 of 36The SHO relied on opinion of the Board of Directors constituted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences which was obtained on account of adverse remarks regarding cause of death in the post mortem report.According to the report, the Board of Doctors had examined the laser machine and treatment papers of the deceased and on inspection laser machine was found to be in normal working condition.The SHO had also referred to the opinion obtained from Delhi Medical Council which had opined that the case of the deceased was of accidental burn.On the basis of these reports, it was stated that the Doctor who had treated the patient is guilty for treatment procedure CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 11 of 36 even though the Medical Council of Delhi has not observed any negligence in the management of the entire episode.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 11 of 36Ante-Mortem injuries over the body:1.) Therepeutic (during the treatment) Surgical trancheostomy wound of size of 1.5 cm x 4.5 cm red in color.Tracheostomy wound was packed with a gauze piece.2.) On dissection of neck and wind pipe severe burn injury with granulation tissue, with charred tissue material and carbon soot present from Oropharynx, full supraglottis, larynx and tracheal wall upto C-7 vertebral level.One trachea-oesophageal fistula present on posterior wall of trachea.3.) Burn healed injury of size 004 x 4 cm present in anterior surface of neck on right side.Another injury (burn) seen 1 cm below injury no.20.5 cm x 0.3 cm.4.) Healed burn maker on right cheek of size 5 x 1.5 cm whitish in colour.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 5 of 36anterior surface of neck on right side.Another injury (burn) seen 1 cm below injury no.20.5 cm x 0.3 cm.4) Healed burn mark on right cheek of size 5 x 1.5 cm whitish in colour.fluid/oedematous/congested.Pleural cavity is jhilli kind of thing which surround lungs, when it gets infected it discharge fluid (serosanguinous) oedema is swelling, congestion is increase of blood supply a normal body response.Lungs: Pus oozing on pressure (lung infection).Cause of Death Extensive ante-mortem laser burn injuries to:-Oropharnx iv.Trachea upto cervical C-7 level Resulting into R.T.I (Respiratory Track Infection), Lung Infection with Septicaemia.Opinion The mentioned burn injury which is primary cause of death was unwarranted.This speaks failure of taking required precautions, care and skill in adopted procedure.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 6 of 36This is res ispa loquitur/a case of gross medical negligence (common man language of Medical finding during the post mortem) Ante-mortem injury over body:-Therapeutic (during treatment) Surgical tracheostomy wound of size of 1.5 cm x 4.5 cm red in colour.Tracheostomy wound was packed with a gauze piece."The complainant further asserted that the reference was made to Delhi Medical Council but the same was not dealt with properly and since no action was initiated against the petitioners they filed the complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sought action against the petitioners for complaints under Section 304(Part-II), 304A/34 IPC.On 3rd March, 2007 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order:-"Fresh complaint received by way of assignment.It be checked and registered.I take cognizance.Issue notice to the SHO P.S.Sarita Vihar to give the status report.The copy of the complaint is supplied to constable Ratan.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 7 of 36The medical board also obtained the YAG Laser Systems MY30/MY60 which was evaluated by Sh.S.K.Kamboj, Senior Technical Officer.The report dated 18th July, 2006 was given by a Senior Technical Officer of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences stipulating that he had received the laser machine Model No.Martine MY60 Serial No.Sudhir Gupta to appear, he did not attend the meeting.Thereafter, the Board obtained the legible and complete copy of post mortem report and after considering the post mortem report and the report of technical examination of YAG Laser System opined as under:-CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 9 of 36CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 9 of 36"Apparently the patient suffered from recurrent laryngeal papilloma.On the basis of representation from the office of DCP Headquarters, Delhi, forwarded by Government of NCT, a hearing was given to the accused and the complainant/respondent No.1 and 2 by the Delhi Medical Council and on the basis of these statements and the record, a report dated 15th September, 2006 was also given.It was held that laser spark which occurred in the airway at the time of surgery which caused burn injuries in the airway though rare is known to occur with the incidence of 0.5% to 1.5% in the USA.Delhi Medical Council board of Dr.Praveen Khilani, Dr.It was unfortunate that after having successful laser resection in four consecutive occasions, accidental fire occurred during the fifth session which resulted in laser burn of the airway of Master Aditya leading to secondary complications and he finally succumbed to them.After going through all the records and also examining the doctors associated with this case, the Council did not observe any negligence in the management of the entire episode.The status report was filed before the learned M.M along with the report of the medical board and technical examination report.The petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 2nd March, 2007 and 17th March, 2007 on the grounds that they are incorrect and bad in law.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 12 of 36...After considering the material on record, learned Sessions Judge framed the charge as stated above.That charge is quashed by the High Court against the respondents by accepting the contention raised and considering the details of the material produced on record.CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 24 of 36CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 25 of 36CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 26 of 36Though the independent Board has requested Dr.Sudhir Gupta to appear before the Board, however, the said doctor who conducted the post mortem did not appear before the alleged independent Board and merely on the basis of the legible copies of the post mortem report, the Board opined that there is always an inherent risk in using laser surgeries and that accidental laser fire is CRL.M.C.No.2445/2008 Page 28 of 36 a known complication.The alleged independent Board of All India Institute of Medical Science and Delhi Medical Council in their report also do not absolve the petitioners conclusively.In the said order the Ld. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,288,202 | Complainant states that by his act, he felt very pain and when he cried out of pain, then said boy stated to have threatened to kill him & and kept his hand on his mouth.Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of one and a half years' delay in filing the present revision petition.4. Notice.Counsel for the State accepts notice and has no objection if the delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned.5. Heard.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.Application stands disposed of.Present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 8.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, whereby the first appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.By the CRL.REV.P.700/2013 Page 1 of 1 judgment dated 13.7.2012 and order on sentence dated 16.7.2012 passed by learned ACMM, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, the petitioner was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for six months.The petitioner was further directed to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, SI for six months.Petitioner was also directed to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, SI for three months.The petitioner has also been sentenced to RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine SI for three months.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The petitioner has also been directed to be given benefit of the period of imprisonment already undergone, during trial in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.CRL.REV.P.700/2013 Page 1 of 1The necessary facts, as noticed by learned ACMM in the judgment dated 13.7.2012, for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:"1. Accused Ajaj Hussian was sent up to face trial for offence u/s 363/342/377/506 IPC.Factual matrix of the matter is that on 01.02.03 upon receipt of call vide DD No.16A, SI B. Upadhyay alongwith Ct.Lav Raj went to spot at Gali No.2 Balbir Nagar near Shop "Durga Cement" where IO found many people collected there, IO also met with one Nitin Jain son of Sh.Raj Kumar Jain, aged-12 years who gave statement to the IO stating therein that he is studying in class Vth standard, he had come from his house to see "Metro Rail" to Welcome Metro Station and went on "Metro" to Shahdara Metro Station and when he was watching metro station, a boy met him whose name he came to know to be "Ajaz".Complainant states that when he enquired from that boy the way for "Jheel", then said boy told him that he would tell him the way to Jheel and on the pretext of taking him to Jheel, brought him to his CRL.REV.P.700/2013 Page 2 of 2 house in Balbir Nagar and took him in one room and closed that room.Complainant further states that said boy made him sit on a mattress on floor and at about 5;30 pm in evening, Ajaz stated to have made him to lie on the mattress and took off his pant and underwear.Complainant further alleges that said Ajaz thereafter committed unnatural carnal intercourse with him.Thereafter, Ajaz kept on committing unnatural act for a long time and after completing told the boy to leave the room.Complainant told about that incidence to people standing in street, while crying and told people that said boy was in room, then those people caught said boy and handed over to police.CRL.REV.P.700/2013 Page 2 of 2On the above statement of complainant Nitin Jain present case was registered and accused Ajaj Hussain was arrested.Complainant was medically examined & accused was also medically examined.Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused free of cost and learned predecessor of this court after considering the material available on the record vide order dated 10.04.2003 framed the charge against the accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove his case prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses......."In the order dated 8.5.2013, the trial court has observed that a statement was made by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner accepted his conviction without addressing any argument on merits but addressed arguments only on sentence.In the present case, the petitioner had kidnapped a 12 years old child and subjected him to an unnatural act. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,288,798 | The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 439 of 2013 dated 11.05.2013 under sections 376/417/120B/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.The Petitioner is the father of the principal accused.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
802,893 | Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Regular Criminal Case No.4199 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 3 Nagpur, and to quash the same.Respondent no. 1/complainant Jayesh, a car buyer had filed complaint against the accused car dealer Star Motors etc. at Lakadganj Police station, Nagpur complaining offences under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The police initially treated it as N. C. case making entry no.Being aggrieved by police inaction, the complainant had preferred the application dated 12/10/2007 before the Magistrate at Nagpur under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction to the Lakadganj Police Station to register FIR and to investigate into the matter and to file report.Learned Magistrate by order dated 20/10/2007 directed the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur to register FIR and investigate the matter and submit charge sheet/report, if any.On 04/11/2007 FIR No. M-02/2007 under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:45 ::: 3 recorded against four accused.Dissatisfied with the charge-sheet, complainant applied before the Magistrate on 04/12/2007 for direction to the Police Station Officer to take up further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code and to file supplementary charge-sheet.Learned JMFC Court No. 3 Nagpur by order dated 07/12/2007 allowed the application and directed Police station Officer of Lakadganj Police Station to further investigate into the matter and file supplementary charge sheet according to law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:45 :::The order was challenged by Criminal Revision No. 818 of 2007 at the behest of applicants.By Judgment and order dated 07/03/2008 passed by Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, the revision application was dismissed and learned Magistrate was directed to proceed in the matter further according to law.Hence, this application under Section 482 of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:45 :::Respondent no.2 has filed application (Criminal Application No. 2107 of 2008) for taking appropriate action against the applicants for having filed fraudulent, manipulated and forged documents.Neither respondent no.2 nor his counsel was present at the time of hearing of main application.Consequently, Criminal Application No. 2107 of 2008 is dismissed for want of prosecution.A. P. BHANGALE, J joshi ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:12:46 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,290,499 | In Re : Ratan Chatterjee & Ors. ... Petitioners Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.1.2014 in connection with Raghunathganj P.S. Case No. 793/2013 dated 5.11.2013 under Sections 467/468/471/472/473/120b/166/167/168 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Md. Mokaram Hossain ... For the petitioners Mr. Debajyoti Deb ... For the State Mr. Asish Kr.Roy ... For the defacto-complainant We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocates for the State and the defacto-complainant.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. ) | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,298,681 | Petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.233/2010 at P. S. Kotwali, Anuppur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 468 of IPC.The petitioner further prayed a relief for quashment of proceeding pending before CJM Annuppur.A compromise application was filed before the Court.It was mentioned in the application that matter has been compromised between the parties and accused paid an amount of Rs.1,39,000/- to the complainant.Hence, proceeding be quashed.Thereafter a private complaint was registered. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
8,030,496 | The petitioner has contended that on the basis of a complaint dated 6th March, 2004 by Sameer Soin a FIR was registered on 10th March, 2008 against him and his father under Section 384/120B/34 of Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 1 of 6 IPC.No.1305/2008 Page 6 of 6* This is a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.132/08, P.S.Anand Vihar, under Section 384/120B/34 of IPC.The allegation against the petitioner is that he was harassing the complainant along with his father on one pretext or other by making repeated complaints to various authorities regarding the functioning of the petrol pump.The petitioner further contended that complainant found the demands of his father unreasonable and on asking as to how the grievance of the father of the petitioner could be redressed, an alleged demand of Rs.5 lakh was made and thereafter the present complaint was registered.Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 1 of 6The conversation which took place between the complainant, his father and the petitioner on 5th March, 2008 and 6th March, 2008 were recorded.Father of the petitioner is stated to be the Vice President of Rashtravadi Janta Party, a recognized political party by the Election Commission of India.It was also asserted on behalf of petitioner that his father is a senior journalist writing in various newspapers for the last 40 years.The allegation of black marketing of essential commodities by the complainant was also made adopting the modus operandi of transferring the fuel to the adjoining State, Uttar Pradesh.The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended that prior to 6th March, 2008 there is no prior incident related to the petitioner and considering the definition of extortion in Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, contemplating putting the other person to fear and to induce to deliver something has not been made out as nothing Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 2 of 6 was delivered to the petitioner.It is also pleaded that at the maximum on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner it can be a case of attempt to extortion and it shall be punishable in that circumstance only for one and a half year.Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 2 of 6The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Considering the totality of facts it is submitted that there are no grounds to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Petition is contested contending that the first bail application had been withdrawn on 6th June, 2008 and thereafter without any modification or change of circumstances, the present bail application was filed on 11th June, 2008 and consequently the application of the petitioner is not maintainable.The counsel for the respondent has also opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is absconding and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.Grant of bail is also opposed on the ground that in the dealings with another bank, the petitioner has given two addresses and in the circumstances he should not be released on bail.Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 3 of 6Bail Appl.No.1305/2008 Page 3 of 6The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on 132(2006) DLT 622, Balbir Kaur & Anr v. State to contend that second bail application does not lie after the earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, after the Court had heard arguments and accepted the same.The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when directed by the I.O. and will not try to influence any witness in any manner.Bail Appl. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,305,235 | The owner switched off the lights, fans, ACs and closed the doors.The SHO intervened and directed the owner Mr. Sunil Shah and his sons to produce the records, but they declined.They also did not open the door for verification of the records pertaining to the establishment.Later, owner Mr. Sunil Shah also contacted the SHO on phone and declined to produce the records.Though the names of the sons of the Crl.M.C. 246/2011 Page 6 of 7 owner Sunil Shah were not mentioned in the complaint, presumable as their names were not known at the time of making complaint, but it was categorically alleged that they were the sons of the owner Sunil Shah who committed the offences as noted above.This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC preferred by the petitioner for quashing FIR No.271/2009 under Sections 186, 353, 189, 332/34 IPC registered at Police Station K. Nagar Delhi and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by learned MM whereby he took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 186, 189 IPC against all the four accused persons arrayed in the aforesaid FIR.Before adverting to the grounds on which the reliefs are sought by the petitioners, facts in nutshell may be noted.They introduced themselves and asked for the production of records for verification.The person at the reception not only declined to produce any record but also misbehaved rudely with them.One of the sons of the owner Mr. Sunil Shah appeared and started clicking photographs of the officials and threatened Crl.M.C. 246/2011 Page 1 of 7 with dire consequences.Their staff, including the lady officer who had gone behind the showroom verifying the record pertaining to the establishment were also obstructed to enter and they were misbehaved.The workers were made to run away by the management and so no headcount of the workers could be made.It was alleged that sons of Mr.The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court mainly on two grounds, namely.M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 13, 2011 Rajdass/awanish Crl.M.C. 246/2011 Page 7 of 7M.C. 246/2011 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
80,309,004 | ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 :::Judgment 2 revn112.15.odt1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.2. RULE.Rule made returnable forthwith.The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application field by her under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On the report given by Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan, Crime No. 307 of 2010 came to be registered on 28/11/2010 against Sushil Zade (son of the present applicant) and the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against Sushil Zade and the applicant.The applicant filed application (Exh.5) under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she is residing separately from Sushil Zade since 2001 and this is substantiated by the fact that even in the charge-sheet, the address of the applicant is different from the address of Sushil Zade, that the applicant has no concern with Sushil Zade and never resided with him and the applicant is residing ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 ::: Judgment 3 revn112.15.odt with her younger son Anand and his family members.The applicant further stated that the report lodged by Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan shows that the applicant was not present at the time of marriage of Sushil Zade with deceased Shubhangi.With these submissions, the applicant prayed that she be discharged from the prosecution as there is no material on record which shows that prima-facie case exists for prosecution of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the accused cannot be discharged if there is suspicion against the accused and it is not necessary that sufficient grounds should exist for prosecuting the accused.The learned Additional Sessions has observed that there are allegations and incriminating circumstances which show that the applicant had offered an amount of Rs.Two Lakhs to deceased Shubhangi for giving divorce to Sushil Zade.It is further recorded that though Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan (informant) has stated that he came to know about the above fact from his paternal aunt-Draupadibai, it cannot be said at this stage that sufficient ground does not exist for prosecuting the applicant.With these considerations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application (Exh.5) filed by the ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 ::: Judgment 4 revn112.15.odt applicant.The applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has filed this application.::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 :::On record, the only allegation against the applicant is that Sanjog Mahendra Gopnarayan (informant) has stated that his paternal aunt-Draupadibai told him that the applicant had offered Rs.Two Lakhs to deceased Shubhangi for giving divorce to Sushil Zade.There is nothing on record to show as to on what date the applicant had asked deceased Shubhangi to give divorce to Sushil Zade and take the amount of Rs.Two Lakhs.In any case, it cannot be said that the overt-act attributed to the applicant is of such a nature that deceased Shubhangi is compelled to take extreme step of committing suicide.There is no live link between the alleged overt-act attributed to the applicant and the incident.The charge-sheet shows that the address of the applicant is different from the address of Sushil Zade.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider these relevant aspects.In my view, sufficient material is not available on record to prosecute the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 ::: Judgment 5 revn112.15.odt 498-A, 306 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations against the applicant, even if found to be true, does not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:22:19 :::Hence, the following order :i) The order pased by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2014 on the application (Exh.5) on 25th March, 2015 is set aside.In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,634,151 | Applicant / complainant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2014 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majholi, District Sidhi in criminal case no. 584/13 framing the charge under section 324 (on two counts) of IPC.Heard on IA No. 15966/2014 filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation act for condonation of delay which is of 51 days.On perusal of the record it is evident that the respondent no. 2 Yadvendra caused injuries to Ramsunder as well as Amritlal with a sharp edged weapon, an axe on their heads.As per medical examination, nature of the injuries has been found in simple.Though, the injury of injured Ramsunder was advised for X-ray yet no fracture has been detected in the said injury.There is no sufficient evidence on record for framing the charge under Section 307 of IPC.In the said circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant seems to be merit-less. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,642,969 | This is an appeal under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is directed against rejection of bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 31.08.2019 passed by Sessions Judge-Barwani.The appellants are in jail since 28.08.2019 in Crime No.230/2019 registered at Police Station-Thikai (AJK), District- Barwani for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 324, 326/34 of IPC and u/S.3(1)(n-r)(/k-s), 3(2)(5) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act.As per prosecution story, appellants alongwith co-accused Mukesh had hurled filthy abuses on the complainant and the appellant no. 1 - Ashok is attributed with causing injury by wooden stick and the other co-accused namely Mukesh had caused injury by using an axe.However, appellant no. 2 Devichand has given kick and fist blows to the injured persons.Accordingly, case was registered against the appellants.The appellants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since the last about three months.Appellants are the sole bread earner and the family is at the verge of starvation.Hence bail application deserves to be rejected.After taking into consideration of rival contentions of both the counsel Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 26/11/2019 12:35:35 2 CRA-8157-2019 and perusal of the impugned order, it appears that appellant no.1 - Ashok's case is distinct with that of Mukesh and Dev Chand as both of them have caused injury to the complaint by axe and kick and fist blows, which might have resulted into grievous injuries but, without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed so far as appellant no. -1 Ashok is concerned.It is directed that the appellant no.1- Ashok be released on bail on his 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 on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of C.P.C.The appeal, so far as it relates to appellant no.2 - Dev Chand is hereby dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 26/11/2019 12:35:35 | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,664,654 | M.C.No.4378/2011 Page 4 of 4M.C.No.4378/2011 Page 4 of 4Therefore, the instant petition may be allowed and aforementioned FIR may also be quashed.Respondent no. 2, Sh.Raman Bhatia who is personally present in the court who has been identified by his counsel Anangpal Singh, as Crl.He has submitted that he has settled all the issues and prayed to quash the FIR, as he not interested to pursue the case further.It is further submitted that in charge sheet, two persons have been sent for trial apart from the petitioner.Petitioner has informed this Crl.M.C.No.4378/2011 Page 3 of 4 court that co-accused Sh.Krishan Lal has already been expired.M.C.No.4378/2011 Page 3 of 4Keeping the statement of respondent no.2 into view, FIR No. 466/91 dated 26.11.1991 registered at PS Jahangirpuri on the complaint of respondent no.2 against petitioner and proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding putting the petitioner to some terms; however, considering the financial status of petitioner, I am not inclined to impose any cost upon him.Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No. 4378/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of.15. Dasti.SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 24, 2012 ac Crl. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,651,434 | Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:-On 14.08.1998 he had gone to A-64, Sector-4 on his duty.Husband of his wife's sister (Sarhu) Lalu Ram son of Bheem, resident of Village-Koreed, Post Purtighat, District Gulmi Nepal presently residing at Village-Devli, Delhi had come over to his house at about 6:00 P.M. His neighbour appellant-accused Dil Bahadur, son of Sewa Lal, resident of Village- Leelapani, Police Station Bhakunde, District Syangja Nepal presently residing at Village- Haraula, Sector -5 came into his home.At the same time, his wife having taken bath entered into the room.He with ill intention started teasing his wife.When his wife opposed his move, appellant-accused Dil Bahadur stabbed his wife Kopila, aged about 24 years with a knife.His Sarhu Lalu Ram and neighbours admitted her to Government hospital Sector-30 Nithari in injured condition, where she died.He got a report Exhibit Ka-5 written by one Hari Prasad Bhattarai given by the informant Gagan @ Govind PW-6, a case was registered at Police Station, Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar on Crime No. 639 of 1998, under Sections 354 and 304 I.P.C. on the same day at about 8:30Thereafter, Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Nepal Singh PW-7 in whose presence the offence was registered commenced the investigation into crime.On next day he went with informant Gagan @ Govind, Deepak Kumar, Madan Lal, Vishonu Gyani and Hari Prasad Bhattarai and prepared inquest report Exhibit Ka-8 and other relevant papers i.e. photo lash, challan lash, sample of seal etc. Exhibit Ka-9 to Exhibit Ka-11 were also prepared.Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of eye witness Lalu Ram and collected plain earth and blood stained earth and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-1 and Exhibit Ka-2 were prepared.Spot inspection was also conducted by the Investigating Officer and site plan Exhibit Ka-12 was sketched.On 16.08.1998, the Investigating Officer along with Sub-Inspector Bani Singh PW-4, Sas Bahadur PW-1 and Dhan Bahadur PW-2 apprehended the appellant-accused and on the pointing out of the appellant-accused knife which was used in commission of crime was recovered under the earth of northern and western gate of a stopped factory situated at Sector-5, B-95 in Noida and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-3 and site plan Exhibit Ka-13 were prepared.Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2001 passed by XIIth learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 1547 of 1998 arising out of Case Crime No. 639 of 1998, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Noida, Sector -20, District Gautam Budh Nagar (State vs. Dil Bahadur.By the impugned judgment learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused under Section 302 I.P.C. to serve life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo six months further imprisonment in default of payment of fine.On 16.08.1998 case was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. and Tarmimi G.D. Exhibit Ka-14 was also prepared.Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statement of witnesses.Postmortem examination on dead body of deceased Kopila was performed by the Doctor O.N. Pandey PW-5 on 15.08.1998 at about 3:00 P.M. The dead body was brought to the Doctor by the Constable C.P. 251 Avadhesh and Constable C.P. 461 Anish Ahmad who had identified the dead body.On his cadaver Doctor had noted the following ante-mortem injuries:-Incised wound 3 Cm.x 1 ½ Cm.x Chest cavity deep on the chest left side just outer to sternum lower part 6 Cm.below and middle to left nipple oblique in posterior.Multiple abrasion 10 Cm.x 5 Cm.on the left side face.Multiple abrasion 10 Cm.x 10 Cm.on the right side back thorased region.Cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.On the strength of submitted charge-sheet appellant-accused was summoned.Since disclosed offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Ghaziabad committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Session Trial No. 1547 of 1998 (State vs. Dil Bahadur).The aforesaid sessions trial was transferred to the Court of XII Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad for trial.Charge being read over and explained to the appellant-accused.The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and consequently sessions trial procedure was restored to establish the guilt of the appellant-accused.In order to prove its case prosecution has examined informant Gagan @ Govind PW-6, Sas Bahadur PW-1, Dhan Bahadur PW-2 and Ram Bahadur PW-3 as the witnesses of fact.Doctor O.N. Pandey PW-5, Sub-Inspector Bani Singh PW-4, Sub-Inspector Mahesh Nath Chaturvedi CW-1 and Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Nepal Singh PW-7 are the formal witnesses.Sas Bahadur PW-1 and Dhan Bahadur PW-2 are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence.Sas Bahadur PW-1 and Dhan Bahadur PW-2 have deposed that on the pointing out of the appellant-accused the knife which was used in commission of crime was recovered under the earth of northern-western gate of a stopped factory situated at Sector-5, B-95 and recovery memo Exhibit Ka-3 was prepared.His evidence shows that he had also not seen the occurrence.After the evidence of prosecution statement of the appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant-accused has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case and witnesses have deposed false story against him.He has also stated that on the date of incident he was serving in Escort situated in Sector-10, D-171 and he was on duty from 8:00 A.M. morning to 8:00 P.M. evening.At the time of incident he was not present at the place of occurrence.No evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused.Lastly it was submitted that the part of the body which were inflicted show that intention of appellant-accused can be safely gathered from the injuries caused.There were three injuries on the body of deceased.Out of three injuries two injuries were simple in nature and were on non vital parts of the body.(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;The incident has taken place on the spur of movement.Appellant-accused has moved a Criminal Misc.Application No. 53857 of 2017 with a prayer that he be released on personal bond. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,653,824 | Pawan) convicting the appellant under Sections 364 & 302 of I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default thereof, to go further additional simple imprisonment of one year each, further convicting the appellant under Section 201 of I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to go further simple imprisonment of six months with a direction that all the sentences shall run cuncurrently.Prosecution story is that as per his regular schedule, PW-1 Rishipal while working in the field was waiting for the tea to be received from his house.However, the said tea was never received by Rishipal and in the evening after returning from the field when he inquired from his wife as to why the tea was not sent to him, he was informed by his wife that deceased Ravi aged about eight years and Johny aged about four years, two sons of PW-1 and wife Veerwati had taken the tea at the scheduled time.Both husband and wife got panic as their sons had not reached to the field.They started searching them and during search they were informed by Rajendra Kumar (not examined) and PW-3 Arjun Singh that both Ravi and Johny were seen in the company of accused-appellant Pawan at about 04.30 P.M. at the 'rapta' (temporary path over canal).Villagers also inquired about the accused-appellant, who was found missing from his home.FIR Ex. Ka.-6A was lodged on 16.09.2007 at 11.00 P.M. by PW-1 Rishipal against the accused-appellant Pawan under Section 364 of I.P.C. In the FIR, it has been categorically stated by Rishipal that two days prior to the incident, accused Pawan had entered his house and touched his minor daughter with bad intentions and upon hearing her cries, accused-appellant was caught hold and was beaten by Rishipal and his wife.While going back appellant had threatened that he would ruin the family of PW-1 Rishipal.Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.On 17.09.2007, dead bodies of two deceased were found in the filed of Om Prakash.Additional offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was added in the FIR and on 17.09.2007 vide Ex. Ka-6 and Ka-7 inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted.Both the bodies were sent for postmortem, which was conducted on 17.09.2007 by PW-5 Dr. Ajay Kumar vide Ex. Ka-4 and Ka-5 and following injuries have been found on the body of the deceased Ravi:"(1) Ligature mark 7 cm x 2 cm irregular over front of neck, horizontal, 4 cm from (R) ear 5 cm from (L) Ear.(2) Multiple Abraded centric over forehead, nose & left side face.Largest 3 cm x 1 cm, smallest .5 cm x .5 cm.(3) Multiple abraded centric over left lower exterior hip to lower half of leg.Largest 10 cm x 4 cm smallest 1 cm x 1 cm.(4) Multiple abraded centric 15 cm x 3 cm over left side lateral part of chest.Largest 3 cm x 1 cm.Smallest .5 cm x .5 cm."According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased Ravi was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.Following injuries have been found on the body of deceased Johny:"(1) Ligature mark 7 cm x 2 cm irregular Transverse 6 cm below (R) ear 7 cm below (L) Ear.(2) Multiple Abraded centric area 12 cm x 6 cm over right side face & chin.Largest 2 cm x 1 cm, smallest .5 cm x .5 cm.(3) Multiple abraded centric 12 cm x 4 cm over lower half of (L) forearm front.(4) Multiple abraded centric 6 cm x 4 cm over top of (L) shoulder."According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased Johny was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.On 17.9.2007 itself, at the instance of the accused-appellant, seizure of two under wears vide Ex. Ka.-2, one steel box and two slippers vide Ex.3 were made and these articles were identified by PW-2 Sumer Chand to be that of deceased persons.Diary statement of PW-3 Arjun Singh, witness of last seen, was recorded on 25.09.2007, wherein he has stated that at about 4:30 P.M., he saw the two deceased in the company of the appellant.While framing charge, the trial judge has framed charge against the accused-appellant under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of I.P.C.So as to hold the accused-appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, whereas three defence witnesses have also been examined.Statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication.By the impugned judgement, the trial judge has convicted the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgement.Hence this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits:(i) that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated as the appellant had to take Rs.45,000/- from the informant PW-1 Rishipal.(ii) that sister-in-law of informant PW-1 Rishipal was found in objectionable condition with one Shamsher Singh and the said Shamsher Singh was beaten by the informant and his brother and, therefore, possibility of two deceased being murdered by Shamsher Singh, cannot be ruled out.(iii) that the FIR is antedated because as per statement of PW-1 Rishipal, the FIR was lodged in between 8-9 A.M. on 17.9.2007 and that too after the report was lodged by Arjun Singh and Susheel, meaning thereby that till 9:00 A.M. on 17.09.2007, no report was lodged by Rishipal.(iv) that seizure of articles have not been produced by the prosecution as required under the law.Various items were found by the villagers, who handed over the same to the police and no seizure whatsoever has been made at the instance of the appellant.(v) that PW-3 Arjun Singh, witness of last seen, is not reliable and merely on the basis of his statement, conviction cannot be made.On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel:(i) that a prompt missing report was lodged by PW-1 Rishipal at 11:00 P.M., based on which offence under Section 364 of IPC, was registered against the appellant.(ii) that in the FIR itself, PW-1 Rishipal has categorically stated that two days prior to the incident, appellant entered his house, touched his daughter with bad intentions and after being caught and beaten by Rishipal and his wife, while going back, he threatened his family of dire consequences.Learned counsel submits that there was a strong motive for the appellant to commit the offence.(iii) that FIR is neither antedated nor was lodged on 17.9.2007 at 9:00 A.M.(iv) that from the statement of PW-10 Veerpal Singh, it is clear that on 17.09.2007 at 6:05 P.M., offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC were added and prior to that at 1:30 A.M. on 17.09.2007, another crime no. 152 of 2007 was registered against some other accused person.He further submits that inquest on the dead bodies were conducted on 17.09.2007 at 7:00 A.M., which continued to 11:00 A.M. and in the inquests, a reference of converting FIR into 302 and 201 of IPC has also come.Learned counsel submits that had the FIR would have been anti-timed, in the inquests, no such details would have come.(v) that seizure of various articles have been made on 17.9.2007 in accordance with law and the seized articles had been duly identified by PW-1 Rishipal to that of his two sons.Learned counsel submits that proper cross-examination of PW-4 Ramesh has not been made by the defence and, therefore, seizure cannot be called as a defective.In respect of DW-3, it has been argued that being brother of the appellant, he is trying to defend him.(vi) that statement of PW-3 Arjun Singh, witness of last seen, remained intact and conviction can be based solely on his evidence.(vii) that as per postmortem report, deceased died about a day prior to 4:30 pm on 17.09.2007 and thus, proximity of committing murder of the two deceased on 16.09.2007 has been duly proved by the prosecution.(viii) that conduct of the accused appellant is very important where immediately after committing the murder of two deceased, he went missing.Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record.PW-1 Rishipal is father of two deceased and the informant.He has stated that the age of deceased Ravi was eight years whereas other deceased Johny was of four years and both of them were his sons.On the date of incident, his wife had sent both his sons along with tea but they did not reach in the field and in the evening when he inquired from his wife, he came to know that around 04.00 P.M. both his sons had gone to the field along with tea.He has stated that thereafter he searched his sons along with some other persons and he met one Rajendra and Arjun Singh (PW-3), who informed him that they saw the accused-appellant along with his two sons.Accused-appellant was searched but he was found missing from his home and then he lodged the report Ex. Ka 6A. He has further stated that about a week prior to the incident, the accused-appellant had come to his house, touched his daughter with bad intentions for which he was scolded and beaten and while going back, appellant had threatened for ruining his family.In the cross-examination but for minor contradictions, this witness remained firm and has reiterated as to the manner in which the incident occurred and has further reiterated about the motive part where the accused-appellant had threatened him for ruining his family.PW-2 Sumer Chand had searched the two deceased along with PW-1 Rishipal.He also noticed the dead bodies of two deceased in the field of Om Prakash.PW-3 Arjun Singh is a witness of last seen.He stated that on 16.09.2007 at around 4:30 P.M., when he was going to his field, he saw the accused-appellant with the two deceased Ravi and Johny, who were carrying a box with them.He states that, at that time, one Rajendra was also along with him.At about 6-7 P.M. in the evening, he met PW-1 Rishipal and other villagers who were searching for the deceased and then he informed them that he saw the appellant in the company of two deceased.In lengthy cross-examination, this witness also remained firm.PW-4 Ramesh is a witness of recovery i.e two under wears, two pair of slippers, one steel box and has duly supported the prosecution case.19. PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar assisted during investigation.PW-7 Devendra Kumar Sharma is a witness of inquest has supported the prosecution case.PW-8 Babi is a daughter of PW-1 Rishipal, who has stated that while she was sleeping inside her house, accused-appellant entered the house and lay with her and when she informed her parents, they scolded the appellant and thereafter he left the house of Rishipal.However, after two three days he again came to her house and on that occasion he was beaten by his father and mother.In the lengthy cross-examination this witness also remained firm.PW-9 Jitendra Singh and PW-10 Veerpal Singh assisted during investigation.PW-11 Satyapal Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case has duly supported the prosecution case.DW-1 Suhel-ur-Rahman has been examined to prove the date of birth of PW-8 Babi.25. DW-2 constable Brijmohan Singh has not stated anything, which may help the accused person.DW-3 Dharampal is brother of the accused, who has also not stated anything, which may help the accused person.Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident i.e. 16.09.2007, two deceased went missing and their dead bodies were found in the field of Om Prakash.The moment, the complainant PW-1 Rishipal came to know that his sons are missing, he started searching them along with other villagers and during said search, he met Rajendra and Arjun Singh (PW-3), who informed him that at about 04.30 P.M., he saw his two sons at 'rapta' (temporary path over canal) in the company of accused-appellant Pawan.Immediately after coming to know this fact, PW-1 Rishipal and other villagers had gone to the house of accused-appellant Pawan but he was not present there.The informant has also proved the motive by making specific averment that about a week prior to the incident the accused-appellant Pawan came to his house and threatened them to ruin his family.In the cross-examination, he remained firm and nothing could be elicited from him.PW-3 Arjun Singh is a witness of last seen.While supporting the prosecution case, he has stated that on 16.09.2007 when at about 04.30 P.M., he was going to his field, he saw the two deceased in the company of accused-appellant and that two deceased were carrying a box with them.He further states that in the evening when he met PW-1 Rishipal, he informed him that he saw his two sons in the company of accused-appellant Pawan. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,658,376 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.2/AC/2016/KM, for the offence under Sections 120-B, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of the respondent.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the registration of the case against the petitioner, he was suspended from the service and departmental enquiry has also conducted.In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the gravamen in the departmental enquiry as well as in the First Information Report are one and the same.2/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P. No.30328 of 2019O.P.No.30328 of 2019 26.11.2019 5/5http://www.judis.nic.in3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent filed a status report and submitted that during 2010, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit and abet the offences of criminal misappropriation, criminal misconduct as a public servant.The petitioner being a General Superintendent in Tamil Nadu Kadhi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam and also holding the Additional Charge as Development Officer in Ambathur Leather Unit, has to check up and verify the stock register and the availability of raw material purchased from Taj leathers.As being in charge of Development Officer, he has filed to prepare voucher and send the same to the Chief Executive Officer, Head Office at Kuralagam, Chennai.The Chief Executive Officer would sanction the amount to be paid to the suppliers.Further, a detailed enquiry had revealed that the petitioner acted to obtain wrongful gain with the connivances of officials of the board by creating false entries at his own discretion and colluded with the other accused.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Sanctioning Authority, Principal Secretary to the Government, Chennai accorded sanction order in G.O.(Ms.)No.119 against the petitioner and within a period of two months the charge sheet would be filed.3/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P. No.30328 of 20195.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the Crime No.2/AC/2016/KM.Hence, the respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.6.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kancheepuram.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4/5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P. No.30328 of 2019 M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J vv2 Crl. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
136,662,927 | Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused/petitioner no.1 namely, (1) Sk.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,987,865 | All the three appellants namely Narender Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short as IPC) and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also liable to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they had to further undergo R.I. for period of four months each.No.33/1993 Page 2 of 38 appellant Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash were ordered to run concurrently.No.33/1993 Page 2 of 38Being aggrieved with the judgment of the Addl Sessions Judge, present appellants have filed this appeal.In the police post, in order to extract confession he was given beating and interrogated by police.On 5th August, 1980, Laxman Singh suffered burn injuries at quarter No.4 at police post, Andha Mugal and was first taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and then to LNJP hospital by ASI Mool Chand.The Doctor asked the ASI to procure the services of a Magistrate for recording of dying declaration.In the first instance, a case under Section 309 IPC vide FIR No.763/80 at P.S. Subzi Mandi was registered, later on, after the recording of dying declaration of the Crl.No.33/1993 Page 3 of 38 said Laxman Singh, another F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 IPC.The injured died in hospital on 6th August, 1980 and thus the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC.No.33/1993 Page 3 of 38The investigation of this case was also shifted from the local police to the crime branch.It was revealed in the course of investigation that deceased had been brought to Andha Mugal Police Post by appellants Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash and one person namely Tyagi on 1st August, 1980 from Railway Station, Subzi Mandi and was beaten constantly by these persons who wanted him to speak out about some theft cases.The injured was also threatened to be killed in case he did not furnish any information regarding stolen articles.As per dying declaration given by injured Laxman Singh, on the morning of 5th August, 1980 at about 10:30 a.m. when he was sitting in the police post and was taking his meals, appellant Narender Kumar, Head Constable, poured kerosene oil on him from the stove Crl.No.33/1993 Page 4 of 38 kept there and other two appellants namely, Om Prakash and Vijay Singh constables lit match sticks on him.This dying declaration was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Later on 6th August, 1980, the injured Laxman Singh died.No.33/1993 Page 4 of 38During relevant period all the appellants were posted at Police Post Andha Mugal, as Surender Dev S.I. (PW-4) states that Jai Chand, S.I. of Crime Branch had taken into possession duty roster (Ex.In cross-examination, he admitted that when they entered quarter No.4, they found a stove was lying there but he does not know whether it belongs to appellant Vijay Kumar.Om Prakash, (PW-6) an independent witness also admits the factum of incident of burning, as he states that on 5th August, 1980, he was standing outside police post Andha Mugal and noticed some smoke from the window of a room in chowki.After some time, he noticed some flames and somebody was crying Bachao Bachao.Thereupon, he along with ASI Mool Chand (PW-2) and another person, went to that room and found one boy in flames.Meanwhile, SI Ch.Ram Kishan also came and the fire was extinguished and injured was removed to the hospital.The police came and took into possession burnt clothes, stove and match box vide seizure memo Ex. Pw-10/A. It bears his signature at point A. The stove contained some kerosene oil.No.33/1993 Page 17 of 38In cross-examination, this witness stated that the boy had set himself on fire and he (PW6) says so, because he did not see any other person there.The main thrust of appellants is that dying declaration cannot be believed since PW-5 and other members of the family of the deceased did get a chance to see him in the hospital before the said dying declaration was recorded and this gave full opportunity to these persons to have tutored deceased Laxman for falsely naming the appellants.I have satisfied myself that the patient Laxman Singh s/o Sh.Hawah Singh, House No.10501, Subzi Mandi Railway Station, Bagichi Pirji ki is fully conscious.The patient is fully capable of making statement.Now, I start to note down his statement.On oath."This endorsement of Magistrate is Ex.On Thursday night, Vijay Singh, Om Prakash and Tyagi (all police officials) picked me up from Railway Station, Subzi Mandi and they took me to the police chowki.There I was given regular beatings after every two hours in the morning and evening and they were questioning me as to where the stolen property is.On my reply that I do not commit theft any more, they threatened to kill me.Today morning at 10:30 A.M. when I was having my meals in the police post, Narender Kumar Head Constable again gave me beatings and he opened a stove lying nearby and poured kerosene oil over me.Om Prakash and Vijay Singh (both constables) who were present there lifted the match box, lit the match stick and put me on fire.Till the time the oil was being sprinkled over me, I thought that it was a joke."In cross examination PW7, admitted that he did not obtain the identification of the patient in writing from PW12 or from any other person.PW 12 verbally identified the patient before him.PW12/A at 2.30 p.m. on the same day and has found the patient fit to make statement and endorsement in this regard is Ex.PW12/C which is also signed by him.In addition, appellants Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash have also been convicted for offence under Section 330/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for period of two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.Substantive sentence under both the offences for Crl.After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted under Section 302/330/365, 343, 218/120B I.P.C.On 12th January, 1984, trial court framed charges for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against all the three appellants and in addition, it framed charge under Section 330 read with Section 34 IPC against appellants Om Prakash and Vijay Kumar.Prosecution in support of its case examined, in all, 26 witnesses.Thereafter, statements of all the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence evidence was produced by any of the appellants.In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants admitted that during the month of August, Crl. Appeal.No.33/1993 Page 5 of 38 1980 they were posted in police post Andha Mugal.However, they denied the alleged incident.No.33/1993 Page 5 of 38Appellant, Narender Kumar has also taken up defence that this false case has been made due to enmity with the brother of deceased, namely, Sher Singh as he was arrested by him in case under Section 112/117 Delhi Police Act and he was fined Rs.30/- by the Court.At his instance he has been falsely implicated.Appellant Vijay Kumar and Om Prakash took the defence that it is a false case and they have been falsely implicated.It has been contended by learned counsel for the Appellants that initially the case was registered under Section 309 IPC which shows that deceased wanted to commit suicide and later on, after his death, the present case was converted into a murder case and thus contradiction in the case of prosecution is self evident.No.33/1993 Page 6 of 38No.33/1993 Page 6 of 38Another contention is that there is no allegation against appellant Narender Kumar that he was a party in bringing the deceased to the police post and thus deceased was never in the custody of appellant Narender Kumar.Learned counsel also contended that no reliance can be placed on the so called dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, when prosecution witnesses Sher Singh (PW-5), Huba Singh (PW-6) and Smt. Indira Devi (PW-9) admit that after getting the information about the incident they immediately reached the hospital where the injured was admitted.It shows that these witnesses had time and opportunity to talk to injured Laxman and there was every possibility that they could have provoked him to falsely implicate the present appellants.Further, it is contended that the injured Laxman could not have been in a position to make any statement to the Magistrate since MLC (Ex.PW12/A) shows that the patient was admitted at 11:20 a.m. and Crl.No.33/1993 Page 7 of 38 a pathedine injection was administered to the patient at 11.25 am.Dr. S.K.Nayyar, (PW-12) states that the effect of the injection remains for a period of three to four hours.Under these circumstances, when the pathedine injection was given at 11.25 a.m., then it is bound to have some sedative effect on the mind and body of the patient and it was not possible for him to give proper and correct statement.No.33/1993 Page 7 of 38The dying declaration was neither signed nor thumb impression of the patient was obtained.It was not recorded in question answer form.Moreover after recording the dying declaration, the Magistrate did not read over the same to the patient.It is also contended that the Magistrate did not record the dying declaration as required under High Crl.No.33/1993 Page 8 of 38No doctor has given a certificate to the effect that the patient was fit for giving statement.The Supreme Court in Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab 2003 [1] JCC 110 where the prosecution case was based on dying declaration and no time was written on dying declaration nor there was any certificate of any doctor that at the time of recording declaration that the injured was in a fit state to give any statement, held that there would be serious doubts about the authenticity of the dying declaration.Relying on this decision, it was contended that in the present case also serious doubts arose.Regarding appellant Om Prakash, it is contended that he left the police post on 5th August, 1980 at 9:45 a.m. and came back at 4:25 p.m. For this purpose departure entry No.12 (Ex. PW26/A) has been recorded which shows that this appellant infact had taken case Crl.No.33/1993 Page 9 of 38 property to the Excise Laboratory at Battery Lane after collecting the same from the police station Sabzi Mandi and was not present at the time of the incident.No.33/1993 Page 9 of 38There has been no corroboration to the so-called dying declaration from any other source.No witness has been examined to prove the fact that deceased Hanuman was picked up from Subzi Mandi Railway Station.Moreover in the dying declaration, it has been stated by deceased Laxman that he was picked up on the night by Vijay Kumar, Om Prakash and one person namely Tyagi from Crl.No.33/1993 Page 10 of 38 the Railway Station Subzi Mandi but said Tyagi has not been named in the F.I.R.No.33/1993 Page 10 of 38Lastly, it is contended that it is unbelievable that the present appellants who are police officials will put a person on fire in the police post when other senior police officers are also present in the office.Moreover appellants had no enmity or motive to put the deceased on fire and there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses.Under these circumstances, the appellants are liable to be acquitted.On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that deceased Laxman had been brought to Andha Mugal Police Post by Vijay Singh, Om Prakash and one other person namely Tyagi on 1st August, 1980 from Railway Station, Subzi Mandi and was beaten constantly since these police officials wanted to extort confession from him with regard to some theft cases.The deceased was also threatened to be killed in case he did not furnish some information regarding stolen articles.No.33/1993 Page 11 of 38No.33/1993 Page 11 of 38On the morning of 5th August, 1980, while deceased was sitting in the police post and was taking his meal, appellant Narender Kumar poured kerosene oil while other appellants Om Prakash and Vijay Singh lit match sticks on him.After the injured sustained burn injuries, he was brought to the hospital, where he gave dying declaration implicating all the present appellants.Thus the present case is based on dying declaration of the deceased.27 It is contended that the deceased has given his dying declaration to PW-7 Sh.R.S.Mahla, who is a judicial Magistrate and he has taken all the precautions before recording the dying declaration and also obtained certificate from Dr. S.K.Nair (PW-12) who found the patient fit to make statement.The mere fact that there are certain irregularities, will not vitiate the dying declaration.As per prosecution case one Tyagi has also brought the deceased to the police post but deceased has not named him in his dying declaration, thus it Crl.PW25/A) which among other things states that "there are large number of bruises and abrasions on different parts of the body of the deceased".In Smt.Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr.AIR 2003 SC 4567, the Supreme Court, dealing with a custodial death case, held;No.33/1993 Page 13 of 38No.33/1993 Page 13 of 38"Rarely in cases of police torture of custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died.Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues - and the present case is an apt illustration - as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter.""The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt by the prosecution, at times even when the prosecuting agencies are themselves fixed in the dock, ignoring the ground realities, the fact-situation and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system suspect and vulnerable.In the ultimate analysis the society suffers and a criminal gets encouraged.PW4/A) for the period 1st August, 1980 to 5th August, 1980 of police post Andha Mugal, vide memo (Ex. PW-4/B).As per entries in this duty roster, all the three appellants were on duty at police post Andha Mugal Crl.No.33/1993 Page 15 of 38 during this period.So this demolishes the plea of appellants counsel that Narender Kumar was not present at the relevant time.It would be pertinent to point out that none of the Appellants has taken this defence in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased Laxman burnt himself or tried to commit suicide.The fact that deceased has been burnt in the premises of police post Andha Mugal, has been corroborated by prosecution witness Mool Chand, ASI (PW-2) as he states that he heard the alarm of Bachao Bachao from quarter No.4, which also forms part of the police post and he saw flames coming from that quarter.He and chowki incharge, Ram Singh who was sitting in his room, rushed to quarter No.4 and few other persons also reached there and on reaching they found that deceased Hanuman was burning.In quarter No.4, constable Vijay Kumar (appellant) was residing along with other constables.He does not know as to how there was fire in the said quarter.No.33/1993 Page 16 of 38No.33/1993 Page 16 of 38No.33/1993 Page 26 of 38Application (Ex.PW7/A) was moved before the concerned Magistrate by the I.O. for recording the dying declaration of Laxman Singh.Accordingly, Sh.R.S.Mahla (PW7) visited Irwin Hospital on 5th August, 1980 and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.The relevant proceedings recorded by PW7 read as under;-"Today dated 5th August, 1980 at 2.30 p.m., I came to the Irwin Hospital at the request of I.O. who has moved an application for recording the dying declaration of Laxman Singh reported to be a case by police under Section 309 IPC.PW7/D. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Laxman Singh in Hindi and the deceased stated before the Crl.No.33/1993 Page 27 of 38 Magistrate on oath.The translation of the same read as under;No.33/1993 Page 27 of 38"That today on 5th August, 1980 at 11:00 A.M. Narender Kumar, Head Constable and Vijay Singh, constable and Om Prakash, constable were present in police post Andha Mugal.Earlier I used to commit theft but have left it about six years ago and was earning my livelihood by doing labourer work and bringing up my family.PW7 also admits that he did not obtain, either the signature or thumb impression of the patient and did not feel the need of calling doctor to be present at the time of recording of dying declaration, because the patient was fully conscious during the period when he recorded his statement.PW7 had enquired from the patient if he was making the statement voluntarily without any pressure, but he did not make any such endorsement to this effect on his proceedings.No.33/1993 Page 29 of 38No.33/1993 Page 29 of 38As per PW12 he examined the patient at 12.05 p.m. and recorded entries in MLC sheet (Ex.PW12) wherein he found the patient fit to make statement.He also made another entry on Ex.No.33/1993 Page 32 of 38 a thumb impression or obtain signatures.The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime.[Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Edition Reprint 2004, Volume 1, page 258-259.]The basic law is that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was present at the occurrence and has participated in the crime.When the prosecution establishes satisfactorily that the accused was present it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi to prove that he was not at all present on the spot.No.33/1993 Page 34 of 38No.33/1993 Page 34 of 38In this respect PW18, PW19 and PW20 have stated that on 5th August, 1980 Om Prakash came to the excise control laboratory at Battery Lane at 11:00 a.m. to deposit certain samples but he was asked to come after 2:00 pm.as they used to deposit samples between 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.PW18 nowhere stated as to in which case Om Prakash deposited the samples, nor any entries of register regarding deposit of samples by Om Prakash Crl.No.33/1993 Page 35 of 38 on 5th August, 1980 in excise laboratory, has been proved on record.No.33/1993 Page 35 of 38On the other hand, PW17 has stated that accused Om Prakash used to come to his canteen to take tea along with one more constable.While PW19 states that on that date Om Prakash made enquiries from him as to where samples are deposited, so he sent him upstairs where the lab was located.When as per statement of PW17 Om Prakash used to visit the canteen in the excise office at Battery Lane, then where was the question of appellant Om Prakash, asking PW18 about the location as to where the samples are to be deposited.Even assuming for arguments sake that appellant Om Prakash had gone to excise laboratory for depositing the samples, admittedly he had gone only after 11:00 a.m. as the samples were not deposited at that time and he was asked to come again at 2:00 p.m. The plea of alibi cannot be sustained as appellant Om Prakash was within the satellite range of the incident.Plea of alibi Crl.No.33/1993 Page 36 of 38 is only established when it is highly improbable for a person to be at the spot of occurrence when the incident happens, which is not so in the present case, since the excise laboratory is not far away from police post Andha Mugal.Secondly, there is no explanation on behalf of appellant Om Prakash as to where he was from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 5th August, 1980, when admittedly sample was deposited by him after 2.00p.m.So, this plea of alibi taken by Om Prakash appellant is not sustainable.No.33/1993 Page 36 of 38The cause of death given by Dr.Vishnu Kumar (PW25) was due to toxanemia and shock consequent upon burns caused by fire.The present appellants with pre-determination had put the deceased on fire knowing fully well that this would result into his death.The fact that deceased was kept in illegal custody in police post Andha Mugal from 1st August, 1980 to 5th August, 1980 has also been duly proved on record.Thus, all the three appellants have been rightly Crl.No.33/1993 Page 37 of 38 convicted by the trial court and the present appeal is not sustainable and the same is hereby dismissed.No.33/1993 Page 37 of 38Since the appellants are on bail, they are ordered to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court.V.B.GUPTA, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J March 6, 2009 Bisht Crl.No.33/1993 Page 38 of 38No.33/1993 Page 38 of 38 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 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. |
598,820 | Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are follows:The deceased S. Mahendara Singh was residing with his mother PW-2 and elder brother PW-1 at Bapunagar within the limits of Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station.The appellants and A-1 were also residents of said Bapunagar.The residents of Bapunagar were managing an Association called Basthi Youth Association which in turn was running a Bhajana Mandali.PW-4 was the President of the said Bhajana Mandali and the deceased was the Vice President of said Bhajana Mandali.It is the case of the prosecution that there was a death in the family of A-2, hence, he wanted certain "samagri" for the funeral which was available in the said Bhajana Mandali.With a view to get the "samagri", on 30th of April, 1998 at about 11 p.m., the accused persons came to the house of the deceased and asked him to give the said "samagri" for taking them to Maheswaram for doing Bhajan at the house of the relative where the death had taken place.Immediately thereafter PWs.1 and 2 heard the cries of the deceased, hence, they came out of the house when they saw A-2 and A-3 were holding the hands of the deceased and A-1 was stabbing the deceased on the chest.The prosecution alleges that when these witnesses went near the victim the accused persons went away threatening these witnesses.The further case of the prosecution is that at that time PWs.3 and 4 who were clearing certain construction materials in front of their house had also witnessed the occurrence.The prosecution alleges after the accused went away the deceased was removed to Gandhi hospital but he died on the way.J U D G M E N T(With Crl.A.No.1254/2003)SANTOSH HEGDE,J.The said Sessions Judge found the appellants and A-1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which having been dismissed, the two appellants who were accused 2 and 3 have challenged the said judgment of the High Court, while accused No.1 has not challenged the said judgment and conviction.It is stated that the deceased refused to give Bhajan samagri for being used outside the locality.Being annoyed by the said refusal by the deceased, it is stated that the accused persons went away but came back again at about 11.45 p.m. when the members of the deceased family were sleeping and called the deceased to come out.The prosecution alleges on being so called the deceased went outside the house.PW-1 thereafter went to Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station and gave a written complaint Ex.P1 to PW-8 who was In-charge of the Police Station at that time and a crime was registered on the basis of the said complaint under Section 302 IPC.PW-10, the Circle Inspector of Police of the said Police Station then took up the investigation.He visited the scene of offence and examined PWs.1 to 4 and recorded the statements in the morning of 1st May, 1998 and after investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.It is relevant to mention herein that during the course of investigation PW-10 also got the statements of PWs.1, 3 and 4 recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.During the course of the trial, PW-4 did not support the prosecution case fully, hence, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined.The trial court accepting the evidence of the eye- witnesses PWs.1 to 4 came to the conclusion that the deceased met with a homicidal death at the hands of the accused persons during which act A-1 caused 4 stab injuries which led to his death and during the said attack by A-1,the other accused A2 and A3 were holding the hands of the deceased facilitating him to inflict the wound.Therefore, while A-1 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, two appellants before us were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC.As stated above, the High Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and affirmed the said conviction and sentence.Shri K.V.Viswanathan, learned Advocate and Ms.It is pointed out to us that the investigating agency itself was not sure that the evidence of these witnesses was truthful or not therefore, it took the precaution of recording their statements before a Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, apart from the fact that these witnesses were interested witnesses, the fact that their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also ought to have been taken as a ground to reject their evidence as unreliable.The learned counsel also contended from the evidence of these witnesses that is clear that none of these witnesses had actually witnessed the incident and because of existing rivalry and out of suspicion these witnesses have falsely deposed that they had witnessed the incident.The further argument of the learned counsel was that the motive suggested by the prosecution even according to itself was non existent.It was pointed out to us from the evidence of PW-4 who was the President of the Mandali that after the accused persons returned back from the first visit to the house of the deceased and having come to know the need of the 2nd accused, he sent the keys of the Bhajana Mandali to A-2 with instructions to take such "samagri" as is necessary for him.Therefore, having received the keys of the Mandali, it is highly improbable that the accused persons would then come back and attack the deceased.The learned counsel then contended that atleast so far as these appellants are concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish any case and reliance placed on Section 34 IPC to convict these appellants on the basis of common intention was wholly erroneous.It is further argued that assuming for argument sake that the prosecution has established that these appellants did hold the hands of the deceased, there was no material to indicate that these appellants had the knowledge that A-1 would stab the deceased or he entertained an intention to kill the deceased.It was pointed out that even according to the prosecution case these appellants were unarmed and they did not exhort A-1 to stab.Therefore, a conviction for offence of murder under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC as against the appellant was unsustainable.Strong reliance was placed on the following judgments of this Court in support of the argument that Section 34 IPC was not available to the prosecution in this case : Balak Ram Vs.Shri G.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the courts below were justified in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 whose presence at the time and place of the incident cannot be seriously disputed because PW-1 & 2 were residing in the same house being deceased's brother and mother respectively and PW-3 was the cousin of the deceased and was admittedly residing in the immediate neighbourhood and at the time of incident was clearing certain debris near his house.He contended that the evidence of these witnesses so far as the attack is concerned has been reasonably consistent and they had no motive to falsely implicate these accused persons.He submitted that if the evidence of the eye-witnesses are to be believed then motive and other aspects of the prosecution case relegates itself to the background.He also contended that there is absolutely no reason to suspect the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 solely because their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel then submitted the fact that the accused persons came together first time at 11 p.m. to the house of the deceased and went back annoyed and again came back together at 11.45 p.m. and called the accused outside and the appellants herein held the hands of the deceased long enough to facilitate A-1 to stab the deceased on the chest four times, itself indicated that these appellants also shared the intention of A-1 to cause the death of the deceased.It did take notice of the fact that these witnesses were closely related to the deceased, therefore, it noticed the need to examine the evidence carefully.The said court also noticed the fact that no serious motives were suggested to these witnesses to elicit why they were deposing falsely to implicate the accused.In such circumstances it chose to rely upon the evidence of these witnesses to base a conviction.x x x "After failing to get the "samagri" all the three went together presumably to the house of A-2 at 11.45 p.m. Again these 3 persons came to the house of the deceased which act cannot be termed as a normal act because by that time most of the people including the deceased would have been or had been sleeping. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
598,855 | 3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by thesponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely(i) C3 SS Colony PS Cr.No.1767/2009 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC; (ii) D2Sellur PS Cr.No.3331/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and(iii) D1 Thallakulam PS Cr.No.3182/2009 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC, andin one ground case registered by D2 Sellur PS in Crime No.3342/2009 underSections 395 read with 397, 506(ii) IPC and 25(1) of Arms Act & 3, 4(b) of theExplosive Substances Act 1908, the detaining authority after scrutiny of all thematerials available, recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities ofthe detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hencemade the order under challenge.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counselwould inter alia urge two grounds as primary grounds by which he made hissincere attempt of attacking the order.What he has stated is that the brother of the detenu informedhim that he was going to the Court for taking out the detenu on bail.Hence thecontention put forth by the State has got to be rejected. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,891,488 | About more than two decades and a half ago in the early hours of the autumn morning one Keshari Mahatani was targeted for her magic power having evil effects upon family members of the villagers.Having been intercepted on her way back from a nearby pond accompanied by Bijoli Mahato, her daughter - in - law, PW 4 she was gheroed on all sides by the afore-named five accused armed with Tabla, Tangi and lathi.In response to their hue and cry, her two sons, other relatives and co-villagers reached the P.O. and witnessed a dastardly attack perpetrated on the wretched widow causing her instantaneous death.Accused, however, made good their escape.Such a ghastly murder was a fall out of yesternight's altercation between the victim and accused who had been to her house for extending threat over the issue of exercise of magical powers causing evil effects upon the villagers.Registration of Police Case & Submission of charge-sheet :-Pursuant to an FIR, portraying gruesome details of the tragic incident lodged by Laxmi Mahato, PW 1, the eldest son of the unfortunate victim, Jhalda P.S. Case No. 110/93 dated 27.03.93 under section 302/34 IPC was registered for investigation and the case was endorsed to S.I. of Police B.B. Samaddar for investigation.In course of investigation the I. O. since deceased examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also 3 seized the incriminating weapon 'Tangi' under a proper seizure list in the presence of local witnesses.A sketch map of the P.O. was also prepared by him.He also collected P.M. Examination Report during investigation.Santosh Kr.Das (PW10) S. I. of police deposes that he received the complaint from Laxmi Mahato and filled up the formal FIR under his signature.He has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 3 ).According to him, he entrusted the case to S. I. B.B. Sammadar.But his presence could not be secured since he expired during the pendency of trial.However, PW 10 had the CD with him when he was examined and cross-examined.Since he was well-conversant with the hand writing of the I.O. he proved the sketch map (Ext. 4) and also, the seizure list (Ext. 5) which was prepared by the I.O. in connection with seizure of the incriminating weapon 'Tangi'.On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet under section 302/34 IPC against all the FIR named five accused.Commitment and framing of charge :-Since the case was Sessions Triable one, the ld.After such commitment of the case, ld.Sessions Judge, Purulia considered the question of framing of charge under section 302/34 IPC with reference to materials on record and submission advanced by both sides Head of the chargeThus, all the Appellants being arrayed in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1998 arising out of sessions case No. 37 of 1997 before the ld.Sessions Judge, Purulia were asked to answer the following charge :-"That you, on or about 27th day of September, 1993 at village Khairi within the police station Jhalda, District - Purulia, did commit murder of one Keshari Mahatani wife of late Lalu Mahato of the aforesaid village in furtherance of common intention of all of you and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance."All of them pleaded not guilty to the charge so read over and explained to them.Accordingly, the appellants were put on trial.The defence case, as is gathered from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and appellants' examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. is the plea of innocence, denial and false implication.According to the defence, the incident as alleged did not take place in the manner and place as indicated by the prosecution.The Trial :-On consideration of entire evidence both ocular and documentary, ld.Sessions Judge Purulia, opined that the prosecution has fairly succeeded in bringing home the charge against all the five appellants.All of them were found guilty of offences u/s 302/34 IPC and were convicted thereunder accordingly.They were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each for the offence u/s. 302 IPC.read with section 34 IPC.In the Appeal :-Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the legality and / or validity of the judgment and order impugned.That apart, no witness of the locality who could have been present near the place of occurrence at the time of incident has been interrogated.In order to have a better appreciation of the rival submission made at the Bar in its proper perspective, we would now proceed to scrutinize both ocular and documentary evidence coupled with medical evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether charge framed by the ld. trial court has been substantiated to the hilt.Laxmi Mahato (PW 1) deposes that she rushed to the P.O. along with his brothers in response to cries of their mother and on their arrival they witnessed that their mother had been surrounded and stopped by the accused persons, and thereafter, Surendra Gorain and Bhaktu Gorain assaulted her mother with a Tangi and a farsa on her head respectively.Ranjit Gorain assaulted her mother 9 by a lathi on her right hand.His mother fell down on the ground and died instantaneously.The contents of FIR (Ext. 1) thus stand corroborated by her testimony.It is established that all the accused persons (1) Bhaktu Gorain, (2) Surendra Gorain, (3) Ranjit Gorain, (4) Bhandu Gorain & (5) Rajen Gorain surrounded his mother.Significantly enough, he also divulges the gravamen of the terribly tragic incident by testifying that on the previous night all the five accused persons called her mother a witch and a trouble was going over on that matter at night and, thereafter, on the following day the occurrence took place due to such quarrel.He has proved the FIR (Ext. 1).He further corroborates the contents of FIR and asserts that her mother was killed by accused persons near the house of Buka Mahato.He identified all the accused persons standing on the dock in the court room.He has been cross-examined at length but his testimony remains unshaken.In course of his cross-examination the topography of the place of occurrence has correctly been brought to the fore and a sketch map (Ext. 4) drawn by the I.O. perfectly tallies with this piece of evidence which pinpoints the exact location of the P.O. with accuracy.In his cross-examination he elaborates by deposing that when he woke up on hearing the cries he came to understand that it was the voice of his wife and mother.He came out of the house and saw the accused persons, his mother and wife while other brothers also followed him.The deponent has thus successfully stood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been elicited to show that he has deposed falsely before the Court.In our view this deponent is a wholly reliable witness, we, therefore, feel inclined to repose complete trust on his testimony which further stands corroborated by other witnesses.Sudhir Mahato, the brother of the informant (PW 1), another eye-witness as (PW 2) also corroborates his brother (PW1) on all material particulars regarding assault upon their mother by the accused armed with Tangi, Tabla & Lathi.He further corroborates PW1 and testifies that on the previous night accused persons quarreled with them and abused them on the plea that Surendra's wife was suffering from fever due to witch craft played by their mother on her.During cross-examination he also forcefully asserts that when he reached the spot, accused gheraoed her mother and the wife of his elder brother.It is also available from his cross-examination that the place where her mother was gheraoed was at the distance of 40-50 cubits from their house.The credibility of this witness has thus not been impeached in his cross-examination.His evidence tends to show that he saw Surrendra to assault his mother by a Tangi, Baktu by a Tabla, & Ranjit by a lathi on her hand and, thereafter, his mother fell down on the ground.Nothing has been extracted from him in course of his cross-examination to discredit his testimony.Bijoli Mahato (PW 4) is an important eye-witness since she accompanied her mother-in-law in the morning and remained with her firmly till the fateful moment when her precious life was put to an end by the appellants.Her specific evidence is that after washing their face and mouth while they were returning to their house, both of them were intercepted by all the appellants.She further corroborates her husband (PW1) and brother-in- laws (PWs 2 & 3) on the point of assault upon her mother-in-law by three appellants with deadly weapons in front of the house of Buka.Her mother- in-law died instantaneously on the spot in her presence.The most obnoxious part of the prosecution case has also been spelt out in her evidence and she is in tune with other eye-witnesses in this regard.She gives out that on the previous night, the appellants had a quarrel with her mother-in-law who was called by them a witch (Daini).She has also very stoically withstood the rigours of cross-examination and we do not find any reason rather convincing to discard her testimony.More so, since she alone was present at the P.O. when the victim was accosted by the accused prior to the arrival of other eye-witnesses.In fact, her impeachable testimony leads us to conclude that she is a wholly reliable witness and as such she can safely be relied upon.PW 6 Pratham Mahato, the cousin of PW 1,2 & 3 is a post-occurrence witness.After hearing a shouting, when he arrived at the P.O. he found that his Jethima (Auntie) was lying dead and the accused namely Bhaktu & Surendra were fleeing away from the spot having a Tabla, and a Tangi 12 in their hand respectively.It is also available from his testimony that the accused had been to their house and abused his Jethima as a witch on the previous night.He has thus narrated the genesis of the ghastly incident of murder of a so-called witch.During his cross-examination he reiterates that he found the accused persons fleeing away through Kuli Rasta (Road) from their house.His testimony also remains unshaken during cross- examination.Raghu Mahato, PW 6, appears to be a chance witness who was grazing cattle at the material point of time.After hearing the shouting "Marlo Marlo" he proceeded towards the Upper Para and found the accused namely (1) Bhaktu Gorain, (2) Surendra Gorain, (3) Ranjit Gorain, (4) Bhandu Gorain & (5) Rajen Gorain to proceed towards their house to the south with arms in their hands.Thereafter, he saw Kesori Mahato lying dead in front of the house of Buka Mahato in the Kuli Road.He also saw injuries on her body.He was also a witness to the Inquest of the dead body.He put his signature (Ext. 2/2) along with others on the Inquest Report (Ext. 2).Despite rigorous cross-examination the defence has failed to demolish his cogent consistent and convincing testimony, we, therefore, feel inclined to place much reliance on the testimony of this chance witness who had the occasion to see the accused fleeing away with arms immediately after the occurrence and also to find the dead body of the victim with the bleeding injuries on her person.Binode Mahato (PW 7) is the father-in-law of Laxmi's brother.He had been to his son-in- law's house to hand over new cloths to his daughter on the auspicious occasion of Karam Puja.He deposes that on the night of Karam Puja accused abused the mother of Laxmi Mahato as Daini.They were abusing by saying that they would kill her in the morning.It is available from his testimony that while the deponent was going to wash his face in the well of the son-in-law, he heard the shouting "Marlo Marlo" of Keshari Mahatani since deceased and Bijoli the wife of Laxmi.In response to such cry he had been to the P.O. and found that accused namely (1) Bhaktu Gorain, (2) Surendra Gorain, (3) Ranjit Gorain, (4) Bhandu Gorain & (5) Rajen Gorain had already encircled the victim.He further found Surendra Gorain, to assault her by a Tangi on her head and Bhakta to assault her with a Tabla on her head.He also found Ranjit to assault the victim on her hand by a Lathi.It transpires from his cross-examination that he is a resident of a neighbouring village Jilinglahar which is at an audible distance from Khairi village where the incident took place.Despite a bit lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited therefrom to indicate that he has deposed with an ulterior motive before the Court.Such being the position, his testimony inspires confidence in us.Subhash Mahato (PW 8) is a school teacher who scribed the FIR as per instruction of Laxmi Mahato, the de-facto complainant.It is available from the cross-examination of this formal witness that the contents of FIR were read over and explained to the informant, who stated that the same were correctly written.Dr. A. K. Hazari (PW 9), who conducted the Post Mortem Examination of the dead body of the deceased Laxmi Mahato deposes that as per identification by C730 Ramsai Hansda, he held the Post Mortem over the dead body of Reshmi Mahato in connection with Jhalda PS.Case No. 110/93 dt. 27.09.93 and he found the following injuries :- 141) "Incised wound over left side face, orbit and frontal region, vertically placed, measuring 6" x 1" x bone cut.On dissection, muscles left eye-ball cut, left xygomatice bone and frontal bone (left side) cut.Intracrtranial haemorrhage was present.2) Incised would over occipital region, transfersely placed, measuring 6" x 2" x bone cut.On dissection, blood-clots were present.Occipital bone cut and intractranial hemorrhage was present.3) Swelling over right fore-arm.On dissection, fracture both bones of mid-shaft of right forearm present.Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above-mentioned injuries which were antemortem and homicidal in nature.The injury Nos. 1 & 2 might be caused by a sharp cutting weapon like Tangi, Tabla etc.The injury No. 3 might be caused by a hard and blunt substance like lathi."The doctor has opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of afore-mentioned injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.When the doctor was shown tangi (Material exhibit 1) in open court, he opined that the injury No. 1 & 2 might be caused by this type of weapon.He is also very specific in his opinion that these injuries may cause death of any person.He has proved the Post Mortem Report (Ext. 7).In course of his cross-examination by way of elucidation, he clarified that the Injury No. 1 may be caused by attack from frontal side or if the victim lying on the ground.The Injury No. 2 may be caused from the back side.Both the Injuries i.e, injuries 1 & 2 may be caused by heavy force.If these injuries i.e, nos. 1 & 2 are received by the victim he or she certainly fall on the ground.The Injury No. 3 may be caused by indirect violence.Pausing for a moment it may be pointed out that all the eye-witnesses have stated in one voice that the victim was surrounded on all sides by the accused and consequent upon assault by accused persons the victim fell down 15 on the ground.Even the post occurrence witnesses have also corroborated eye-witnesses and deposed that they found the victim lying on the ground in an injured condition.In fact, the victim died instantaneously.The nature of injuries as mentioned by the doctor both in the PM Report (Ext. 7) as well as in his oral evidence unerringly confirm the manner of assault and type of weapon used by the assailants.Therefore, the medical evidence finds solid support from the ocular evidence of eye-witnesses and post occurrence witnesses.The I.O. also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW 10 has deposed that as per relevant entries in the CD, S. I. Sri B.B. Sammadar raided the house of accused persons for apprehending them.He also collected the Post Mortem Report and the charge-sheet which was written and signed by him.In course of cross-examination several questions were put to this police officer but no contradictions were taken in respect of statements of witnesses recorded at the dictate of B.B. Sammadar, I.O. since deceased.Finding :-After analyzing the gamut of evidence on record critically the following facts emerge:-a) The medical evidence is in absolute conformity with ocular evidence and there is no room for doubting the manner of assault and the weapons used for causing instantaneous death of the unfortunate widow in the presence of her kith and kin as projected by the prosecution through eye-witnesses and post occurrence witnesses.Since these eye witness reside at audible distance, it is highly probable for them to reach the P.O. in response to cries of the victim raised especially in the very early hours of morning.Therefore, the presence of eye witnesses at the P.O. at the material point of time cannot be doubted.c) Actual incident of assault and annihilation of so-called witch was preceded by another significant and proximate episode wherein the victim was charged by appellants in her home at previous night for applying witchcraft upon the wife of Surrendra one of the appellants since she had been suffering from fever.d) Even though the presence of Bijoli (PW 4), who was already at the scene of occurrence alongwith her mother - in - law, the victim, was not indicated in the FIR together with names of relations who rushed to the P.O. in response to 17 a hue and cry, her presence at the P.O. has, however, been proved and clearly proved from the corroborative evidence and circumstances on reocrd.In such a fact situation, her presence was not even challenged by offering a specific suggestion to that effect to her (PW4) during cross-examination.e) The incriminating weapon of offence i.e. Tangi (Material Ext. 1) as produced by appellant Surendra was recovered and seized under a proper seizure list (Ext. 5).f) Indubitably, the incident of assault upon the victim and her instantaneous death was caused in front of the house of Buka Mahato, but there is no iota of evidence to suggest that he was present at the P.O. at the material point of time.g) Appellants Bhandu and Rajen had no arms with them and they did not physically assault the victim.All the appellants, however, surrounded the victim and these two appellants namely Bhandu and Rajen threatened her and her daughter - in - law with dire consequences and thus encouraged the main assailants to assault the victim with renewed force and vigour in furtherance of their common intention which was formed through the process of calling the victim a witch and accusing her for ailment of Surendra's wife.There is clinching evidence on record to establish that such accusations were levelled by all the appellants against the victim in the previous night at her house.h) Admittedly, B.B. Samaddar, I.O. of this case expired during the pendency of trial.However, Santosh Das, S.I. of Police who endorsed the case to B.B. 18 Samaddar, S. I. for investigation at the relevant point of time came alongwith the CD to the witness box to enable the defence to confront the police officer with the contradiction, if any from the statements of witnesses during cross- examination but the defence did not avail of such opportunities in course of cross-examination.P.C. has to be recorded in the language known to the person giving the statement.More so, whenever credibility of eye witnesses remains unshaken and no major contradictions have also been shown in respect of their previous statement before the I.O.On proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence and circumstances on record we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved and clearly proved the case with legally cogent, consistent and convincing evidence and the charge punishable under section 302/34 IPC has been well established against all the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.Before parting, with we would like to put on record a note of caution on the devastating effect of such meaningless atrocities and senseless killing of innocent aged and infirm widows in the name of witch.It would simply haunt such helpless aged women like a nightmare eroding their mental peace unless preliminaries of basic science are imbibed in the old and young minds alike of the affected regions by dispelling ingrained dogmatism and orthodoxy therefrom in order to ensure avoidance of such catastrophe in future years.Viewed in the light of foregoing discussion we do not find sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the present appellants by the ld.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by the ld.Trial Judge stands affirmed.In the result, the present appeal stands dismissed as having no merit.Sessions Judge, Purulia is to take appropriate steps against the convict appellants in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.Send a copy of this order to the ld.Sessions Judge, Purulia for necessary compliance forthwith.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.(Raghunath Ray, J.) I agree, (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) | ['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. |
59,892,237 | 1 .2018 3 KB CRM No. 6983 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th August, 2018 in connection with Samuktala Police Station Case No. 148 of 2018 dated 02.07.2018 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to G.R. Case No.1110 of 2018).And In Re:- Islam Mian ... Petitioner Mr. Arijit Ghosh ... for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Goutam Banerjee ...for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Samuktala Police Station Case No. 148 of 2018 dated 02.07.2018 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to G.R. Case No.1110 of 2018).The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.((Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,898,395 | In the matter of: Sk.Such bail bonds are to be furnished to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, purba Medinipur at Tamluk, to whom a copy of this order be sent at once.If on bail, the petitioners must meet the Investigating Officer twice a week until further order.The case diary be returned.( Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.) ( Harish Tandon, J. ) | ['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,901,775 | 4 The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated for the disposal of the same, are as follows :[b] PW9 at the relevant point of time, was employed as Aaya (Menial Staff) in Agarwal Eye Hospital, Erode District and her daughter, namely PW8 was studying 12th Standard in CSI Girls Higher Secondary School and the Appellant / accused was employed in a nearby hotel and PW9 used to go to the hotel for getting tea and tiffin etc and they had acquaintance and PW9 treated him like her brother.The daughter of PW9 also used to come to the hospital in which PW9 was employed and both of them used to go to the hotel in which the appellant / accused was employed.The appellant / accused as well as PW8 used to move as good friends.Thereafter, PW8 was not inclined to go to school and hence, PW9 took a decision to give her in marriage and she has also expressed her inclination to do so and accordingly, the arrangement was made to give PW8 in marriage with somebody.[c] The appellant / accused was also aware of the same and when PW9, on account of deepavali festival, got permission from his owner and went outside to procure sweets and clothes, got down at Nassiyanur bus stop and when she proceeded further, at that time she saw somebody taking her daughter in an injured condition and she has noted that PW8 has suffered injury on her neck.PW9 went to the nearby hospital and contacted an emergency service -108 and thereafter, she was sent to the Government Hospital at Erode.The sole accused who stood charged and convicted for the commission of the offence under Sections 450 and 307 (2) IPC vide impunged Judgment dated 05.10.2016 in SC No.11 of 2016, by the Court of Mahila Judge-Fast Tract, Erode, has preferred this appeal.2 The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused is as follows :-Conviction under sectionSentence Imposed450 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment 307 (2) of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment.3 The Trial Court, after sentencing the accused to pay the fine amount of RS.10,000/- had directed that it should be paid to the victim namely, PW8 under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has ordered the sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellant / accused for commission of the above said offences to run concurrently and also ordered the set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant / accused aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, has filed this appeal.PW9 made enquiries with her daughter PW8 and she informed that her Maternal uncle and appellant / accused came to her house and the appellant / accused took to her to the kitchen and ask her to give consent to marry him but however, she told him that her marriage has already been fixed and that she should satisfy the wishes of her mother and in response to the same, the appellant / accused told that if she is not prepared to marry him, there is no useful purpose would be served by her and so saying, the appellant / accused took a knife and started cutting on her neck and immediately on raising alarm, PW1 as well as the neighbours came inside and on seeing them, the appellant / accused ran away and on the next date on 22.10.2014, the victim [PW8] was examined by the police.[d] PW5 was the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station and on receipt of the intimation from the Government Hospital, Erode, with regard to the injury caused to PW8, he went to the hospital and found that she was in an unconscious state and hence, he came back to the police station and recorded the same in the General Diary and again on receipt of information, he visited the said hospital at about 5.00 a.m. on 22.10.2014 and recorded the statement of PW8 and recording the same, he registered a case in Crime No.354 of 2014 for the commission of alleged offences under Section 307 of IPC.The printed FIR is marked as Ex.PW5, has despatched the original statement as well as the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and also informed the same to the higher officials.PW6, the then Inspector of Police of Chithode Police Station, on assuming the charge, took up the investigation and came to know that since PW5 had already recorded the statement from the concerned witnesses, he did not obtain the statements independently.[e] PW6, effected the arrest of appellant / accused on 07.11.2014 at about 10.30 am in Perundurai Police Station and on that date, produced him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court and he was remanded to judicial custody on 24.11.2014 .PW6 examined PW4-Dr.Anand who treated PW8 and on 04.12.2014, altered the sectios from 307 IPC to one of sections 450 and 307 IPC and the alteration report is marked as Ex.P6, which was forwarded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.PW6 after completion of the investigation, has filed the final report on file of the said Court, charging the appellant / accused for the commission of offences under Section 450 and 307 of IPC.[g] The Trail Court, on appearance of the accused has framed charges under Section 450 and 307 IPC and questioned the appellant / accused as to the charges framed against him.He pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him.[h] The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined PW1 to PW9 and filed Ex.P-1 to Ex-P10 and also marked M.O.1 and M.O.2 .The appellant / accused was questioned under 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied the same.Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked on his side.[i] The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had established the guilt on the part of the appellant / accused beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above and challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused, has filed this Appeal.3 Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant / accused made a following submission :[a] Admittedly, PW9, mother of the victim, namely PW8, has lodged the complaint on the file of Erode Town Police Station on the date of occurrence on 21.10.2014 and admittedly, no FIR was registered on the same day and the earliest information has been burked.It is admitted by PW9 - the mother of the victim-PW8 that earlier, PW8 had eloped with appellant / accused and both of them got married and on account of the police complaint given by PW9, PW8 was secured and her custody was handed over to her mother namely PW9 and to evidence the fact, that PW9 was aware of the relationship between the appellant / accused and PW8/victim, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked and the said documents have not been considered in proper perspective manner by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence.[c] It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant / accused along with PW1 came to the house of the victim in a Motor bike and thereafter, the occurrence took place and admittedly, no investigation has been done as to the ownership of the said bike and it also creates a grave doubt as to the presence of the appellant / accused in the scene of occurrence.Alternatively, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused that admittedly even assuming without admitting the case of the prosecution that the appellant / accused before committing the crime, asked the victim PW8 to marry him, she refused to do so on the ground that she wanted to fulfill the wishes of her mother, namely PW9 and enraged by the same, he took the knife - M.O.1 and caused injury and according to the evidence of PW4-Medical Officer coupled with wound certificate marked as exhibit B4, the injuries are simple in nature and as such, the conviction of the appellant / accused under section 307 IPC and imposition of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life and the imposition of 10 years for the commission of offence under section 450 IPC, is very much on the higher side.It is further submitted that taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant/accused had no bad antecedents and that there is every chance that he will be reformed and realised his mistakes and considering his future, prayed that the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant/accused may be reduced.4 Per contra, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the state would contend that the testimony of the injured victim namely PW8 has inspired confidence and her evidence is also corraborated by the testimony of PW1 and it is also supported by the medical evidence of PW4 coupled with Exs.P3 and P4 and it is a settled position of law that the testimony of the injured witness / victim itself is sufficient for recording conviction and the trial Court has taken note of the oral and documentary evidence coupled with the well settled legal position and has rightly convicted and imposed sentence upon the appellant / accused.Since the appellant / accused has committed serious offence, the punishment awarded by the Trial Court is correct and the same would meet the ends of justice and prays for dismissal of this appeal.5 This Court has paid it's best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submission and also perused the oral and documentary evidence and other materials as well as original records.6 The following questions arise for consideration :[a] Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence on the part of the appellant / accused beyond any reasonable doubt?[b] Alternatively, whether the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for recording conviction for having committed by the appellant / accused under Section 307 and 450 IPC warrants interference ?Attention of PW9 was drawn to Exhibits D1 and D2/letter written by PW9 and the signature of the PW9 found in a letter purported to have been written by the lawyer.8 PW9 would admit that her daughter had left with appellant / accused and got married at Aranthangi Village, Pudukottai Taluk and after marriage, she stayed in the said village for 15 days and thereafter, her custody was restored to PW9 and the mangalsuthra worn by PW8 has been removed and handed over to the appellant/accused in the police station and and subsequently, she got married to a another person.Therefore, the relationship between the appellant / accused and PW8 has been admitted by PW9 and her testimony would clearly reveal that prior to the arrangement of marriage by PW9, both of them got married and on lodging of police compliant by her mother, the custody of PW8 was restored to her mother and subsequent to that the mangalsuthra worn by PW8 out of her wedlock with the appellant/accused, has been removed and handed over to him.PW8 in the cross examination made an attempt that she went with appellant / accused and on lodging complaint by her mother, her custody was restored and as regards the commission of the offence, she would state that on 21.10.2014 at about 8.15 p.m., the appellant/accused came along with PW1 [maternal uncle of PW8] to see her and the appellant/accused asked her that he would like to converse with her in private and accordingly, he took her to the kitchen and asked her to marry him and when she refused, by saying her to die, he pushed her down and took the knife [M.O.1] and started cutting her neck and on raising the alarm, the neighbours have taken her to the hospital and on the way, she saw her mother, namely, PW9, who phoned to the Emergency Service-108 and thereafter, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, at Erode and in the cross-examination, P.W.8 has admitted about Ex.D1 written by PW9 and also made further categorical admission that she went with appellant/accused to Aranthangi Village, Pudukottai Taluk and she stayed in the house of the appellant/accused for about 15 days and during that time, arrangements were made to solemnise her marriage with the appellant/accused and thereafter, the marriage was solemnised in a temple between her and the appellant/accused and her mother, expressed her dis-inclination after the said marriage.9 It was further deposed by PW8 that after the marriage with the appellant/accused, her mother PW9 with the help of Police, took her and with regard to the complaint lodged by her mother [PW9], the Erode Town Police Station did not register a case and did not produce him before the Court, on account of the fact that the Mangalsutra worn by her on account of the said marriage, has been removed and handed over to him in the presence of police.She would further admit that after the marriage, they came back to Chennai and went to the Murugan Temple at Vadapalani and worshiped the Deity and she also stayed in a Lodge and took photographs also.Therefore, both the appellant/accused and PW8, in spite of marriage, did not live as husband and wife and therefore, the appellant/accused had a grudge/grievance.P.W.8 was taken to the Government Hospital, Erode and she was treated by P.W.4 and he has given Wound Certificate stating that injuries sustained by her, are simple in nature.It is relevant to extract the contents of Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate given by P.W.4:-Laceration neck measures 10x5x3cm.I am of the opinon that, alleged H/O assault with sharp knife at her house at 8.15 p.m. on 21.10.2014, assaulted by known person Rajesh.DOA:21.10.2014 DOD:01.11.2014 O/E: Patient GC Fair [NC] CVS/RS-NAD-BP-110/70 mm HG PR 98/min.X-Ray Neck-normal.No fracture.Case S/B Dr.The analysis of the oral and documentary evidence would reveal that victim-PW8 also got married to the appellant/accused and lived as husband and wife for few days and on account of lodging of complaint by P.W.9, the custody of P.W.8 was secured and handed over to her mother [P.W.9] and the Mangalsutra worn by P.W.8 on account of the marriage with the appellant/accused, was also removed by the police and handed over to him and due to the persuasion of her mother, P.W.8 changed her mind and was willing to marry somebody as per the wishes of her mother and the appellant/accused on coming to know of the same, he took the maternal uncle of P.W.8 to her house and thereafter, asked her to marry him and since the answer was in negative, out of disturbed state of mind, he took the knife and stabbed on her neck.11 It is to be remembered at this juncture that P.W.8 also got married the appellant/accused and the marriage has not been dissolved in a manner known to law.The fact remains that the Mangalsutra has been removed and subsequently, the victim got married to somebody and now, both of them are living as husband and wife.In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no mens rea / intention on the part of the appellant/accused to do away the life of the victim [P.W.8] and he persuaded her to marry him and since he was in a fit of rage, he lost control over his mind and committed the said offence.12 Question No.2: The fact remains that no tenable explanation has been offered by the appellant/accused as to why he carried a knife while going to the house of P.W.8 and therefore, his intention appears only to make a threat and accordingly, inflicted simple injuries and insofar as the offence under section 450 IPC is concerned, this Court is of the view that the offence has not been made out for the reason that ever as per the evidence of P.W.9, he was a frequent visitor of the house and there was a good relationship between P.W.9 and the appellant/accused and on the date of the commission of the offence, he took the maternal uncle of P.W.8 to the house of P.W.8 and thereafter, with the permission, he took her to the kitchen for having private conversation, wherein, he tried to persuade her to marry him and since she has refused, he committed the offence.13 In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant/accused u/s.307 IPC by the Trial Court, is confirmed. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
599,088 | The sister of the accused was the second wife of one Sangava Naicker, brother of the deceased, and by reason of the refusal by the said Sangava Naicker and the deceased to give the daughter of the former by his first wife in marriage to the second accused, the relationship between the two families was somewhat strained.On the day prior to the occurrence, when the deceased, P. W. 8 and others were chatting near a shop, the second accused was walking into the shop and the deceased appears to have given him a push saying that he was too close.This appears to have hit a boil of the second accused on his leg.On the day of the occurrence, at about 8 p.m. or so, the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 were sitting on a stone in front of the house of one Ramaswami and were chatting.The second accused who had resented the push he had on the prior day came that way hurling abuses at the person who had given him the hit the previous day, and this led to a wordy quarrel between the second accused and the deceased, later on developing into exchange of blows.The evidence is that, at that time, the appellant herein, the first accused (younger brother of the second accused) came on the scene and beat the deceased on his back.When the deceased turned round, the appellant took a soori knife from his waist and stabbed him on the left side of the chest near axilla & started running.The deceased ran behind him, chasing him, & P. Ws.1 to 3 and 5 who were there, also started chasing the appellant.Their progress was retorted by a dog coming in the way, and in the meanwhile the appellant escaped.The deceased who went chasing the appellant fell down after running a few yards.P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5, thereupon, carried the deceased to his house and sent intimation to the village munsif, P. W, 7, of Muthalapuram.He arrived at about 11 p.m. and recorded the statement Ex. P-5, from the deceased.Placing the deceased in a cart to be taken to Ettayapuram P. W, 7 went ahead and handed over the statement, Ex. P-5, and his own report, Ex. P 5-A, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P, W. 15, Ettayapuram.P. W. 15 also examined the deceased who WAS then conscious and recorded a statement, Ex. P-17, from him.A case was registered under Section 307, I. P. C.There was only a Government dispensary at Ettayapuram and the deceased was taken there.The Junior Assistant Surgeon, P. W. 4, examined the deceased at about 6 a.m. and issued the wound certificate, Ex. P-1, He gave requisition for recording dying declaration from the deceased.JUDGMENT Natesan, J.One Krishnaswami Naicker of Muthalapuram Kottur, Tirunelveli Dt., who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of Kandaswami Naicker of the same place is the appellant.The person available there, the village munsif, P. W. 6, Ettayapuram, recorded the dying declaration, Ex, P-2, from the deceased at about 6 a.m. The ambulance sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W, 15, to carry the deceased to Tuticorin arrived only at 9 a.m., and the victim passed away when being put into the ambulance.The police then amended the charge into one under Section 302, I. P. C.An inquest was held at which the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 were examined.There were four external injuries on the person of the deceased.No. 1 was a stab wound 3" x 2" x 6" over the left arm near axillary fold.Muscles underneath and blood vessels were cut.The wound extended into the left arm inner aspect.Injury No. 2 was an incised wound 1 inch X 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch in the left axilla with muscles underneath being cut.Injury No. 3 was also an incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch over upper part of the right ear, the ear being cut and injury No. 4 was another incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch behind the right ear near the mastoid region.On dissection, P. W. 4 found, corresponding to injury No. 1, that the muscles underneath injury No. 1 and the brachial artery and vein were cut.In the opinion of the Doctor, P. W. 4, death was due to shock and haemorrhage following injury No. 1, and injury NO. 1 was necessarily fatal.The appellant herein, the first accused, was arrested on 15th December 1962, near Moore Market in Madras.The second accused was arrested on 7-12-1962 at Guruswamikoil East of Sattur, It is needless to refer in detail to the course of the investigation.We may.however, state that besides the evidence of the eye witnesses and the consistent statements of the deceased made on three occasions, there is also an extra-judicial confession inside by the appellant in proof of his guilt.There is evidence that sometime about the second week of December 1962, P. Ws, 11 and 12 residents of Thapathi village, about 1 1/2 miles away from Muthalapuram Kottur, were going to the fields at about 10 p.m. to answer calls of nature.They saw a person coming with his head covered, and when they accosted him, he turned to be the appellant.They depose that when questioned why he was there, the appellant told them that he stabbed Kandaswami & went away by train, that he was detrained at Villupuram station by the Travelling Ticket Examiner, as he was travelling without a ticket, and that he had just then come back by train without a ticket to find out what happened to Kandaswami, P. Ws. 11 and 12 informed the appellant that Kandaswami was dead and that his brother was arrested by the police.It is stated that the appellant then went away from the place.On the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant stabbed the deceased on his left chest with a knife resulting in his death.Soon after the occurrence and twice thereafter, as occasion arose, the deceased had consistently referred to the appellant as his assailant.No doubt, in the latter portion in Ex. P-17 there is a mistake, as it is recorded in one place as if the deceased stated that Perumal Naicker stabbed him.In the earlier portion, the deceased has clearly stated how and in what circumstances the appellant stabbed him.The Birth Register was produced from the Sub-Registrar's Office. | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,977,990 | Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant in connection with Crime No.496/2018 registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.07.2018 at about 04:00 pm in the Sanjayti Patel Community Building situated at village Khajri under the jurisdiction of Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh, on a meeting, co- accused Santosh Patel had asked the complainant Damodar Patel regarding payment of labour work.On refusal by the complainant, the co-accused Santosh Patel abused him and also beaten him by a wooden stick, as a result of which he sustained injury in his head.It is alleged that when complainants' brother and son namely Dayaram and Madan have tried to escape complainant, then applicant and other co-accused persons have also beaten them by means of wooden stick by which they sustained injuries.Report of the incidence was lodged on the same day, on that basis, Crime No.496/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of IPC has been registered against the applicant and co-accused persons.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that although injured Dayaram has received injury; however, he was discharged from the hospital on 04.08.2018 after recovering from the said injury.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant-Laxmi @ Ghanshyam shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/05/2019 22:15:37 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-18218-2019 (LAXMI @ GHANSHYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/05/2019 22:15:37 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
599,809 | ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the PatnaHigh Court confirming conviction of the appellant who faced trial along with one RanLakhan Rai for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC').Each was directed to undergo R.I. forlife for the first offence and two years for the later offence.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Siya Devi, the informant to this case and the mother of the deceased was married with RamLakhan Rai and from their wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born.Thereafterher husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell in bad company and meted inhuman treatment to theinformant, as a result of which she went to her father's place.In spite of the efforts made bythe informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally on 9.2.1981 accused RamLakhan Rai threw her out of the house.Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, the appellant.Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan Rai hadabsconded.P.C.,against her husband and the appellant No.1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he did notcomply with the order and the informant filed a Misc.case for its execution.Ext.9 iscertified copy of the order of Misc.case No.8 of 1981 (Siya Devi vs. Ram Lakhan Rai) underSection 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai agreed to keep the informant andher daughter and he started keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw thecase which she had instituted.When the informant did not withdraw the case, accused RamLakhan Rai instituted a case on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah forabducting the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her.On 26.7.1984 theinformant went to her father's place and she left her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased)in the house of her husband.On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumari informed her that herhusband had either concealed her daughter, somewhere or murdered her.The informantcame to her husband's house and searched for her daughter.On enquiry, she learnt fromBishuni Numar, Kishori Kumar (PW-4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW-14) that the accusdRam Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo were talking amongthemselves to remove Bhikani so that the case which had been instituted for kidnapping maynot fail.Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai had seen the accused taking away a childaged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on enquiryRam Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking away a child aged about ten years alongwithothers and Dauna Devi was following them and on inquiry Ram Lakhan Rai told that hewas taking Bhikani or curing her of snake bite and thereafter Bhikhani was not seen in thevillage.The trial court held that there were circumstances which clearly established the accusation.Accordingly, the conviction was made.In appeal, the High Court concurred with he view ofthe trial court and upheld the conviction.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only factorwhich the trial court and the High Court have taken note of is the alleged recovery of thedead body of the child from the house.The trial court and the High Court erroneouslyobserved that the house where the dead body was recovered belonged to two accusedpersons.In the prosecution version from beginning is that the present appellant was havingillicit relationship with the other accused.Learned counsel for the respondent supported thejudgment of the High Court.In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to be conclusively established that the chain ofcircumstances lead to the only inference, that of guilt of the accused ruling out the possibilityof involvement of any other person to be the author of the crime.In the instant case therewas no evidence to show that appellant was the owner of the house and/or was staying in thehouse at the time of alleged incident.No question was put in this regard in the examinationunder Section 313 Cr.P.C.In the instant case the circumstance highlighted by the trial Court and the HighCourt does not meet the requisite standard applicable to cases based on circumstantialevidence.All other circumstances including so called confession were disbelieved by the trialcourt and the High Court.Therefore, the conviction of the appellant as recorded cannot be maintained.The convictionis accordingly set aside.The appeal is allowed. | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
599,826 | ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.Although this matter has been on the board of this Court since a long time, the Counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to make himself available.In the circumstances, I have no option but to decide the matter on merits with the assistance of Mr. R.Y. Mirza, learned A.P.P.By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 19-9-88 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay, whereby a process for an offence under section 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. in pursuance of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, has been issued against them.Office is forthwith directed to send copy of my order and the relevant papers to the trial Court which is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible (preferably within 6 months from today) as the impugned order was passed nearly 7 years ago.Revision dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,988,108 | Heard on I.A. No.32/2016 which is the second application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.1-Lokendra Singh S/o Late Shankarsingh Tomar.The appellant No.1-Lokendra has suffered conviction and jail sentence, which is as under:Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the present appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the bail granted to him by the Court.He further submits that his mother is suffering from kidney disorder and he has filed the medical papers of his mother and also he has got two minor kids.He further submits that co-accused-Vicky @ Vikram has been granted bail by this Court on 27.10.2015 and his case is also similar to that of the co-accused-Vicky.The present appellant has also completed the jail sentence of almost two 2 years.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the application.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant No.1- Lokendra shall be released on bail for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 20.06.2016 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed, by the Registry of this Court, in this behalf.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/- | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
599,886 | The petitioner who had been remanded to police custody after his arrest early in February, 1977 was produced before Shri P. K. Dham, Metropolitan Magistrate on February 25, 1977 an the expiry of the period of remand granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate.On that date, according to the petitioner, he was forced to move an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that tie wanted to make a voluntary confession.The Magistrate is alleged to have got upset when the police officers accompanying the petitioner told him that the petitioner wanted to make a voluntary confession.The alleged confession of the petitioner was then recorded.Immediately thereafter the petitioner was served with the order under the Act made by respondent No. I on February 11, 1977 and he was taken to Central Jail Tihar.On March 21, 1977 the order dated February 11, 1977 was revoked and fresh order of detention was made in respect of the petitioner purportedly on account of S. 16-A of the Act having lapsed on the revocation of the proclamation of emergency by the president.On the same day respondent No. 1 passed another order of detention under S. 3 (1) of the Act ordering detention of the petitioner.The order was served on, and the grounds for detention were communicated to, the petitioner on April 21, 1977 in jail.1977 the petitioner filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.From January 1950 to March 1950 he worked as a supervisor in the College of Mining and Metallurgy in the same University.From April, 1950 to March 1952 the petitioner took industrial training at Binani Metal Works Ltd., Howrah, West Bengal and later joined that concern as a Metallurgist.From April 9, 1952: the petitioner joined the Indian Air Force as a civilian technician and later served as an Assistant Foreman in the Inspectorate of Explosives, I.A.F., Khamaria.For a short period of five months from February, 1953 to July, 1953 he was on deputation to the Government of India for attachment with the Inspectorate of Armaments, Ministry of Supply, United Kingdom, for undergoing training in Metallurgy Development of Air-Force and explosive armament stores.In 1958 the petitioner applied to the Indian Air Force for permission to seek employment elsewhere to better his prospects.This, the petitioner states, shows that he had nothing to do, even up to March 28, 1962, with any department of the Government of India and that his only occupation was teaching in the Delhi Polytechnic.On September 29, 1962 the petitioner left the service of Delhi Polytechnic and joined the Directorate of Technical Development & Production (Air) in the same grade in which he was serving in the Polytechnic.He served in the said Directorate till January, 1974 when on January 20, 19,74 he joined the Planning Commission as Director (Metals).The petitioner submitted that from a narration of the above facts it was evident that in the year 1960-61 the petitioner was not an officer of the Directorate of Technical Development and Production (Air) nor was he in any way connected with any Government department or Ministry.Respondent No. 5 is Shri Sanjay Gandhi son of former Prime Minister of India.Respondent No. 6 is the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and Respondent No. 7 is the Delhi Administration.The grounds of detention were communicated on the same day.Respondent No. 1 in paragraph 4 of her counter-affidavit states that she was not in a Position to admit or deny the averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the writ petition.These pertain to the various positions in which the petitioner was working till he joined the Directorate of Technical Development and Production (Air).With regard to the material which led to her satisfaction for making the order dated April 21, 1977, respondent No. 1 states that she had before her a report from the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Special Branch) Delhi which, inter alia, stated that the petitioner had made a confessional statement before Shi Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate.1977 and that according to the confessional statement of the petitioner he came in contact with the agent of a foreign power in 1960-61 when he was working in the Directorate of Technical Development & Production (Air) Ministry of defense.She states that she had no reason to doubt the genuineness or correctness of the facts and circumstances stated in the said report since the same had been furnished by a responsible Government officer.She believed them to be true and ordered the detention of the petitioner under S. 3(l) of the Act. Respondent No. 1 denies any direction or compulsion of respondents 4 and 5 and states in paragraph 6 of her counter-affidavit as follows:-"The order dated 21-4-77 in respect of the petitioner was made by me on being personally and bona fide satisfied of the necessity so to do.It was made at the request of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Home Dept.Delhi Administration and the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (S,B.) Delhi and on the basis of information furnished by the first and last of these authorities and not at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as alleged by the petitioner.The allegation of conspiracy against "the petitioner is wholly misconceived and far-fetched."Respondent No. 1 claimed privilege to disclose in open court the number and the names of other persons who also had been ordered to be detained for reasons of their suspected involvement in the commission of offences which are subject-matter of the F.I.R. 26/77 P, W. Srinivaspuri.She has averred that the petitioner is not the only person who had been ordered by her to be detained for the purpose stated in the order of April 21, 19,77 but there were some more persons who had been detained "in connection with the alleged offences in respect of the F.I.R. mentioned in the grounds of detention dated April 21, 1977".The counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union of India, respondent No. 2, has been sworn by Shri Suresh Chand Vaish, Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.He deposes, "this fact has been ascertained by the answering respondent now in order to enable a reply to be file by the answering respondent in this Hon'ble Court" .He also admits that the petitioner was concerned with examination of a proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation.This proposal, according to Shri Vaish, was still under consideration although it was admitted that the Allis Chalmers Corporation's technology did come up for consideration.Our attention was invited to several paragraphs of the affidavit of the first respondent in, this connection.The relevant part of this paragraph in the affidavit of the first respondent reads - "....... The order dated 21-4-1977 in respect of the petitioner was made by me on being personally, and bona fide satisfied of the necessity so to do.It was made at the request of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Home Deptt.Delhi Administration and the Supdt.The petitioner Raj Prakash Varshney who was being detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi by virtue of and under an order passed by respondent No. 1 under S, 3 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 197L hereinafter referred to as the Ala, by this petition under Am 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued to respondents 1. 2, 3 and 7 with the direction that he be set at liberty.We have already allowed the petition and now proceed to record our reasons.It came up for hearing before a bench of this Court on April 27, 1977 but was directed to be listed before some other bench.On that date appearances were put in on behalf of the respondents but time was prayed for to file counter-affidavits by way of return to the rule nisi.Time was granted to the respendents to file their counter-affidavits in view of the fact that clear 8 days had not elapsed between service of the notice and the date of hearing as required by the High Court Rules and Orders.The returns of all the respondents except respondent, No. 3 were thereafter filed and the matter came up before us for hearing.A reference was made to the Advisory Board on May 6, 1977 and the Advisory Board had considered the matter on May 16, 1977 but its report was awaited till the time of the filing of the returns.The petitioner contended that his detention under the order dated February 11, 1977 and continued detention by virtue of orders dated March 21, 1977 and April 21, 1977 was illegal, mala fide, contrary to and in abuse of the process of law and violative of his fundamental rights.The further contention was that respondents 4 and 5 forced the hands of the concerned authorities, namely respondents 1, 2 and 7 to detain the petitioner under the Act.This permission was granted.The petitioner submitted an application to the U.P.S.C. for being selected in a recruitment being conducted by that body for the post of a lecturer in Metallurgy (Senior Scale) in the Delhi Polytechnic.The petitioner was selected for this post and was released by the Indian Air Force on October 14, 1958 to join the post.It is stated by the petitioner that as his appointment in the Delhi Polytechnic was temporary, he retained his lien as a quasi-permanent Assistant Foreman in the Inspectorate of Explosives, Indian Air Force, Khamaria.During the time that the petitioner was in the employment of Delhi Polytechnic, he states, he had nothing to do with the Ministry of defense or any of the defense establishments or any other department or Ministry of the Government of India.He further says that although he wanted to do part-time research work in the defense Science Organisation yet his request was turned down on March 17, 1961 (vide the communication copy of which is Annexure P. 5).The petitioner then goes on to say that in order to better his prospects he kept on applying for other posts.On March 28, 1962 the Delhi Polytechnic forwarded his application for the post of Reader in Mechanical Engineering (Metallurgy) in the Roorkee University, Roorkee.According to the petitioner while he was in the Planning Commission he was concerned with examining the technical feasibility of the proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Corporation to set up a sponge iron plant aided by the United Nations Development Programme.The said proposal was based on American technology provided by the Allis Chalmers Corporation of the United States of America.The petitioner did not find the kid proposal worth accepting.He therefore, rejected it.Pressure was then brought upon him to agree to the proposal because respondent No. 4 was the representative in India of Allis Chalmers Corporation.Respondents 4 and 5 were alleged to be old friends.Respondent No. 5 was then alleged to have insisted that the petitioner should give a clean chit to the proposal of accepting the technology supplied by Allis Chalmers Corporation.Inasmuch as the petitioner resisted, respondents 4 and 5, it was alleged, got a false case under the Indian Official Secrets Act registered against him and had him arrested and humiliated.His premises were searched and he was made to suffer all sorts of torture and indignities.When the petitioner did not yield he was tortured and threats were held out to the security and welfare of his wife and children.In this way he was compelled in the interest of his near-ones and dear-ones to voluntarily confess his being implicated in a "diabolic charge" of obtaining for and supplying sensitive information and documents to an agent of a foreign country.This was not served on the petitioner designedly as the police officers were using third degree methods to persuade the petitioner to make a voluntary confession.Respondent No. 3 is the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar in whose custody the petitioner was lodged in jail, Respondent No. 4 is one Shri Adil Shahryar son of Shri Mohd. Yunus, special envoy to the former Prime Minister of India.According to respondent No. 6 the C.B.I. had nothing to do with the arrest of the petitioner or his interrogation or detention.Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded this.She admits that the detention orders dated February 11, 1977, March2l, 1977 and April 2.1, 1977 were made by her.The said order and the grounds communicated to the petitioner recited the purpose of his detention as "to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of India".However, being satisfied on the basis of material available on April 21, 1977 that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of India she made the impugned order under S. 3 (1) of the Act and directed that the petitioner be detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.Shri Vaish admits the petitioner's averment that respondent No. 4 accompanied by the Vice-President of M/s Allis Chalmers Corporation did see the petitioner aroun i the dates mentioned in paragraph 22 of the writ petition and that Sarvashri B, U Jethra and P. N. Shali were also present that time, although it is said only for some time.With regard to the petitioner's allegation in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that respondent No. 5 rang up Shri V. G. Rajadhyaksha, Chief Consultant, Planning Commission, that Allis Chalmers Corporation's technology should be pushed through by the petitioner, Shri Vaish in paragraph 10 of his counter-affidavit states that it has been verified from Shri Rajadhyaksha that it is incorrect to say that respondent No. 5 telephoned to him and complained to him a out the attitude of the petitioner.In paragraph 17 of his counter-affidavit Shri Vaish avers that on verification it has been found that Shri Rajadhyaksha and Shri Satvapal had separately asked the petitioner about the nature of discussions that took place between respondent No. 4 and the representative of Allis Chalmers Corporation "as a matter of routine administrative procedure." This averment is made to traverse the allegation in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that Sarvashri Rajadhyaksha and Satyapal both of the Planning Commission and officers senior to the petitioner spoke to him about the call from respondent No. 5, but the petitioner was not browbeaten because as a technical person he knew that the defects discovered by him were genuine.It may be noted that the counter-affidavit of Shri Vaish has been verified to be true on information derived by him from official records of the Central Government and believed by him to be true Respondent No. 4 has stated in his counter-affidavit that he has nothing to do with the detention of the petitioner or the criminal case registered against him.According to him the petitioner has involved him only to make out a false case of mala fides by making false allegations against him.After setting out his academic and professional qualifications and activities, this respondent states that he did see the petitioner connection with furthering the scheme IV-M/s Allis Chalmers Corporation for adoption in the sponge iron plant to be setup in Andhra Pradesh.He denies that he in any way coerced the petitioner of threatened him.He denies any connection-of respondent No. 5 in this matter.In order to show that he was not in any way taking advantage of his father's official position he has stated that his mother and father had separated in 1964 and he had been living with his mother separately from his father and following his independent profession.He emphatically denies being an extra-constitutional authority or power" or in any way being c6nnected in this behalf with respondent No. 5 who also he denies was an "extra-constitutional authority".He admits that he wrote and got published in the press a letter contesting the claim made by the Financial Express.On May 2, 1977 the Delhi Administrator had accorded his approval to the detention order on April 29, 1977 and sent together with the report the grounds on which the order had been passed by the first respondent.The Delhi Administration also forwarded the grounds on which the order of detention had been made to the Advisory Board constituted under S. 9 of the Act. No representation had been received from the petitioner against the order of detention.The Board had fixed May 16, 1977 as the date on which to consider the matter and directed the production of petitioner on that date.A copy of this communication was also sent to the District Magistrate for information and necessary action.The relevant portions of this letter read as under:-a) On receipt of information that Sh .R. P Varshney Director, Planning Commission, New Delhi, was in close collaboration with the agent of a foreign power and had been passing on to him secret information and classified documents after removing the same from his office against handsome payments, he was arrested on 4-2-1977 in case Fir No. 26/77 under Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 9 Ios Act read with S. 120-B Ipc, P. S. Srinivaspuri.According to the confession made before Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate on 18-2-1977 Sh.Varshney came in contact with the agent of a foreign power in 1960-61 when he was in the Directorate of Technical Development and Production (AIR), Ministry of defense.Since then he had been removing secret confidential and sensitive documents from his office and passing on the same to this agent clandestinely against handsome cash payments.He is reported to have received Rs. 15000/- from this foreign agent for the information and confidential documents furnished to him."With regard to the impugned detention order dated April 21, 1977 the record has on it the communication No. 905/Z dated March 22, 1977 from Shri K. S. Bajwa, to Shri B. K. Goswami and the copy of the "grounds" sent along with that letter.The first respondent had recorded the following note on April 21, 1977:-Since the detention order dated 21-3-77 has not been approved by the Administrator so far, issue the revocation order directing Supdt.Jail to release the detenu.Even on an investigation of the record of the detaining authority it would be apparent that there was sufficient material to enable the first respondent to arrive at the statutory satisfaction and make an order.The first respondent has affirmed on affidavit that the impugned order was issued on her personal and bona fide satisfaction of the necessity to make the order.The grounds of detention sent with the aforesaid letter mention a confessional statement made by the petitioner to the effect that he has been removing secret/confidential sensitive documents from his office and passing the same to the agent of a foreign power clandestinely against handsome payment in cash.What these documents were and how they adversely affected the security of India or the defense of India is neither disclosed to nor sought to be known by the first respondent.Petition allowed. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
59,990,611 | Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for the State through video-conferencing.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Jai Prakash with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-1019 of 2018, under Sections-406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffarnagar, during pendency of trial.Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.A written submission of Sri Amit Daga, AGA has also been placed on record by the office.Considered the same.(ii) against FIR lodged on 04.09.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 06.11.2019;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 28.5.2020 Shubham | ['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. |
59,991,668 | DATE : 25th JUNE, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT :-Rule, made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::3 11-CRWP-1091-16These writ petitions have arisen out of the same crime bearing registration no. 31 of 2017 registered with Police Station Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 197, 198 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short).Therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.It is alleged that during the period from 24 th September, 2004 to 11th May, 2007, gold loans were sanctioned and disbursed to 48 borrowers of Bhusawal People's Co-operative Bank, Branch Yawal ("the Bank" for short).It was subsequently noticed that the gold ornaments pledged by them were not genuine.It was on the basis of the false and forged valuation reports that those borrowers had obtained loans having total of Rs.1,20,88,560/-.The Manging Director of the bank lodged an F.I.R., on the basis of which the above numbered crime came to be registered.Respondent no.1 (accused no.52) in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1091 of 2016 was serving as a clerk, Respondent no.1 (accused no.50) in Criminal Writ Petition ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 ::: 4 11-CRWP-1091-16no.1092 of 2016 was the then in-charge Branch Manager and Respondent no.1 (accused no. 51) in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1093 of 2016 was serving as a clerk at the relevant time.(These accused - respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the respondents" collectively.) Therefore, these respondents also came to be added as accused persons.They filed applications before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon for their discharge of the above mentioned offences on the say that they were not at all responsible for sanction and disbursment of gold loans on the basis of fake ornaments.The gold loans were sanctioned on the basis of the valuation reports given by the authorized valuer of the bank.They had no role to play in accepting the gold ornaments.Their applications came to be rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.Thereafter, they filed Criminal Revision Application nos. 160 of 2012, 161 of 2012 and 175 of 2012 respectively before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, challenging the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.After hearing the respondents and the learned A.P.P. and after considering the facts and ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 ::: 5 11-CRWP-1091-16circumstances of the case, the said Criminal Revision Applications came to be allowed and the respondents came to be discharged of the above mentioned offences as per the impugned orders dated 15th November, 2014, 15th November, 2014 and 27th September,2013 respectively, which are the subject matters of challenge in these Criminal Writ Petitions.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents were working in the Yawal Branch of the Bank.It was necessary for them to check the ornaments before processing the loan proposals.The respondents were very much involved in the above mentioned offences.According to him, the Revisional Court has wrongly discharged these respondents of the above mentioned offences.He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders may be set aside and the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon may be revived.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::6 11-CRWP-1091-16The learned Counsel for the respondents strongly opposed these Criminal Writ Petitions.He submits that the respondents were not at all responsible for sanctioning and disbursing gold loans to the borrowers.They simply processed the papers of their loan proposals.The borrowers used to produce the certificates of the authorized valuer of the bank in respect of the gold ornaments proposed to be pledged.It was the duty of the valuer of the bank to verify whether the gold ornaments, proposed to be pledged, were genuine or otherwise.In case any gold ornament was found to be fake, the valuer of the bank was liable to be held responsible.The learned Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case with reference to the role attributed against these respondents and rightly discharged these respondents of the above mentioned offences.As stated above, respondent no.1 in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1092 of 2016 was the In-charge Branch Manager while respondent no.1 in remaining two criminal writ petitions were the clerks in Yawal Branch of the Bank. ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::7 11-CRWP-1091-16They have come with a specific case that they were subjected to departmental enquiry and after considering the evidence, they have been exonerated of the charges levelled against them in respect of the gold loan transactions, subject matter of the present crime.The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out to the statement of the authorized valuer of the bank viz. Rajendra Dattatraya Yawalkar, wherein he states that if the gold loan is sanctioned and disbursed to the borrower on the basis of the certificate issued by the valuer and if it is later on transpired that the said gold ornament is fake, the valuer would be responsible.He further states that if the valuer certifies that the gold ornament is genuine, though it was fake, in that event also the valuer would be responsible.The duties assigned to the respondents do not show that they are responsible for verifying whether the gold ornament produced by the borrower is genuine or otherwise.They are assigned the duty of processing the proposals for loans on the basis of the documents produced by them, including the valuation report of the valuer of the Bank.As such, prima facie, ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 ::: 8 11-CRWP-1091-16the respondents cannot be said to have facilitated the borrowers to obtain gold loans on the basis of fake gold ornaments.They were subjected to departmental enquiry on the same allegations and have been exonerated.In the circumstances, the Revisional Court cannot be said to have committed any mistake in discharging these respondents of the above mentioned offences.Criminal Writ Petitions are devoid of any substance.They are liable to be dismissed.In the result, I pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 :::(i) Criminal Writ Petitions are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:19 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,999,729 | Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.463/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sidhi under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.06.2019 at about 02:30 pm complainant Dilip Kumar Sahu along with his father-in-law Nakchedi Sahu visited the UBI Bank's ATM situated at D.P. Complex, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Sidhi to generate the ATM card PIN, out of two persons standing outside the ATM, one entered the ATM to help the complainant and exchanged the ATM of complainant with other ATM.When the card was not accepted by the ATM, the complainant and his father-in-law returned to their house.On the next day, father-in-law of the applicant received a message that Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn from his account, soon thereafter, he blocked his ATM card, at that time total Rs.51,000/- has been withdrawn from his account in three transactions.When they approached the Bank; thereafter, they came to know about the cheating.Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR on 02.07.2019 against the unknown persons.During investigation, the applicants have been arrested.On interrogation, they have admitted the commission of offence.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 05/08/2019 22:01:37 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-30694-2019 (ABHIMANYU @ PRINCE KUSHWAHA & ANO.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, is allowed by imposing certain condition.It is directed that on depositing the amount of Rs.25,500/- by each applicants in the concerned Court, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 05/08/2019 22:01:37 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-30694-2019 (ABHIMANYU @ PRINCE KUSHWAHA & ANO.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 05/08/2019 22:01:37 | ['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
6,000,066 | Heard for some time.Our attention is invited to statement ofinformant Ambadas Ramchandra Deshmukh dated 27/4/2013 andinformant Ramesh Digambar Katakdhond of same date.Contention is bothrefer to same incident and as such two different offences could not havebeen registered by recording 2 FIRs.Learned counsel submits that the latterFIR could have been merged into the first FIR.We find that on information furnished by Ambadas DeshmukhCrime No.111/2013 under section 452, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 158, 149of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is registered.On the basis of statement of police constable FIR No.112/2013under sections 307 353, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and under section135 of the Bombay Police Act has been registered.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 05:12:25 :::rsk 2/2 18-WP-4395-14.docIt therefore shows that some of the offences registered areentirely different.Charge-sheets have already been filed and both the matters arealready committed to the very same Sessions Court.Thepetitioner to move appropriate application for its transfer to Sessions Courtin accordance with law.(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 05:12:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 05:12:25 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
60,003,445 | The applicant has filed this third application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 31.03.2016 by Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.41/2006 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 279, 337, 304A of IPC and further added section 302 and 201 of IPC.Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Narcotics Bureau opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.This is repeat bail application after rejection of earlier bail application on merits with liberty to come again after examination of principal prosecution witnesses vide order 16.09.2016 passed in M.Cr.No statement has been filed by the applicant with regard to examination of prosecution witnesses. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,475,462 | Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati).His philosophy succeeded in combating Buddhism and re-establishing religion of Vedas.He preached Non-dualistic Philosophy.They performed duties, responsibilities and managed affairs of said Math/Peeth in the manner prescribed in the above books.For a period of about 165 years (prior to 1941) i.e. since around 1776 A.D., Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth remained without a Head.In 1941, three Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Sharda and Govardhan Math/Peeth, Rulers of various States, learned people and Sanyasis etc., authorised a registered institution known as "Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Banaras" (now Varanasi) (hereinafter referred to as "B.D.M., VNS") to search a Sanyasi, satisfying qualifications/ qualities prescribed in above books of command so as to install 'Shankaracharya' of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth with an object to restore above Peeth/Math to its prestine stage and prestige.Late Brahmanand Saraswati, a great learned Sansyasi was chosen and installed as Head of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth by "B.D.M., VNS".Above selection was approved by aforesaid three Shankaracharyas of other three Peeths, Sansayis and other learned men and followers of Vedic teachings. 'B.D.M., VNS' also executed a deed of declaration of trust, dated 11th May, 1941 (Baisakh Sudi 15 Samvat 1998).Entire land and site of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, Pauri Garhwal, including land and Ashram at Banaras (Varanasi) was placed under Trust of "Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati" with the conditions mentioned in the said deed.While three Shankaracharyas, were pondering over the matter, it was claimed that a 'Will' was executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati, nominating four persons as successors, namely, (a) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati) (b) Dwarika Prasad Shastri (c) Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati (d) Swami Parmanand Saraswati.According to 'Will', they were to succeed, one after another, and name of Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati was mentioned at first place.However, claim of Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati to succeed Math/Peeth as Shankaracharya was rejected by three Shankarachayas of other Peeths, learned, Pandits and Sanyasis.According to Rules, directions, customs and traditions of Peeth, and further directions contained in declaration/deed dated 11.5.1941, successor to the office of Shankaracharaya had to be chosen by a body of learned men of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, a registered body (hereinafter referred to as 'K.V.P.') and to be approved by three Maths/Peeths.K.V.P. and other Shankaracharyas did not recognize alleged 'Will', hence neither selected nor installed him as 'Shankaracharya'.Swami Krishna Bodhashram fell ill in September 1973, hence appointed plaintiff to perform duties of the seat and manage affairs of Math/Peeth during his ailment.Before his death, he proposed name of plaintiff for installing as "Shankaracharaya".Again, question of installation of "Shankaracharya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was considered by three "Shankaracharayas" of different Maths/Peeths and other learned persons.They selected and appointed plaintiff as "Shankaracharaya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, since he possessed all qualifications prescribed in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'.Installation ceremony of plaintiff was held at Delhi on 7.12.1973 in which 'Shankaracharaya' of Sharda Peeth and Gowardhan Peeth were personally present and offered Pattabhishek to plaintiff.Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth sent his representative who offered Patta Vastra, on his behalf, in the said ceremony.Besides, several other Sanyasis, Grihasths, Pandits, Scholars were also present and participated in aforesaid ceremony.All necessary religious ceremonies were performed.After installation of plaintiff, a procession was taken out from Gandhi Maidan, Delhi in which all three Shankaracharyas including plaintiff joined.Procession terminated at Azmal Khan Park of Karol Bagh and turned into a huge sabha, wherein various religious institutions of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal including followers and leaders of Jain Religion, Mandleshwars, Sanyasis and Grihasths welcomed and acclaimed plaintiff as 'Shankaracharya' of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and offered their homage.Since installation on 7.12.1973, plaintiff as 'Shankaracharya' of said Peeth is performing duties and discharging responsibilities in the said capacity i.e. Jyotish-Peethadhishwar.Plaintiff was attracted to asceticism at a very early age of 13 years.He studied Sanskrit at Narsinghpur and Kashi.In 1941 he joined Sanskrit Pathshala at village Rampur District Ghazipur.After learning religious philosophy for sometimes, plaintiff left Late Shankaracharya Brahmanand Saraswati to propagate Shankar philosophy and Sanatan Dharma, Hindu religion.Plaintiff mostly propagates Vedantic teachings in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal.Plaintiff has a large number of followers in the aforesaid States.Appellant was threatening to do so without any right and authority.He also did not possess requisite qualification as provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan' for such installation.In any case, there cannot be two persons to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in the same Peeth.Appellant, therefore, was not entitled for installation as Shankaracharya, hold and possess Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of said office.Plaintiff was entitled to restrain appellant, by means of a decree of permanent injunction, from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and proclaim himself as such and to hold various decorations like Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan etc. of such office.Appellant is a qualified Sanyasi, well versed in Vedas, Darshan, Vedanta, Yoga, Vendangas and Adhyatamik (spiritual) philosophy etc. He is capable of maintaining high prestige of the seat and able to preach Shastras and religious philosophy to Sanyasis and Grihasthas.His religious attainments are well acclaimed and beyond doubt.He should be competent to observe the vitals and tenets of a particular sect for the benefit of Math/Peeth.For attainment of final Purushartha, knowledge becomes essential and for acquiring knowledge, a pure mind is essential, inasmuch as, for purity of mind, performance of rites becomes essential.This performance of rites becomes integral part of teachings of Adi Shankaracharya.It is stated therein that plaintiff was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 07.12.1973 and is performing religious duties, functions, obligations as provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan', books of command prescribed by Adi Guru Shankaracharya for installation and functioning of Shankaracharyas of four Peeths established and founded by him in four corners of India.He has been recognized as such by rest three Shankaracharyas of Sharda Peeth, Goveradhan Peeth and Shringeri Peeth.He has visited foreign countries, hence also unfit.He was working and serving as teacher on monthly salary, hence could not have become a 'Sanayasi' and installed as Shankaracharya.Appellant did not possess requisite qualification for being installed as Shankaracharya, as per books of commands, namely 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'.Ramji alias Shantanand Saraswati was not qualified to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya nor he was so installed as such.No 'Will' was executed by late Brahmanand Saraswati in favour of Ramji Tripathi and others.Alleged 'Will' relied by appellant said to be executed by late Brahmanand Saraswati is forged and fictitious.It is a manufactured and manipulated document prepared by interested persons, namely Ramji Tripathi and others.Late Sri Krishna Bodhaharamji was chela of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.He was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.He performed duties and obligations of said office and assertions contrary thereto in written statement are incorrect.Vishnu Devanand Saraswati expired in individual capacity and not as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He was never recognized as Shankaracharya by learned Pandits, Sanyasies etc. Alleged nomination/appointment of appellant by Vishnu Devanand is false.Vishnu Devanand otherwise had no right to execute any 'Will' in favour of appellant, appointing or nominating him as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.Alleged 'Will' dated 17.04.1989 is forged and fictitious.The seat since then has never remained vacant or became extinct.PW 22 Bramchari Sri Subuddhanand Sishya Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Narsingpur, M.P.PW 23 Sri Nijanand Brahamchari Sishya Pujypad Swami Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Sri Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Jabalpur, M.P.PW 24 Agni Peethadheswar Acharya Mahamandleshwar Brahmarshi Sri Ram Krishnanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Panch Agni Peeth Amarkantak, Anooppur, M.P.PW 25 Sri Kaiwalyanand Brahmchari Dharmopadeshak, Pashchim Singhbhumi, JharkhandPW 26 Sri Aacharya Jitendra, ViranasiPW 27 Brahmachari Sri Turiyanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Badrika Ashram, Mankameshwar, AllahabadPW 32 Sri Nand Kishore Nautiyal Sampadak Nootan Savera, West MumbaiPW 34 Dr. Sri Ganesh Dutt Shastri Teachar VaranasiPW 35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri, Purohit, Narsinghpur, M.P.PW 39 Badri Math Peethadeshwar Swami Hari Narayananand Ji Sansthapkak Mahamantri Bharat Sadhu Samaj Sishya Bramhaleen Dwarkinand Ji Maharaj, Dharmopadeshak, Patna, BiharRamji Tripathi (later known as Swami Shantanand)Following reliefs were sought:The defendant who is mere Trustee de son tort calling himself Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, Badrikashram be removed from the office of the trustee.Sri Swami Krishnabodharshram ji aforesaid duly installed Shankaracharya of the Peeth be declared and appointed Peethadhishwar of Jyotish Peeth.Value of property was in Lacs.Besides, Swami Brhmanand Saraswati also acquired and possessed valuable immovable and movable property, including gold and silver utensils and articles etc. and also deposited huge sums of money in Bank in the capacity as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He mostly lived at Brahma Niwas, Alopi Bagh at Allahabad, and toured whole of Northern India frequently.He delivered lectures, gave Darshan to general public and initiated individual persons as his Chelas.He propagated Adwait Vedant Philosophy and advanced cause of Hindu Sanatan Dharam.A weekly magazine "Shankaracharya Upadesh" was published from Lucknow in his life time, concerning his teachings, tour program and others important matters.Mahesh Brahmchari was In-charge of Publicity Department of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and he was editor also of the magazine.Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand) was originally resident of District Basti.He was initiated by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as his "Dandi Sanyasi Chela" in 1951 itself.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, while travelling, reached Delhi on 13.11.1952 and stayed there for some time in Queen's Garden near railway station.He then went to Varanasi.It was deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad by Sri Dwarika Prasad Shastri, as holder of power of attorney of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.Previous "Will" which were already deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad were taken back by Dwarika Prasad.On 21.05.1953 remains of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati were brought at Varanasi and rituals were completed.On 22.05.1953 a meeting of disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, presided by Swami Hariharanand (popularly known as Swami Karpatri Ji) was held at Varanasi.An interim Committee of disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was formed to manage Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth till his last "Will" is obtained from District Judge, Allahabad and executed.The interim Committee consisted of 12 persons whereof Swami Swaroopanand was President and Pandit Bal Krishna Misra was Secretary.It also included as members, Pandit Dwarka Prasad Shastri, Ram Prasad, Mahesh, Ganga Prasad Pandey etc. On the same day, interim Committee under Presidentship of Swami Swroopanand held meeting and decided to receive "Will".It authorized Ganga Prasad Pandey to obtain "Will" from District Judge, Allahabad with the help of Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari and produce it before Committee.On 25.05.1953, "Will" dated 18.12.1952 was opened before District Registrar, Allahabad, after he got satisfied about the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.Plaint case set up was that Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya founded four Maths: (1) Govardhan Math at Puri (2) Jyotirmath at Badrinath (3) Sharda Math and (4) Sringeri Math at Sungbhadra in south.He made these Maths centres of Vedantic teachings.Each Math was placed in the charge of one of his four principal disciples who were Padmapada, Hasthmalak, Sureshwar and Trotraka who were appointed as Mahants of these Maths.These Mahants were entitled to nominate one of his disciples to be Mahant after his death.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Mahant of Jyotirmath at Badrinath.He nominated plaintiff, one of his principal disciples, to be Shankaracharya and Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, after his death.He disclosed his wishes in 'Will' executed by him.He was too feeble and ill and was not capable to understand contents of 'Will' and the 'Will' does not represent his mind.The 'Will' was brought about by undue influence and importunity of plaintiff, who was a relation of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and might have exercised that influence himself as well as through one Mahesh Brahmchari, who was Private Secretary and a man of great confidence of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. 'Will' was a forged document and has no legal effect.On the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, a question arose about appointment of successor of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Learned Pandits, Mahants, Mandelshwars, Sanyasis and most of disciples of late Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati selected and duly installed defendant-1, who had been a Sanyasi for the last about 40 years, as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth, on 25.06.1963 with all religious ceremonies at Gyanvapi near famous temple of Vishwanathji of Varanasi.Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Tirth of Sharda Peeth at Dwarika attended the said installation of defendant-1 and since then he is functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and is being recognized as such.After instlallation at Varanasi, defendant-1 went to Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and there he was again installed to Peeth.He began to live there and got under his possession the properties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Plaintiff was not duly installed as Shankaracharya on 12.06.1953 as claimed by him.Sringeri Math Established at Sringeri covering the areas of Karnataka Kerala.Sri Trotokacharya was the first Shankaracharya appointed by Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.In all, forty Acharyas had occupied this Peeth, first being Acharya Trotak and last Sri Ram Krishna Teerth Swami, who left this universe in Vikram Samvat 1853 (1796 AD).A Sanyasi who renounces the world and devotes himself to religion is not permitted to hold property in personal capacity except his clothes, Kharauns (wooden slipper) and the like.Hence whatever was received by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Peeth, was property of Peeth and Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was only managing it as a Trustee.When "Mathamnaya" was written for managing affairs of the Peeth, 'Trust' as understood under English Law, was unknown to ancient Hindu religious world and Adi Shankaracharya also did not orient principles of Trust in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan".On 20.05.1953, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati breathed his last.A dispute arose about the appointment of successor.Defendant-1 Sri Ramji Tripathi ( Swami Shantanand Saraswati) claimed right of Headship of the Peeth on the basis of a 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 alleged to have been executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in his favour.He was a close relative of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and lived with him for a number of years.He had an eye over the seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Defendant-1 had practically received no education and until few years he was working as book binder in Gita Press, Gorakhpur (U.P.).He was also not conversant with Sanskrit language and unable to interpret and explain Vedant Philosophy and other Shastras.They also found that defendant-1 did not possess necessary qualifications for holding high office of Shankaracharya.Defendant-1 did not become a duly appointed and installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.On the contrary, Vidvat Parishad selected Swami Krishna Bodhashram, a great scholar and learned in Vedas, Vedantas and Shastras to hold office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Defendant-1, taking undue advantage of saintliness of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, took possession of some of the properties of Trust and started managing it as Trustee de son tort.The said suit was pending at preliminary stage when Suit 1A of 1974 was filed.He appointed plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati to perform duties of the seat and manage affairs of Peeth during the period of his illness.On 10.09.1973 Swami Krishna Bodhashram breathed his last at Delhi.Before his death, he proposed name of plaintiff for the seat as new Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Once again the question of appointment of Shankaracharya arose and three Shankaracharyas of different Peeths, Pandits, learned men of Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Sanyasis, various religious institutions including B.D.M., VNS and followers of the Peeths, selected and appointed plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He possessed all the qualifications prescribed in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan".Shankaracharya of Sharda Peeth and Goverdhan Peeth personally offered Pattas to plaintiff.Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth had sent his representative who offered Patta on his behalf in the aforesaid ceremony.In para 22 of the plaint, plaintiff gave his own credentials as under:That, the plaintiff was attracted to the asceticism at a very early age of 13 years.The plaintiff studied Sanskrit at Narsingpur and Kashi, and in the year 1941 joined Sanskrit Pathshala of village Rampur district Ghasipur.He was given Danda that is he became Dandi Sanyasi and was introduced to Dasnami order.After learning the religious philosophies for some times the plaintiff left the late Shankaracharya Swami Bhahmanand to propagate the Shankar Philosophy and Sanathan Dharma Hindu religion.The plaintiff mostly propagated Vedantic Teachings in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal and has a large number of followers in these states.In May, 1964, the plaintiff established Adhyatmic Utthan Mandal a registered body at Paramhanshi Ganga in Narsinghpur district in Madhya Pradesh which is a pioneer institution in Madhya Pradesh having branches in Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat and is run by his followers to impart religious instructions according to Sanathan Hindu Dharma."Defendant-1 is asserting that he is also entitled to receive this property.He is making efforts to have the same delivered to him.Since defendant-1 is denying and interested to deny right and title of plaintiff, he is entitled to get a declaration from Court that he is duly appointed and installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He is also entitled to claim possession over properties of the Peeth detailed in Schedule 'A' Part (i), (ii) and (iii) and to have his possession over property of Schedule 'B' confirmed.He denied that "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" were written by Adi Shankaracharya or that the same contained any Rules and Regulations regarding appointment and qualification for appointment of Head of Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya.He also said that the contents of books are neither mandatory nor have any binding character.It was also denied that Adi Shankaracharya had any primary object of establishing Math to maintain a competent line of teacher.Qualifications of earlier Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth are also not known.Peeth remained unseated for about 165 years.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya thereafter.To this extent, averments contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of plaint are admitted but rest averments are denied.It was also admitted that B.D.M., VNS by Trust deed dated 11.5.1941 made over property which B.D.M., VNS had acquired and detailed in the said deed, to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, but it was very small.Remaining property were acquired by Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati himself during period of his Peethadhishwar.The allegation that defendant-1 was keeping an eye over seat and manipulating and making efforts to acquire it, was denied.Defendant-1 is fully qualified and educated in Sanskrit and well conversant in Vedant philosophy and Shastras.He was considered fully qualified to hold office of Shankaracharya of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth being Guru of defendant-1 and he was competent person to do so. 'Will' is genuine, valid and executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.He was of sound disposing mind and allegations otherwise were denied.Plaintiff's claim as Shankaracharya or that he could be installed as Shankaracharya, was also denied.Defendant-1 was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.6.1953 and has been so recognized by public at large.He discharged duties and responsibilities of the said office most efficiently till his death.He made arrangement to ensure that Math does not go into a State of desolation again for at-least four generations to come and he was able to do this by grace and blessings of his Guru.He acquired and possessed property by purchase and other modes of transfer, before and after his installation as Shankaracharya.Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was the type of institution where succession passes from Guru to Chela thorugh nomination by Guru and is a sort of "Maursi Math".He has full right to appoint his Successor Shankaracharya and there was no disability on his part in doing so.He executed his last 'Will' on 18.12.1952 of his own accord and freewill without any pressure and influence with full knowledge and in sound disposing state of mind. 'Will' was duly attested and executed.Swami Hariharanand also known as Swami Karpatriji, a disciple of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, started taking part in politics under the name and banner of Ram Rajya Parishad which was objected by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.Since Swami Karpatriji did not obey dictates of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, "Will" dated 18.12.1953 was executed to nominate Successor other than Swami Hariharanand.After death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.05.1953, the only question came up for consideration and unanimously decided, was to find out who was named as his Successor in his "Will", which was deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad in safe custody.Defendant-1 is a Sanyasi and disciple of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.He possessed all the good qualities and learning of knowledge desirable for the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya.In fact, plaintiff as well as Swami Karpatriji were expecting something else than what "Will" disclosed and therefore, Karpatriji set up a parallel claim through Swami Krishna Bodhashram for his own benefit.Historical work of one "Pt.Harikrishna Raturi" Former Minister of Tehri (Princely State), titled as "Garhwal ka Itihas" published in 1928 by Garhwali Press, Dehradun, second edition published in 1980 by Bhagirathi Prakashan Grih, Suman Chauk, Tehri, relied by appellant and not disputed by plaintiff, may be referred hereat.In Chapter 15 pages (128-131) learned author has given description of corresponding social deformities when Adi Shankaracharya was born and has illuminated great work done by him.Names of four branches reflecting the four principles, were first-Vaibhavik, Second- Madhyamik, third-Yogachar and fourth Sautrantrik.Four different Sects of these four branches had also come into being."Vedas were being honoured.""'kadjkpk;Z nf{k.k eykokj ns'k esa ,d czkg~e.k ds ?kj mRiUu gq;s Fks vkSj buds xq: dqekfjy fcgkj ns'k ds ,d czkg~e.k Fks ftudk uke xksfoUnkpk;Z FkkA ""Shankaracharya was born in a Brahimn family in South Malabar Region and his Guru (Teacher) was a Brahmin of Bihar, whose name was Govindacharya."",d xzUFk esa ;ksa fy[kk gS fd 'kadjkpk;Z 11 o"kZ dh voLFkk eas cnfjdkJe esa pys vk;s FksA 5 o"kZ cnjh ou esa fuokl fd;kA ;gka 16 Hkk"; osnksa ij fy[ks vkSj T;ksfrZeB dh LFkkiuk dhA vkSj fd os 8 o"kZ dh voLFkkesa prqosZnh] 12 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa loZ 'kkL= lEiUu gks pqds FksA 16 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa Hkk";ksa dh jpuk dh Fkh] 32 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa mudk nsgkolku gqvk FkkA""It is so written in a book that shankaracharya had gone to badrikashram at the age of 11 years and lived there for five years.There he authored 16 commentaries on Vedas and established Jyotirmath.At the age of 8, he had become 'Chaturvedi' (knower of Four Vedas) at the age of 12, he had become well versed in all Shastras (religious authorities.^^ufg nsonRr% lzq?us lafu/kh; ekuLrngjso ikVfyiq=s·fi lafu/kh;rs ;qxinusd= o`RrkousdRo izlax% L;kr~ nsonRr ;KnRr;ksfjo lzq?u ikVfyiq= fuokfluks%A**"vFkkZr~& lzq?u esa orZeku nsonRr mlh fnu ikVfyiq= esa orZeku ugha jgrk gS vkSj ,d dky esa vusd rUrq esa iV ds jgus ij vusd iV dh izlfDr gS] tSls fd lzq?u vkSj ikVfyiq= ds fuoklh nsonRr o ;KnRr esa vusdrk jgrh gSA "Present Devdutt cannot reside in Srughna and Patliputra the same day and like a cloth containing different threads reflects diversity in unity, in the same way, there is diversity between Devdutt and Yagyadutt, the residents of Srughna and Patliputra".^^;ks∙fi lzq?ukUeFkqjka xRok eFkqjk;k% ikVfyiq=a oztfr lks∙fi lzq?ukRikVfyiq=a ;krhfr 'kD;rs ofnrqe~A rLekr~ ^izk.kLrstlh*fr izk.klai`DrL;k/;{kL;SoSrRrst% lgpfjrs"kq Hkwrs"ooLFkkue~A** vFkkZr~& tks Hkh lzq?u ls eFkqjk tkdj eFkqjk ls ikVfyiq= tkrk gS og Hkh lzq?u ls ikVfyiq= tkrk gS ,slk dgk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s ^izk.kLrstfl* blls izk.k lEc) tho dk Hkh rst lgpfjr Hkwrksa esa ;g voLFkku gSA "Whosoever having visited Mathura from Srughna and goes to Patliputra, it may be called so that he goes from Srughna to Patliputra.Therefore, 'Pranastejasi', i.e, the status of living creature, also is the same as of other similar creatures having radiance." (English translation by Court)Patliputra was a very well developed city as referred by Chinese Traveler "Fahien" in his travels account, who is said to have visited India in 400-411 A.D. It is said that Pushppur was the capital of Ashoka and city has his palace and conference house.It was the biggest city of Madhya Desh.The residents were rich.Another Chinese foreign traveler "Hwen Ts'ang" came to India in 630-644 A.D. and mentioned that during his visit, Kusumpur or Patlipurta cities were virtually non-existent and only some walls were found.Instead, "Karshapana", in those inscriptions- 'Hiranya', 'Puran', 'Suvarn' and 'Dinar' coins have been mentioned as currency in use.In Damodarpur [III] Copper plate inscription of Gupta Era 163 equivalent to 482 AD, 'Hiranya' and 'Dinar' have been mentioned as synonyms of each other.According to Archaeologist Dr. Ramsharan Sharma, there is not a single inscription of 6th AD to 12th AD, wherein 'Karshapana' has been mentioned.Professor Vasudev Upadhyaya and Dr. Parmeshwarilal Gupta are unanimous in concluding that in Northern India, till 2nd BC, and in Southern India, till 2nd AD, "Karshapana" were seldom in use whereafter use of "Karshapana" was totally stopped.The antiquity of Shankaracharya has also been related by Pt.Harikrishna Raturi with reference to Temple of Sri Badrinath.Those inscriptions are in antique Pali, which was prevalent from 4thBC to 5thAD.In the inscription of "Subhiksharaj Kushali" bearing Vardhaman Vijairaj Samvatsar 4, his father has been projected more benevolent than 'Shesh' 'Bali', 'Vaikartan' [Karna], 'Dadhichi' and 'Chandragupta'.In the said history it has been stated that Rajpal, King of that region was descendent of 'Parikshit' and contemporary of king 'Vikramaditya' of Ujjain, the founder of Vikaram Samvat and after his dynasty, region was ruled over by kings of 'Panwar Dynasty'.It shows that Kushali dynasty ruled that area some times between 3rd BC and 1st BC.However, in "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust", written by AC Sen, 5th Edition, learned author dates back antiquity of Adi Shankarcharya to 700 or 600 AD.Even the appellant himself as DW-3 has deposed about the authority and status of Shankaracharya and establishment of four "Amanya Peethas" by him, which is corroborated by DW-31 and DW-37 as under:DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati (Appellant) ^^ Some two and a half thousand year ago, while suppressing the real principles of Sanatan Dharma; those who were preaching against the Vedas were in dominating state.Aacharyas of all the mathas are believed to be the symbol of reverend Adya Shankaracharya and worldly form of Lord Shiva. ... According to the customs of Shisya Parampara of Jyotishmath, his disciples were established as Jyotishpeethadhishwar one after the other, and they started managing affairs of the Math.The Matha started functioning as a religious family, and disciples nominated by Guru (Acharya) would become its chief as Peethadhishwar.At the Jyothismath, 21 Shankarcharyas including Trotakacharya lived a long life, whose auspicious names are still remembered in this mountainous region in morning.After these Acharyas, Acharya Balkrishna Swami was appointed as 22nd Acharya in 1500 Vikram Samwat, and thereafter 41 Shankaracharyas were installed upto Shri Ramkrishna Swami whose period came to end in 1833 Vikram Samwat. ... After Ramkirhna Swami, the matha was destroyed in a natural disaster.The Guru of Adi Guru Shankaracharya named him Acharya Shankar when he attained Sanyas." (English Translation by Court) ^^xkSrecq) ds tUe ds ckn 506 bZ'kk iwoZ cS'kk[k 'kqDy iapeh dsjy ds dykVh xkao esa tUe gqvk Fkk ftudh ekrk dk uke vk;kZEck ,oa firk dk uke f'koxq# rFkk ckyd dk uke ewy'kadj FkkA tks vkxs pydj vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z dgyk;sA^^ ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&646½ "After the birth of Gautam Buddha, in 506 BC on Baishakh Shukla Panchami at Kalati village of Kerala, he was born whose mother's name was Aaryamba while father was Shiv Guru.Name of child was Mool Shanker.This boy was later on known as Shankaracharya." (English Translation by Court) DW-37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand XXX ^^vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z ds izkjEHk esa pkj ihBksa dh LFkkiuk fd;k] mUgksaus viuk uke vkSj viuh iknqdk esa vius ;ksX; f'k";ksa dks iznku fd;k tks Hkh egkiq:"k ml ihB dk Lokeh gksrk gS mls Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z dk gh Lo:i ekuk tkrk gSA T;ksfrjeB ds izFke 'kadjkpk;Z Jhen~ T;ksfr"kihBk/kh'oj 'kadjkpk;Z =ksVdkpk;Z egkjkt Fks mUgha dh ijEijk vkt rd pyh vk jgh gSA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&750½ "Adi Shankaracharya initally founded four peeths, he provided his name and paduka to his eligible disciples.The great man who is the holder of the peeth is regarded as form of Bhagwan Shankaracharya.The 3rd Peeth of Tradition Vedic knowledge in the North, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called 'Jyotirpeeth'.Shree math is its another name.Its fruition given Order of the Renouncers is known as 'Anandvar', 'Giri', 'Parvat' and 'Sagar' are their natural glories.The knower of the Absolute Truth who always thinks about Truth, knowledge and infinite and amuses in self-delight, is called 'Anand'.SHRI SHREENGERI PEETH-SHREENGERI:The 4th Peeth of Traditional Vedic knowledge in the South, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called Shreengeri Peeth.The then territories of Andhra, Dravida, Karnataka, Kerala etc. situated in the south are under Shreengeri Peeth.Creation of "Saundarya Lahari" and Prapanch Saar" are such Tantrik books, with which, the name of Acharya is assimilated.These are books of Tripura Tantra.Not only this, the scholarly commentary on "Lalitatrishati"which Acharya has written, is also related to this Tantra.bl ijEijk ds vuqlkj 'kadj xkSM+ikn ds izf'k"; Fks vkSj ;s xkSM+ikn 'kqdnso th ds f'k"; FksA vkpk;Z dh xq:&ijEijk rFkk f'k"; ijEijk dh lwpuk bu izfl) i|ksa esa gS& According to this tradition, Shankar was main disciple of Gaudpad and this Gaudpad was disciple of Shukdev Ji.According to this book, Shankar Sect commenced from great Adi learned Maharishi Kapil.Masters/teachers ranging between Kapil to Gaudpad are as follows: - Kapil, Atri, Vashisht, Sanak ,(5) Sanandan, Bhrigu, Sanatsujat, Vamdev, Narad, (10), Gautam, Shaunak, Shakti, Markandey, Kaushak, (15) Parasar, Shuk, Angira, Kanv, Jabali (20) Bharadwaj, Vedvyas, Eishan, Raman, Kapardi (25) Bhudhar, Subhat, Jalaj, Bhutesh, Param (30) Vijay, Maran(Bharat), Padmesh, Subhag, Vishuddh (35) Samar, Kaivalya, Ganeshwar, Sapay, Vibudh (40) Yog, Vigyan, Anang, Vibhram, Damodar (45) Chidabhas, Chinmay, Kaladhar, Vishweswar, Mandar (50) Tridash, Sagar, Mrid, Harsh, Singh (55) Gaud, Veer, Aghor, Dhruva, Diwakar (60) Chakdradhar, Prapyesh, Chaturbhuj, Anand Bhairav, Dheer (65) Gaudpad.From Adi Guru Kapil to Shankar there were seventy one Gurus and between Gaudpad and Shankar there were seven Gurus (Masters).bl ukekoyh ds dze esa foy{k.krk nh[k iM+rh gSA ¼12½ 'kfDr rFkk ¼15½ ijk'kj dk lEcU/k firk&iq= dk gSA vr% bu nksuksa esa vkuUr;Z dk gksuk LokHkkfod Fkk] ijUrq ;gkWa nks ukeksa ls buesa O;o/kku gks x;k gSA ¼16½ 'kqd ds firk osnO;kl dk uke vius iq= ls igys u gksdj muds pkj f'k";ksa ds vuUrj gS!! bl ukelwph ds vuqlkj ¼17½ 'kqdz rFkk xkSMikn ds chp mupkl vkpk;ksZa ds uke mfYyf[kr gSaA bl izdkj bu nksuksa ds Ik;kZIr O;o/kku gSaA There appears peculiarities in the sequence of this list of names.Relation between Shakti (12) and Parashar (15) is of father and son.Instead of figuring the name of Vedvyas, father of Shuk, before him, the same figures after his four disciples.According to this list, names of forty nine Acharyas are written in between (17) Shuk and Gaudpad).Names of Grihasth disciples are: (6) Sunder (7) Vishnusharma (8) Laxman (9) Mallikarjun (10) Trivikram (11) Sridhar (12) Kapardi (13) Keshav and (14) Damodar.Shishya/Parampara of these chief disciples was also quite extensive.(1) Padmpad - He had six disciples- Mandal, Paripawak, Nirvan, Girvan, Chidanand and Shivottam, who all were Sanyasis -(2) Bodhacharya - He had many disciples who were spread in Kerala Region.Alike Guru he had also disciples of two categories - Grihi and Sanyasi.(3) Geervan - His chief disciple was Vidvadgeervan, whose Shishya Parampara is as follows- Vidvadgeervan-Vibhudhendra-Sudheendra-Mantrageervan.His disciples were Grihi and Sanyasi both.(4) Anandteerth - All disciples were Grihasth and worshipped Padukapeeth.(5) Shankar- His disciples were owner of Mathas and Upmathas.(6) Sunderacharya- There were three kinds of disciples.Goddess Bhagwati offered boon and disappeared herself.(8) Laxmanacharya -The fact of his materialistic Siddhi/realisation has been mentioned in the book.He was a great Siddha.Once he visited the Capital of King Praudhdev.It so happened.As soon as the child came into womb, Praudhdev died.As a joint venture, all Acharyas should maintain a great religious system in India, so that Vedic religion remains progressive incessantly.This is the preaching of Acharta to the Heads of Math.Ramanuja's Tamil name was Ilaya Perumal.Quite early in life, Ramanuja lost his father.Then he came to Kancheepuram to pursue his study of 'Vedas' under one 'Yadavaprakasha', a teacher of Advaita philosophy.While studying, Ramanuj gave his own interpretations on certain Vaidik text contrary to that of his Teacher.At the end of tenth Century, "Visishtadvaita" system of philosophy was well established in Southern India.Followers of this creed were in-charge of important Vaishnavite temples at Kancheepuram, Srirangam, Tirupathi and other important places.The Head of important Vaishnavite institution was 'Yamunacharya', a great sage and profound scholar.He was also Head of the Mutt at Srirangam.One of his disciples, 'Kanchipurna', was serving in the temple at Kancheepuram.As per wishes of Yamunacharya, Ramanuj was installed as Head of "Visishtadvaita" Mutt at Srirangam and took solemn promises to fulfill the wishes of Yamunacharya, i.e., a Visishtadvaita Bhashya should be written for Brahma Sutras of Vyasa which till then had been taught orally to the disciples of Visishtadvaita philosophy and that the names of 'Parasara', author of 'Vishnu Purana', and Saint 'Sadagopa' should be perpetuated.Commentary of 'Brahma Sutras' written by 'Ramanuj' is known as "Sri Bhashya".It is said that Visishtadvaita system is an ancient one.It was expounded by Bodhayana in his Vritti, written about 400 B.C. and Ramanuj followed Bodhayana in his interpretations of Brahma Sutras.Followers of Ramanuj's sect of Vaishnavas are called Sri Sampradaya.What we basically find for our purpose is that concept of Mutt was strengthened and continued by one of the known great Saints, i.e., 'Ramanujacharya'."Ramanand" had its origin sometimes between 1300 to 1380 A.D. He mostly lived in Varanasi and is recognized as founder of "Ramanandi Sampradaya".It is said that after philosophy of 'Visishtadvaita' propounded by Ramanujacharya, there was some dissent amongst the followers of Shankar on the concept of Advaita for the kind of Nirguna Brahma and concept of Advaitism for the kind of Saguna Brahma, i.e, God with attributes.According to later philosophy, God is Saguna Brahma.The creative process and all the objects in creation are real but not illusory as held by Adi Sankaracharya.In this way, one theory was divided into two.He was born at Allahabad and initially a great follower of ''Ramanujacharya.Later he founded his own sect and preached his principles in Hindi at Banaras and Agra.He was a worshipper of Rama.It is said that he was first to employ vernacular medium to propagate his ideas.Simplification of worship and emancipation of people from traditional caste rules were his two important contributions to the Bhakti movement.He opposed caste system and chose his disciples from all sections of society.He himself founded four Maths at the four corners of India and made them centres of his Vedantik teaching.Each of these Maths was placed in the charge of one of his four principal disciples, who were, Padmapad, Hastamalak, Sureswar and Trotaka.These four disciples had their own disciples also.In addition to Sanyasis who belong to the fourth stage of life, there were "Naishthik Brahmacharis" or perpetual students attached to all Maths.This practice started by Adi Shankaracharya was followed by almost all the religious teachers since then.Then came Sri Ramanand (born in 1299 A.D.), disciple of Ramanuj.He founded a sect of Vaishnavas known as "Ramats".He is obedient to his parents and the teacher.He holds a kettle, a spade and cinks with him.He takes food at the uniform place.He smears a white Tripundra on his forehead and he holds a trident also.(24) ^^cgwnd% f'k[kkfnDUFkk/kjfL=iq.Mª/kkjhA dqVhpdoRloZleks b e/kqdjo`R;k"Vdoyk'khAA25AA** cgwnd laU;klh f'k[kk vkfn] daFkk dFkjh f=iq.Mª dks /kkj.k djus okyk rFkk lHkh rjg ls dqVh&pd dh Hkk¡fr e/kqdjh ¼fHk{kk½ dh o`fRRk okyk gksrk gS] og dsoy vkB xzkl Hkkstu xzg.k djrk gSAA25AA The recluse Badudaka holds the braid etc. a bag and smears up Tripundra.He alike Kuticaka lives on alms and only takes eight morsels of food at a time.(25) ^^galks tVk/kkjh f=iq.Mªks/oZiq.Mª/kkjhA vlaDy`Irek/kqdjk=k'kh dkSihu[k.M/kkjhAA26AA** ^gal^ uked laU;klh tVk/kkjh ¼yEcs ds'kksa okyk]½ f=iq.He should move regularly and pass his life on alms in hand or mouth, as if it were bowl." (76) ^^HkS{ks.k orZ;sfUuR;a uSdk=k'kh HkosRdfpr~A fujh{kUrs Rouqf}xzkLrn~x`ga ;Rurks oztsr~A** ¼lU;klh½ lrr fHk{kko`fRRk ij gh vkfJr jgsA ges'kk ,d gh ?kj ls Hkkstu ugha xzg.k djuk pkfg,A tks 'kkUr&Hkko ls mldh jkg ns[krs gksa] mUgha ds ;gka iz;kliwoZd Hkkstu ds fy, tkuk pkfg,AA78AA A recluse should always remain dependent on alms.He shuldn't accept food from one home only.His efforts should be to visit the persons who watch his path patiently and request for taking food." (78) iaplIrx`gk.kka rq fHk{kkfePNsfRdz;korke~A xksnksgek=ekdkM~{ksfUu"dzkUrks u iquozZtsrAA79AA** lU;klh dks Js"B vkpj.k okys ikap ;k lkr ?kjksa esa fHk{kk ds fy, tkuk pkfg, rFkk xkS ds nksgu esa ftruk le; yxrk gS] mruh gh nsj rd izrh{kk djuh pkfg,A og tgka ls ,d ckj fHk{kk xzg.k dj ys] ogka iqu% ugha tkuk pkfg,AA79AA A recluse should go for alm only at five or seven houses who are cultured.He should only wait there to the extent a cow takes time in milking.He shouldn't re-visit the same place wherefrom he once has accepted alm.A single time food in a day should be taken.He should never take food twice a day.The recluse who accepts food only to the extent of his mouth capacity like a cow, viz., who doesn't accumulate it, attains immortality by virtue of his spirit of equity.(95-96) ^^vkT;a :f/kfeo R;atsnsd=kUua iyyfeo xU/kysiue'kq)ysiufeo {kkjeUR;tfeo oL=eqfPN"Vik=feokH;xa Lohlxafeo fe=kg~yknda ew=feo Li`gka xksekalfeo Kkrpjns'ka p.M ds leku tkudj budk ifjR;kx dj nsuk pkfg,A nsorkvksa dk iwtu&vtZu dHkh u djsA laklkfjd izi´~pksa dks R;kxdj mls thoueqDr cuuk pkfg,AA 97AA One should abandon ghee etc. like food accumulated treating it like blood and flesh respectively.The recluse should abandon the odour and a cosmetics treating it rubbish, salt consideing it a snatcher, garments as unpious vessels, massage like copulation, jokes and irony of friends like urine, proud like beef, alm from the house of friends and acquaintances like Chandala, women like snakes, gold like poision, assemblies like cremation ground, capital like Kumbhipaka hell, food from a single home like corpse.He should never worship and make recital for gods.He should try to be a free soul after giving up all worldly illusions.(97) ^^vklua ik=yksi'p lap;% f'k";lap;%A fnokLiks o`Fkkykiks ;rscZU/kdjkf.k "kV~AA98AA vklu] ik=yksi ¼crZu dh pkg½] l¥~p;] f'k"; cukuk] fnu eas 'k;u djuk rFkk csdkj dh ckrsa djuk bR;kfn ;s N% izdkj ds dk;Z laU;klh dks cU/ku esa Mkyus okys gSaAA 98AA The Asana, desire for vessel, passion for accumulation of money, making of disciples, sleeping during day time and involving the mind in trivial matters are the six things that put a recluse in the bondages/shackles.(98) ^^o"kkZH;ks·U;= ;RLFkkueklua rnqnkg`re~A mDrkykCokfnik=k.kkesdL;kihg laxzg%AA99AA ;rs% laO;ogkjk; ik=yksi% l mP;rsA x`ghrL; rq n.Mknsf}Zrh;L; ifjxzg%AA100AA o"kkZ ¼ikuh½ ds vykok tks LFkku gS] mls vklu dgk tkrk gSA dgs gq, ik=ksa ds laxzg esa ls ,d gh rqEch vkfn ik= dks xzg.k djuk pkfg,A laU;klh ds O;ogkj ds fy, tks rqEch vkfn ik= dgs x;s gSa] muds [kks tkus ij nwljs ds ik=ksa dks ys ysuk gh ik=&yksi gSA viuk n.He can stay more than three days at Kashi.Not only at Kashi but also at every place and time, the sanyasi consume milk and aushadhi (medicinal herbs).In making tea, milk, sugar and tea leaves are used.**czg~epkjh nks izdkj ds gksrs gSaA uSf"Vd czg~epkjh tks fd cpiu ls gh vfookfgr jgdj czg~epkjh dk ikyu djrs gSaA og uSf"Vd czg~epkjh gksrs gSaA nwljs czg~epkjh mi iqokZ.k gksrs gaS tks fookg ds ckn czg~epkjh dk nh{kk ysrs gSaA og miiqokZ.k dgykrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&586d] ist&485½ "Brahmcharis are of two types.One of them is Naistik Brahmchari who being unmarried since childhood follows brahmcharya (celibacy).He is called Naistik Brahmchari.mRrj&'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s iwoZ esa dgs x;s ;ksX;rk visf{kr gSA Answer: The qualifications told earlier for the Shankaracharya is desired.DW-4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey XXX eSa fiNys 50 lky esa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk vUrjax jgk gWwA eSa mudk xq:HkkbZ Hkh gWwA --- eSa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh ds lU;kl ds le; mifLFkr ugha jgkA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&226½ I have been close to Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati for last 50 years.I am also his guru bhai (son of his guru).... I was not present at the time of adopting sanyas by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati.There are several other rules also but I do not know about those.If he hasn't studied Veds, Vedangs, Dharmshastras, Darshans and various Shastrs, he will be unable to establish coordination. ... Bhagwatpaad himself is famous as 'Khasmatsthapkacharya'.Thus, 'Yogagyah Sarvshastranam' is an essential qualification for an Aacharya of a Peeth to be a Sakshatt Bhagavtpad Aadi Guru. ... To have complete knowledge, knowledge of Sanskrit is mandatory. ... Only on holding aforesaid qualification mentioned in Matanmaay, a Sanyasi may become entitled for Sankaerpeeth being installed on, such provision also has been given by Bhagvatpad Aadiguru Shankaracharya through his command "Uktalakshanasampannshrenmt -peeth-Bhagbhvet" etc."(English Translation by Court) PW-11 Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit (XX):**vk|xq: 'kadjkpk;Z vfookfgr Fks o uSf"Vd czg~epkjh Fks blhfy, ijEijkxr uSf"Vd czg~epkjh dks mRre czg~epkjh ekuk tkrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&486d] ist&181½ "Adyaguru Shankaracharya was unmarried and a Naistik (vowing all life celibacy), that's why traditional Naistik Brahmchari is taken to be exalted brahmchari." (English Translation by Court) PW-14 Sri Janny Pellegreeni (X):He can not think of journey to foreign.As per the tradition, journey to foreign country is a sin." (English Translation by Court) **n.Mh lU;klh fons'k ;k=k djsxk og ifrr lU;klh gks tk;sxk] mldk n.M fNu tk;sxk] vkSj mldks lU;kl lekt ls cfg"d`r dj fn;k tk;sxkA --- lHkh us bVyh tkus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA** ¼isij ua0&489,] ist&2885½ "The Dandi Swamis said that according to tradition of Sanyaas, journey to foreign is a sin and the Dandi Sanyaasi, who travels to foreign will be a degraded Sanyaasi and his Danda will be forfeited, and that he will be boycotted from the society. ... everybody refused to go to Italy." (English Translation by Court) PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati (X):The annotation and religious scriptures composed by him are in Sanskrit language.Ved, Vedang, Puranas, Mahabharat and Valmiki Ramayana are in Sanskrit.There are certain unpublished upnishads.Even the followers of the Aadi Shankara consider the said scriptures to be the proofs.There are a total of 112 Upnishadas.Sanyasopnishada and Vrihadaranyopanishad are definitely included in the said 112 Upnishadas.In the written statement, case set up by appellant is that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, his ''Will' was opened and as per nomination made, Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati) was installed as his successor.With regard to his installation, plaintiff has stated in para-12 of Replication that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was Chela of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 whereupon performed duties of the said office.Para-12 and 14 of Replication are reproduced as under:That Late Swami Krishna Bodhashram was the Chela of Late Swami Brahma Nand Saraswati and he was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath.I was acting as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth and even today I am".In the cross-examination also he has said:My dks vf/kdkj jgsxk fd blh vf/kdkj ls ml fjDr LFkku dh iwfrZ djsaA iwT;ikn Jh vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z izHkq dh vfUre yhyk Hkwfe vkSj egkrhFkZ dk ;g LFkku lukru /keZ dk iwtuh; rhFkZ cuk jgsxkA bl xn~nh ds orZeku vkpk;Z izHkq rFkk muds mRrjkf/kdkjh vkpk;Z izHkqx.k Hkkjr[k.M ds lc izkUrksa ds lukru /keksZ jktk iztk ds vknj.kh; vkSj iwtuh; gksaxs tSlk fd .... rhuks czgehHkwr 'kadjkpk;Z izeq[kksa dh 'kqHkokluk Fkh ftldks Jh fo'oukFk dh d`ik ls Jh Hkkjr /keZ egke.Before his death, he executed a 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 in which, he gave, in alternative, four names to succeed him as Shankaracharya.He found Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj as suitable candidate for Jyotish Peeth.Therefore, during the period, he was unwell, he used to get the functions of Joyisthpeeth performed by plaintiff Swarupanand Saraswati on his behalf" (English Translation by Court) Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe th egkjkt ds czg~eyhu gksus ds ckn fo}kuksa us Hkkjr /keZ egke.My ls tqM+s iafM+rksa o fo}kuksa us] fo}r ifj"kn ls 'kkadj n'kZu dks ekuus okys fo}kuksa o iafM+rksa us] vU; rhu ihBksa ds rRdkyhu txrxq:vksa dh lgefr rFkk Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe th ds lq>ko dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dk T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vkSipkfjd inkfHk"ksd fnukad 12@9@1973 dks dk'kh esa fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk o`gn o 'kkL= fof/k ds vuqlkj vfHk"ksd fnukad 7@12@1973 dks fnYyh esa fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2787&2788½ After the death (brahmleen) of Swami Krishna Bodhashram Ji Maharaj, scholars and pandits associated with Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, scholars and pandits of Vidwat Parishad, believing in Shankar Philosophy, the then Jagatgurus of other three Peethas bearing in mind the suggestion of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, formally consecrated Swami Swarupanand Sarawati as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on 12/9/1973 in Kashi and on 7/12/1973, in Delhi extensively according to rituals contained in Scriptures.(Paper no.-455 Ka, Page 2787-2788) ^^oknh dk tc 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB cnfjdkJe fgeky; ds :i esa vfHk"ksd fd;k x;k Fkk] eSa ekStwn FkkA^^ "I was present when plaintiff was consecrated as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth Badrikashram Himalaya."oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk'oj ds :i esa tc ls vfHk"ksd gqvk gS rc ls os yxkrkj T;ksfr"ihBk/k'oj ds :i esa dk;Z djrs vk jgs gSa vkSj rc ls gh og izfro"kZ Jh cnzhdkJe tkdj og dikV [kqyokus dk dk;Z Lo;a ns[krs gSa vFkok viuk izfrfuf/k Hkstrs gSa] tks ogkWa ij mifLFkr jgrk gSA ---¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2788½ Since the plaintiff has been installed as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, he is continuously discharging his duties as such, and since that very time, he personally supervises the task of opening the Doors of Shri Badrikashram every year or sends his representative who remains present there.He has also admitted his ignorance of procedure of selection of a person for installing as Shankracharya.Some relevant extracts from his cross-examination are reproduced as under.In his cross-examination (Volume-1 page 86-92 of Plaintiff Paper Book), PW 4 has said that he was present at the time of installation of Krishnabodhashram but not aware whether he got possession or not.He further admits that he had not signed documents which are referred to in his affidavit.Relevant extract of his cross-examination is as under:^^czg~ekuUn th d`".kcks/kkJe th 'kadjkpk;Z gq,A mudk iV~VkfHk"ksd dk'kh esa Kkuokih esa gqvkA mudk iV~VkfHk"ksd Lokeh lfPpnkuUnkuUn rhFkZ th rFkk /keZlezkV Lokeh djik=h th egkjkt rFkk LFkkuh; egkRekvksa us fd;k FkkA eSa iV~VkfHk"ksd esa ekStwn FkkA T;ksfr"ihB eas d`".kcks/kkJe th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk eSa ugha tkurk fd mudks ogkWa ij dCtk feyk Fkk ;k ughaA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&87½ "Brahmanand Ji and Krishnabodhashram Ji became Shankaracharyas.Their installation took place at Gyanvyapi, Kashi.Their enthronement was performed by Swami Sachchidanand Teerth Ji, Dharmsamrat Swami Karpatri Ji Mahraj and local saints.He stated that on 25.06.1953 Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed as Shankracharya and there after on 12.09.1973, plaintiff was proposed and nominated by KVP and thereafter installed as Shankaracharya.Relevant extracts from his examination-in-chief (volume-6,page 2807-2810)read as under:I was present at the time of installation of Swami Krishnabodhasram.... Swami Krishnabodhasram had not nominated any of his successor".My o vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dh lgefr o rRdkyhu fo}r~ifj"kn dh lgefr ls rFkk fo}kuksa o if.Mrksa us eq>dks fnukad 12-9-1973 bZ- dks dk'kh esa T;ksfreZB&T;ksfr"ihB ds fy;s ;ksX; iq:"k ?kksf"kr fd;kA --- esjk vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd fd;kA fnukad 7-12-1973 bZ- dks fnYyh esa fof/k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj rFkk ihB dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj fof/kor esjk 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ds :i esa vfHk"ksd fd;k vkSj eq>dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ekuk A--- lHkh vkt rd leFkZu djrs pys vk jgs gSa] vkSj eq>dks gh 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds :i esa ekurs vk jgs gSa rFkk ekU;rk nsrs vk jgs gSaA ".......In the opinion of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad and the then Jagadgurus as well as scholars, I was found eligible for Acharya.I, therefore, had functioned as Shankaracharya from the time of his illness, till my installation.Childhood name of plaintiff was Pothiram Upadhyay before taking Sanyas.Plaintiff is known as the disciple of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati."^^oknh dk fnYyh esa tc fnukad 07-112-73 dks c`gn :i ls iV~VkfHk"ksd rFkk T;ksfr"kihB ds :i esa 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fd;k x;k Fkk rks ml le; Hkh eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&484 d] ist&2847&2848½ "I was also present when on 07/12/73, Pattabhishek of plaintiff was performed at large scale and his Adhishthapan (installation) as Shankracharya of Jyotishpeeth had been performed in Delhi.(Paper no.-484 ka, page-2847-2848)In cross-examination he reiterated about installation of plaintiff on 07.12.1973 and said:This programme was organised by Kashi Vidwat Parishad. .... The declaration with respect to the programme was made by Kashi Vidwat Parishad.At that time, Raj Narayan Shukla was the General Secretary of Kashi Vidwat Parishad.Prominent personalities among those in the programme were: Pt.Kaliprasad Mishra, Pt.Shrinath Vaidik, Pt.**izfroknh 'kknh'kqnk gSA bl le; mudh iRuh fnoaxr gks x;h gSaA vyksihckx vkJe eas izfroknh ds firk rhFkZjkt o izfroknh dh iRuh izk;% vk;k djrs FksA izfroknh v/;kiu ls tks osru ikrs Fks mldks ?kj x`gLFkh [kpZ gsrq viuh iRuh vFkok firk dks] tks Hkh vyksihckx vkJe vk tkrk Fkk] ns fn;k djrs FksA** ¼isij ua0&536 d] ist&3030½ "The defendant is married.Now his wife has died.The defendant's father Tirthraj and the defendant's wife often used to visit Alopibagh Ashram.I don't remember whether he has accepted Dand (religious stick) after he left the profession of teaching or while being in the job of teaching." (Paper no-972 Ka, Page-673) (English Translation by Court)DW 28 Sri Sri Mohan Dubey has also said that appellant's earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi and he got named "Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati" in 1983 when adopted 'Sanyasi'.It was explained to us that after adopting reclusion (Sanyas) in 1983, Sanyasi name was adopted by appellant as "Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati".The documentary evidence includes a letter dated 05.10.1989 (Paper no. 538C/125 i.e. Exhibit 131), issued by Instructor, Sanskrit Pathshala, U.P. Allahabad to Manager of Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shankaracharya Ashram, Alopibagh, Allahabad communicating seniority of teachers working in the aforesaid institution and appellant's name Somnanth Dwivedi is shown at serial no. 3 therein.The contents of the said letter are reproduced as under:^^egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d lgk;d fujh{kd] laLd`r ikB'kkyk;sa] bykgkckn {ks=] bykgkckn ds i=kad 317&20@89&90 fnukad 19-9-89 }kjk izkIr vk[;k rFkk vki }kjk le; le; ij dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;s x;s vk;&O;; ,oa vU; vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij vkidh laLFkk esa dk;Zjr v/;kidks dh T;s"Brk fuEuor~ fu/kkZfjr gSA dze la0 v/;kid dk uke in ekSfyd fu;qfDr dh frfFk osrudze 1 Jh jktukjk;.k f=ikBh LkfgR; foHkkxk/;{k 1-9-67 650&1280 2 ** jkeQsj 'kqDy O;kdj.k foHkkxk0 1-9-76 650&1280 3 **lkseukFk f}osnh osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k 18-8-79 650&1280 4 **d`".knso ikBd Lkgk;d foHkkxk/;{k 15-11-72 540&910 5 ** nsoh 'kadj nqcs ** ** 1-4-77 540&910 6 ^^ f'kokZpu izlkn mik/;k;** O;kdj.k 19-9-70 400&620 7 ** gfj'kadj f=ikBh Lkgk;d v/;kid lkfgR;1-5-77 400&620 8 ^^ mek'kadj feJ lgk;d v/;kid vk/kqfud 10-8-79 400&620 mDr ds ckn Hkh vkids fo|ky; esa v/;kidksa dh T;s"Brk fookfnr crkbZ tk jgh gSA tks Jh jktukjk;.k f=ikBh foHkkxk/;{k lkfgR; ds i= fnukad 7-9-89 ls Li"V gSA vr% laLFkk v/;kidksa dh T;s"Brk lEcU/kh fookn ds fuLrkj.kkFkZ lwP; gS fd d`i;k vki fu;ekuqlkj mi;qZDr lwph dks izdkf'kr dj v/;kidksa esa forfjr dj nsa rFkk d`r dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk ls ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj v/kksgLrk{kjh dks Hkh voxr djk nsaA** (Paper no. 538C/125 (Exhibit 131) page 2088 Volume IV of respondents paper book) "Sir, This is with reference to above mentioned subject.10-8-79 400-620 "Despite the aforesaid, seniority of teachers of your institution is said to be disputed, which fact is clear from the letter dated 7.9.89 of Sri Rajnarain Tripathi, Head of Department, Literature.Therefore, for the purpose of determination of seniority of Teachers of the institution, you are hereby informed.Kindly distribute aforesaid seniority list amongst the Teachers of the institution after getting the same published and also inform the undersigned within one week of the action taken." (English Translation by Court)Para 5 reads as under:^^5- fo|ky; ds dk;Zjr v/;kidks Jh lksHkukFk f}osnh osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k dks fnukad 18-12-82 ls nks lIrkg ,oa 5-2-83 ls 4-4-03 dqy 73 fnu dk fons'k ;k=k gsrq vodk'k Lohdkj djrs gq;s :i;k 5915@&¼:i;k ikap gtkj ukS lkS iUnzg½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA rFkk Jh f'kokZpu mik/;k; dks fnukad 14-112-82 ls nks lIrkg ,oa 5-2-83 ls 4-4-83 dqy 73 fnu dk fons'k ;k=k vodk'k Lohd`r djrs gq;s :i;k 3389@& ¼:i;k rhu gtkj rhu lkS uoklh½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] tks jktdh; /ku dk nq:i;ksx gSA d`i;k ;g crk;sa mu v/;kidksa dks fdl izdkj dk vodk'k Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA fLFkfr Li"V djsaA** (Page 2090 Paper no. 538C/126C (Exhibit 132) (Page 2089 Volume IV respondent paper book) While granting leave to Working Teachers of the School, Sri Somnath Dwivedi, Head of Vedanta Department, for two weeks from 18.12.82 and from 5.2.83 to 4.4.03 (total 73 days) against Foreign Tour, a sum of Rs. 5915/-(Rupees Five thousand nine hundred fifteen only) has been paid and Shirvachan Upadhyay has been sanctioned foreign tour leave for two weeks from 14.12.1982 and from 5.2.83 to 4.4.83, total 73 days, and paid a sum of Rs. 3389/(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Nine only), which is misuse of Government Money.Please explain as to nature of leave sanctioned to those teachers." (Page 2090 Paper no. 538C/126C (Exhibit 132) (Page 2089 Volume IV respondent paper book)(English Translation by Court)Exact date of adopting reclusion (Sanyas) of appellant has not been stated but we find that it is an admitted case that from 10.08.1979 to 13.11.1989 appellant was working as a Teacher (Head of Department of Vedanta) in the aforesaid institution, which was in grant in aid and salary was paid from State Exchequer.Dated: 22.09.2017 Akn/AK/PS/Pravin Enclosures (1) Appendix-A (2) Appendix-B (3) Appendix-C (4) Appendix-C (5) Index of Citations (6) Index-Subjectwise Appendix-"A"Plaintiff's Witnesses Sl.Witness No. Name of Witnesses Examination in chief/affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC (PB=Paper Book) Cross examination (PB=Paper Book) Volume Pages Volume pages 1 PW 1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai, Vaidya, Meerut, U.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2783-2790 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 55-67 2 PW 2 Challa Laxman Shastri Purohit, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2791-2794 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 68-75 3 PW 3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Teacher, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2795-2800 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 76-85 4 PW 4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, Varanasi, Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2801-2805 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 86-92 5 PW 5 Sri Harihar Prasad Pandey, Retired Teacher, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2806-2810 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 93-105 6 PW 6 Plaintiff Swami Sri Swaroopa Nand Saraswati, Disciple, Brahmleen Swami Brahamanand Ji Saraswati Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2811-2832 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 106-138 7 PW 7 Sri Ganga Prasad Mishra, Retired Employee, Allahabad Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2833-2836 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 139-146 8 PW 8 Sri Deep Narain Sharma, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2837-2844 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 147-149 9 PW 9 Sri Kailash Nath Dwivedi, Jalaun Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2845-2849 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 150-154 10 PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2851-2855 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 155-170 11 PW 11 Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit and Samaj Sewak, Dwarika, Gujarat Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2856-2863 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 171-181 12 PW 12 Sri T.N. Yagyanarayan, Simoga Karnatak Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2864-2872 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 182-189 13 PW 13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil Sanskrit Bhasa Pracharak Wa Patrakar, Pune, Maharastha Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2873-2880 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 190-196 14 PW 14 Sri Janny Pellegreeni Italy/ Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2881-2886 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 197-202 15 PW 15 Sri Radhey Shyam Goswami, Jabalpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2887-2894 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 203-209 16 PW 16 Sri Somnath Tiwari, Allahabad Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2895-2897 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 210-212 17 PW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2898-2903 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 213-221 18 PW 18 Sri Dilawar Khan Narsinghpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2904-2907 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 222-229 19 PW 19 Sri Gauri Shankar Tiwari, Sivani, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2908-2911 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 230-236 20 PW 20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, Teacher Manglur, Karnatak, Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2912-2924 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 237-250 21 PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2925-2928 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 251-257 22 PW 22 Bramchari Sri Subuddhanand Sishya Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Narsingpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2929-2941 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 258-277 23 PW 23 Sri Nijanand Brahamchari Sishya Pujypad Swami Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Sri Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Jabalpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2942-2976 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 278-300 24 PW 24 Agni Peethadheswar Acharya Mahamandleshwar Brahmarshi Sri Ram Krishnanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Panch Agni Peeth Amarkantak, Anooppur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2977-2983 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 301-312 25 PW 25 Sri Kaiwalyanand Brahmchari Dharmopadeshak, Pashchim Singhbhumi, Jharkhand Vol.6 of Respdt PB 2984-3015 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 313-338 26 PW 26 Sri Aacharya Jitendra, Viranasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3016-3019 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 339-348 27 PW 27 Brahmachari Sri Turiyanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Badrika Ashram, Mankameshwar, Allahabad Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3020-3023 Vol.1 of Respdt PB 349-358 28 PW 28 Sri Shivkumar Tiwari, Jaunpur Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3024-3031 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 359-399 29 PW 29 Sri Girish Chandra Tiwari, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3032-3035 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 400-405 30 PW 30 Sri Ramesh Patel, Jabalpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3036-3039 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 406-407 31 PW 31 Sri Satya Narain Pandey, Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3040-3047 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 408-428 32 PW 32 Sri Nand Kishore Nautiyal Sampadak Nootan Savera, West Mumbai Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3048-3055 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 429-439 33 PW 33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi, Teachar, Allahabad Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3056-3063 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 440-465 34 PW 34 Dr. Sri Ganesh Dutt Shastri Teachar Varanasi Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3064-3071 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 466-478 35 PW 35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri, Purohit, Narsinghpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3072-3098 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 479-490 36 PW 36 Sri Kamla Pati Tiwari, Jabalpur, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3099-3102 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 491-495 37 PW 37 Sri Satya Narain, Photographer and Videographer, Simoga Karnataka Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3103-3106 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 496-502 38 PW 39 Badri Math Peethadeshwar Swami Hari Narayananand Ji Sansthapkak Mahamantri Bharat Sadhu Samaj Sishya Bramhaleen Dwarkinand Ji Maharaj, Dharmopadeshak, Patna, Bihar Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3107-3110 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 503-509 39 PW 40 Mahant Sri Prakash Puri, Guru Kapil Mahamuni Ji, Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3111-3115 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 510-513 40 PW 41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari Sishya Swami Dr. Laxman Chaitnya Bramchari, Dewas, M.P.Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3116-3118 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 514-525 41 PW 42 Sri Madan Mohan Kakkar Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Vol.6 of Respdt PB 3119-3122 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 526-589 Appendix-"B"Defendant's Witnesses Sl.No Witne-sses no.Name of Witnesses Examination in chief/affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC Cross examination Volume Pages Volume page 1 DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti, Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 1-2 590-591 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 3-7 592-604 2 DW 2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi, Varanasi Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 8-13 605-610 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 14-48 611-645 3 DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, Shishya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj (defendant-appellant) Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 49-64 646-661 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 65-186 662-783 4 DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 187-196 784-793 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 197-263 794-860 5 DW 5 Sri Sriniwas Pathak, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 264-267 861-864 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 268-281 865-878 6 DW 6 Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Dharma Pracharak, Pratapgarh Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 282-284 879-881 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 285-300 882-897 7 DW 7 Sri Pt.Gokul Chandra Goswami, Mathura Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 301-303 898-900 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 304-312 901-910 8 DW 8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Pratapgarh Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 313-318 911-916 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 319-341 917-932 9 DW 9 Sri Tilakdhari Shukla, Ambedkar Nagar Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 342-343II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 344-349 10 DW 10 Sri Vimal Prakash Srivastava, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 350-353II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 354-368DW 11 Sri Radhey Shyam Malviya, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 369-370II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 371-380DW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai Bareli Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 381-383II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 384-392DW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 393-394II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 395-401DW 14 Sri Purshottam Lal, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 402-402II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 403-411DW 15 Sri Lal Mani Tiwari, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PBII (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 412-428DW 16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PBII (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 429-430DW 17 Sri Balkrishna Pandey, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PBII (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 431-433DW 18 Sri Hariram Chaurasiya, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 434-435II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 436-437DW 19 Sri Laxmi Lal Shah, Chamoli, Uttarakhand Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 438-441II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 442-456DW 20 Sri Bindu Ram Singla, Sangroor, Panjab Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PBII (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 457-464DW 21 Sri Achrya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi, Allahabad Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 465-477II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 478-488DW 22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, Dasnam Sanyas Ashram, Bhupatiwala, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Vol.II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 489-491II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 492-497DW 23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PBII (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 498-503 933-938 24 DW 24 Sri Tiloki Nath Agrawal, Katni, M.P.Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 504-506 939-941 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 507-509 942-944 25 DW 25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 510-511 945-947 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 512-514 948-951 26 DW 26 Sri Triveni Mishra, Allahabad, Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 515-517 952-954 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 518-521 955-959 27 DW 27 Sri Rishi Prasad Sati Chamoli, Uttarakhand Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 522-526 960-964 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 527-539 965-978 28 DW 28 Sri Srimohan Dubey, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 540-542 979-981 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 543-557 982-996 29 DW 29 Sri Ramji Tripathi, Kanpur Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 558-562 997-1001 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 563-566 1002-1005 30 DW 30 Sri Omkar Nath Tripathi, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 567-570 1006-1010 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 571-592 1011-1047 31 DW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Sishya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Bramhaleen Swami Shankaracharya Sarswati Ji Maharaj, Varanasi Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 593-604 1048-1059 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 605-652 1060-1117 32 DW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, Varanasi Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 653-655 1119-1121 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 656-665 1122-1131 33 DW 33 Sri Daya Shankar Pandey Dehradoon, Uttarakhand Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 666-669 1133-1136 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 670-691 1137-1158 34 DW 34 Sri Jagdish Prasad Misra, Lucknow Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 692-694 1160-1162 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 695-698 1163-1166 35 DW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 699-701 1167-1169 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 702-706 1170-1174 36 DW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 707-712 1175-1180 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 713-717 1181-1185 37 DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 718-741 1186-1209 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 742-760 1210-1228 38 DW 38 Sri Mahant Manoharpuri, Shisya Sabhapati Sri Mahant Mangalpuri Ji Maharaj Sri Panchdasnaam Juna Akhara Indore, M.P.Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 761-764 1229-1232 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 765-771 1233-1239 39 DW 39 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Amethi Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 772-775 1240-1243 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 776-780 1244-1248 40 DW 40 Sri Ram Niranjan Singh, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 781-784 1249-1252 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 785-792 1253-1260 41 DW 41 Sri Triveni Prasad Pandey, Rewa, M.P.Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 793-794 1261-1262 Vol.Message of 4 Peethas' Conference, signed by their Shankaracharyas 01.05.1979 89-C 208 Vol.3 1268Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth.90-C 209 Vol.3 1269-1270Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth.Proclamation/declaration by Sri Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Shastrarth Mahavidyalaya, Dashaswamedh, Varanasi 97-C 216 Vol.3 1287Introduction letter, Raj Narain Shukla, Pradhan Mantri, Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 98-C 217 Vol.3 1277Proclamation/declaration of Sri Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Niranjan Dev Teerth Maharaj, Govardhan Math, Puri 99-C 218 Vol.3 12783 Plff/ RspdtPB 1288-1297Letter/Proposal of Vidvat Mandal, proposing election 12.09.1973 109-C 228 Vol.3 1298-1301Extract of newspaper (The Times of India) 24.08.1974 110-C 229 Vol.3 1302Extract of newspaper (Nav Bharat Times) 19.09.1974 111-C 230 Vol.3 1303Extract of Dakshin Bharat Paper, Sringeri Sammelan 03.05.1979 112-C 231 Vol.3 1304Appreciation letter by B. Satya Narayan Reddy, Governor 12.11.1979 113-C 2 Vol.3 1305Appreciation letter by Sri S. Narendra, Prime Minister's Advisor, (Information) 21.11.1997 114-C 3 Vol.3 1306Extract of newspaper "The Hindu"08.12.1997 115-C/1 232/1 Vol.3 1307Extract of newspaper "Nav Bharat Times"08.12.1997 115-C/2 232/2 Vol.3 1308Extract of newspaper "Danik Jagran"08.12.1997 115-C/3 232/3 Vol.3 1309Extract of newspaper "Punjab Kesari"08.12.1997 115-C/4 232/4 Vol.3 1310Extract of newspaper "Hindustan"09.12.1998 115-C/5 232/5 Vol.3 1311Extract of newspaper "Sandhya Times"08.12.1998 115-C/6 232/6 Vol.3 1312Extract of newspaper "Jansatta"09.12.1998 115-C/7 232/7 Vol.3 1313Photo copy of Extract of newspaper "JVG Times"08.12.1998 115-C/8 232/8 Vol.3 1314Extract of newspaper "The Hindu"22.06.1998 115-C/9 232/9 Vol.3 1315Extract of Magazine "Dharma Yug" pages 32 and 33 22-28th May 1977 116-C 233 Vol.3 1316-1324Weekly Magazine "Saptahik Hindustan", page 8 20-26th May 1979 117-C/1 234 Vol.3 1325-1329Weekly Magazine "Saptahik Hindustan", page 47 27th May to 2nd June 1979 117-C/2 235 Vol.3 1330-1332Extract of magazine "Dharam Yug", page 47 20th to 26th April 1980 118-C/1 236 Vol.3 1333-1337Extract of magazine "Dharam Yug", page 13 27th May to 2nd June 1979 118-C/2 237 Vol.3 1338-1343Extract of magazine "Mani Deep Kadamb Kanan"Extract of newspaper "Aaj"28.08.1997 120-C 769 23943. Extract of Smarika (Memoir) "Sri Matridham"17.05.1997 121-C 240 Vol.3 1344-1357Extract of Smarika (Memoir) 19.06.1995 122-C 241 Vol.3 1358-1385Tatwalok, Volume No.2 123-C 242 Vol.3 1386-1404Smriti Edition, "Dharm Samrat" by Swami Karpatri 124-C 243Photo of Former Prime Minister Narsimha Rao and Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 125-C 244 Vol.3 1405-1406Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Prasunanjali, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi 126-C 245 Vol.3 1407-1408Subhabhinandan Patra ( Felicitation Letter) 127-C 246 Vol.3 1409Kundalini Rahasya 128-C 24751. "Punarjanma- Ek Sarvabhaumik Dwarika" published from U.P. Jyotirmath Prakashan Badrikashram, 129-C 248Card Amrit Mahotsava 130-C 249Chaturmasya Samaroha Samiti, Kolkata 131-C 25054. "Pravachan Sanrachna"Card of "Paduka Pujan", Maharshi Vyas Vidyalaya 133-C 25256. "Sri Ram Janambhumi Aur Meri Giraftari" published by Jyotirmath Prakashan, Badrikashram U.P.57. "Swadheenata Ki Swarn Jayanti" published by Jyotishpeeth, Sewa Mandal 135-C 25458. "Prakatya Mahotsava"Power of attorney executed by Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati in favour of Rajendra Prasad Misra 26.03.1999 538C/ 10/198 160Vrihadaranyakopnishad, Publisher Govind Kanan, Office of Gita Press Gorakhpur , pages 126-127 328-A 15Dharma Sangh Meerut (second edition), Jagat Guru Gaurav 329-A 16The Vrihadaranya Upnishad published by Aditya Ashram 332-A 1976. 112 Upnishad and Their Philosophy by A.N. Bhattacharya (Parmal Publication, Delhi) 333-A 20Vishwanath Shubh Prabhatam, written by Mahamahopadhyay Pt.Kedar Nath Tripathi 339-A 257Book "Jyotishpeeth Sanrakshak (Hamare Gurudev)"Letter sent by Vidyateerth 23.08.1979 343A/4 61Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) sent by Vidyateerth Anand Chaitra Sudi Poornima Sthir Vasre 343A/5 58Chatuspeeth Sammelan with Photographs 343A/6 258Proclamation/Declaration of Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Shankaracharya Dwarika Peeth 7.12.1973 343A/12 50Ank 16 343A/13 259Letter by Swami Dwarikeshanand Saraswati 343A/14 123Agenda No.19 of Sri Badrinath, Kedarnath Mandir Samiti, JoshiMath 27.10.2004 343A/15 130Letter by Shankaracharya, Kashi Peethadheeshwar 17.09.1974 343A/16 46Letter by Kedernath Tripathi, Upadhyaksh Vikrami Samvat 2031 Bhaumwasar 343A/17 63Letter of Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 15.04.1980 343A/18 124Abhishek Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Pt.Nirikshan Pati Mishra 343A/19 29Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 16.05.1982 343A/20 to 343A/21 30Sri Bharat Dharm Mahamandal (RDAD) 03.12.1983 343A/24 to 343A/25 65Agenda No. 250D, Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 17.05.1982 343A/26 to 343A/27 125Letter of declaration by Shankaracharya Govardhan Peeth Sri Niranjan Deo Teerth Ji Maharaj 343A/28 66Certificate JoshiMath 19.06.1975 343A/29Letter of Chaturmanay Jagat Guru Sri Shankaracharya Pratinidhi Samit of Sringeri Math 343A/30 to 343A/31 60Letter of Sri Ganga Sabha Haridwar 10.09.1973 343A/32 67Letter of Sri Ganga Sabha Haridwar 11.09.1973 343A/33 68Letter of Sri Didu Maheshwari Sewa Samiti 14.08.1956 343A/34 69Letter of Divine Life Society 02.04.1976 343A/35 70Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Varanasi 343A/36 261Telegram 343A/37 & 38 71 & 72Proposal for Election of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 343A/39 to 343A/42 28 98Extract of news paper Chaturth Peeth Sammelan 343A/43 262Letter of Dr. Kedarnath Tripathi, President, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 31.03.1999 343A/44 & 343A/45 112Important portion of Mathamnaya Mahanushasan, Varanasi by Dr. Kedarnath Tripathi Vikram Samwat-2057 343A/46 343A/48 113Letter of Ministry of Railways, written by K. Shanker 03.03.1994 343A/49 263Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 18.09.1974 343A/50 264Letter of Ram Nath Kalia Abhinandan Samiti 13.11.1980 343A/51 74Letter of Challa Laxman Shastri, Upadhyaksh, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 07.06.2005 343A/52 to 343A/53 75Letter of Kedar Nath Tripathi, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 09.06.2005 343A/54 76Letter of SSP, Varanasi 05.09.2002 343A/55 265Letter of Finance Minster, Col. Ajay Mushran 06.09.2002 343A/56 266Letter of Ganga Aushadhi Kendra, Varanasi 08.06.2005 343A/57 77Letter of Chaturmanay Jagatguru Shri Shankaracharya Pratinidhi Samiti 08.01.1982 343A/58 & 343A/59 59Letter of Ashtottarshat Shreemad Bhagwat Saptah Parayan Evam Vishnu Mahayagya Samiti, Rajasthan 01.11.1981 343A/60 267Letter of Shree Jyotirmath Badrikashram, Himalaya 17.09.1995 343A/61Letter of Pt.Joshan Ram, Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Pandit Mahaparishad 343A/62 62Letter of Pt.Raj Narayan Shastri, Mahamantri (General Secretary) Kashi Vidvat Parishad 343A/63 32Letter of Jagat Guru Ramanandacharya Swami Haryacharya Ji Mahraj 09.09.2002 343A/64 78Letter of Krishnapal Singh, Governor of Gujarat 18.09.1996 343A/65 269Letter of Chaturth Peeth Sammelan with signature and photograph 343A/66 79Letter sent by Government to plaintiff 04.02.2004 343A/67 79ALetter of Arvind Singh Mewar, The Palace Udaipur, Rajasthan 03.07.2000 343A/68 270Letter of Col. Ajay Mushran, Finance Minister 03.09.1997 343A/69 271Letter of Sri Krishnapal Singh, Governor, Gujarat 01.09.1997 343A/70 272Letter of Railway Board 07.03.1994 343A/71 273Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 343A/72 165Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad by Raj Narayan Shukla 12.09.1973 343A/73 33Letter of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 27.07.1975 343A/74 126Programme of Bharat Dharm Mahamandal F-21 127Letter of Sri Bal Krishna Misra, Secretary,Bharat Dharm Mahamandal F-1 to F-10 128Minutes of meeting of Shri Badrinath Kedar Nath Mandir Samiti 27.10.2004 343A/75 274 Vol.3 of Plff./ RespdtPB 1584-1587Letter of Shri Dharma Sangh Shiksha Mandal 10.10.1973 343A/76 80Letter of Shri Manav Kalyan Ashram, Haridwar 16.07.2005 343A/77 81Letter from Manav Kalyan Ashram, Haridwar 18.08.2005 343A/78 82Abhinandan Patra Padnaam Swami Sawroopanand Saraswati V.S. 2032 Varanasi 344C/B2-B3 166 Vol.3 1602Letter from Bhadaini, Kashi 02.10.1975 344C/B6 44Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of village Gawai 28.01.1974 344C/29B 101 Vol.3 1609Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Uma Shankar Gupta, Mayor, Nagar Nigam, Bhopal 344C/30B 291 Vol.3 1610Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, 344C/31B 292 Vol.3 161103.01.1981 344C/75B and 344C/76 314 315Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Ramsundar Shukla, Lecturer, Shi.Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sidhesh 12/75 344C/77 and 344C/78 315Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of District Ghazipur 03.11.1996 347C/28 to 347C/29 322Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Teachers and Employees Family Smapoornanad Sanskrit University and their families Bhadra Krishna Ashtmi 2053 347C/30 & 347C/31 35Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagat Guru Satkar Samiti, Gujarat 26.08.1979 347C/32 & 347C/33 323 Vol.3 Plff./ Rspdt PB 1646Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by family members of Mazdoor Jyoti 26.08.2001 347C/42 38 Vol.3 1655Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Dilawar Khan, President, Islamia Qaumi Ekta Commmittee, District Narsinghpur, M.P.08.09.1994 347C/54 and 347C/55 333 Vol.3 1667-1667Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Dham Goregaon, Narsinghpur 05.09.1997 347C/56 and 347C/57 334 Vol.3 1668Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), Narvati, Kashi Ashwin Shu.-6-2055 347C/58 and 347C/59 335Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), by Pandit Jagmohan Mishra, Hathnapur, Garhva Sivani, M.P.Ashwin Shu.-6-2055 347C/60 and 347C/61 56Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), All members of Maihar Gram Adhyatmik Utthan Mandal 347C/62 336Declaration and nomination of Swami Swroopanand Ji Maharaj as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar by Vedic Brahmins in Dharma Sangh Shiksha Mandal Campus, Kashi following performance of Jalabhishek/Abhishek in different methods by Kashi's Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati.Offering/covering with Patta (coronation) of Jyotishpeeth- -adheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj by Acharya Challaram Shastri, representative, Shankaracharya of Sringeri, consequent upon the Jyothishpeeth-adhirohan and Pattabhishek ceremony.349C/3 339 Vol.3 1672Declaration by Swami Karpatri Ji Mahraj and Maheshwaranand Saraswati Ji, announcing name of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth and His Jalabhishek (anointment) amidst the chanting of Vedic hymns.349C/4 340 Vol.3 1673Swami Swaroopanand Ji Mahraj presiding over Kashi Vidvat Sabha, as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and thereafter going out after participating in the aforesaid Vidvat Sabha 349C/5 341 Vol.3 1674Photograph in Badrinath, exhibiting Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ja.Swami Shankaracharya, Mata Lalita Amba, Founder of Manav Kalyan Ashram and photograph of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati on the occasion of Kalyananand Swarn Jayanti Mahotsava.349C/6 342 Vol.3 1675Consulting J.Sha.Swaroopa Nand Ji , President, Ram Janma Bhoomi Nyas with Abhinandan Guru Shankar Ved Chaitanya Brahmchari, President, Akhil Bhartiya Dharam angh 349C/7 343Karpatri Ji Mahraj with Ja.Swaroopanand, Jyotishpeethadhishwar with his Guru Maheshwaranand Ji 349C/8 344 Vol.3 1676The then Shankaracharya of the then Dwarka Peeth Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Ji Maharaj, enthroning Swaroopanand Saraswati on Jyotishpeeth holding his hands, after ceremony of Abhishek and Peethadhirohan 349C/9 345 Vol.3 1677Felicitation of Ja.by Dwarika Peethadheesh Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj after the coronation; worshipping 'Paduka' of Ja.by Col. Ajay Mushran, Finance Minister of Madhya Pradesh, (on right) Central Minister Vidyacharan Shukla, right, Home Minister Katare, Forest and Transport Minister Haribansh Singh.349C/10 346 Vol.3 1678Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan, worshiping Poojyapaad, Vishwa Hindu Parishad's President Shri Ashok Singhal having discussion with Shankaracharya 349C/11 347 Vol.3 1679Abhishek of Shankaracharya of Puri Shankaracharya of Dwarka Swaroopanand at Jyotishpeeth, and below enthroned Jyotishpeeth Swaroopanand and Shankaracharya of Jagannath Puri 349C/12 348 Vol.3 1680Pattabhishek (investiture/coronation/ installation) of Swaroopanand by Shankaracharyas of Puri and Dwarika a scene of aforesaid Abhishek.349C/13 349 Vol.3 1681Govindacharya and National Convener of Ram Janam Bhoomi Punruddhar Samiti and all its staff, attending a Programmeme with Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj and performing Paduka-poojan.Peethadheeshwar Vishwevra Teerth Ji felicitating Nepal Naresh Ji Gyanendra, Queen and Swami Swaroopanand Ji.Swami Swaroopanand Ji 349C/14 350 Vol.3 1682Mandal Mishra, Kulpati Sampoornanand garlanding Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj, Parmeshwar Nath Mishra handing treatise to Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/15 351 Vol.3 1683In one Programmeme, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swaroopanand Ji with the Shankaracharya of Shringeri; glimpse of temple and informal discussion with the Shankaracharya of Shringeri Swami Bharti Ji, renowned Vedanta scholar and with members and the Vice Chancellor of S.S.V.; Swaroop Mishra receiving blessings from Jyotishpeethadheeshwar; famous Bhajan Singer Manoj Tiwari in service of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/22 358 Vol.3 1690Madhwacharya Swami Vishweshar Teerth Ji Maharaj sitting in close proximity to Shringeri Shankaracharya, Central Minister Shri Vidyadhar Shukla and Kamalnath felicitating Ja.Swami Swaroopanand.Photo with Kashi scholars, and artists 349C/53 389 Vol.3 1722Teejan Bai with Radheyshyam Khemka 349C/54 390 Vol.3 1723Maharaj Ji with with Prof. Shiv Ji Upahdhyay of Kashi Vidwat Parishad with learned persons of Kashi.349C/55 391 Vol.3 1724Mahant Virbhadra of Sankat Mochan with the members of the Vidwat Parishad on the occasion of Janmotsava, 349C/56 392 Vol.3 1725Welcome of the governor of Chhatisgarh by Rajendra Mishra.349C/57 393 Vol.3 1726Maharaj Ji along with Agni Peethadhishwar Krishnanand Swami Yogendra Sarswati and Madhwacharya.349C/58 394 Vol.3 1727Photo with Pandit Jasraj, Kathawachak Kankeshwari and Narendra Sarswati.349C/59 395 Vol.3 1728Photo with Gopalanand, Ramesh Chandra Ojha along with Keshu Bhai Patel.349C/60 396 Vol.3 1729The scene of Shobhayatra (grand procession), two photographs 349C/61 397 Vol.3 1730Shankarcharya of Shrigneri Jyotishpeethadhishwar Ja.Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj along with Shringeri Peethadhishwar Ja.Swami Bharati Teerth Ji and Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Nareshacharya, Dharm Samrat Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj, Swami Krishna Bodhashram Ji and renowned signer Anoop Jalota with Ja.Swaroppnanad Ji.349C/62 398 Vol.3 1731Along with Shankaracharya.349C/63 399 Vol.3 1732Maharaj Ji along with Lokpati Tripathi.349C/64 400 Vol.3 1733Along-with members of the Kashi Vidwat Parishad during recitation of the national anthem.349C/65 401 Vol.3 1734Congregation of learned persons in Vedic scriptures Along with Mahant of Ayodhya.349C/66 402 Vol.3 1735Along with Kedarnath, Justice Giridhar Malviya.349C/67 403 Vol.3 1736Along-with Kashi Naresh 349C/68 404 Vol.3 1737Conference of Hindu-Muslim, two photographs 349C/69 405 Vol.3 1738Along-with Muslim religious persons 349C/70 406 Vol.3 1739Four photographs during the Shobhayatra (grand procession) in Prayag.349C/72 407 Vol.3 1741Along with Mahants of Naranjani, Phool and Awahan Akharas.349C/73 408 Vol.3 1742Three photographs along-with many saints Jagatguru Madhavacharya of Ayodhya, along with Pancha Anant Annapurna partinidhi (five representatives) of Shringeri, along with with Shankaracharya Ramanandacharya of Puri.349C/74 409 Vol.3 1743Along with Ramanandacharya, Haridharacharya, Murari Chaitanya Ji of Agni Akara, Mahant Parmanand Sarswati of Akhara and Avadheshnannd Parmanand.349C/75 410 Vol.3 1744Along with Agni Peethadhishwar, Juna Peethadheeshwar Awadheshanand.349C/76 411 Vol.3 1745Along with Gopalanand Bapu, Mahant Vishwanath Das Sarwati and Secretary of Juna Akhara.349C/77 412 Vol.3 1746With president of Badrinath Kedarnath Samiti,Shankar Dayal Sharma, scholars and renowned persons, on the occasion of Janmotswa Mahraj Ji 349C/78 413 Vol.3 1747Along with Shri Prakash Jaiswal and Secretary of the Shringeripeeth.349C/79 414 Vol.3 1748Along-with Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Digvijay Singh.349C/80 415 Vol.3 1749Letter of Shri Ramjanam Bhumi Ramalaya Trust Nyas, Chief Trusty Sarpanch Bhagwan Das 15.09.96 351A/1 416Letter of Sh.Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Committee 12.04.05 351A/2 417Letter of Sh.R.K. Niglani, Environment and Forest Minister 31.05.95 351 A/1/E-3 418 Vol.3 Plff./ Rspdt PB 1752Letter from President House, Government of India 04.02.73 351 A/1/ E-4 419 Vol.3 1753Letter from Ministry of Commerce, India 16.09.74 351 A/1/ E-5 420 Vol.3 1754Letter of P.G. Makalankar, Member of Parliament 23.11.73 351 A/1/ E-6 421 Vol.3 1755Letter of D.K. Rawal King Jain Saheb, Jam Nagar 27.11.73 351 A/1/ E-7 422 Vol.3 1756Letter of Minister of State for Shipping, Transportation and Parliamentary Affairs dated 24.12.73 351 A/1/ E-8 423 Vol.3 1757351 A/1/ E-9 424 Vol.3 1758351 A/1/ E-10 425 Vol.3 1759Letter of Governor, Tamilnadu.16.09.74 351 A/1/ E-11 426 Vol.3 1760Letter of Jagannath Prasad Jalan.28.11.73 351 A/1/ E-12 427 Vol.3 1761Letter of Ajit r/o Palace Dhrangadhara.351 A/1/ E-13 428 Vol.3 1762Letter of Chaturamyan Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Representative, Committee 03.10.81 351 A/1/ E-14 429 Vol.3 1763351 A/1/ E-15 430 Vol.3 1764351 A/1/ E-16 & 17 431 Vol.3 1765Letter of Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Punruddhar Samiti 28.01.95 351 A/1/ E-18-20 432 Vol.3 1766-1769Letter of Ujjain Mahakaal Mandir.351 A/1/ E-21 433 Vol.3 1770Letter of General Administration Department, MP.351 A/1/ E-22 434 Vol.3 1771351 A/1/ E-23 435 Vol.3 1772351 A/1/ E-24 436 Vol.3 1773Letter of Sh.Dwarika Sharda Peeth Ashwin Shukla Purnima 2030 351 A/1/ E-25 437 Vol.3 1774Letter of Bhagwan Das Sarpanch Akhara, Executive Committee Parishad 19.02.95 351 A/1/ E-26 438 Vol.3 1775Letter of Shri Jairam Ashram Haridwar.351 A/1/ E-27 439 Vol.3 1776351 A/1/ E-28 440 Vol.3 1777351 A/1/ E-29 441 Vol.3 1778351 A/1/ E-30 442 Vol.3 1779351 A/1/ E-31 443 Vol.3 1780Letter of Shri Vibhushit Jagatguru Ramanujacharya Swami Madhwacharya Ji Maharaj, Asharfi Bhawan, Ayodhya.351 A/1/ E-32 444 Vol.3 1781Letter of Ganga Nath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth.351 A/1/ E-33 445 Vol.3 1782Letter of Swami Virendranand Giri.351 A/1/ E-36 to 37 448 Vol.3 1765-1786351 A/1/ E-38 449 Vol.3 1787351 A/1/ E-39 450 Vol.3 1788Letter of Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Minister for Water Resources, Parliamentary Affairs, Law and Legal Affairs, M.P.351 A/1/ E-40 451 Vol.3 1789Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Gyanwapi Mukti Maha Parishad.351 A/1/ E-41 452 Vol.3 1790351 A/1/ E-42 & 43 453 Vol.3 1792-1793351 A/1/ E-44 454 Vol.3 1794Letter of Madhya Pradesh Yuva Congress-I 351 A/1/ E-45 455 Vol.3 1795351 A/1/ E-46 456 Vol.3 1796351 A/1/ E-47 457 Vol.3 1797351 A/1/ E-48 458 Vol.3 1798351 A/1/ E-49 459 Vol.3 1799Letter of Mahant Lakshman Das Shashtri, President, Sadhu Sant Samaj Sangthan, M.P.351 A/1/ E-50 460 Vol.3 1800Letter of Triloki Das Khandelwal 26.12.92 351 A/1/ E-51 461 Vol.3 1801Letter of Pandit Radhey Sharma, President - Shri Ram Charit Manas Sammelan.351 A/1/ E-52 462 Vol.3 1802Letter of Pandit Gunanand Shankar Dutt Nautiyal.25.11.87 351 A/1/ E-53 463 Vol.3 1803351 A/1/ E-54 464 Vol.3 1804Letter of Prime Minister, Government of India.29.05.95 351 A/1/ E-55 465 Vol.3 1805351 A/1/ E-56 466 Vol.3 1806351 A/1/ E-57 467 Vol.3 1807Letter of Dr. S.P. Mishra, Lecturer, Harishchandra Degree College, Varanasi 7.2.2000 351 A/1/ E-58 468 Vol.3 1808Letter of Pandit Raj Kishore Gandwal Rajabhai Ganpati Garment, Upper Bazaar, Joshi Math.351 A/1/ E-59 469 Vol.3 1809Letter of Shri Shri Vidya Dham.351 A/1/ E-60-61 470 Vol.3 1810Letter of Dr. Gajanand Sharma through District Magistrate, Varanasi .28.07.90 351 A/1/ E-62 471 Vol.3 1811Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Gram Pradhan Sangthan, U.P.351 A/1/ E-63 472 Vol.3 1812Letter of Prime Minister Narshingha Rao 351 A/1/ E-64 473 Vol.3 1813Letter of Shashi Dhar Pujari Joteshwar Mandir.351 A/1/ E-65 474 Vol.3 1814351 A/1/ E-66 475 Vol.3 1815Telegram 351 A/1/ E-67 476 Vol.3 1816Letter of Maharaja Bhanu Pratap Singh Narsingh Garh.351 A/1/ E-68-69 477 Vol.3 1817-1818Letter of Keshavaraj Agrawal Kalyan Kalptaru Geeta Press.351 A/1/ E-70 478 Vol.3 1819Telegram 351 A/1/ E-71 479 Vol.3 1820Telegram 351 A/1/ E-72 480 Vol.3 1821Letter of Madhav Rao Sindhia, Civil Aviation and Tourism 04.09.91 351 A/1/ E-73 481 Vol.3 1822351 A/1/ E-74 482 Vol.3 1823Copy of Trust Deed.23.05.1941 351 A/1/ E-75-78 483 Vol.3 1824-1825351 A/1/ E-79 484 Vol.3 1826351 A/1/ E-80 485 Vol.3 182711.05.1941 27.07.75 353A/1F to 10 486 Vol.3 1830-1840Letter of Swami Shantanand Saraswati 16.11.62 353A/11 487 Vol.3 1811-1845Letter from Muslim Sammelan 05.10.03 353A/12 488 Vol.3 1846Letter from Acharya Sabha Samvat 2056 353A/13 489 Vol.3 1847Certificate with signatures of Acharyas of Kashi Vidwat Parishad in Kashi Vishwanath Mandir 353A/14 490 Vol.3 1848Letter of Pandit Ramesh Chandra Sadashiv Vaishya 07.09.05 353A/15 491 Vol.3 1849Letter of Jai Pal Singh, Former Minister of Home, Madhya Pradesh 02.01.93 353A/16 to 353A/19 492 Vol.3 1850Letter from Bharat Dharam Mahamandal 07.04.01 353A/20 493 Vol.3 1850Copy of Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other.358C/1 to 358C/18 494 Vol.4 1881-1898Copy of Amendment Application in Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other.359C/1 to 359C/4 495 Vol.4 1899-190204.07.07 538C/95 to 538C/99 153538C/115 to 538C/121 161Certified copy of employees' address register number 1, Geeta Press Gorakhpur Shri Ram Ji Tripathi S/o Lal Bihari 538C/122 162Copy of certificate issued by Manager, certifying that Sri Ram Ji Tripathi had been Kar Binder at Geeta Press Gorakhpur.19.04.2008 538C/124 500 Vol.4 20875.10.1989 538C/125 131 Vol.4 2088Report under Right to Information Act 11.09.1991 538C/126 132 Vol.4 2089Report under Right to Information Act 11.09.1991 538C/127 133 Vol.4 2090Report under Right to Information Act 16.10.1991 538C/128 134 Vol.4 2091 to 2096Report under Right to Information Act 16.10.1991 538C/134 135 Vol.4 2091 to 209610.12.1982 & 05.02.1983 to 04.04.1983 538C/126 to 538C/127 132 to 133 Vol.4 208912.01.2005 538C/136 to 538C/137 Vol.4 2101 to 2102A letter given to Assistant Registrar, Chit Fund.538C/138 to 538C/140 502 Vol.4 2103Photocopy of the details of budget (income and expenditure) for the year 1988-1989 sent by Managers of Sanskrit Pathshalas of Uttar Pradesh financially aided by Education Department of Uttar Pradesh, details furnished by Manager, Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh, contained in total 9 pages; showing payment of the salary made despite being on foreign tour and forged signatures, as mentioned at page no.3 and tendering resignation by Shri Somnath Dwivedi from his post on 13.11.1989 and thus being relieved from duty from the said date, as stated in column 4 of page no.5 03.03.1990 13.11.1989 538C/141 136 Vol.4 2104538C/142 to 538C/149 503 Vol.4 2105 to 2106Photographs and negatives 540C/23 to 52 169-197 Vol.7 3127-3178Photographs with negative of Lakshmi Narayan Temple Ramnagra.540 C/42 to 540 C/45 512Photograph with negative of Garbha Grih of Lakshmi Narayan Temple 540 C/46 513 Vol.7 3143Photograph with negative of Pakka Ghat Ramnagra.540 C/46 to 540 C/49 513 Vol.7 3144 to 3146Photograph with negative of Shri Shankaracharya Agricultural Farm Ramnagra, Tilwaraghat, Jabalpur 540 C/50 to 540 C/52 514 Vol.7 3147 to 3149Photograph of plaintiff Jyotishpeethadheeshwar with Shankaracharyas of the other Peeths .Vol.7 3150 to 3153Photograph of the plaintiff with Shringeri Peethadheeshwar 540 C/55 to 540 C/57 516 Vol.7 3150 to 3153Photograph of the plaintiff sitting with Dwarika Peethadheeshwar at the time of his Abhishek ceremony as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar at Delhi 540 C/58 to 540 C/61 517 Vol.7 3150 to 3153Photograph of Rajju Bhaiya, Sanchalak, Rastriya Swayam Sewak Sangh discussing with Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj 540 C/62 518 Vol.7 3154Photograph of Sh.Sunder Lal Bahuguna and R.S.S. Chief Sh.Rajju Bhaiya sitting beside Singhasaseen Jyotispeeth-adheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj at Haridwar camp conducted by the Ganga Mahasabha 540 C/63 519 Vol.7 3154Photographs of Sh.Ashok Singhal, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad discussing with the plaintiff 540 C/64 to 540/66 520 Vol.7 3155Photograph no. 51 of Ashok Singhal, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, taking blessings from the plaintiff 540 C/67 521 Vol.7 3156Photograph No. 52 Jagatguru Ramanandacharya with Nischalanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and Ramnareshacharya sitting on the podium on the occasion of Shatabdi Mahatsav 540 C/68 522 Vol.7 3157Photograph No. 53 of Swami Avimukteshwaranand, representative and disciple of plaintiff Jyotispeedheeshwar and Puri Peethadheeshwar with Yogi Adityanath, MP, BJP 540 C/69 523 Vol.7 3157Photograph of the Chatuspeeth Sammelan held at Shrengeri Peeth in relation to "Ramsetu Bachao"540C/72 to 540C/82 526 Vol.7 3159 to 3162Paper of Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Suraksha Samiti 540C/79 201Paper of Akhil Bhartiya Ved Prachar Parishad 540C/80 202The envelope of letter sent to plaintiff's disciple Avimukteshwaranand by Dayanand Saraswati Karvinar H.D.A.S.540C/83 527 Vol.7 3163Signed Declaration given by the Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Convener of Hindu Dharm Acharya Sabha 540C/84 528 Vol.7 3163Letter written on behalf of Swami Dayanand Saraswati to Swami Sutridanand Saraswati.09.04.08 540C/85 529 Vol.7 3164540C/86 530 Vol.7 3165Letter expressing happiness on installation of 4 feet high divine idol of Adi Guru Shankaracharya and granting recognition to plaintiff as Peethadheeshwar of Dwarika Peeth and Jyotispeeth.540C/87 531 Vol.7 3166Envelope 540C/88 532Letter of Yogi Adityanath, addressing the plaintiff as Jyotispeethadheeshwar.540C/89 533 Vol.7 3167Letter sent by Karat Kesar Singh to Swami Swaroopanand 540C/90 534 Vol.7 3168Letter sent by Akhil Bhartiya Peeth Parishad 540C/91 535 Vol.7 3169Declaration of Setu Bandhu Rameshwaram Raksha Samiti signed by Nishchalanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar Swaroopanand, Kashi Peethadheeshwar Chinmayanand Saraswati and Kalika Peethadheeshwar Mahant Surendra Nath 09.03.2007 540C/92 536 Vol.7 3170Letter of Shivji S. Navteke 16.02.2007 540C/93 537 Vol.7 3171Hindi translation of Shlokas of Mathamnay & Mahanushashnam by Kashi Vidwat Pashishad explaining meaning of Nigrah.Shankhnad (declaration) by all four Sankaracharyas on the occasion of 2500th Sanyas Diwas of Aadi Shankaracharya congregation held from 26.1.2001 to 28.11.2001 from a common stage wherein plaintiff participated as Jyotispeethadheshwar and Sharda Peethadheeshwar 540C/103 543 Vol.7 3190Programme of Akhil Bhartiya Sanskrit Patra Karit Darshane Sanskrit Patrakar Sangoshthi.540C/104 544 Vol.7 3193Pamphlet of Conference organized by Virat Ramsetu Raksha Sabha, Ramleela Ground.540C/105 545 Vol.7 3194Letter of Kamal Kishor Agrawal, Ramleela Society, Parade, Meston Road, Kanpur at 540C/106 546 Vol.7 3195Photograph no. 152 showing Sankaracharyas of all four Peeths in which plaintiff had participated as Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Sharda Peethadheeshwar.File no 2/3 Various photographs 540C/161 to 540C/198 199File no. 2/4 Total 64 photographs 540C/199 to 540C/201 200Photograph Nos 223, 223/1, 227/1, 228, 228/1 showing the Shankaracharyas of all four Peeths 547 Vol.7 3426, 3429 & 3430Photograph no 240/1, 241/1 to 241/3, 242/1 and 242/2, 243/1, 244/1, 245 and 245/1, 246 to 246/3 and 249 showing Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati present with the Shankaracharyas of other Peeths.Vol.7 3441 to 3445, 3447 & 3450Paper no 343/1 contains papers A1 to A78 which are the original documents whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been recognized as Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Dwarika Peethadheeshwar.A1 to A78 49 to 82Will of Abhinav Sachhidanand Teerth by whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati was nominated as Shankaracharya of the Dwarika Peeth.11.01.1980 A-8 to A-11 47Envelopes got printed by Vedant Bharti for inviting people in the Chatushpeetha Sammelan held at Bangalore from 12.05.07 to 20.05.07 12.05.07 to 20.05.07 92 198 Vol.8 Plff/ Respt PB 3580-4363Pamphlet for publicity of Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 2 198 Vol.8 3581 & 3582Letter of Director, Vedant Bharti 28.04.2008 3 132 Vol.Invitation card in Hindi for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 4 549 Vol.8 3585 3586Invitation card in Kannada for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan,2007 5 550 Vol.8 3587 3588Invitation card in English for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 6 551 Vol.8 4589 3590Extract of newspaper regarding convening of Vedanta Goshthi in Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 7 552 Vol.Extract of news item published in the newspaper 'Sanmarg' in connection with Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 8 553 Vol.Extract of news item published in a Kannada daily in connection with Karnatak-Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 with the photographs of Shankaracharyas of all the four peethas lightning the lamp.20.05.07 9 554 Vol.8 3594 to 3596Times of India newspaper, Bangalore edition 21.05.2007 10 & 11 555 Vol.Deccan Herald newspaper 21.05.2007 12 556 Vol.A Kannada newspaper 13 to 14 557 Vol.8 3600 3601Bangalore Monday newspaper 21.05.2007 15 558Extract of the newspaper Rashtra Times 16 559 Vol.An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma, President Jyotishpeetha Sewa Mandal 17 560 Vol.A Letter addressed to OSD to the President by K.K. Sharma 18 561 Vol.Envelope 18/1 562 Vol.A Letter of Harish Rawat 18/2 562 Vol.An envelope 19 566 Vol.A Letter of Tapan Rai 18/3 564 Vol.An envelope 18/4 565 Vol. 8 3605A letter from Shivraj Patil addressed to K.K. Sharma 2.11.1995 20 567 Vol.An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 21 568 Vol.A letter from Sunil Shastri addressed to K.K. Sharma 2.11.1995 22 569 Vol.A envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma and sent by Shantan Das 23 570 Vol. 8 3608A letter from Shantanu Das, Joint Secretary to the Governor of Tripura addressed to K.K. Sharma 24 571 Vol.An envelope 25 572 Vol.A letter from S.C. Jain, Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of Home, Government of India addressed to K.K. Sharma 24.11.1995 26 573 Vol.An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 27 574 Vol.A letter from Daawa Sherya, Raj Bhawan, Lucknow addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 28 575 Vol.An envelope letter addressed to the Leader of Opposition Atal Bihari Vajpai by K.K. Sharama 29 576 Vol.A letter by Atal Bihari Vajpai, Leader of Opposition addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 27.11.1995 30 577 Vol.A letter by Karan Singh addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 33 580 Vol.An envelope 34 581 Vol.A letter by N. Bal Chandran, OSD to the Vice President addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 35 582 Vol.An envelope 35/1 583 Vol. 8 3616A letter from Inder Bahadur Pandey 35/2 584 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.96 47 599 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 08.12.96 48 600 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 09.12.96 49 601 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 09.12.96 50 602 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 09.12.96 51 603Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 09.12.96 52 604 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 09.12.96 53 605Extract of the newspaper JBC Times 09.12.96 54 606Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Veer Arjun 10.12.96 55 607 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Arpan 10.12.96 56 608Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 12.12.96 57 609Extract of the newspaper Amar Ujala 13.12.96 58 610Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 13.12.96 59 611Letter of Satya Narayan Reddy, Former Governor addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 60 612 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 23.11.97 61 613 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 25.11.97 62 614 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 19.11.97 63 615 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 19.11.97 64 616 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 19.11.97 65 617 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 19.11.97 66 618 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 05.12.97 67 619 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 05.12.97 68 620 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 06.12.97 69 621 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Hindustan Times 06.12.97 70 622 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 71 623 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 72 624 Vol. 8 3648Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 73 625Extract of the newspaper Rashtra Times 06.12.97 74 626 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 08.12.97 75 627 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Mahalaxmi 08.12.97 76 628 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 08.12.97 77 629Extract of the newspaper The Hind 08.12.97 77/1 630 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.97 77/2 631 Vol.Extract of the newspaper JBC Times 08.12.97 78 632 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 08.12.97 79 633 Vol. 8 3655Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 09.12.97 80 81 634 635 Vol.8 3656 3657An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 82 636 Vol.A letter by A.N. Khanna/P.L. of R. Venkatraman 83 637 Vol.Narayan Dutt Tiwari addressed to K.K. Sharma 84 638 Vol.Letter of Narendra Nath, Minister of Industrial Education addressed to K.K. Sharma 85 639 Vol. 8 3660Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 05.12.1998 86 640 Vol. 8 3661Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 06.12.1998 87 641 Vol. 8 3661Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 08.12.1998 88 642 Vol. 8 3662Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 08.12.1998 89 643Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 08.12.1998 90 644 Vol.Letter of Vidya Charan Shukla addressed to K.K. Sharma 91 645 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 10.12.1999 92 646 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 04.12.1999 93 647 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 07.12.1999 94 648 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 07.12.1999 95 649 Vol. 8 3669Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.1999 96 650Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 09.12.1999 97 651 Vol. 8 3670Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 11.12.1999 98 652 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Times of India 04.12.2000 99 653 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 04.12.2000 100 654 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 04.12.2000 101 655 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 04.12.2000 102 656 Vol. 8 3675Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 04.12.2000 103 657 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 04.12.2000 104 658 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 07.12.2000 105 659 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 08.12.2001 106 660 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Amar Ujala 08.12.2001 107 661 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.2001 108 662 Vol. 8 3681Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 01.12.2002 109 663 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 01.12.2002 110 664 Vol.Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 01.12.2002 111 665 Vol. 8 3686Paper cuttings of several newspapers 112 to 389 666 Vol.8 3687 to 3966Paper cuttings of several newspapers 11.05.1941 390 to 709 667 Vol.8 3967 to 4289Letter of trust/Declaration of Trust 552A/8-17 129Paper cuttings of several newspapers 710 to 789 670Extract from magazine relating to installation of idol of Aadi Guru Shankaracharya at Dakor containing photographs of photos of the then Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Krishan Bodhashram, the then Puri Peethadheeshwar Swami Niranjan Dev Teerth Ji Maharaj and the then Dwarka Sharda Peethadheeshwar Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Ji Maharaj.Magazine "The Apex Hindu Body Its Vision and The Mission" published by Hindu Dharmacharya Sabha 791 672Book Brahmasiddhi written by Acharya Shri Mandal Mishra, the then Vice Chancellor Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya 792 672Special edition of 42nd Akhil Bhartiya Prachay Vidya Sammelan of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi 793 672Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Sri MM Kackar's report.15.01.2011 839A 124 Vol.4 1933-1943Admitted signatures of Sri Vishnudevanand Saraswati Photographs 840A 124 Vol.4 1944CD kept in small box for safety purpose 841A/CD 207Handwriting and Finger Print Expert's Examination report 23.4.2011 842A/1-8 204 Vol.4 1945-1952Report of Sri MM Kackar, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert 28.04.2011 842A/1-8 205 Vol.4 1945 to 1952Admitted Signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo 843A/2 A1 to A6 205 Vol.4 1953Admitted Signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo 843A/3 A12-13 205 1955Disputed signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo B-1 to B-4 844 Ka/1 206 Vol.4 1956Disputed signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo B-5 844 Ka/2 206 Vol.4 1957Report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert 15.01.2011 844A/708/1-5 206Copy of Izara No 22/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati against Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 875C 673 Vol.4 1959-1960Copy of Amendment Application in Execution Suit no 2/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 884C 682 Vol.4 1981 to 1982Copy of Amendment Application in Execution Suit no. 2/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 885C 683Affidavit of Rajendra Prasad Mishra, General Attorney of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 886C 684 Vol.4 1983Booklet with respect to plot allotment, Kumbh Mela, Hardwar, Uttarakhand, Sector 12 verified by Officer On Special Duty, Kumbh Mela.927C/1 685 Vol.4 Plff/ Rspdt PB 1852-1853Khatauni 927C/2 685 Vol.4 1854-1855Khasra/Khatauni 927C/3 685 Vol.4 1855ACopy of Khasra, village JoshiMath, Chamoli.927C/4 685 Vol.4 1855-BCommunication letter (Soochna Patra) by Shri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti.31.07.2012 927C/5 685 Vol.4 1856927C/6 685 Vol.4 1857Certified copy of land allotment by the office of Meladhikari, Kumbha Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan, Haridwar.927C/7 685 Vol.4 1858Certified copy of land allotment by the office of Meladhikari Kumbha Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan (Mela Control Office), Haridwar.927C/8 685 Vol.4 1859927C/18 to 927C/21 685 Vol.4 1870-187410.03.2010 927C/22 to 927C/24 685 Vol.4 1875-1879927C/25 685 Vol.4 1855927C/26 685 Vol.4 1855 BCopy of the Khewat.927C/27 to 927C/28 685Copy of the electoral name-list, Machhalishahar Jaunpur, wherein previous name of Vasudevanand is registered as Shobhnath and his wife's name is registered as Savitri Devi and names of his brothers are registered as Yadvendra, Raghvendra and Kaushlendra 927C/29 685Extract from newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' in which Vasudevanand and Narendranand are shown sitting on a tractor during procession passing through the Allahabad city.1044C/11 (1055C) 697 Vol.5 2181Press release of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad.1044C/30 (1073C/1 and 1073C/2) 715 Vol.5 2245Copy of the plaint in the original Suit No. 141A/1966 Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Vs Swami Vishwanath Tripathi.1044C/32 1073C/3 and 1073C/10 715 Vol.5 2246-2254From 31.08.2005 to 01.10.2013 1044C/36 (1077C) 719 Vol.5 2263-2271M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 27.10.2007 1154C/1 to 1154C/3 739Certified copy of affidavit sworn by Ram Chandra Mishra in O.A. No. 30 of 2005, Uco Bank Vs.M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 27.10.2007 1155C/1 to 1155C/3 740Swami Vasudevanand 10.11.1989 to 2.12.2006 (14.2.2007) 1160C/2 to 1160C/77 744Two photographs at the time of nomination of Jyotishpeeth-adheeshwar, Jal Abhishek (anoinment) of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, being performed by Vedic Brahmins.In the photo, Swami Maheshwaranand (sitting below beside Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati), who announced his nomination D-1 337 Vol.3 1670In the middle of photo, Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati, Shankar- -acharya of Puri, welcomes Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati D-2 338 Vol.3 1671Challa Laxman Shastri, representative of Shringeri Peetha, performing Pattabhishek (investiture) of Swami Saraswati in the photograph below D-3 339 Vol.3 1672Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Awadh-eshanand Ji Maharaj of Joona Akhara with Swami Swaroopanand and in the middle of photograph he is garlanding.D-19 355 Vol.3 1688Swami Swaroopanand sitting with Shankaracharya of Puri Peeth, and Agnipeethadheeshwar Ji and Kashi Peethadheeshwar and other Sadhu-Sants are also sitting.In the photograph below, plaintiff is sitting with Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth, Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peetha D-20 356 Vol.3 1689The photograph when Abhishek of plaintiff was done as Dwarika Peethadheeshwar, the then Shringeripeethadheesh-war performing Abhishek of Abhinav Vidya Teerth D-21 357 Vol.3 1690Having conversation with Abhinav Vidya Teerth D-22 358 Vol.3 1691Present Peethadheeshwar of Shringeripeeth sitting and conversing with the plaintiff D-23 359 Vol.3 1692Photographs of the plaintiff with Puri Peethadheeshwar and Shringeri -peethadheeshwar in various Programmemes.In second photograph, Swami Karpatri Ji applying tilak on Krishanbodhashram D-24, 25, 26 & 27 360 361 362 363 Vol.3 1693 to 1696Photograph with Central Minister Vidya Charan Shukla.In second photograph, plaintiff with Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao and in the third photograph with Vice President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma D-34 370 Vol.3 1703Photograph with Mandan Mishra, Vice chancellor of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya.In photograph below, Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by Ram Jeth Malani D-35 371 Vol.3 1704Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by senior leader Pandit Lokpati Tripathi In the photo below, with members of the Kashi Vidwat Parishad D-39 375 Vol.3 1708In the photo below, President of Kashi Vidwat Parishad Pandit Kedarnath Tripathi getting blessings (Ashirvad) from plaintiff D-41 377 Vol.3 1710In the first photo, President of Akhil Bhartiya Akhada Parishad Shri Mahant Gyan Das Ji receiving blessings from plaintiff D-42 378 Vol.3 1711Jagad Guru Ramanandacharya garlanding the plaintiff.In second photograph, garlanding by Mahamandaleshwar of Agni Akhara.In third photograph, garlanding by President of Joona Akhara, Parmanand Saraswati and Shri Awadheshanand Giri Ji is beside him D-75 410 Vol.3 1744In its third photograph, with Awadheshanand Giri, Mathadheesh of Joona Akhara D-76 411 Vol.3 1745Copy of extract of news paper Aaj 29.11.1998 166C 132Certified copy of judgement passed by Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 Swami Parmatanand Saraswati and others Vs.Sri Ramji Tripathi 20.10.1962 158C/172 11 ka III(I) 186-338Copy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.15/56, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad 09.11.1990 292CCopy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.169/107, Bahadurganj, Allahabad 293CCopy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.228/174, Bahadurganj, Allahabad 294C 3-KaCopy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.13/55, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad 295C 4-KaTyped copy of will deed by Swami Shantanand 17.04.1989 296C/1 to 296C/5 5-Ka III(I) 339-352Photocopy of signatures of Prayag Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 297C/1 to 297C/6 133 kaPhotocopy of signatures of Prayag Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 298C/1 to 298C/7 134 kaPhotocopy of signatures of Jyotirmath Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 299C/1 and 299C/2 135Photo at the time of Abhishek Tilak of the office of Jyotispeeth- adheeshwar 300C/1 to 300C/24 136 kaPaper Jyotispeethadheeshwar Mahotsav 301C 136 kaCopy of writ petition no. 24085 of 2000, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Vs.Copy of will by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati 18.12.1952 378C 138 ka III(I) 156-185Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati sitting on Main Seat (Gaddi) 508C/14 139 kaKrishna Kant Chaturvedi delivering speech in Pra.Sammelan, Jabalpur in the presence of Jyotispeethadheeshwar 508C/15 140 kaPopatacharya Sri Ram Sajeewan Manager in Pra.Sammelan, Jabalpur with Jyotispeeth-adheeshwar 508C/16 6Digital photo dated 14.11.1989 508C/A-16-I 6-KaEnthroned Abhinav Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 508C/16/A-16-II 69-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati being honoured by Rajendra Trivedi 508C/17 7 kaTaking Sankalp at the time of installation 508C/A-17-II 70-KaDigital Photo at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-17-I 7-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati preaching in Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/18 8 kaPhoto digital at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-18-IPhoto digital at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-18-II 71-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in the midst of counselors, speaking to Br.508C/A 21-I 11-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati, speaking in Pr.Vidvat Parishad 508C/22Photo digital Installation (Pattabhishek), Garlanding 15.11.1989 508C/A-22-II 12-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-23-I 13-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-23-II 75-KaSri Motilal Shastri getting honour and blessings from Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/24 141-kaDigital photo 12.11.1989 508C/A-31 21-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya sitting on main Seat (throne) alongwith local scholars 508C/32Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-32 22-KaDigital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-33 23-KaDigital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-34Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-35 25-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-36 26-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-37 27-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-38 28-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-39 29-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-40 30-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-41 31-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-42 32-KaPhoto digital 23.11.1989 508C/A-43-I 33-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-44 34-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-45 35-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-46 36-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek of New Shankaracharya 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-I 78-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek of New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-I 78-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek of New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-II 79-KaPhoto digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-48-I 80-KaPhoto digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-48-II 81-KaPhoto digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-49-I 82-KaPhoto digital 28.11.1989 508C/A-49-II 62-KaPhoto digital 508C/A-50-I 63-KaDigital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-51 122-KaEminent scholar of Prayag, Pandit Krishna Dev Pathak and Natthu Lal Dixit applying Tilak and garlanding new Peethadishwar on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/52Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra, Photo digital, 28.11.1989 508C/A-52-I 95-KaPhoto digital, main seat of Jyotirmath 508C/A-53-I 64-KaDigital photo, Jyotirmath, JoshiMath, Nrisingh Mandir 508C/A-54 123-KaDandi Sanyasi Samaj, scholars and journalists etc., present on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) of new Shankaracharya 508C/55 143-kaSri Mahant Manohar Puri Ji of Joona Akhara welcoming new Shankaracharya and Dr. Shivarchan Prasad conversing, on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/56 144-kaSenior Shankaracharya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj; performing Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) ceremony of new Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati.Representative of Mahanirvani Akhara, Mahants of Alopi Devi and Niranjani Akhara, performing Pattabhishek (coronation/ installation) ceremony of new Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati.Shobha Yatra in Sanganer, Jaipur 508C/A-58-II 120-KaDevotees and citizen present in Arvind Vidya Mandir Jaipur Temple, worshiiping Jagatguru 508C/A-59-I 121-KaScene of Nagar Shobha Yatra in Varanasi on the occasion of Abhishek of Jyotispeeth- adheeshwar 508C/60 147-kaRepresentatives of Vaishnav Akhara performing Pattabhishek of Shankaracharya 15.11.1989 508C/61 148-kaEngineer Sri Rang Nath Dubey offering Patta to Shankaracharya 508C/62 149-kaSri Vigyan Ji, Mahant of Ramajuj Sect, garlanding and performing Pattabhishek of Jyotispeeth- -adheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya 508C/63Photo digital 1998 508C/A-63-I 96-KaPhoto digital, year 1998 1998 508C/A-63-II 97-KaPhoto digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Kumbh 508C/A-66-II 103-KaJyotishpeethadhiswar Jagatguru whiole entering in the camp of Shobha Yatra, Photo 508C/A-67-I 104-KaPeshwai in Haridwar Kumbh, Photo digital 508C/A-67-II 105-KaPeshwai in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-68-I 106-KaPeshwai Shobha Yatra in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-68-II 107-KaOn the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-69-I 108-KaOn the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-69-II 109-KaOn the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-70-I 110-KaOn the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-70-II 111-KaOn the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-71 112-KaVayunandan Misra garlanding enthroned Maharaj Shree 508C/86 164-kaScholar's of Kashi saluting enthroned Maharaj Shree 508C/87 165-kaMaharaj Shree speaking in Kashi Vidvat Sabha in Sanskrit Language 508C/88 166-kaMaharaj Shree enthroned on permanent Seat of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya in Kashi 508C/89 167-kaBrahmchari Mauni Ji performing Aarti of Peethadheeshwar Maharaj Shree in Siddh Giribagh Ashram, Kashi 508C/90 168-kaMaharaj Shree surrounded by followers after Abhishek (installation) and worship in Kashi 508C/91 169-kaScholars of Kashi presenting book authored by them on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/93 171-kaKaruna Pati Tripathi, eminent scholar of Kashi, garlanding Maharaj Shree after worship, on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/94 172-kaMauni Ji Brahmchari performing Aarti and Poojan after after Abhishek (installation) and Mahanth Shree Govindanand Brahmchari, Secretary Panch Agni Akhara and others, performing Poojan and welcome 508C/95 173-kaShree Dayashankar Pandey greeting new Jyotispeethadheeshwar by applying Tilak on the occasion of Abhishek 508C/96 174-kaRaj Narain Tripathi and Mahant of Panch Agni Akhara, Br.Govindanand and others, offering greetings and paying tribute after Abhishek in Kashi 508C/97 175-kaMaharaj Shree inspecting Bhandara after Abhishek (installation), Mahants of Akharas, saints and Dandi Sanyasis taking Prasad in Bhandara in Kashi 508C/98 176-kaMaharaj Shree making survey of Dandi Sanyasis taking Prasad in Bhandara after Abhishek (installation), Senior Shankaracharya Swami Shantanand Saraswati sitting beside him.Dandi Sanyasis taking aforesaid Prasad.Senior Shankaracharya and Mauni Ji Brahmchari surveying Bhandara.Dandi Swami Sect departing from Bhandara after taking Prasad from (A feast for all who come even without invitation) 508C/102 179-kaSenior Shankaracharya supervising Bhandara arrangement in Kashi alongwith Secretary of Panch Agni Akhara, namely, Mahant Sri Govindanand, Swami Bhadranand, and Radhey Shyam Mishra 508C/103 180-kaAbhinav Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati at the time of Pattabhishek (coronation/ enthronement) 508C/104 181-kaA devotee greeting at the time of Pattabhishek 508C/105 182-kaJyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Ji Mahraj sitting on main seat alongwith Parshads (counsellors) 508C/111 187-kaMauni Ji and devotees worshipping Maharajji seated on main seat (gaddi) 508C/112 188-kaMaharajsri sitting near idol of Shankaracharya in Nrisingh Temple 508C/113 189-kaYatis and devotees sitting near Maharaj Sri in Nrisingh Temple 508C/114 190-kaMahraraj Sri sitting on chariot in Poorvottar Shobha Yatra, in Maharaj Sri Arvind Vidya Mandir Jaipur and devotees of Forces and residents, performing Aarti of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, a scene of Sanganer, Jaipur's Nagar Shobha Yatra.Emotionally overwhelmed Senior Jyotishpeethadheeshwar seated on throne and Sri Ashok Singhal, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony.Swami Gopal Ji, Ashram Naini, sitting beside Maharaj Ji, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony.Sri Rang Nath Dubey, sitting beside Maharaj Ji, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony.Mahraj Sri seated on throne and scholars of Prayag in Tribute Ceremony.Maharaj Sri alongwith his followers, observing Mahants of Akharas and distinguished saints who were taking Prasad in Tribute Ceremony, Prayag.Maharaj Ji seated on throne in Peshwai Shobha Yatra, organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara in Haridwar Kumbh in the year 1998 508C/127 203-kaSurging crowd for Darshan of Maharaj Ji in Shobha Yatra (procession) in Haridwar Kumbh.Maharaj Ji seated on throne in Shobha Yatra organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara in Haridwar Kumbh in the year 1998 508C/129 205-kaMaharaj Ji seated on throne along with followers in Peshwai Shobha Yatra, organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara and Kotwal Naga Sanyasi, in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/130 206-kaMahant Parmanand Ji, Former Secretary and Karvati and Br.Atmanand leading Peshwai Shobha Yatra in Hardwar Ardh Kumbh 508C/131 207-kaMahant Brahmswaroop Ji welcoming Maharaj Sri in Peshwai Shobha Yatra of Haridwar Kumbh Mela, in front of his Ashram 508C/132 208-kaSecretary of Joona Akhara Umashankar Bharti and Brahmchari Atmanand Ji on the main gate of the camp of Peshwai Shobha Yatra of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/133 209-kaMain gate of Jyotirmath Shankaracharya constructed on aforesaid occasion.Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and Naga Sanyasi, entering the camp after Shobha Yatra 508C/135 211-kaNaga and Sanyasi Sects leading Peshwai Shobha Yatra in Hardwar Kumbh and surging crowd for Darshan, Enthroned Maharaj Sri moving with stick along with Naga Sanyasi of Joona Agni Avahan and devotees following them.Surging crowd for darshan of enthroned Maharaj Sri in Peshwai Shobha Yatra.Enthroned Maharaj Ji alongwith counsellors, preaching in Jyotirhpeeth Shankaracharya Camp, in Haridwar Kumbh Fair 1998 508C/138 214-kaJyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, preaching in Jyotirhpeeth Shankaracharya Camp, in Haridwar Kumbh Fair 1998 508C/139 215-kaMaharaj Sri enthroned, alongwith his counsellors, surrounded by Chharidars, saints and Nagas in his camp.Group of Naga Sanyasis, saints and Mahants offering worship and prayers to enthroned Maharaj Sri on stage after completion of Peshwai Shobha Yatra in 1998 Kumbh Fair, Haridwar 508C/141 217-kaJyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/142 218-kaJyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Shantananad Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/143 219-kaJyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Yotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/144 220-kaLetter of gratitude from Gyanodaya Pareek Sarvajanik Samiti, Bikaner 19.10.2000 509C/1 83-KaFelicitation Letter 509C/2Felicitation Letter 509C/3 85-KaFelicitation Letter 509C/4Telegram of Shankaracharya of Sringeripeeth Chandra Shekher Bhartiya Teerth, 05.06.1953 509C/6 221-kaFelicitation Letter 509C/5Felicitation Letter 509C/6 88-KaTelegram of Shankaracharya of Sringeripeeth Chandra Shekher Bhartiya Teerth, 07.06.1953 509C/7 222-kaLetter of Sri Sri Sringeri Jagat Guru Mahasansthanam, Shardapeetham 02.09.1978 509C/8 223-kaLetter of Badrinath Kedarnath Samiti 18.04.1948 509C/9 224-kaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) of Second Prantiya Vidvat Sammalen 04.09.1982 and 05.09.1982 509C/10 225-kaLetter of Sri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti 22.05.2001 509C/11 226-kaLetter of Shankaracharya Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj to Parampujya Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 509C/12 227-kaLetter of Vedavyas Sabha Trust 26-08-1999 509C/13 228-kaLetter to Sri Pujyapad Swami 1008 Sri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj 29-07-1998 509C/14 229-kaLetter of Tirumal Tirupati Devasthanam Dharm Pracharak Parishad 23-12-1995 509C/15 230-kaLetter of Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 10-04-1993 509C/16 231-kaSwarn Jayanti Samahora Sabha Sri Nimbarka Peeth, Salemabad(Raj) 509C/17 232-kaJaipur Mahanagar Times 15-01-2001 509C/18 233-kaLetter of Sub Divisional Magistrate, JoshiMath 509C/19 234-kaTrue copy of letter of District Judge, Jabalpur, M.P.Invitation of Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh, Nepal 27.05.2000 509C/21 236-kaLetter of Sanatan Dharma Sewa Samiti 19.01.1995 509C/22 237-kaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Hindu Chetana Samiti, Unnao 07.02.1999 509C/25 240-kaInvitation to Sri Shankaracharya Maharaj in Programme of Swami Ram Bharti Ji Maharaj 09.12.1997 509C/26 241-kaLetter of Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh 509C/27 242-kaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Durgadutt Sharma 30.06.2001 509C/28 243-kaPamphlet programme 509C/B-28 113-KaRamayan Mela Samiti 509C/B-30 114-KaPamphlet 509C/B-31 115-KaInvitation letter 509C/B-32 116-KaBooklet of Bharatmata Poojan Samaroh.All India Sanskrit Sammelan 14.02.2008 509C/34 246-kaRegistered Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Ramayan Mela Samiti Prayag 03.02.2007 509C/35 246-kaLetter of Allahabad Kali Bari 20.11.1989 509C/36Patrika Yatra Agman 509C/B-36 117-KaShubhabhisansan Patram (letter of appreciation) Vedic Sanskrit Pracharak Samghasya Adhikari, Sadasya evam Jaipur Rajasthan 10-09-1994 510C/12 276-kaGanga Bachao Sandesh Yatra 29.03.2006 510C/13 277-kaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) , Dharma Prasar Samiti, Haldwani Kartik Shukla Chaturthi Samvat 2061 510C/14 278-kaDainik Jagran, Varanasi 17.09.1990 511C/5 279-kaIndian Express, Dew Delhi 11.11.1990 511C/6 280-kaAaj, Allahabad 24.07.1991 511C/7Dainik Jagran, Viswamitra, Kolkata and Mumbai 31.10.1991 511C/8 282-kaSwatantra Bharat, Lucknow 21.07.1991 511C/9 283-kaOswal Jyoti, Jaipur May 1993 511C/10 284-kaDainik Jajran, Allahabad 20.10.1993 511C/11 285-kaNavin Duniya, Jabalpur 16.02.1993 511C/12 286-kaAaj, Varanasi 26.03.1993 511C/13 287-kaPatrika, Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/14 288-kaNavbharat Times, Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/15 289-kaSandhya Jyoti Darpan, Jaipur 04.08.1994 511C/16 290-kaVande Matram 12.07.1994 to 18.07.1994 511C/17 291-kaPatrika Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/18 292-kaSandhya Jyoti, Jaipur 26.08.1994 511C/19 293-kaJabalpur Express 12.02.1995 511C/20 294-kaDeshbandhu, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/27 301-kaNav Bharat, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/28 302-kaNai Duniya 12.12.1995 511C/29Jansatta, Mumbai 28.06.1996 511C/30 304-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 26.12.2000 511C/31 305-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 09.12.2000 511C/32 306-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 10.12.2000 511C/33 307-kaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/20 57-KaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/21 58-KaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/26 59-KaChaturmas Vrat Mahotsava Ramayan Mahayagya 892A/7 Enclosure -2 68-Ka355. Annexure-4, digital photo 900A/11 89-KaAnnexure-5, digital photo 900A/12 90-Ka357. Annexure-6, digital photo 900A/13 91-KaAnnexure-7, digital photo 900A/14 92-KaAnnexure-1, letter, office of Public Information Officer, Haridwar 18.08.2011 900A/6Report of Sri R.K. Gupta expert.Typed copy of trust deed of BDM of year 1941 11/05/41 Vol III (I) 390 to 412 Alphabetical Index of Citations S.N.Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.This is defendant's appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") arising from judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015 passed by Sri Gopal Upadhayay, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 513 of 1989 (Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Swaroopa Nand Saraswati Vs.Then a question arose about his successor.Before taking Danda (Sanyas), he accompanied many great religious and spiritual Sanyasis and Yogis namely Sri Vallabhanand, Sri Oriya Baba, Sri Karpatriji, Late Sri Krishna Bodhaharamji, Sri Maheshwarnandji, Sri Adwaitnand and Sri Akhandanand etc. Plaintiff learnt and discussed with aforesaid religious persons Vedas, Vedangas, Upnishads, Shastras, etc. His quest for knowledge brought him to Late Shankaracharya Brahmanand Saraswati in 1950 and he is Chela, senior to Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati.Plaintiff became Dandi Sanyasi and was introduced to Dasnami order.In May, 1964 plaintiff established "Adhyatmic Utthan Mandal", a registered body at Paramhansi Ganga in Distt.Narsinghpur (Madhya Pradesh), having branches in Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat and is run by plaintiff's followers to impart religious instructions according to Sanatan Dharma.Plaintiff opened several other institutions to impart religious teachings.Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati, wrongly and illegally, claimed himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on the basis of a forged and fictitious will dated 18.12.1952, alleged to have been executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati.Remaining three nominees, namely, Dwarika Prasad Shastri, Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati and Swami Parmanand Saraswati also had successive claim, watching exit of nominees, earlier to his name, also threatened to assume office of Shankaracharya of Badrikasharam Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.Plaintiff was compelled to file suit no. 1-A of 1974 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peethadheswar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati versus Ramji Tripathi and 3 others, in the Court of District Judge, Seoni.Subsequently, it was transferred to Court of District Judge Allahabad, who sent it to the Court of Civil Judge Allahabad and was assigned ultimately to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad.Defendants therein with an objective to prolong disposal of aforesaid suit no.1A/1974, filed a revision in this Court against an interlocutory order passed by Additional Civil Judge for recording statement of witnesses.Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati, apprehending trouble to explain about his wrongful activities and competence to hold the office of Shankaracharya and also accounting for huge amount of Trust, withdrawn and misappropriated by him, executed a deed of relinquishment of said office of Shankaracharya on 28.4.1980 though he legally never held the said office nor was ever installed as Shankaracharya.He was also not competent to hold the said office.Sri Vishnu Devanand Saraswati was at serial no. 3 in the alleged 'Will' and Swami Dwarikeshanand at number two.Dwarikeshanand Saraswati was alive and had taken Sanyas long back.Late Brahmanand Saraswati had no right to execute a 'Will' creating and formulating line of succession of Shankaracharya and it was against provisions of 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'.In fact, no such 'Will' was executed by him.Hence, Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati had no right to hold office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Therefore, question of relinquishment and nomination of other person by deed dated 28.4.1980 did not arise.After death of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, appellant started manipulating himself to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, though plaintiff was already installed and functioning thereat with due recognition by all three remaining Shankaracharyas.According to conditions provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan', only one Sanyasi having requisite qualification is entitled to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and there cannot be more than one Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in same Peeth, hence appellant could not have claimed his installation as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, since there was no vacancy.No question could have arisen of his installation in the said office.From various newspapers published from 5.11.1989 to 7.11.1989, it had come to notice of plaintiff that appellant was manipulating his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 15.11.1989 at Alopi Bagh, which will affect and hit religious feelings of plaintiff and Hindu devotees, followers of Vedic and Sanatan Dharma propunded by Adi Guru Shankaracharya.Since appellant was bent upon for his installation as Shankaracharya, hence the suit.Cause of action arose on 7.11.1989 and 8.11.1989 when news items were published in newspapers that appellant would be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 15.11.1989, though he had no such right and his act of getting such installation is wholly without jurisdiction.The suit accordingly was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad with the relief as stated above.Amendment of plaint after appellant's installationAfter filing of suit, appellant, however, proceeded to get himself installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Thereafter, by way of amendment, allowed vide Court's order dated 22.12.2006, paragraph 44/1 was inserted in the plaint which reads as under:That after filing the suit the defendant has been alleging and claiming that he was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth on 14th November and 15th November, 1989."Appellant's defence in written statementReplication dated 19.04.1995, paper no. 66-Ka was also filed by plaintiff.Amendment Application dated 01.09.2005A detailed amendment application dated 01.09.2005 (paper No.366-Ka) was filed by plaintiff, seeking addition of several paragraphs, grounds and relief in the plaint.Appellant is qualified to become Shankaracharya and instead plaintiff lacks qualification.Plaintiff also does not possess any degree from recognized University or institution within the territory of India and abroad.Suit as initially instituted has become infructuous after installation of appellant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of C.P.C. in view of earlier Suit No.1-A of 1974 filed by plaintiff and pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1, Room No.13, Allahabad.In earlier suit plaintiff had sought a declaration that he is Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth with effect from 07.12.1973 and has also sought for recovery of certain property of the said Peeth."17- D;k okn voewY;kafdr gS\ ""19- D;k izLrqr okn ifjlhek ls ckf/kr gS\ ""23- oknh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ "Issue no. 2 was divided in two parts, as under:Plaintiff and appellant, both adduced 42 witnesses each, i.e. PW-1 to PW-42 and DW-1 to DW-42 in support of their respective case.List of plaintiff's and appellant's witnesses is appended to this judgment as Appendix-"A" and "B" respectively.Similarly plaintiff adduced total 815 documents which included copies of various documents, photographs, copies of newspapers etc., and appellant in support of his case has adduced 361 such documents which also included a large number of photographs, newspapers, magazines etc. Lists of plaintiff's and appellant's documents are also filed as Appendix-"C" and "D," respectively, to this judgment.Broadly speaking, witnesses have been produced by respective parties to prove following facts:PW 40 Mahant Sri Prakash Puri, Guru Kapil Mahamuni Ji, Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain, M.P.PW 41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari Sishya Swami Dr. Laxman Chaitnya Bramchari, Dewas, M.P.(II) To prove authenticity and mandatory character of Rules for installation, qualification, eligibility and procedure for installation as 'Shankaracharya' with reference to Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan.1. PW 3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Teacher, Varanasi2. PW 4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, Varanasi,PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, VaranasPW 13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil Sanskrit Bhasa Pracharak Wa Patrakar, Pune, MaharasthaPW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi.PW 20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, Teacher Manglur, Karnatak (III) Experts in religious matters:PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, Varanasi2. PW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi.PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti,DW 2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi, VaranasiDW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, Shishya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj (defendant-appellant)DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, AllahabadDW 5 Sri Sriniwas Pathak, AllahabadDW 6 Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Dharma Pracharak, PratapgarhDW 7 Sri Pt.Gokul Chandra Goswami, MathuraDW 8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, PratapgarhDW 9 Sri Tilakdhari Shukla, Ambedkar NagarDW 10 Sri Vimal Prakash Srivastava, AllahabadDW 11 Sri Radhey Shyam Malviya, AllahabadDW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai BareliDW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey, AllahabadDW 14 Sri Purshottam Lal, AllahabadDW 15 Sri Lal Mani Tiwari, AllahabadDW 16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey, AllahabadDW 17 Sri Balkrishna Pandey, AllahabadDW 18 Sri Hariram Chaurasiya, AllahabadDW 20 Sri Bindu Ram Singla, Sangroor, PanjabDW 21 Sri Achrya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi, AllahabadDW 22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, Dasnam Sanyas Ashram, Bhupatiwala, Haridwar, UttarakhandDW 23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, AllahabadDW 24 Sri Tiloki Nath Agrawal, Katni, M.P.DW 25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi, AllahabadDW 26 Sri Triveni Mishra, Allahabad,DW 27 Sri Rishi Prasad Sati Chamoli, UttarakhandDW 28 Sri Srimohan Dubey, AllahabadDW 29 Sri Ramji Tripathi, KanpurDW 30 Sri Omkar Nath Tripathi, AllahabadDW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Sishya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Bramhaleen Swami Shankaracharya Sarswati Ji Maharaj, VaranasiDW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, VaranasiDW 33 Sri Daya Shankar Pandey Dehradoon, UttarakhandDW 34 Sri Jagdish Prasad Misra, LucknowDW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi, AllahabadDW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, AllahabadDW 38 Sri Mahant Manoharpuri, Shisya Sabhapati Sri Mahant Mangalpuri Ji Maharaj Sri Panchdasnaam Juna Akhara Indore, M.P.DW 39 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, AmethiDW 41 Sri Triveni Prasad Pandey, Rewa, M.P.(II) Experts in religious matters.DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti.2. DW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji MaharajDW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, VaranasiDW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, AllahabadDW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad (III) About disqualification of plaintiff:DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad (IV) Expert witness (Handwriting):DW 42 Sri Radhakrishna Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint expert (V) Photographer:DW 40 Sri Ram Niranjan Singh, Allahabad Findings of Trial Court:Trial Court has returned findings on the issues noticed above in the following manner.Issues 1, 2, 2/1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are answered in favour of plaintiff' and against appellant.Issue 5 is answered against plaintiff'.Issues 17 and 18 were adjudicated as preliminary issues and vide order dated 07.09.2005, issue 17 was answered in favour of defendant-appellant and valuation of suit was determined at Rs.12,07,600/-.Plaintiff was directed to get the plaint amended in respect of valuation and pay requisite Court fee.Issue 18 was answered vide order dated 21.10.2005 against appellant.In view of the findings recorded by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015, suit has been decreed and appellant has been restrained from claiming himself Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He is refrained from holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya and also not to perform any function as Shankaracharya.Amendment of Memo of AppealInitially, when appellant instituted this appeal, challenge to judgment and decree of Court below was founded on 50 grounds but subsequently pursuant to an amendment, allowed vide order dated 04.11.2015, 97 grounds were added, making total 147 (50+97) grounds.Proceeding during trial of SuitSome of the interlocutory stages before Trial Court, resulting in passing of certain orders, relevant to be noticed here, are as under.Objection/Preliminary IssueEven before framing of issues, appellant raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction; that suit has rendered infructuous after installation of appellant hence, barred by law and not maintainable.Defendant-appellant preferred a revision which was rejected by District Judge on 28.09.1998, holding that order was interlocutory in nature hence revision was not maintainable.It also observed that issues are yet to be framed and question of jurisdiction after framing of issues would be decided as preliminary issues before proceeding with the suit.Thereafter on 12.10.1998, issues 1 to 16 were framed.On 13.01.2015 issues were serialized.Stay under Section 10 CPCOn 17.10.1998 an application under Section 10 CPC (Paper no. 149-C) was filed, seeking stay of Original Suit No.513 of 1989 on the ground that Original Suit No.1-A of 1974, filed by plaintiff, in which a similar dispute was raised, is still pending.While the aforesaid application was pending, another application (Paper no. 205-C) was filed requesting for hearing of preliminary issues.Another application (Paper no.215-C) dated 29.08.2005 was filed, requesting for disposal of application (paper no.149-C. (application under Section 10 CPC) On 30.08.2005 application (Paper no. 215-C) was decided, holding that earlier also, an application for same relief was filed and decided on 24.08.2005, hence application (Paper no. 215-C) is rejected.On 18.07.2007, application (Paper no. 149C), was rejected on the ground that earlier a similar application was rejected by earlier Presiding Officer of Court.Thereagainst, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1999 was dismissed on 27.04.2000 by Additional District Judge.Vide judgment dated 23.01.2004, writ petition was decided and orders dated 22.02.1999 of Trial Court and 27.04.2000 of Appellate Court were quashed.Plaintiff then filed a voluminous amendment application on 01.09.2006, in which specific plea of disqualification of defendant-appellant was raised giving details and a declaration was sought with regard to installation of Appellant as Jagat Guru Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11.1989, as null and void.It permitted only a few minor amendments.Previous Litigation:Before proceeding to adjudicate points for determination arising in this appeal, we find it appropriate to refer a long chain of litigations followed in respect to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth between different parties, some of which have substantially been relied by both the sides in support of one or the other submissions.In order to have things straight, it would be appropriate to recapitulate earlier litigation, chronologically, as under:(i) Misc.Case No. 44 of 1953 (under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925)- Swami Santanand Vs.(ii) Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 - Swami Parmanand and three others Vs.(iii) Original Suit No. 47 of 1954 - Ram Lakhan Singh and others Vs.Swami Shantanand Saraswati and others(iii) Original Suit No. 3 of 1963 - Swami Krishna Bodhashram Vs.(iv) Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 -Swami Shantanand Saraswati Vs.Swami Krishna Bodhashram and 2 others(v) Criminal Misc.Case No. 2 of 2002(66-67), under Section 145 Cr.P.C.(vi) Original Suit No. 1-A of 1974 -Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Vs.Ramji Tripathi (later know as Swami Shantanand and 2 others)(vii) Criminal Misc.Case No. 1553 of 1969(viii) Suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1951 (filed on 28.12.1976).For the present case, a brief retrospect of earlier litigations in Misc.Case No. 44 of 1953, Original Suit No. 3 of 1954, Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 and Original Suit No. 1A of 1974 would be relevant, hence, in brief, the same are being considered hereunder.Case No. 44 of 1953Swami Shantanand filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act,1925 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1925"), claiming succession certificate in respect of certain money lying with different Banks at Allahabad, details whereof was given at the foot of application.It was claimed that the said property was held by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as his property.The application was registered in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad as Misc.Application contained assertions that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati left for heavenly abode on 20.05.1953 at Calcutta.He executed a 'Will' on 18.12.1952, appointing Swami Shantanand as successor and by virtue of 'Will', applicant Swami Shantanand was entitled to collect money lying with different Banks in the name of deceased.Objector stated that application for grant of succession certificate filed by Swami Shantanand is unauthorized, against law and not maintainable; 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was neither a genuine document nor deceased could have executed such 'Will'; Objector is a senior devoted disciple of deceased; Genuineness and validity of 'Will' not only was denied but it was also pleaded that it must have been obtained by undue influence of applicant Swami Shantanand; Property details in the application pertains to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, a public endowment Trust of religious and charitable nature; Deceased Swami Brahamanand being Mahant, was in the capacity of Manager of Trust, had no power to dispose of such property and alleged "Will" is inoperative in regard to movable and immovable property of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth; property mentioned in the "Will" was not personal property of deceased, hence he had no competence to execute 'Will' in regard thereto; "Will" relied by applicant is illegal, invalid and unenforceable, hence cannot create any right in favour of applicant; applicant is not a properly initiated disciple of deceased; He is a natural relation of late Brahmanand Saraswati of his Purvashram and had been living with him since about a year before his death; he is not a Sanyasi and does not possess qualification required for being "Shankaracharya" of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth: Applicant can neither be successor nor heir of deceased and application is unauthorized; objector and some other disciples are duly initiated Chelas of deceased and objector being a senior Chela and heir of deceased, is entitled to the seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; considering nature of property which is that of Trust, no application for succession certificate is maintainable; application is barred by Section 370 of Act 1925 and applicant is not entitled to certificate unless he establishes his claim in a competent Court of law or gets probate of alleged 'Will'; Applicant should have mentioned about disciples of late Brahmanand Saraswati so that notices could have been issued to such disciples and persons interested in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; Applicant has acted illegally by intentionally omitting names of such disciples; Applicant was not an elected Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and no Abhishek or installation ceremony, as required by custom and usage of Math was ever performed in his case and claim made by him is false; Late Brahmanand Saraswati did not leave any estate since he was not owner of property in suit or other properties, hence no succession certificate can be granted.District Judge formulated following three issues:-Whether the document dated 18th December, 1952 is the last 'Will' by Swami Brahmanand? Was it duly executed and attested?Issue-3 was subsequently struck off by District Judge, observing that in summary proceedings it was neither necessary nor expedient to decide dispute of title and this issue should be left for determination in regular suit.He also observed that only issue required to be considered is, whether 'Will' was duly executed by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati; it is a genuine document and represents his last will, for the reason that, if it is established to be a genuine 'Will', it would mean that the Testator looked upon applicant as a proper person to collect debt due to Testator and on the basis of said 'Will', applicant should be allowed to collect debts due to deceased.Hence, applicant was required only to establish genuineness of 'Will'.The matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad.Court held that late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati when signed the document was in perfect senses, capable of understanding what he was doing.In this regard, Court relied on the statement of Dr. Krishan Saran Mathur, Reader in Medicine, Medical College, Agra, who deposed before Court and said that he examined late Brahmanand on 21.12.1952 at Agra, i.e. just three days after execution of "Will" and found everything normal about his memory, intelligence etc. Medical problem he had, was about breathlessness, loss of appetite and constipation etc., which had nothing to do with mental condition.Another evidence relied by Court below was statement of Dr. Raj Kishore, who claims to have examined late Swami Brahmanand on 22.11.1952 at Delhi and after 3-4 weeks at Agra also.Third statement was of Dr. Dubey, Lecturer in Medical College, Agra and a Physician in Sarojni Naidau Hospital, Agra.Objector examined one Swami Bhagwatanand who stated that he had no knowledge whether any "Will" was executed or not.Another witness Swami Govindanand stated that he did not hear about execution of 'Will' from Testator, but after execution, Testator told him that a 'Will' was got executed under pressure when he was ill.Both these witnesses were examined on Commission at Varanasi.Court also relied on the statements of attesting witnesses i.e. Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari and Shyam Narain Gupta and also the author Sri Krishna Gopal Chaudhary, Advocate, to establish that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was duly executed by Swami Brahmanand, after understanding its implications, and, he was in sound mental condition at that time, he was a capable Testator and, therefore, document was accepted as genuine.No evidence was adduced to show that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was not the last 'Will', hence it was taken as the last 'Will' of Testator.The objection with regard to "undue influence" could not be proved.Court also observed that after death of Swami Brahmanand, an interim committee was formed for management of property and affairs of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He also said that "Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati" was President of the said Committee and Govindanand, a witness examined by Swami Swroopanand was one of the members of Committee.Proceedings dated 07.06.1953 show that a certified copy of 'Will' was obtained from Allahabad and produced before Committee. 'Will' was read over to Committee and it was resolved that it should be published in Pandit Sabha and arrangement should be made for installation of successor.This meeting was presided by Swami Swroopanand.Thus it is evident that Swami Swroopanand and other disciples of Swami Brahmanand knew well about "Will" executed by Swami Brahmanand which was kept at Allahabad and a copy whereof was brought from Allahabad and contents thereof were made known to all of them.There is nothing on record to show that any of the Objectors ever took any exception to the "Will" or raised any objection that it was not executed by late Swami Brahmanand and is not a genuine document.Subsequent objection is nothing but an afterthought.Court ultimately accepted "Will" dated 18.12.1952 having been executed by late Swami Brahmanand and duly attested.Hence, judgment and order dated 12.12.1955 attained finality.Suit 3 of 1954In case the relief (2) is not granted some other fit person, keeping in view the behests of the Mathamanya and the wishes of general Hindu Public and other disciples and devotees of Jyotish Peeth be appointed as Peethadhishwar of Jyotish Peeth in place of deceased Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.Other necessary directions may be made for enquiry into the accounts of the Peeth properties which may have come in the hands of the defendant.The newly appointed trustee of Shankaracharya may be directed to act upto the commands of the great Shankaracharya laid down in his Mathamanya and the rules and traditions which have been followed by the Shankaracharya of this Peeth and also of their Peeths.The defendant be permanently restrained with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, from prosecuting his succession certificate application in the District Court at Allahabad and the mutation proceedings, which also he has started at Allahabad, or any other proceedings he may have started regarding the Peeth elsewhere.Costs may be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant from the estate of the Peeth or as the Court may deem fit.Any such further or other reliefs may be granted as the nature of the case requires."It was pleaded that Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth remained extinct for about 150 years and then in 1941, B.D.M., VNS as the body of learned men, Pandits, Sanyasis as well as Grihasthas, Princes, Rajas, and other persons and Religious Institutions, created a "Trust" vide "Trust Deed", dated 11.05.1941, executed by Sri Balkrishna Mishra, Secretary.During this period, immovable property was acquired by Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth at Allahabad, Jabalpur and Chhindawara.New constructions were also made on existing property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Committee unanimously decided that "Will" should be published and successor should be installed at the earliest.Another meeting of Committee was held on 08.06.1953, after publication of 'Will', and according to that Sri Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) was to be installed as Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Installation was to be observed on 12.06.1953 according to Muhurt at Kashi.In the said application Banwari Lal Dixit stated that Sri Shantanand Saraswati was to succeed having been nominated by Swami Brahmanand Sarasawati as successor, but it was opposed by Pandit Vidwat Mandal (Kashi Vidwat Parishad) and some other religious bodies and personalities.Even President of interim Committee, Swami Swaroopanand was against installation of Swami Shantanand and wanted that Sri Krishnabodhashram to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.One Suit No. 374 of 1953 was filed by Bal Brahmchari Mahesh Ji and Swami Vishwadevanand Saraswati against Swami Karpatri Ji, Swami Krishna Bodhashram and few others in the Court of Munsif (North), Lucknow, seeking permanent injunction.An application for temporary injunction was also filed seeking to restrain defendants in that case from holding a meeting on 24.07.1953 and giving reception as Shankaracharya and taking out procession and proclamation of Swami Krishnabodhashram.In the meantime, on 11.07.1953 Swami Shantanand filed application for succession certificate, wherein Swami Swroopanand filed objection, which was registered as Misc.Plaintiff Swami Parmanand Saraswati, and three others pleaded that Swami Shantanand lacked requisite qualification of Shankaracharya as per norms laid down by Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya in his books Mathamanaya and Mahanushasan.It is said that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, question arose about installation of his successor.Learned Pandits, Mahants, Brahmcharis, Sanyasis and disciples etc. initially selected a Dandi Swami Hariharan (Karpatri Ji Maharaj) but when he declined, Dandi Swami Sri Krishnabodhashram was selected and installed on 25.06.1953 at Gyanvapi, near Krishna temple, Varanasi.Installation ceremony was graced by Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Maharaj of Sharda Peeth at Dwarka and attended by all persons, sections of Hindu religious institutions and Heads giving him their recognition by offering respect and gifts etc. on the occasion.A similar installation ceremony later on was performed at Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram.It was in this background that Suit 3 of 1954 under Section 92 CPC was filed, seeking relief noted above.Suit was contested by sole defendant Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand).He pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and defendant having already been installed validly is successor of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, pursuant to 'Will' executed by him and installed as Shankaracharya; allegations of misappropriation are false; and suit was liable to be rejected.Court formulated following 16 issues as under:-Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action against the defendants?Whether the succession to the Jyotish Peeth is governed by the rules described in the Mathamanya and Mahanushasan and custom of the respective Math is it governed by the deed, dated 11th may 1941 made by the Bharat Dharma mahamandal? In either case what is its effect?Whether Swami Brahmanand Saraswati validity executed the Will, dated 18th December 1952 and whether he could dispose the properties mentioned therein by the same?Whether Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was prossessed of sound disposing power at the time of the execution of the alleged Will.Whether the Will dated 18th December, 1952 was obtained under undue influence?Whether the defendant was duly and validity installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth on 12th June 1953?Whether the defendant is a mere trustee de son tort calling himself Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth and is liable to be removed therefrom?Whether the defendant is in possession of the properties in dispute detailed in the plaint as a trustee de son tort?Whether Krishna Bodhashram was duly installed as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth after the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? If so, how does it effect the suit?Whether the properties covered by the alleged Will of 18th December, 1952 were the personal properties of Shri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and could he dispose them by a Will or whether the same were Trust properties belonging to the Jyotish Peeth.Whether the properties in suit mentioned in para 45 of the written statement belong to Swami Krishnanand Trust? If so, what is its effect on the present suit?Whether the suit under section 92 C.P.C. is maintainable and whether the sanction of the Advocate General for the same legal? Can these points be raised here?To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled and on what terms?Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs under section 35A, C.P.C."(emphasis added)Issues 2 and 4 were answered holding that as per admission of parties, Shankaracharya can appoint his successor who should possess requisite qualification as stated in the books "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan".It also held that "Will" was validly executed and there was no undue influence, hence issues 5, 6 and 7 were answered against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.However, issue 3 relating to qualification of defendant for installation as Shankaracharya was answered against him holding that he did not possess some of the necessary qualifications required for the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati could not nominate him as a successor.His appointment to the office of Shankarachaya was invalid.Issue 11 related to non impleadment of Swami Krishnabodhshram and was answered in affirmance, holding that suit is bad for non-joinder of Swami Krishnabodhshram inasmuch as, he was a necessary party and in his absence, issue, whether he was or could have been installed validly as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, cannot be decided.Court then proceeded to consider question 1, whether there was any cause of action to file said suit under Section 92 CPC and answered the same in favour of plaintiffs.Issue 14 related to maintainability of suit under Section 92 CPC and was answered, holding that suit, as framed, not maintainable and sanction of Advocate General was not legal for the reason that there was a legally appointed Trustee, as per averments contained in the plaint, who was not made a party and against him no relief was claimed.Issue 9 was answered against defendant holding that though he is Trustee de son tort and liable to be removed from the office of Shankaracharya and trust of Jyotishpeeth in accordance of law, but in a properly constituted suit.Issue 12 was answered holding that all suit property except those mentioned in item no. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the list of immovable property in scheduled-A of the plaint are Trust property, belong to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Issue 10 was answered holding as under:-Issue decided accordingly."With regard to issue 16, Court held that defendant is Trustee de son tort and has got no valid, title to the office of Shankaracharya nor entitled to get any compensatory costs under Section 35-A CPC for the reason that it has been held that he was liable to be removed from the office in a properly constituted suit.Issue 15 was answered in the light of the findings given on various issues holding that finding in respect of issue regarding maintainability of suit, having been returned against plaintiffs, suit has to be dismissed though parties had succeeded on different issues wholly or partly.Court ultimately observed that plaintiffs have fully succeeded on issues 1, 2, 3 and 9 and partly on issues 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13, while defendant has fully succeeded on issues 4, 7 and 14 and partly on issues 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13, but since suit has been held not maintainable as framed, it has to be dismissed.Consequently, vide judgment dated 20.10.1962 Additional District Judge, Varanasi dismissed Suit 3 of 1954 as not maintainable under Section 92 CPC.Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati filed an impleadment application, alleging that Swami Krishna Bodhashram died on 10.9.1973 and, therefore, he may be impleaded and permitted to prosecute appeal as 'Intervener'.Supreme Court allowed and permitted Swami Swaroopanand to prosecute the matter as 'Intervener'.Court ultimately dismissed Civil Appeal no. 1589 of 1973 vide order dated 21.8.1974 (Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another Vs.Ramji Tripathi, 1974 (2) SCC 695).Suit 47 of 1954Interim injunction was issued on 31.01.1954 ex-parte, since defendant did not turn-up.Suit 3 of 1963- Filed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram stood abated.Suit 36 of 1965Reliefs sought in the aforesaid suit were as under:(a) That the defendants be restrained by order of permanent injuction from proclaiming the defendant No. 1 as Shankaracharya and Peethadhishwar of the Jyotish Peeth and letting the defendant No. a from taking the Chhatra, Chtaaar Band and Singhasan as Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth nad to take out any procession as such during the Magh Mela in Allahabad.(b) That cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff that any other and further relief that, in the opinion of the Court the Plaintiff is entitled to, be also awarded to the plaintiff.After his death, plaintiff was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth in accordance with rites, rituals and customs prevalent among Sanyasis.Plaintiff applied for grant of succession certificate vide Misc.Case No. 44 of 1953, filed in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad, founded on 'Will' dated 18.12.1952, executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.Miscellaneous case was ultimately decided by Civil Judge, Allahabad after transfer and 'Will' was approved.Hence, succession certificate was granted in favour of plaintiff.Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati contested Misc.Case 44 of 1953, claiming himself as senior Chela and heir of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.He also filed appeal in High Court against grant of succession certificate to plaintiff but the same was dismissed.In fact, Swami Karpatri Ji alias Swami Hariharanand Saraswati has set up different claimants against plaintiff and caused various suits filed in different Courts.Appeal was filed thereagainst which is pending.Before Kumbh Mela Haridwar, Ram Lakhan Singh and others filed Suit 47 of 1954 against plaintiff in the Court of Munsif South, Lucknow, seeking injunction and restraining plaintiff from proclaiming himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and using articles of decoration.Taking advantage of ensuing Kumbh, defendants started to proclaim that defendant-1 is Jyotish Peethadhishwar, i.e., Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and pamphlets were distributed at Allahabad and other places.Defendants also arranged to take out a procession on 13th as troll as on subsequent days in Magh Mela Area, proclaiming defendant-1 to be Jyotish Peethadhishwar as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Defendant-1 is neither entitled to proclaim himself as Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth nor entitled to use Chhatra, Chanwar etc. Plaintiff is entitled to get defendants restrained from proclaiming defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence the suit.Suit was contested by Swami Krishnabodhashram and other defendants by filing their combined written statement dated August 1965, though written statement was signed by defendant-2 on behalf of all defendants.He denied that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth for the reason that Peeth does not have any Mahant.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Aacharya and Head of Math.Death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.05.1955 was admitted but other averments were denied.It was pleaded that defendant-1 rightly was proclaimed by public as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and contrary averments were denied.In additional pleas, defendants pleaded that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati did not nominate or constitute plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, no 'Will' was executed in favour of plaintiff; Plaintiff was never installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had no right to nominate his successor; even if he had a right, plaintiff was not such a person who fulfilled requirements of Shankaracharya as laid down in the verses of Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan which were prescribed by Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and contains Rules and Regulations governing four Maths established by him, i.e., Jyotirmath near Badrinath in Pauri Garhwal in North; Sharda Math in Gujarat; Sringeri Math in South India and Goverdhan Math at Puri.In Suit-3 of 1954, Court recorded findings against plaintiff that he did not possess some of necessary qualifications of Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and his appointment to said office was invalid.However, suit was dismissed on technical ground that defendant-1 was not made party.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was suffering from sleeplessness and other ailments from long time and did not enjoy sound disposing mind and was not in a fit state of mind or body to execute alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 under which plaintiff is claiming his right to be successor in the office and Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was never executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.It was not signed at all by him, who was not in a sound disposing mind nor in a fit mental and physical condition to execute it.No installation ceremony ever took place.Plaintiff even otherwise did not possess qualification for the said office.No religious ceremony was ever performed for installation of plaintiff.Original Suit 3 of 1954 was dismissed by District Judge, Varanasi whereagainst First Appeal No. 365 of 1962 was filed and during pendency of the said appeal, succession certificate granted, stood in the name of Registrar, High Court, Allahabad, under orders of Court.Plaintiff could not have withdrawn any money except with permission of Court.Plaintiff also filed a representative suit 9 of 1954 in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad through Swami Magnanand and others by impleading Swami Krishna Bodhashram as defendant, seeking injunction restraining defendants from setting himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Said suit was dismissed with costs in the absence of plaintiffs.Another suit was filed by Sri Mahesh Ji at the instance of plaintiff, a close associate, being Original Suit No. 374 of 1953 in the Court of Munsif North, Lucknow for obtaining an ad interim injunction against Swami Krishna Bodhashram and also from holding any meeting on 24.7.1953 so as to give a reception to Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya and taking procession.Plaintiff Sri Mahesh failed to get interim injunction and ultimately Original Suit 374 of 1953 was also dismissed.Defendant-1, since his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.6.1953, has been occupying office and has perfected his title and right by way of adverse possession.Defendants 2 and 3 also recognized defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Allegation of setting up persons to file various cases is denied.Advice and opinion for observing Kumbh in 1965 was actually tendered by defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, Dwarika, Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth at Puri and Shankaracharya of Sringeri Peeth of Mysore as well as other learned Pandits.Plaintiff has possessed some property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth wrongfully and making wrongful gain therefrom.Whether late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had nominated and constituted the plaintiff as the Shankara Charya of the Jyotir Mutt at Badrinath.2.(a) Whether late Swani Brahmanand Saraswati executed a will dated 18.12.52 is alleged by the plaintiff in his favour? If so had he a right to nominate his successor as alleged?(b) In case the will dated 18.12.52 is proved to have been executed was it obtained by the plaintiff under the conditions as alleged in paras 31 to 33 of the written statements?Whether the plaintiff was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt as alleged by him or he is only a trustee de-son-tort as pleaded by the defendant?Whether the plaintiff possesses the requisite qualifications for holding the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in 'Muttamanay' and Mahanusashan?Whether defendant no.1 was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt on 25.6.63 as alleged by him in his written statement and if so has he perfected his right as Shankaracharya by adverse possession as pledged in para 41 of the written statement?Whether the defendants are entitled to special Costs?To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled."(emphasis added)69. Issues-1 and 2 were taken together by Court.Adi Shankaracharya established four Maths, which are as under :Name of Maths Details1. Poorvamanyaya :Puri Jagannath Math Established at Puri Jagannath covering the areas of Anga, Vanga Kalinga, Magadha, Utkala and Barabara States.2. Paschimanyaya:Dwarka Math Established at Dwarka covering areas of Sindhu, Sourashti, Souveera and Maharashtra.3. Uttaramanyaya :Jyotir Math Established at Badrinath covering the areas of Kuru, Kashmir, Khabmoja and Panchala States.4. Dakshinamanya :Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth seat remained unoccupied for about 165 years.Thereafter, B.D.M., VNS with support of large section of Hindus, selected and installed Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.A declaration of trust dated 11.05.1941 was also written down.Swami Brahmanand Saraswati died on 20.05.1953 at Calcutta.79. Issue-6 was already considered as preliminary issue and answered against defendant.Thereafter, issues-7 and 8 were taken together and it was held that plaintiff had right to administer endowment being Head of common spiritual organization, formerly headed by his Guru Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.It also held that unless line of disciples is extinct, Swami Krishna Bodhashram could not claim the said office.It accordingly, decreed the suit and passed following order :"The suit is decreed as prayed.Defendants brought the matter in appeal being Civil Appeal No.59 of 1970 in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad.During pendency of appeal, Swami Krishna Bodhashram (defendant appellant no.1) died on 10.09.1973 and there was no substitution.Plaintiff respondent, Swami Shantanand Sawaswati, moved an application that appeal has abated and referred to Order 22 Rule 1 C.P.C. This application, was contested by remaining appellants.The order passed by District Judge, Allahabad run in 21 paragraphs.It has observed that dispute was between plaintiff and defendant-1 who was also claiming actual right of having been installed in the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 and has died.Therefore, other defendants have no right to sue and right to appeal also does not survive, hence appeal must abate as a whole.The only averment against them in the plaint was that they also proclaimed Swami Krishna Bodhashram to be Mahant of the Math.85. Defendant-1 who declared himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, possessed a considerable part of Property of Peeth, detailed in Scheduled 'A' Part (i) (iii) of plaintiff.Also at Seoni, he declared himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.His acts and declarations have thrown a cloud on the title of plaintiff and tended to create an atmosphere of misunderstanding and confusion amongst the followers of Peeth.In this application he claims to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and owner of land situated in village Sarangpur, Tehsil Lakhnadon, District Seoni.Defendant-1 had previously made an application in Revenue case No. 1/A-6 of 63-64 of village Sarangpur, S. No. 411, P.C. No. 73, Tehsil Lakhnadon District Seoni before Naib Tehsildar Lakhnadon, making a similar claim.Moreover, properties namely the deposits and Government loans and certificates detailed in Scheduled 'A' part (ii) to the plaint, are at present in custody of Registrar, High Court, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.Plaintiff is further entitled to have defendant no. 1 restrained from interfering with the possession over the property of the Peeth. Defendants-2 and 3 have also been nominated in the alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 by Brahmanand Saraswati, though neither they were qualified nor he (Brahmanand Saraswati) was entitled to nominate them for the reasons mentioned in earlier part of the plaint.Hence they are also arrayed as proforma defendants.In case they do not deny plaintiff's right, no relief is claimed against them.For the purpose of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, disclosed following facts in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the plaint in Original Suit No, 1-A of 1974:The cause of action for the suit arose partly at Seoni and at Lakhnadan, District Seoni and also at other places where the defedant No. 1 is giving himself out as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath.It arose on 12.9.1973 when the plaintiff was duly selected for the holy office of the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and also on 7.12.1973 when the plaintiff was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and further in the months of September and October 1973 when the defendant No. 1 proclaimed himself as Shankaracharya in Seoni and declared that he was also entitled to all the properties of the Peeths including the properties in this district.It is further arising from day to day as the defendant No. 1 is continuing to proclaim himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeths and to be entitled to possession of all its properties."Since a part of the property of the Peeths namely the lands in village Sarangpur are situated in the District and since the defendant No. 1 has declared and proclaimed himself as Shankaracharya in this District and since he has been claiming and is claiming the property situated in this district, this Court has got jurisdiction to try this suit." (emphasis added)The aforesaid suit was transferred to Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad.Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for obtaining "Will" from the office of District Registrar, Allahabad.Defendant 1 was installed with due observance of procedure and ceremony befitting the occasion.Defendant-1 was neither at Kashi nor near it.He was called telegraphically for the purpose of ceremony by Sri Bal Krishna Misra, Secretary of Interim Committee and also of B.D.M., VNS.Defendant-1 was not a member of the aforesaid Interim Committee.The said Committee was constituted in a public meeting under the Presidentship of Swami Karpatriji Maharaj.Installation ceremony of defendant-1 took place at Brahmnivas, Sidh Giri Bagh, Varanasi.Plaintiff had all along an eye to usurp the office of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.He has all along been abusing the process of law by undesirable actions not suited to a Sanyasi.First such action was an application filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to obstruct function under the "Will" i.e. installation ceremony of defendant-1 but the same failed and ceremony actually took place.Thereafter, plaintiff set up a claim to contest defendant-1 in the Succession Certificate proceedings in Misc.Case No.44 of 1953 before District Judge, Allahabad but lost vide order dated 13.12.1955 passed by Civil Judge, Allahabad.Learned counsel for parties addressed this Court, orally, at length and matter has been heard on various dates; for about more than 2 months.Besides, parties, as requested, were also permitted to file their written submissions and both have filed voluminous written submissions in support of their respective contentions taking more than two months' time after the judgment was reserved.He also submitted that with regard to installation of plaintiff, there was no valid evidence, and, even otherwise, there was no pleading of material facts in the plaint with regard to alleged disqualification of appellant to hold the office of Shankaracharya and for that reason itself plaint deserves to be rejected and suit ought to have been dismissed.Documents, when filed were given Paper Numbers.Similarly on behalf of appellant, DW-40, Ram Niranjan Singh, a photographer, has been examined.Most witnesses were produced by both parties in support of fact that installation of respective parties actually took place as Shankaracharya on dates, they claimed, and to prove it, various Abhinandan Patras, Registers and other documents were produced.(v) PW 11 proved papers no. A-8 to A-11(vii) PW 13 proved papers no. A-1, A-4 and D-16(viii) PW 15 proved paper no. B-25(ix) PW 16 proved paper no. B-56(x) PW 18 proved papers no. B-12 and C-54(xi) PW 19 proved papers no. B-34 , C-60, C-61, D-76, D-77(xii) PW 20 proved papers no. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-43, D-16, D-17, D-21(xiii) PW 21 proved papers no. 62-A(xv) PW 23 proved papers no.B-18, B-62 to B-65, A-29 and photographs appended to his affidavit.(xxiv) PW 35 proved papers no. List 3 File-3- paper no. 40 to 59, 61 to 81, 86 to 90, 92 to 111; List 3 File 4- paper no. 112 to 389, List 3 File 5- paper no. 390 to 709; List 3 File-6 paper 710 to 789; List 3 File-2 papers no. 40 to 59, 61 to 81, 86 to 90, 92 to 97, 76, 77, 77/1, 77/2; List 3 File-3 paper no. 98 to 111; List 3 File-4- paper 112 to 132, 134 to 142, 144 and so on.(xxv) PW 37 proved various photographs.(ix) DW 15 has proved Paper no. B-61, B-62 and B-66 of Register-B.(x) DW 16 has proved Register Paper No. A/2C.The documents have been marked as 'exhibits'.We would refer documents, both, by paper number as well as exhibit number.Points for Determination and Adjudication:Now we proceed to consider points for determination as have arisen on rival submissions and proceed to adjudicate the same.The first point for determination is, position of "Shankaracharya, his antiquity, his philosophy, work carried out by him for propagating Sanatan Dharma, his influence over followers of Sanatan Dharma and position and status of Shankaracharya and his Peethas vis a vis the persons occupying those Peethas in the eyes of Hindu followers of Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy".Second point for determination which we propose to discuss simultaneously is, "whether for installation of any person to head the Peethas established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, are there any set of discipline, Rules and Regulations"?"Though it has been said that Sanatana Dharma had not been uprooted from India, which is evident from (travel accounts of) Chinese Traveller Fa-Hien who had visited in 400 AD and Hiuen Tsang who visited India in 629 AD and have described in their travel-accounts about Buddhists and their Stupas, Mathas, followers of Sanatan Dharma and their God's temples, existing in each of cities, where they went and lived.Still, influence of Buddhists was greater, therefore, most of kings had adopted Buddhism.Idiom goes, "as the King, so are the subjects".All rulers had recognized it as national religion.""cq) nso dh ifo=kRek ds LoxZ pys tkus ds i'pkr~ tc cq) /keZ esa ije O;fHkpkj yxHkx lglz o"kZ ds i'pkr vk x;k rc bl Hkkjro"kZ ds m)kj ds fy;s ,d nSoh 'kfDr ds vorh.kZ gksus dh vko';drk gqbZA og nSoh 'kfDr ,d fHk{kqd ekuoh thou esa vkfoHkwZr gqbZ tks lalkj ds bfrgkl esa Lokeh 'kadjkpk;Z ds uke ls izfl) gSA ftuds fy;s fgUnqvksa dk fo'okl ^^'kadj% 'kadj% lk{kkr~ O;klksa ukjk;.kks gfj%**A blh 'kfDr us bl izd`fr ls gh ifo= Hkkjr dks.......lukru /keZ dk >.Mk Hkkjro"kZ esa Qgjk;kA osnksa dh bTtr gksus yxhA ""100 years after heavenly abode of Lord Buddha, fornication/immorality crept in Buddhism, then need of emergence of a divine power arose for emancipation of India.That divine power manifested through a human, leading beggar's life, who is famous by the name of Shankaracharya in the history of world, for whom belief of Hindus "Shankarh Shankarah, Sakshat Vyaso Narayano Harih" (in fact Shankaracharya is real Lord Shankar, Vyas's Narayan/Hari).This very power, through this nature, after liberating the people of this pious India........has hoisted flag of Sanatan Dharma in India.cMkSnk jkT; ds nQ~rj esa tks dkxt i= feys gSa muls fofnr gksrk gS fd 'kadjkpk;Z ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2631 ¼bZlk ls 476 o"kZ iwoZ½ esa gq;sA 2636 ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd dh pS= d`".k f}rh;k dks mudk miu;u gqvk FkkA dkfrZdonh ,dkn'kh dks ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2639 dks vkB o"kZ dh vk;q esa os lU;klh gq;s Fks] nwljs lky egkjkt xksfoUnkpk;Z ls HksaV gqbZ FkhA 33 o"kZ dh vk;q esa ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2663 dkfrZd dh vekoL;k dks mudk nsgkUr gqvkA iwoksZDr fl)kUr dh iqf"V }kfjdk eB ls feys ys[kksa ls Hkh gksrh gS ijUrq iqjkrRo osRrkvksa dk fo'okl bu dkxt i=ksa ij Hkh ughaA ,sfrgkfld izek.kksa ls os 'kadjkpk;Z dk gksuk vkBoha 'krkCnh esa fl) djrs gSa] ijUrq iw.kZ :i ls os fl) ugha dj ldrsA From the documents discovered from the Office of Baroda Estate, it appears that Shankaracharya emerged in Yudhisthir Shaka 2631 (476 B.C.).At the age of 8 years, Ekadashi, Kartik Vadi, Yudhisthir Shaka 2639, he became Sanyasi, next year came in touch with Govindacharya.At the age of 33 years on Kartik Amavasya, Yudhisthir Shaka 2663 he left for heavenly abode.The aforesaid finding is supported by articles found from Dwarika Math but the archaeologists do not believe these documents as well.By historical evidences, they try to prove the period of Shankaracharya in 8th century but but cannot prove wholly.The said author has also discussed about period of death of Adi Shankaracharya and difference among historians on this aspect, as under:,sls gh 'kadjkpk;Z dh e`R;q ds fo"k; esa Hksn ik;k tkrk gS] gaVj dh rkjh[k esa 32 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa ¼tSlk fd ,d xzUFk esa fy[kk gS½ mRrj fgeky; dsnkjukFk esa 'kadjkpk;Z dk nsgkUr gksuk fy[kk gSA vke yksxksa dk dFku gS fd 33 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa ¼tSlk fd cMkSnk ds nQ~rj ds dkxtksa esa fy[kk gS½ d'ehj ns'k esa 'kadjkpk;Z dk nsgkolku gqvk FkkA ;g ekywe ugha fd dkSu lh ckr lR; gSA Similarly, there are differences in opinion about the death of Shankaracharya.According to Hunter, death of Shanker is written at the age of 32 years (as written in a book) in Kedarnath, North Himalaya.People say that at the age of 33 years (as noted in documents recovered from the office of Baroda Estate), Shankarcharya died in Kashmir." (English Translation by Court)Similarly in "Amit Kal Rekha", a research work of Sri Parmeshwar Nath Mishra, Advocate published by Shankaracharya Parampara Evam Sanskrit Rakshak Parishad, Vrindavan Complex, Aruna Apartment, 4, Station Road, Liliua, Howrah, First Edition, June 2001, antiquity of Adi Shankaracharya has been traced to 507 B.C. According to the aforesaid research work, Adi Shankaracharya was born on Baishakh Shukla Panchami, Shak Samvat 2631 corresponding to 507 B.C. in Village Kaladi, District Ernukuram (now in State of Kerala) and left this world in Yudhisthir Shak Samvat 2663 corresponding to 475 B.C.In Brahma Sutra Bhashya, said to have been authored by Adi Shankaracharya, there is a reference of two big cities namely, Strughn and Patliputra.The relevant "Bhrahma Sutra Bhashya" reads as under:-My us mlh le; ,d vfHkys[k Hkh fy[kdj lefiZr fd;k ftlds }kjk ihB dh laxzghr Hkwfe lefiZr djrs gq, Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z ds le; ls pyh vk jgh ijEijk dks iquthfoZar djus dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro leiZ.k fd;kA^^ ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&51&53½ "On western side of India at Dwarkapuri on 5th day of the first fortnight of the Kartik month in 2648 Yudhisthir Samwat, the Sharada Math; on southern side of India on 9th day of first fortnight of Falgun month of 2646 Yudhishtra Samwat, Sringeri Matha; and at Jagannath Puri on 9th day of first fortnight of Baishak month of 2655 Yudhishtra Samwat, Govardhan Matha were established.... Honouring his disciples with his name title Shankaracharya and conferring them the seats in four directions, i.e. Trotakacharya at Jyotirmath, Hastmalkacharya at Shardamath, Sureshwarachrya at Sringeri Matha, Padampadacharya at Govardhan Matha, assigned responsibilities to disseminate the light of religion in all four directions taking the mathas to be their centres.Suit was accordingly dismissed by Trial Court.In First Appeal, District Judge confirmed findings and decree of Trial Court and dismissed appeal.In Second Appeal, a single Judge of Madras High Court found that by virtue of nomination as Elavarasu, plaintiff became holder of an office or that, at any rate, acquired a 'status'.As a result, learned single Judge granted a decree to plaintiff declaring that he was duly appointed Junior Head of Kasi Mutt and entitled to continue as such subject to the right of Head of Mutt to remove him for good cause.Learned single Judge, however, did not make a declaration that plaintiff had a right to succeed to Headship of Mutt after the lifetime of defendant, nor the injunction, as prayed for, was granted.Both the parties then preferred intra-Court appeals before Division Bench.The decree passed by learned single Judge was reversed by Division Bench holding that plaintiff did not become holder of an office by virtue of nomination, hence, it was open to defendant to cancel nomination without notice to plaintiff and without assigning any reason.This decree passed by Division Bench was challenged in appeal by plaintiff before Supreme Court.They were presided over by ascetics who have renounced the world.Mutt at Tiruppanandal i.e. Kasi Mutt was affiliated to Dharmapuram Adhinam as a disciple Adhinam.An Adhinam is a central institution from which the chief ascetic exercises control and supervise over a group of endowed institutions and religious trusts.Grihi, Sanyasi and Peethnayak.(7) Vishnusharma-Name of his principal disciple was Pragalbhacharya.Vidyaranya Yati author of the book Shrividyarnav was disciple of this Pragalbhacharya.This book appears to be a Siddha book on completion of whereof the Goddess of the world appeared before his devotee and asked for begging some boon.The king honoured him in open Court and gifted precious clothes.Siddhaji on reaching home, burnt those clothes.This question involves civil rights of respective parties and same can be examined.The concept of 'Mutt' and 'religious denomination' which is said to have its noticeable history with establishment of Peethas by Adi Shankaracharya has also gone reformation/ change of concept with establishment of different Mutts by subsequent Hindu Sanantan Dharma's Preachers, Social Reformers, Sanyasis and Acharyas etc. It would also be necessary to have a bird eye view to that concept for the reason that difference of four Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya with that of Mutts and religious endowments came to be established subsequently from time to time is, evident from the fact that persons installed as Shankaracharyas in four Peethas have a different reverence, respect and followership in Sanatan Dharma giving them a supreme place, though as per local traditions, customs and beliefs, many other subsequently established Mutts/ Monasteries and religious endowments also have a large followers.Here again counsel for parties have not disputed that Shankaracharyas of four Peethas have a peculiar, unique and supreme reverence amongst the followers of Sanatan Dharma and they are looked with a different status, equivalent to God.The known historicity of concept of "Mutt" or "Peeth" relates back to the period of Adi Shankaracharya.Both the parties, during the course of argument have admitted that earlier thereto, there was custom, tradition and practice of Guru/Acharya Shiksha in Ashramas where spiritual, social, strategic and other training used to be given, keeping students in Ashramas like a whole time Boarding School but that was a concept nothing to do with "Mutt", Akharas, Religious Endowments etc. These concepts are different.250. "Ramanuj", later on called 'Ramanujacharya', was born in 1017 A.D., in village Perumbudur, about twenty-five miles west of Madras.His father was Kesava Somayaji and his mother was Kantimathi.There are some stories, as to how Ramajun abandoned his family life, but the fact remains that Ramanuj abandoned life of householder and became "Sanyasi". 'Yamunacharya' became very old and was looking out for a young person to take his place as Head of Mutt at Srirangam.He heard about Ramanuj and invited him but by the time Ramanuj reached Srirangam, Yamunacharya was dead.Adi Shankaracharya basically said everything for Brahamins.Similar deposition has been made by witnesses appeared on behalf of appellant including appellant himself who deposed as PW-3 and other witnesses are, DW 12, Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh, DW 22, Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, DW 31, Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, DW 32, Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri, DW 36, Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharajand and DW 37, Sri Bhramchari Atmanand, have deposed as under:Dw-3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati (Appellant) XX **vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z laLd`r ds egku o izdkaM fo}ku FksA muds }kjk jfpr lHkh Hkk"; o xzUFk laLd`r esa gh gSA osn] osnkax] iqjk.k] egkHkkjr o okYehdh jkek;.k laLd`r esa gh gSA iz'u&vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z th us fdu&fdu mifu"knksaa dk Hkk";fd;k gS\ mRrj&bZ"kkn ukS mifu"kn] NkUnksifu"kn] c`gnkj.;dksifu"kn vkfn X;kjg mifu"knksa ij Hkk"; fd;k gSA --- eq[; :i ls mifu"knksa dh la[;k ,d lkS ckjg ugha gS cfYd rhu lkS ds vklikl gS ftlesa izeq[k X;kjg mifu"kn gSa tks pkjks ihB esa ekU; gSA izdkf'kr mifu"knksa esa fdlh izdk'ku esa NRrhl mifUk"kn gSa fdlh izdk'ku esa cgRrj gSa fdlh esa ,d lkS vkB mifUk"kn gSaA dqN vizdkf'kr mifu"kn djds dqN vyx ls izdk'ku gSA mifu"kn lukruh fgUnqvksa ds izkekf.kd xzUFk gSaA eSaus lU;klksifu"kn i<+k gSA ukjn ifjozktdksifu"kn dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA o`gnkj.;dksifu"kn dks Hkh eSaus i<+k gS vkSj f'k";ksa dks i<+krk Hkh gWwA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&68&69½ Adya Guru Shankaracharya was a very learned seer and scholar of Sanskrit.Question: Which are the Upnishads on which Adya Guru Shankaracharya had written annotations?Answer: He has written annotations on eleven Upnishads including Ishad Nau Upanishad, Chhandogyapanishad and Brihadaranyakopanishad.The number of upnishads are not chiefly 112; rather, there are around 350 upnishads, wherein eleven are main upnishads which are recognised by all four peethas.Among the upnishads published, some publications have published 36 of them, other publications have published 72, and some publications, 108 upnishads.The upnishads are the authoritative religious scriptures of Sanatan Hinduism.I have studied Sanyasopanishad.I have also studied Naradoparivrajkopanishad.I have read Brihadaranykopanishad and teach it to my disciples as well.(Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 68-69) DW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai Bareli XXX xq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir pkjks ihB dk uke tkurk gWw ;s 'kkjnkihB T;ksfr"ihB }kfjdk ,oa iqjh gSA ¼isij ua0&768d] ist&386½ I am aware of the names of four regional Peeths established by Guru Shankaracharya which are Sharda Peeth, Jyotish Peeth, Dwarika and Puri.In order to become a Shankaracharya, it is necessary to be a Dandi Sanyasi.It is necessary to be a brahmin for becoming a Shankaracharya.Because Dandi Sanyasis are only brahimin.Any one who is physically deformed, suffers from leprosy or skin disease can not become a Shankaracharya and also can not sit on throne.Till now, no woman has ever sat on the seat of Shankaracharya and there is no tradition of her sitting on the seat of Shankracharya.(Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 494) T;ksfr"ihB vkpk;ksZa dks cSBkus o gVkus dh viuh ijEijk gS N=] flagklu o pcj vkpk;ksZa ds fpUg gSa budks /kkj.k djus dk vf/kdkj tks ijEijkxr 'kadjkpk;Z gSa mUgsa gh gSA ;g c;ku eSaus eBksa ls lEcfU/kr iqLrdksa dks i<+us ds ckn fn;k gSA ¼isij ua0&895 d] ist&496½ There is a tradition of its own for installing and removing the Acharyas of Jyotishpeeth.Chattra (umbrella), throne, chanwar are the insignia of acharyas.Only those who are Shankaracharya as per the tradition has the right to bear these.I have got recorded this statement after reading the books related to the Maths.(Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 496) DW-31 Swami Narendranand Saraswati lHkh ihBksa dh ijEijk xq: f'k"; ijEijk gh gS ;|fi ihB esa f'k"; vusd gksrs gSa xq: vius vkRe 'kfDr ds }kjk igpku dj ihBks;qDr f'k"; dh fu;qfDr djrs gSa] ogha loZekU; gksrk gS vkSj ogh fu;qfDr lU;klh vfHkf"kDr gksdj 'kadjkpk;Z in okP; gksrk gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&599½ All the Peeths observe the tradition of Guru-Shishya (Guru-disciple) tradition.Even though there are several disciples at the Peeth but only the suitable disciple for the Peeth is identified by the guru by the strength of his soul and the same is seated there.That particular sanyasi after installation is called Shankaracharya.(Paper no. 914 Ka, Page-599)^ nsgkH;klks fg laU;kl% uSo dk"kk; okll% ukga nsgks·gekResfr fu'p;ks U;kLo y{k.ke~A 'yksd ua- 16 lnkpkjuqla/kkue~ vkpk;Z ijEijk ukjk;.k ls izkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj f'k"z; ijEijk ;g Kku vkpk;ZRosu igys tU; tud Hkko ls Fkk fQj vkxs pydj xq: f'k"; ijEijk vkpk;Z izfrf"br gksus yxs tSls ukjk;.k ls czg~ek] czg~ek ls of'k"V] of'k"V ls 'kfDr] 'kfDr ls ijk'kj] ijk'kj ls O;kl] O;kl ls 'kqdznso] 'kqdznso ls xkSM+iknkpk;Z] xkSM+iknkpk;Z ls xksfoUniknkpk;Z] xksfoUniknkpk;Z ls Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z mud f'k"; gLreydkpk;Z] lqjs'ojkpk;Z] =ksVdkpk;Z] in~eiknkpk;ZA bUgh pkj f'k";ksa ls pkjks ihBksa dh ijEijk izkjEHk gksrh gS tks xq: f'k"; ijEijk;k Jh t;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt 46 os 'kadjkpk;Z gSaA ukjk;.ka i|Hkoa ofl"Ba] 'kfDra p rRiq= ijk'kjapA O;kla 'kqda xkSmina egkUra] xksfoUn ;ksxhUnzeFkkL; f'k";eAA Jh 'kadjkpk;Z eFkkL; i|&ikn~ap gLrkeyda p f'k";aA ra =ksVda okfrZd dkj eU;ku~ vLenz xq:u~ lUrr eku rksfLeAA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&604½ Dehabhyaso hi Sanyasah Naiv Kashay Vaasasah Naaham Dehoahamatmeti Nishchaya Nyaaswa Lakshanam.(Shloka no. 16 Sadacharanusandhanam).Acharya tradition has its origin in Narayan and dissemination of knowledge to the disciple was akin to the relationship of Creator with creation for an Acharya which was later on transformed into Guru Shishya tradition like from Narayan to Brahma, from Brahma to Vashishtha, from Vashishtha to Shakti, from Shakti to Parashar, from Parashar to Vyas, from Vyas to Shukradev, from Shukradev to Gaurpadacharya, from Gaurpadacharya to Govindapadacharya, from Govindapadacharya to Bhagwan Adi Shankaracharya and thereafter to his disciples namely Hastamalkacharya, Sureshwaracharya, Trutkacharya and Padampadacharya.The tradition of four Peeths originated from these four disciples of which Sri Jyotishpeedhadheeshwar Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswatiji Maharaj is the 46th Shankaracharya in observance of Guru Shishya tradition.Narayanam Padmabhavam Vashishtham, Shakti Cha Tatputra Parasharanch.Vyasam Shukam Gaupadam Mahaantam, Govind Yogindramathasya Shishyam.The way the first Acharya was installed, following the same tradition, Acharayas got the right to appoint his successor, and this tradition is being uninterruptedly followed till today.(Paper no-981ka, page-721) XXX eq>s T;ksfr"kihB ijEijk ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gSA T;ksfr"kihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z vius mRrjkf/kdkjh ds fu;qDr djus ds vius vf/kdkjh dks fdlh vkSj dks ugha ns ldrk gSA --- T;ksfr"ihB dh ijEijk esa T;ksfr"kihBk/kh'oj vxj nsoxfr ls fnoaxr@ czg~eyhu gks tkrs gSa rks ihB ds yksx] riLoh] fo}ku ---- vius ihB esa vkpk;Z dh fu;qDr dj ldrs gSaA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&743½ I know about the custom of Jyotishpeeth.Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth cannot pass on his powers of appointing his own successor. ... According to the custom of Jyotishpeeth, if Jyotishpeethadheeshwar expires, people of the Peeth and scholars can appoint Aacharya of their Peeth.(Paper No. 981Ka, page-751)On page 27 to 29 of the book as under:^^cnjhukFk ds iwtu vpZu dk Hkkj n.Mh lU;klh lEiznk; esa ftldk tUe uEcwjh vFkok pksyh] eqdk.kh tkfr ds nf{k.kh czkg~e.k ds ?kj dk gks fliqnZ fd;k rc ls n.Mh lU;kfl;ksa ds gkFk eas cnzhukFk ds efUnj dk iwtu vpZu vkSj izcU/k T;ksfreZB ds lkFk lkFk pyk vkrk jgkA D;ksafd 'kadj lEiznk; dk ,d eq[; izfrfuf/k t;ksfreZB esa jgrk Fkk mlh ds fliqnZ cnzhukFk ds efUnj dk Hkh izcU/k FkkA "Entrusted responsibility of worship, prayer and Aarti etc. to a person belonging to sect of Dandi Sanyasi, born in house of Dakshini Brahmin, of the caste of Namburi or Choli or Mukani.This Totakacharya prior to joining the Ashram, was also one of the persons belonging to those clans." (English translation by Court)The learned Author on page 29 has further said:^^T;ksfreZB dk yxko gh efUnj cnzhukFk ls FkkA dsoy lEor~ 1554 vFkkZr~ 1497 bZ0 ls cnzhukFk ds egUrksa dh ukekoyh feyrh gS^^ "This custom appears to be ancient that it was only Sanyasi Mahant of Jyotirmathwho had authority and was worshiper of Badrinath temple, whereas the very attachment of Jyotirmath was with Badrinath.Mh Lokfe;ksa ds vf/kdkj eas Fkk] fdUrq mlds i'pkr~ lU;kfl;ksa ds gkFk ls fudy dj czg~epkjh jkoyksa ds gkFk esa vk x;kA "Uptill this, i.e., Samvat 1833 Vikrami (AD), Jyotirmath alongwith Badrinath temple was in possession of Dandi Swamis of Shankar Sect, but thereafter from Sanyasis, it came into hands of Brahmchari Rawals."mldk bfrgkl bl rjg ij ik;k tkrk gS fd tc 'kadj lEiznk; dk vkf[kjh egUr jked`".k Lokeh lu~ 1776 bZ0 esa ej x;k ml dky ogka vU; dksbZ n.Mh lU;klh fo|eku ugha FkkA vkSj cnzhukFk viwT; ugha jg ldrs FksA HkkX;o'kkr~ ml le; x<+oky ujs'k egkjkt iznhi'kkg iqjh esa ;k=kFkZ fo|eku FksA egkjktk us xksiky uked czg~epkjh dks tks uEcwjh tkfr dk czkg~e.k Fkk vkSj efUnj esa Hkxoku ds okLrs Hkksx idkrk Fkk ogha jkoy inoh ls foHkwf"kr djds jked`".k Lokeh ds LFkku ij fu;r dj fn;kA vkSj N= poaj f[kyr mldks iznku dhA rc ls cnzhukFk ds iwtdksa dh inoh egUr ls jkoyksa esa cny xbZA rc ls bUgha rhu tkfr;ksa esa ls] ftuds uke ifgys vk pqds gSa] jkoy pqus tkrs gSaA** "Its history is traced in such a way, that when Ram Krishna Swami, the last Mahant of Shankar sect died in 1776 A.D., at that point of time, no Dandi Sanyasi was present there and Badrinath could not be left without worship.Fortunately, Maharaj Pradeep Shah Puri King of Garhwal, was present in Puri on pilgrimage.After conferring title of 'Rawal' on a Brahmchari named Gopal, a Brahmin of Namburi Caste, who used to cook Bhog (pious food offered to Lord), appointed him there in place of Ram Krishna Swami and handed over Chhatra, Chanwar and Khilat to him.Since then, the title of worshippers of Badrinath changed from Mahant to Rawal.Since then, Rawal is selected only from these three clans referred above." (English Translation by Court)Subsequent to installation of Totakacharya, other Shankaracharyas of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, as written by Raturi, are:^^blds izFke v/;{k gq, rksVdkpk;Z tks 'kadjkpk;Z ds lk{kkr~ f'k";ksa esa vU;re FksA muds vuUrj gksus okys vkpk;kZsa ds uke fuEufyf[kr 'yksdksa esa feyrs gSA ftls ioZr ds if.Mr yksx izkr% Lej.kh; ekudj lnk ;kn j[krs gSa %& rksVdks fot;% d`".k% dqekjks x:M/ot%A foU/;ks fo'kkyks oqdyks okeu% lqUnjks·#.k%AA Jhfuokl% lq[kkuUnks fo|kuUn% f'koks fxjh%A fo|k/kjksa xq.kkuUnh ukjk;.k mekifr%AA ,rs T;ksfreZBk/kh'kk vkpk;kZf'pjthfou%A ; ,rku~ laLejsf=R;a ;ksxflf)a l foUnfrAA Its first Adhyaksh became Totakcharya, who was foremost among other immediate disciples.Names of his succeeding Acharyas are found in the following verse, which the Pandits of hilly area always remember in the morning as memorable.It is not disputed before us also that last known Shankaracharya, who held this seat at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was Swami Ram Krishna, who died in 1833 Vikram Samvat (1776 A.D.) and thereafter for about 165 years, Peeth remained defunct.In this regard, Pt.Raturi has written as under:^^T;skfreZB dh xn~nh ¼Jh jked`".k Lokeh dh nsgyhyk laoj.k djus ds mijkUr½ laor~ 1833 fodzeh esa fjDr gks x;hA rc ls ;g fujUrj mlh fLFkfr eas laor~ 1998 fodzeh rd pyh vk jgh FkhA mlds dksbZ izR;{k fpUg Hkh ugha Fks] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk dksbZ irk Hkh yxk;k tk ldsA gkW] x<+oky ljdkj ds ljdkjh dkxtksa esa 5 fcLos tehu eB ds uke ls pyh vk jgh FkhA "The seat of Jyotirmath fell vacant in Samvat 1833 Vikrami (after death of Sri Ramkrishna Swami).It is common case of both the parties that B.D.M., VNS, other Shankaracharyas of three Peethas and other learned Brahmans and Pandits selected Swami Sri Brahmanand Saraswati as a suitable person to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; a declaration of trust-deed was prepared on 11.05.1941 and Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed on 11.05.1941 as Shankaracharya by the said congregation of Manishigans.Thus since Vikram Swavat 1833 to 1998 (1776 to 1941 AD), Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth did not have any Shankaracharya and the new one, who was installed in 1941, did not come into office by virtue of Guru-Shishya Parampara.He was installed by Manishigans as contemplated in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" which we have discussed above.This is admitted case of both the parties.In plaint, the plaintiff has averred these facts in para 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of plaint, which read as under:That in the Jyotirpeeth Math according to the Rules and Regulations prescribed in the Mathamanaya Forty one learned and competent Sanayasis having necessary qualifications as laid down in the aforesaid books a were to the hardship of the Peeth and that for period of about 165 years Jyotir Math remained without a head.That in the year 1941, the three Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Sharda and Govardhan Math, rulers of various states, learned peoples and Sanyasies etc. authorised a registered institution know as Bharat Dharma Mahamandal Banaras (Varanasi) to search a Sanyasi satisfying the qualification prescribed by Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan being installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram with an object to restore the Peeth to its pristine stage and prestige.That Late Brahmanand Saraswati who was great learned Sanyasi was searched out and selected for the headship of Jyotir Math by the Bharat Dharama Mahamandal.That selection of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was also approved by three aforesaid Shankaracharyas, Sanyasis learned men and followers of Vedic teachings.That late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati thereafter was duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and he assumed the said high office.387A. We, therefore, answer this fourth point for determination as under:Answer (Fourth Point):In the past, Guru-Shishya Parampara was followed in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth but due to unavoidable circumstances, it had broken sometimes in 1833 Vikram Swavat (1776 AD) and after 165 years, installation of Shankaracharya was made by selection of a suitable person by Manishigans and not following Guru-Shishya Parampara pursuant whereto Swami Brahmanand Saraswati came to be installed and functioned as such for about 12 years.Fifth point for determination is "who came to be installed as Shankaracharya after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in 1953?"In para-19 of plaint, it is said by plaintiff that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati it was found that a ''Will' was executed by him on 18.12.1952 nominating four persons as his successor, namely, (a) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati) (b) Dwarika Prasad Shastri (subsequently known as Dwarikeshanand Saraswati (c) Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati and (d) Swami Parmanand Saraswati.Plaintiff's case is that learned Brahmans and other Shankaracharyas considered Ramji Tripathi and found him ineligible having no knowledge of Sanskrit and, therefore, his claim for installation as Shankaracharya was rejected by learned Pandits, Sanyasis and other Shankaracharyas, though Ramji Tripathi, i.e. Shanta Nand Saraswati started to claim himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth."The trial Court, after reading the allegations in the plaint and afterlooking into the entire evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the suit was primarily one for declaration that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953 and that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as the Head of the Math by Brahmanand as he did not possess the requisite qualification and that his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity, of a trustee de son tort, and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math.The High Court saw no reason to differ from that finding.Several plaintiff's witnesses have also deposed that Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was removed from the Office of Shankaracharya.When one says that a person was removed, it pre-supposes an admission that such person was appointed/installed in the seat.Relevant depositions of PW-1 and PW-31 read as under:If any unqualified person has come in the peeth then Maneeshi (learned people) stop them." (English Translation by Court)PW-4 has specifically admitted that on 12.06.1953, Swamit Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed.Relevant deposition of PW-4 reads as under:PW-4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh (X):^^fo}ku] if.Mr] laU;klhx.k] x`gLFk] egke.Mys'oj o Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ds f'k";ksa us jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 12-6-1953 dks djk;k Fkk** ¼isij ua0&427 d] ist&2802&2803½ "Scholars, Pandit, Sanyasis, Grihasth and Mahamandaleswaras and disciples of Swami Brahmnand Sarswati installed Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati as Jyotishpeethadhiswar on 12.6.1953." (English Translation by Court) Answer (Fifth Point):We, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that on 12.06.1953 after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, following nomination made by him vide ''Will' dated 18.12.1952, his first choice, namely, Ramji Tripathi, i.e., Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.06.1953 and we answer the aforesaid point for determination accordingly.The next points for determination which can be considered together are:(6) Whether Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was removed (Nigrah) from office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth?In other words, what is the status and effect of abatement of appeal on the judgment of Trial Court dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 after the appeal was dismissed as abated.Issue No. 16 with reference to adjudication in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 has been considered by Trial Court on page 107 of judgment (page 235 Volume-I of appellant's paper book) and discussed as under:^^tgkWa rd okn la[;k 36@1965 Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh cuke Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o vU; tks fd fu"ks/kkKk dk okn Fkk tks i=koyh ij dkxt la[;k 45lh ds ek/;e~ ls izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr okn es oknh o izfroknh i{kdkj ugh Fks vkSj u gh bl ckn ds oknh vFkok izfroknh ds 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds gksus ds fy;s visf{kr ;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu.kZ; u rks fd;k gS vkSj u gh bl LkEcU/k esa dksbZ okn foUnq cuk;s x;s gSA "So far as Suit no. 36/1965, Swami Shantanand Saraswati Vs.Swami Krishanbodhashram and others, which was a suit for Injunction, is concerned, it has been placed on record through paper no. 45C on behalf of defendant.In the said Suit, plaintiff and defendant were not parties, nor any decision with respect to eligibility of plaintiff and defendant required for being Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, has been given nor any issue has been framed in this respect."My] vU; rhu ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn o ihB ds vuq;kf;;ksa us vf/k"Bkfir fd;k] iV~VkfHk"ksd fd;k mlh rjg ls mudh Hkh fu;qfDr Hkh eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds fu;eksa o ihB dh izFkk ds vuqlkj dh x;hA oknh }kjk vius lk{; 'kFki i= dkxt la[;k 423d dh /kkjk 28 o 29 eas dgk x;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q ds ckn fnukad 10-09-1973 dks ihB iqu% fjDr gks x;h D;ksafd Lokeh d`".cks/kkJe viuh ihB ij fdlh dks fu;qDr ugh fd;s FksA blh izdkj oknh ds xokg ih0MCyw0&1 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 425d@4 esa /kkjk 17 o 18 esa Li"V fd;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugh fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ihB fjDr gksus ds dkj.k mijksDRk fo}kuksa }kjk oknh dk vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 07-12-1973 dks fd;k x;kA oknh lk{kh ih0MCyw0&4 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 426d dh /kkjk 7 esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk ukfer u fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS ,oa ih0MCyw0&5 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 427d dh /kkjk 8 esa dgk x;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugh fd;k x;k Fkk rks mijksDr euh"khx.kksa }kjk oknh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa euksuhr fd;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 10-09-1973 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gksus ds ckn muds }kjk fdlh dh fu;qfDRk vius thou dky esa ugh dh x;h FkhA vr% blh dkj.k fnukad 10-09-1973 ls fnukad 07-12-1973 rd tc rd oknh dk vf/k"Bkiu ugh gqvk ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa fjDr jghA "From the above points, it is clear that in the present suit no. 513/1989, the issue involved is that whether or not the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand had been installed on 07.12.1973 as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and he has been discharging his duties in the same capacity; and whether or not the defendant had been legally installed on 14/15.11.1989 as Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeetha on the said Peetha and his installation is legal or not.These issues were neither under consideration in Suit no. 36/1965 nor have been decided.It was never claimed by the plaintiff that his appointment and installation was done by Swami Krishanbodhashram nor has he said that he was appointed as a successor by Swami Krishanbodhashram.From this, it is evident that plaintiff has not claimed himself to be appointed through Swami Krishana bodhashram rather in the manner, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed by Shankaracharyas of other three Peethas, Kashi Vidwat Parishad and Peetha's followers and his Pattabhishek was performed by them, likewise he was also appointed following the rules of Mathamanay and Mahanushasan and tradition of the Peetha.It has been stated by the plaintiff in para 28 and 29 of his testimony on affidavit being paper no. 423Ka that after death of Swami Krishanbodhashram on 10.09.1973, the Peetha again fell vacated because Swami Krishanbodhashram had not appointed anybody on his Peetha.Similarly, it has also been stated by the plaintiff's witness PW-1 in paras 17 and 18 of his testimony on affidavit being paper no. 425Ka/4 that no successor was appointed by Swami Krishanbodhashram and the installation of plaintiff was performed on 07.12.1973 by the aforesaid scholars on account of the Peetha having fallen vacant.Plaintiff's witness PW 4 has in para 7 of his statement on oath being paper no 426 ka stated regarding non-nomination by Swami Krishnabodhashram and PW 5 has in para 8 of his statement on oath, paper no 427 ka, stated that since Swami Krishnabodhashram has nominated none as his successor, the aforesaid learned persons nominated the plaintiff as Jyotispeethadheeshwar.It makes clear that Swami Krishnabodhashram having died on 10.09.1973, no person had been appointed by him in his life time.For this very reason, until the plaintiff was anointed , the Peeth remained vacant from 10.09.1973 to 07.12.1973, without Shankaracharya.okn la[;k 36@1965 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 15-01-1970 ds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o vU; }kjk vihy dh x;h Fkh vkSj nkSjku vihy gh fnukad 10-09-1981 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gks x;h Fkh vkSj vihy vcsV gks x;hA tSlk fd izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izi= 302x ds i`"B 11 ij ,usDlpj&8 esa Li"V fd;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl okn esa izfroknh dh vksj ls mDr vihy dh dksbZ lR;kfir izfrfyfi nkf[ky ugha dh x;h gSA mijksDr ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd okn la[;k 36@1965 dk okn Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn }kjk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o nks vU; ds fo:) lk/kkj.k fu"ks/kkKk dh okn ;ksftr fd;k Fkk ftlesa ;g vuqrks"k ekaxk x;k Fkk fd izfroknhx.k Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr u djsa rFkk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr djus ls fu"ksf/kr djus gsrq ;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr fu.kZ; O;fDry{;h fu.kZ; gksxk yksdy{;h ugha gksxkA ysfdu vihy ds fu.kZ; ls iwoZ gh fnukad 10-09-1973 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gks x;hA vr% muds fo:) okn izFke n`"V;k gh (infructuous) fu"Qy gks x;kA D;ksafd ftldks fuf"k) djus gsrq vuqrks"k ekWaxk x;k Fkk og gh nkSjku vihy gh fcuk vihy ds xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr gq;s e`R;q gks x;hA vr% mDr okn esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds f[kykQ okn dk dkj.k gh lekIr gks x;k ,oe~ mDr okn ds lkjs i{kdkj czg~eyhu gks x;s gSa vr% fu.kZ; O;FkZ ,oe~ izHkkoghu gks x;kA D;ksafd okn la[;k 36@1965 nksuksa i{kksa ds O;fDrxr vf/kdkjksa ds lEcU/k esa Fkk vkSj O;fDrxr vf/kdkj e`R;q ds lkFk gh lekIr gks tkrs gSaA bl okn esa oknh ds vf/kdkj vkSj ;ksX;rkvksa dks ns[kk tkuk gSA /kkjk 11 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk dk izko/kku Li"V djrk gS fd iwoZ okn dh fo"k; oLrq o ik'pkrorhZ okn dh fo"k; oLrq leku gks] leku fo"k;oLrq dk fu.kZ; lkjHkwr :i ls fd;k x;k gks iwoZ ds okn o ik'pkrorhZ okn ds i{kdkj leku gksa vFkok i{kdkj vius iwoZ oknh ;k izfroknh ds ek/;e ls LoRo dk nkok dj jgs gksa] fu.kZ; l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k x;k gks vkSj fu.kZ; vfUre :i ls gqvk gksA tks Hkh O;fDr 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i ea xn~nh (office) dk nkok djrk gS mlh dh O;fDrxr ;ksX;rkvksa vkSj v;ksX;rkvksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA izLrqr okn esa tks okn fcUnq cuk;s x;s gSa og oknh o izfroknh ds T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vko';d ;ksX;rkvksa ds /kkjd gSa vFkok ugha gS rFkk dkSu oS/k :i ls vf/k"Bkfir 'kadjkpk;Z gSa] dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk gSA fuf'pr :i ls ;g rF; okn la[;k 36@1965 esa ugha FkkA i{kdkj Hkh leku ugha Fks] izfroknh Hkys gh vius vf/kdkjksa dks iwoZ i{kdkj ds ek/;e ls nkok dj jgk gksA ysfdu oknh iwoZ i{kdkj ds ek/;e ls vius vf/kdkjksa dk nkok ugha dj jgk gS vkSj u gh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk mUgsa crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA D;ksafd mudh fu;qfDr rhuksa 'kadjkpk;ksZa rFkk Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] fo}r ifj"kn o vU; }kjk Lora= :i ls dh x;h gS vr% og mUgha ds ek/;e ls t;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vius vf/kdkjksa dk nkok dj jgs gSaA okn la[;k 36@1965 dk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-01-1970 dks fu.khZr fd;k x;k ftlds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk vihy dh x;hA dkxt la[;k 876x ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn }kjk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds LFkku ij oknh Lo:ikuan dks i{kdkj cukrs gq;s o"kZ 1977 esa fu"iknu okn 22@1977 ;ksftr fd;k gS tks fnukad 06-04-1985 dks [kkfjt gks x;k ftldk izi= dkxt la[;k 882x@2 oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr% mDr okn dh fu"iknu dk;Zokgh Hkh oknh ds fo:) lQy ugha gq;h vkSj u gh vkt rd mDr okn ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa jksdk x;k gSA blls Hkh Li"V gS fd oknh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds ek/;e ls viuk nkok ugh izLrqr fd;k gSA vihy nkf[ky gksus dk Li"V eryc gS fd vHkh okn dh iqu% lquok;h gksxhA blh dkj.k vihy okn tkjh (Continuation of suit) gksuk gksrk gS vFkkZr~ okn dk foLrkj jgrk gS rFkk vihy esa tks vkns'k gksrk gS mlesa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; lekfgr ¼Merged½ gks tkrk gSA tSlk fd xksiky yky cuke Jherh vUukckbZ o vU; ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1998 jktLFkku ist 300 esa dgk x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fnukad 28-02-1980 dks R;kxi= nsus ds ckn Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z eqdnek yM+us dk Hkh dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha jg x;k Fkk vkSj u gh Lokeh fo".kwnsokuUn vihy o"kZ 1981 esa vcsV gksus rd mlds i{kdkj cusA An appeal was filed against the order dated 15.01.1970 passed in Suit no 36/1965 by Swami Krishnabodhashram and others, and during the pendency of the appeal Swami Krishnabodhashram died on 10.09.1981 with the result the appeal abated, as clarified in annexure 8 of page 11 of paper 302C filed on behalf of the defendant.Suit no 36/1965 was decided on 17.01.1970 against which an appeal was preferred by Swami Krishnabodhashram.Suit no. 36/65 was decided on 01.09.1970, challenging which appeal was filed.Qualification has been given special importance in the Will of Brahmanand Saraswati dated 18.12.52 also.Qualification of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati has been admitted by the defendant in his deposition as D.W.- 3, and Swami Krishnabodhashram has been admitted as a scholar of sanskrit, hermit, ascetic and a simple saint.The sole proceeding, which was taken against Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati, was also rejected as evident from documents filed vide index paper no. 874 C. As far as the property of the Peeth is concerned, during this period, several properties were enrtered in the name of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati as Shankaracharya and it is also clear from the 'relief' in Suit no. 36/1965 that he was functioning as a Shankaracharya and also holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar, and Singhasan; wherefor, a Suit for temporary injuction was filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati, which remained pending till the death of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati.vr% bl okn foUnq dk fuLrkj.k oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds fo:) fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."Answering said issue, Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in judgment dated 15.01.1970 held as under:"It would thus appear that on the plaintiffs side there is the nomination in the will by Guru.That way his Guru found him as a proper disciple, the nomination implies that the late Jagatguru determined his qualifications and found him as Sat Shishya.In this regard, Sri Goel advanced his submissions based on certain authorities throwing light on the effect of "abatement".Musammat Kumari 1919 (50) Indian Cases 935 (Alld.).Suit property was claimed to be stridhan of step-mother of plaintiff, Musammat Kumari, who filed a suit for declaration of her title alleging that she inherited property upon death of Musammat Moti Rani, her step-mother.She also claimed for possession.Suit was decreed whereupon defendant filed First Appeal in High Court.During pendency of appeal, Plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Kumari died.In Nathaniel Uraon Vs.Anant Prosad (supra) culled out following principles in deciding the matter:"(a) It is not trespass for one co-owner A either by himself or by his tenants to use the common property in the natural and necessary course of use or enjoyment.The remedy of the other co-owner B is to sue A, but not his tenants, for compensation according to his share, for the exclusive use of the common property by A.Matter was referred to Arbitrator under Rule 10 who made an award ordering a higher compensation than what was offered by Collector.The award of Arbitrator was challenged by State Government in appeal before High Court.During pendency of appeal, Labhu Ram, one of the respondents, died.High Court took the view that since cause of action was common, appeal has abated against Labhu Ram, hence its effect would be that it has also abated against Nathu Ram and consequently dismissed the same.The appeal before the High Court was an appeal against a decree jointly in favour of Labhu Ram and Nathu Ram.During pendency of appeal before First Appellate Court, defendant-7, Brahmadeo, died.Neither his legal heirs were substituted nor anybody came for substitution.Second Appeal was filed by another defendants, i.e., Harkoo Gope and three others.It was accepted by High Court and appeal was disposed of, observing as under:-First Appeal of plaintiff was allowed and suit was decreed.Noticing that this part of the order was beyond the relief sought in the plaint, an appeal was preferred before the Sadar Court.The Sadar Court sought for opinion of the Pandits of the Court with respect to Hindu law on the subject who opined that it would be contrary to custom to allow a pagoda to be erected by the Vadakalai Vaishnavas even on their own ground if such an erection was against the feelings generally of the people of the village.The Sadar Court accordingly decreed that the defendants (the Vadakalais) should be prohibited from erecting temple or instituting public worship on the spot of ground objected to by the plaintiffs and which lay within the range of their temple, that is to say, within the usual range of the processions conducted in connection with the temple worship.Thereafter, Vadakalais removed their idols and erected a building for the purpose of worship on another site.The temples were built for the deities of Siddhi Ganapati Swami, Rajeswara Swami, Bhimeswara Swami, Adi Seshachala Swami and Kameswara Maharani.Sri Thadikonda Seshayya conducted the festivals and other affairs of the deities during his life time.He left a will dated 26.08.1826 shortly before his death directing his widow, Adilakshmamma to make a permanent endowment for the temples to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- out of his self acquired properties.The Edroos family in Gujarat claimed to be descendants of Hazarat Imam Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Prophet Muhamed.The suit was dismissed on 6.10.1931, the first appeal was dismissed but cross objections were allowed on 21.11.1938 and the second appeal to the High Court was withdrawn.In Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225 a suit for declaration of the property in dispute as a public mosque was filed.It appears that earlier a suit was filed against some Muslims claiming to be the proprietor and notice under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was also issued to other residents of that locality.The suit was decreed and the defence was not found proved.Thereafter second suit was filed by Muslim parties of neighbouring village wherein the plea of res judicata was taken.The facts, in brief, are necessary to understand the exposition of law laid down therein.Gurdial Singh and Ishwar Singh of Village Jhandawala obtained permission from the Advocate General under Section 92 CPC to institute a suit against one Harnam Singh for his removal from Mahantship.It was stated in the plaint that there was one Guru Granth Sahib at Village Jhandawala, Tehsil and District Bhatinda which was managed by Mahant Harnam Singh as a Mahatmim and he was in possession of the Dera, and agricultural land belonging to Guru Granth Sahib which was a public religious place and was established by the residents of village; it was a public trust created by the residents of the village for the service of the public to provide food from lunger, to allow the people to fulfill religious beliefs and for worship etc. The two plaintiffs in their capacity as representatives of owners of land situated in the village and the residents thereof claim that they were entitled to file a suit under Section 92 CPC.High Court disagreed with this conclusion and held that Sadhus Nirmalas are a sect of the Sikhs and consequently the Sikhs had interest in the institution as it was a Sikh Gurdwara and upheld the plaintiffs claim to file a representative suit under Section 92 CPC.In appeal the Apex Court, however, held (i) Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs; (ii) the mere fact that at some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera in dispute cannot lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the followers of the Sikh religion.The Dera was maintained for entirely a distinct sect known as Nirmals Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs; (iii) the institution was held to be not belonging to the followers of the Sikh religion; (iv) the plaintiffs in their mere capacity of followers of Sikh religion could not be held to have such interest as to entitle them to institute a suit under Section 92 CPC.In the meantime it appears that under Section 7(1) of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, 60 persons claiming to be worshippers made a petition for declaring the institution in question, i.e., Guru Granth Sahib situated in Village Jhandawala, District Bhatinda to be a Sikh Gurdwara.The Punjab Government by notification dated 23.01.1961 made such a declaration under Section 7(3) of the aforesaid Act. It may be pointed out that these 60 persons also included the two plaintiffs of earlier litigation, i.e., Gurdial Singh and Ishwar Singh.Mahant Harnam Singh with others filed counter petition under Section 8 of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 stating that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but was a Dera Bhai Saida Ram.A similar petition under Section 8 was also moved by 58 persons of the Dera making a similar claim.Therefore, dispute was only with regard to Will which the Courts below held not proved due to suspicious circumstances and that was the issue considered by Supreme Court.Law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permits them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence.Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form foundation of a judicial verdict positive or negative.It relates to Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram.An intra-Court appeal was preferred by Dikshitars which was disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2004 giving liberty to Dikshitars to file a revision before Government under Section 114 of TNRCE Act, 1959 since writ petition was filed without exhausting statutory remedy.Period of licence expired but M/s Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. continued to pay licence fee and same was accepted by father of Erach Boman Khavar without prejudice.On 04.03.1997 the sub-tenant, i.e., Tukaram Shridhar Bhat filed application seeking impleadment contending that he is a sub-tenant.He was also in fact Managing Director of Company.When suit was pending in a separate proceeding before Company Judge in a winding up matter on 09.01.1998, a winding up order was passed against Company.Landlord filed application before Company Judge seeking possession of flat.On 14.02.2000 Company Judge rejected said application expressing its opinion that before premises could be returned, rights of person to occupy the premises are required to be determined.It also observed that there is no legal or valid subsisting tenancy or sub-tenancy that the premises could be returned to landlord.Thereafter father of Erach Boman Khavar filed an amendment application in plaint for incorporating certain grounds including unlawful subletting by Company to Tukaram Shridhar Bhat.Thereafter landlord filed Suit No. 226/336 of 2001 in Small Cause Court for eviction on the ground of illegal subletting.Said suit was filed after obtaining leave from Company Judge.On 02.01.2002 original plaintiff, i.e., father of Erach Boman Khavar died and thereafter legal representative, i.e., appellant was brought on record.Thereafter an application for recall was filed observing that Court was misled as if suit had already been instituted though no such suit was instituted.The application was rejected by Company Judge.This order was challenged before Division Bench, which allowed appeal and set aside orders dated 27.07.2006 and 28.09.2006 passed by Company Judge and matter was remitted to Company Judge.In Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) Vs.Mahant Ram Niwas and another, 2008(11) SCC 753 principle of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC were sought to be applied having regard to an observation made by Supreme Court in a judgement.Appellant-Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha was a public trust registered under the Rajastha Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "RPT Act, 1959").Acquisition of Gaddi and Managment of said trust became a subject matter of dispute in suit.Mahant Mani Ram Swami was holder of said Gaddi.Mahant Ram Niwas claiming himself to be the Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram Swami, claimed his right to Gaddi and Management.Suit No. 295/2 of 1964 was filed by Mahant Ram Niswas in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak.Another Suit No. 46 of 1967 was filed by Mahant Mani Ram Sadhu Dadu Panthi.On both suits permanent injunction was prayed.Trial Court dismissed suit of Mahant Ram Niwas answering following issues against him:Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lahar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram?Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to Mahant Nitya Nand according to the custom and law as application to the succession of Nitya Nand as Mahant and owner of property?Whether Nitya Nand made a valid will in favour of defendant No.1? If so, to what effect?Whether the suit lies in the present form?5-A. Whether defendant No.3 or defendant No.4 was the Chela of the late Mahant Mani Ram and is now the present Mahant of the institution?"Second appeal preferred before High Court was allowed by permitting production of register as additional evidence and reversing findings of Trial Court on Issue-1. Appeal preferred before Supreme Court was allowed vide order dated 02.02.1987 and order passed in appeal reads as under:"Special leave granted.The appeal is heard.Since the High Court has not and could not have in the circumstances of the case reversed the finding of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of suit, it could not have reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court and made a decree for injunction for which suit has been brought.Mahant Ram Niwas filed a fresh suit in which he included as second plaintiff-Gaddi Dadu Dawara Kalanaur through himself.High Court also dismissed appeal hence defendant preferred appeal before Supreme Court.In this backdrop Supreme Court in Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (supra) said in paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 42 and 43 held as under:A suit is filed on a cause of action.First Respondent's suit for possession was premised on a legal entitlement.The trial Court framed several issues.The suit was dismissed.Apart from them, Sanyasis, Grahasts, Pandits and learned Scholars also participated in the ceremony.All the necessary religious ceremonies were performed."Hence no question arises for installation of the defendant at the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath."That defendant also does not possess the requisite qualification as provided in Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan for being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath and there cannot be two persons to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya in a Peeth.On this accord too the defendant is not entitled to be installed as Shankaracharaya for Jyotirmath and hold and possess the danda chhatra chanwar and Singhasan which office is being held possessed and occupied in the plaintiff.It is the plaintiff who holds and possess the dand chhatra chanwar and Singhasan etc."In the Replication also, plaintiff has pleaded that there cannot be two Shankaracharyas at one peeth.Para-8 of Replication to this effect reads as under:That all the gifts, donations and offerings etc. which were made by the worshippers, religious persons, and others concerned to Late Brhmanand Sarawswati formerly the Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath were made in the capacity of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and not in his individual capacity, therefore all such properties vested in the peeth and did not remain as an individual property of any one.He therefore performed his duties and obligations of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath as stated in the plaint.The allegations made contrary to this in the written statement are incorrect and baseless."That Swami Swaroopa Nand Saraswati was disciple of Late Swami Krishna Bodhashram.He is duly qualified for the office of Shankaracharya and he has been installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on 7th Dec. 1973 and is discharging his functions duties and obligations of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath.Late on plaintiff has further been installed as Shankercharya of Dwarika Peeth as well.Thereafter, he has further said that persons nominated in the said ''Will' are not qualified and could not have been installed or appointed as Shankaracharya.Since, he was not eligible and did not fulfil requisite qualifications, learned Pandits, Sanyasis and members of B.D.M., VNS and K.V.P. and other Shankaracharyas did not accept installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati and instead installed Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 at Gyanvapi, Varanasi.Still plaintiff said that he was not actually appointed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram.Para-26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of affidavit of plaintiff read as under:That after the performance of 16th day ceremony (one of rituals performed after death of a person) of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati Maharaj, on 12.6.1953 AD, on the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 18.12.1952, Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati got announced to be anointed himself as Jyotishpeethadhishwar and Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth." (English Trnaslation by Court) ^^27- ;g fd pwWafd jketh f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn eBkEuk; esa fyf[kr vkpk;Z in ds vgZrkvksa ds /kkjd ugha FksA vr% ihB dh ijEijk o eBkEuka; egkuq'kklue~ ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj lukru /kekZoyEch iafMrksa fo}kuksa] euhf"k;ksa] lnx`gLFkksa] laU;kfl;ksa us Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] rRdkyhu fo}Rifj"kr~] rRdkyhu vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa us] Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds lHkh fo}ku f'k";ksa o egke.Mys'ojksa us] jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dk fuxzg fd;k] mudks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k] vkpk;Z in gsrq okafNr vgZrkvksa ds /kkjd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dk T;ksfr"ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 25-6-1953 dks Kkuokih okjk.klh esa rRi'pkr~ tks'kheB esa mlh rjg ls fd;k ftl rjg Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dk vf/k"Bkiu fd;k x;k FkkA bl rjg jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihB ls eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ iqLrd esa fyf[kr fu;eksa o ihB dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj inP;qr dj fn;k x;kA Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] fo}rifj"kn] vU; rhu ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa us] lk/kq] lU;klh] ln~x~`gLFk lukru/kehZ if.That since Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was not the holder of the office of Acharya, as per eligibility qualifications prescribed in Mathamnaya; therefore, the Pandits believing in Sanatan Religion, scholars, intellectuals, noble Grihasthas (persons having families), Sanyasis, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, the then Vidvatparishad, then Shankaracharyas of other Peethas, all scholar disciples of Swami Brahmand Saraswati and Mahamandleshwars remvoed Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati in accordance with tradition of Peeth and the rules contained in Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam; he was not accepted as Jyotishpeethadhishwar; Possessor of requisite qualifications for the office of Acharya, Swami Krishnabodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth in Gyanwapi Varanasi on 25.06.1953 and thereafter in Joshimath, in the same manner, as Swami Brahmananda Saraswati had been installed.In this way, Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the Jyotishpeeth in accordance with the rules prescribed in a book titiled Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam and the tradition of the peeth.That Swami Krishnabodhashram passed away (Brahmaleen) on 10.9.1973 AD."My o vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dh lgefr o rRdkyhu fo}r~ifj"kn dh lgefr ls rFkk fo}kuksa o if.That Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated any person as his successor.On his direction and since in the opinion of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad and then Jagadgurus as well as scholars, I had been found eligible for Acharya, I, therefore, functioned as Shankaracharya from the time of his illness till my installation.As Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated anyone as his successors, so the Jyotishpeeth was vacated again.I was formally anointed as Jyotishpeethadhishwar.That neither Late Swami Krishnabodhashram Ji Maharaj had appointed me as Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth, nor I claim to be Jyotishpeethadhishwar myself through him." (English Trnaslation by Court)He has deposed in para-50 that from 12.09.1973, he is continuously discharging duties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and on 14/15.11.1989 there was no vacancy in the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence appellant could not have been installed in the said office.Para-50 reads as under:^^50- ;g fd eSa fnukad 12-9-1973 bZ- ls yxkrkj T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds vf/kdkjksa] drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgk gwwWA prq"ihB lEesyuksa esa tks'kheB 'kadjkpk;Z ds vf/kdkj ls Hkkx ysrk vk jgk gwWaa lHkh ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa ds ijLij lg;ksx ,oa fopkj foe'kZ ls vk| xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds v}Sr n'kZu dk izpkj&izlkj dj jgk gwWaA lukru /keZ dk izpkj o izlkj dj jgk gwWA eq>dks fo}ku] iafMr] lukru fgUnw lekt] n'kukeh lU;klh lk/kq] v[kkM+k] Hkkjr /keZ egke.I have been participating in conferences of four Peethas in the capacity of Jyotishmath Shankaracharya.In consultation with Shankaracharyas of all Peethas and with their mutual cooperation, I am propagating Adwait philosophy of Adi Guru Shankaracharya.I am propagating Sanatan Dharm.Scholars, Pandits, Sanatan Hindu society, Dashnami Sanyasi saints, Akhara (a group of particulars sect of Sanyasi), Bharat Dharm Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad, Shankaracharyas of other Peethas, Ministers, Prime-minister, President, Officers, King of Nepal and all others recognize and treat me as Jyotishpeeth Shankarachaya.It generally consists of facts and situation which gives a party, a right to file a suit and obtain a remedy from another person, with the help of Court.It gives rise to enforcement of a right through Court of law.The "cause of action" thus consists of bundle of facts which give right to enforce legal injury for redress in a Court of law.The concept of cause of action is a "bundle of facts required to be proved to show the reason for which plaintiff was impelled to go for litigation in Civil Court for recovery of individual rights or redressal of individual wrong etc." In other words, a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief.Thus valid installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was an integral part of cause of action in this case.Issue 5 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 was in regard to installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram and read as under:Whether defendant no. 1 was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt on 25.06.1963 as alleged by him in his written statement and if so has he perfected his right as Shankaracharya by adverse possession as pleaded in para 41 of the written statement?"My iw.kZ djds vius dks d`rd`R; le>rk gSA JheRizHkw iwT;ikn 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZBkf/kifr dh ,d xn~nh tks dk'kh esa jgsxh mlds lEcU/k esa Jh egke.My dk o:.kk unh ds rhj ij ,d vkJe ftldh pkSgn~nh vkSj dkxtkr blds lkFk fn;s x;s gS og Hkh mudks viZ.k fd;k tkrk gSA vr,o mi;qZDr Lotkrh; /keZ dk;ksZA ds fl);FkZ ;g U;k; i= fy[k fn;k tkrk gS fd izek.k jgsA** "Because of Pujyavad Shri 108 Swami Shri Brahmanand Saraswati ji Maharaj being adorned with the aforementioned attributes, Shri Bharat Dharm Mahamandal, as per the pledge of Respected Brahmibhoot Shankaracharyas of aforesaid Shringeri math, Sharda Math and Govardhan math, has considered the said Shri 108 Swami Ji Maharaj as Pithadhipati after anointing him in Kashipuri as Shankaracharya of Shri Jyotirmath as per the religious scriptures and as per law; the declaration of which was made on Chaitrashukla Panchami Samvat 1998, Tuesday, by Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshvar Singh Bahadur K.C.I.E.L.L.D.D.Lit., Chairman of the Akhil Bharatvarshiya Sanatan Dharm Mahasammelan and on Chaitrashukla Panchami Samvat 1998 Wednesday, Maharaja Bahadur Bharatdharma Ratna Vidyabhusan Shriman Sadashiva Rao Panwar, the Chairman of Akhil Bharat Varshiya Sanatan Dharma Mahasammelan duly welcomed and respected the said Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj in the meeting.All the land collected on this date shall never be sold.It may not happen by grade of God, if at anytime the Seat of Acharya falls vacant in Shri Jyotirmath in disciple-tradition (shishya prampara) , then Shri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal shall have the right to fill that vacant place by virtue of this deed itself.This last Leela land and place of heavenly abode of Pujyapad Shri Adi Shankaracharya Prabhu shall continue to be the holy pilgrim of the Sanatan religion.The said names were in following order:(i) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati),The objection of plaintiff was rejected and succession certificate was issued to Swami Shantanand Saraswati.Thereafter this 'Will' was challenged by Swami Krishna Bodhashram in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, wherein Issue-16 was with respect to validity of aforesaid 'Will".Issue-5 formulated therein was with regard to correctness of 'Will'.At this stage, first we will consider whether plaintiff and appellant respectively were able to prove their claim with regard to installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.It has recorded its conclusion that plaintiff was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 7.12.1973 and has been discharging duties and functions since then.Court below has simply referred to various evidence, oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of plaintiff without discussing oral evidence with reference to cross-examination as to whether evidence was credible or not."Paper no. 89C dated 01.5.1979, resolution of Conference of Four Peethas, filed on behalf of plaintiff, vide Index 88-C dated 05.10.1998, is signed by Shankaracharyas of Four Peethas and relates to his installation and functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth since 07.12.1973 and approved by Reverend Jagat Guru Shankaracharyas of Three Peethas, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Sdholars of Kashi Vidvat Parishad and their representatives, Grihasthas, Sanyasis and and eminent personalities. .....Paper no. 133-C, judgment in Case No.1320 of 1965 Swami Parmanand vs. Ramji has been filed.oknh dh vksj ls vius vf/k"Bkiu 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z o ekU;rk dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s iqLrdsa] if=dk;sa] ?kks"k.kki=] i=kpkj] QksVksxzkQ] vfHkuUnu i= vkfn dks lwph 327x@1 yxk;r 327x@6 ls dkxt la[;k 328d c`gnkjj.; dksi fu"kn izdk'kd xksfoUn dkuu dk;kZy; xhrk iszsl xksj[kiqj ist 126 ls 127] dkxt la[;k 329d txrxq: xkSjo izdk'ku] /keZla?k esjB ¼f}rh; laLdj.k½ dkxt la[;k 330d bZ'kk|oksRrj 'krksifu"kn izdk'kd pkS[kEHkk fo|k Hkou okjk.klh --- dkxt la[;k 343d@78 i= Jh ekuo dY;k.k vkJe gfj}kj fnukad 18-08-05 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ---oknh dh vksj ls lwph 352x ls dkxt la[;k 353d@1 ls 353d@10 i= lsdzVjh bUpktZ Jh Hkkjr/keZ egke.My }kjk iafMr ckyd`".k feJ fyf[kr fnukad 11-05-1941 tks fnukad 27-07-75 dks lR;kfir] dkxt la[;k 353d@11 i= Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh fnukad 16-11-62] dkxt la[;k 353d@12 i= eqfLye lEesyu fnukad 05-10-03] dkxt la[;k 353d@13 i= vkpk;Z lHkk fnukad laor 2056] dkxt la[;k 353d@14 izek.k i= dk'kh fo'oukFk eafnj esa dk'kh fo|r ifj"kn ds vkpk;ksZ ds gLrk{kj] dkxt la[;k 353d@15 i= iafMr jes'k pUnz lnkf'ko oS'; fnukad 07-09-05] dkxt la[;k 353d@16 ls dkxt la[;k 353d@19 i= t;iky flag iwoZ x`g ea=h e/; izns'k fnukad 02-01-93] dkxt la[;k 353d@20 i= Hkkjr /keZ egke.My fnukad 07-04-01 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA Vide index paper no. 352-C, Papers no 353 Ka/1 to 353 Ka/10, letters written by Secretary Incharge Shri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal through Pandit Balkrishna Mishra dated 11.05.1941 certified on 27.07.75, letter of Swami Shantanand Saraswati dated 16.11.62 which is paper no. 353 Ka/11, letter of Muslim Conference dated 05.10.03 which is paper no. 353 Ka/12, letter of Acharya Sabha dated Sanvat 2056 which is paper no. 353 Ka/13, Certificate signed by acharyas of Kashi Vidvat Parishad in Kashi Vishvanath Temple which is paper no. 353 Ka/14, letter Pandit Ramesh Chandra Sadashiv Vaishya dated 07.09.05 which is paper no. 353 Ka/15, letter of Jaipal Singh erstwhile Home Minister Madhya Pradesh dated 02.01.93 which are paper no. 353 Ka/16 to 353 Ka/19, letter Bharat Dharma Mahamandal dated 07.04.01 which is paper no 353 Ka/20 , have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.oknh dh vksj ls T;ksfrZeB o }kjdk ihBk/kh'oj ds dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa QksVksxzkQ] i=] i=kpkj] ?kks"k.kki= vkfn dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lwph&2 ds Qkby la[;k 2@1 ds dkxt 1&91 ds dkxt ftlesa dkxt la[;k&540x@16 txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z egklaLFkkue~ nf{k.kEuk; Jh 'kkjnk ihBe~ Ja`xsjhihB dk i= fnukad 28-08-2006 tks ch0vkj0 xkSjh'kadj ds }kjk txn~xq: dh rjQ ls Lokeh vfoeqDrs'ojkuUn ljLOkrh dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] ftUgkasus ;g fy[k dj lwfpr fd;k fd ebZ 1979 ,oa 1993 ds fMDys;js'ku QksVksxzkQ lfgr Hkstk gSA ---oknh dh vksj ls }kjdk ihBk/kh'oj o T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk fn;s tkus lEcU/k esa jftLVj esa dkxt la[;k 343@1 vFkkZr ,&1 yxk;r ,&78 esa ewy dkxtkr gS ftlds }kjk Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ,oa }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk fn;k x;k gSA dkxt la[;k ,&8 yxk;r ,&11 vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ dh olh;r fnuakd 11-01-1980 gS ftlds }kjk Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks }kjdk ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z ukfer fd;k x;k izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA---Papers number 343/1, i.e. A-1 to A-78, contained in the register, filed on behalf of plaintiff are the original documents relating to recognition being accorded to Dwarka Peethadhishwar and Jyotishpeethadheeshwar, whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been recognized as Jyotishpeetheeshwar and Dwarika Peeethadheeshwar.Papers number A-8 to A-11 are the Will of Abhinav Sachhidanand Teerth dated 11.01.1980 whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been nominated Shanakaracharya of Dwarika Peeth...."oknh dh vksj ls dqEHk esyk esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa muds jgu lgu o 'kksHkk ;k=k dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lwph 927x@1 rk 927x@3 ls dkxt la[;k 927x@4 iqLrd Hkwfe vkcaVu dqaHk esyk gfj}kj mRrjk[k.M lsDVj 12] fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh dqaHk esyk }kjk lR;kfir] dkxt la[;k 927x@5 lwpuki= fnukad 31-07-2012 }kjk yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh Jh cnjhukFk dsnkjukFk efUnj lfefr] dkxt la[;k 927x@6 lwph lnL;x.kksa dh Jh cnjhukFk dsnkjukFk efUnj lfefr lu~ 2009&10] dkxt la[;k 927x@7 izekf.kr izfr Hkwfe vkoaVu }kjk dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh dqEHk esyk 2010 esyk fu;a=.k Hkou gfj}kj fnukad 08-02-10] dkxt la[;k 927x@8 izekf.kr izfr Hkwfe vkoaVu }kjk dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh dqEHk esyk 2010 esyk fu;a=.k Hkou gfj}kj fnukad 08-02-10] dkxt la[;k 927x@9 izekf.kr izfr dk;kZy; vkns'k 08-03-2010 dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh] dqEHk esyk gfj}kj] dkxt la[;k 927x@10 yxk;r 927x@15 izekf.kr izfr txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds 'kksHkk;k=k eas rSukr iqfyl cy dh lwph nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA In order to prove his lifestyle and Shobhayatra (Procession) as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar during Kumbh Mela, the plaintiff vide list 927Ga/1 to 927Ga/3, has filed papers number 927Ga/4, booklet regarding land allotment, Kumbh Mela Haridwar, Uttarakahand Sector 12, certified by the Officer on Special Duty, Kumbh Mela, paper number 927Ga/5 the information letter dated 31.07.2012 by the Public Information Officer,Sri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti, paper number 927Ga/6, list of the Members of Sri Badirnath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti of the year 2009-10, paper no.927 Ga/7, certified copies of allotment of land by the office of Meladhikari Kumbh Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan, Haridwar dated 08.02.10, certified copy of the paper no. 927Ga/9, office order of the office of the Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela Haridwar, dated 08.03.2010, paper number 927Ga/10 to 927Ga/15 certified copy of list of the police force deployed during the Shobhayatra of the Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj.oknh dh vksj ls vius dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj lkfcr djus ds fy;s] tykfHk"ksd] iV~VkfHk"ksd] prq"ihB lEesyu o vU; ihBk/kh'oj 'kadjkpk;ksZ ds lkFk ijLij lkeatL; o vfr fof'k"V O;fDr;ksa o fof'k"V lU;kfl;ksa }kjk ekU;rk dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s fofHkUu QksVksxzkQ ls lEcfU/kr jftLVj Mh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA --- QksVksxzkQ la[;k Mh&77 vfXu v[kkM+k ds lHkkifr }kjk oknh dk pj.k iwtu] nwljk QksVksxzkQ esa Mk0 fo'oukFk 'kkL+=h }kjk oknh dk vfHkuUnu] rhljh QksVksxzkQ esa twuk v[kkMs+ ds eU=h gfjfxjh ds }kjk oknh dk vfHkUkUnu] QksVksxzkQ la[;k Mh&80 NRrhlx<+ ds eq[;ea=h vthr tksxh }kjk oknh dk vfHkuUnu djrs gq;s ds QksVksxzkQ nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSaA For the purpose of proving himself as Head of Jyotishpeeth as well as performance of Jalabhishek (consecration), Pattabhishek (coronation), Chatushpeeth Sammellan (conference of four Peethas) and cohesion with other Peethadheeshwar Shankarcharyas and also to prove the recognition by eminent dignitaries and Sanyasis, register D, containing various photographs has been filed.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn] rhuksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z o muds izfrfuf/k] fo}kuksa] xzgLFkksa] lU;kfl;ksa dh mifLFkfr dks lkfcr fd;k gSA oknh }kjk Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn] rhuksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z o muds izfrfuf/k] fo}kuksa] xzgLFkksa] lU;kfl;ksa fof'k"V rFkk vfrfof'k"V O;fDr;ksa ds leFkZu rFkk ekU;rk dks Hkh lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr oknh }kjk vius T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij vf/k"Bkiu ds ckn ihB ds fdz;k dykiksa o ihB ds dk;ksZ ds lEiknu dks QksVksxzkQ] i=ksa] lekpkj i=] if=dk o ekSf[kd lk{; ds ek/;e ls lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA vU; txgksa ds QksVksxzkQ] lekpkj i=] i= vkfn Hkh ;g lkfcr djrs gS fd oknh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgs gSaA Thus, installation of plaintiff has been proved by his witnesses by their evidence on oath.Presence of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Shankaracharyas of all the three Peethas and their representatives, scholars, Grihasthas and Sanyasis on the occasion of installation, has been proved by plaintiff.Approval and recognition accorded by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Shankaracharyas of all the three Peethas and its representatives, scholars, Grihasthas, Sanyasis, eminent and high dignitaries, have been proved by the plaintiff.Besides, activities and discharge of affairs of Peetha after his installation in the office of Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeeth, have been proved by the plaintiff through photographs, letters, newspapers, magazines and oral evidence.Photographs of other places, newspapers, letters etc also prove that the plaintiff is functioning as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar.lekt ds lHkh oxksZ] fo}kuksa] dk;Zikfydk rFkk fo/kkf;dk ds 'kh"kZ inksa ls tqMs+ yksxksa rFkk izfl) jktusrkvksa dh muds lkFk ekStwnxh Hkh mUgsa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk ns jgh gSA The presence of the people from all class of the society, intellectuals, executives and people associated with the high offices of the Legislature; Executive and eminent statesmen with him, is also according recognition as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar.dqEHk esyk esa Hkh muds T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa mifLFkfr] prq"ihB lEesyuksa esa Hkh mudh mifLFkfr Hkh ;g lkfcr djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr gS fd vU; ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ }kjk Hkh mUgsa gh 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa ekU;rk nh x;h gSA His presence as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar in Kumbh Mela, in conferences of Chatushpeeth is sufficient to prove that Shankaracharyas of other Peethas have also recognized him as Shankaracharya.oknh }kjk vius vf/k"Bkiu dks ekSf[kd lk{;] nLrkosth lk{;] QksVksxzkQ] i= if=dk vkfn ls lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh o Lokeh fo".kqnsok uUn ljLorh rFkk Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh }kjk u rks oknh ds vf/k"Bkiu dks jksdus gsrq dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh u gh muds T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z djus ls mUgsa jksdk x;kA tc fd oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr okn 513@89 esa izfroknh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dks vUrfje fu"ks/kkKk }kjk vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr djus rFkk rn~uqlkj dk;Z djus ls jksdk x;k gSA The plaintiff has proved his installation through oral and documentary evidence, photographs, letters, magazines etc. Swami Shantanand Saraswati, Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati neither took any action to stop his installation nor he was stopped from functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth while the defendant Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, by means of interim injunction issued in Suit No. 513/89 filed by the plaintiff, has been restrained from declaring himself as Shankaracharya and functioning accordingly.vr% i=koyh ij ekStwn ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWph gS fd oknh dks 07-12-1973 dks T;ksfr"ihB ds txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa LFkkfir fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk og rc ls T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;Z ,oa drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgs gSaaA** "Hence on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court has reached the conclusion that plaintiff was installed as Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth on 07.12.1973 and since then he is discharging his functions and duties as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth." (English Translation by Court)Learned counsel for appellant has contended that documents relied by Court below having not been proved, should not have been taken to prove installation of plaintiff as Shakracharya and even oral evidence was contradictory, therefore, findings are incorrect.So far as documentary evidence is concerned, same cannot be said "not proved" and "inadmissible" at the stage of appeal as we have already decided this issue.Therefore, arguments otherwise advanced on behalf of appellant is rejected.However, so far as oral evidence is concerned, we may refer to relevant evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff in support of his plea of installation on 7/12/1973 as Shakracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and would also examine whether there is anything to discredit such evidence or not.Sri Sundar Bajpai PW1 claims to be follower of principle of monism, propounded by Adi Guru Shankryacharya and is associated with Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth since long.He is an Ayurvedic medical practitioner and is not expected to have expertise in historicity of Adi Guru Shakracharya or his principles or otherwise religious matters.Still in his examination-in-chief he has given details of installation of Maths by Adi Guru Shankracharya, establishment of four Peethas and thereafter backdrop of installation of Shankrachayas in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth since installation of Brahmanand Saraswati and thereafter.His examination in chief is on record in volume-6, pages 2784-2790 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book.Relevant extracts thereof reads as under:**jke th f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh us fnukad 12@06@1953 dks T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa viuk vf/k"Bkiu ?kksf"kr fd;k FkkA fo)r ifj"kn o Hkkjr /keZ egke.By anointing Krishnabodhashram as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, the investiture of Ram Ji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati was rendered nugatory.Ram Ji tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the office of Peethadheeshwar of the Jyotish Peeth in accordance with the rules, tradition and custom.Shankaracharyas of other Peethas never recognized him as Peethadheeshwar of Jyotish Peeth.(Paper no. 455 Ka, Page 2786-2787)(English Translation by Court) ^^Lokeh Jh d`".k cks/kkJe th egkjkt us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugha fd;k FkkA mUgksaus Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks T;ksfr"ihB ds fy;s ;ksX; ik= ik;k FkkA vr% tc os chekj Fks] rks ml dky og oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th egkjkt ls 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds dk;ksZa dks viuh rjQ ls djok;k djrs FksA "Swami Shri Krishna Bodhashram did not appoint anyone as his successor.On the question relating to Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan, which he claims to have read, he could not give any specific reply and at times, said he will have to look into that document.PW-2 Challa Lakshman Shastri, though originally belonged to village Indupalli of Amlapuram Taluq, district Godavari, Andhra Pradesh but his predecessors shifted Varanasi in 1902, and since then are residing thereat and working as Teerth Purohit.In cross-examination (PW 2's) (volume 1 page 68-75 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book), we find nothing which may discredit his evidence.On the contrary, he has reiterated his statement about installation of plaintiff as Shankracharya.Relevant extract of his cross examination reads as under:Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dk vkSipkfjd iV~VkfHk"ksd dk'kh esa gqvk FkkA --- iV~VkfHk"ksd jkt/kkuh gksus ds dkj.k gfLrukiqj esa Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA** ¼isij ua0 424] ist&71½ "Formal installation of Swaroopanand Sarswati was performed at Kashi.......The installation can also take place at Hastinapur, being a capital." (Paper No. 424, Page-71) (English Translation by Court)Pw-4 Anand Bahadur Singh claims that he is an Ex-Zamindar and from family of Raja Todarmal, friend of Goswami Tulsidas.In substance, he is a Journalist and Follower of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.When he (Brahmanand Saraswati), came to Varanasi in 1945, PW-4 became his pupil.He claimed to be a member of KVP and was present on 12.9.1973 when meeting of KVP took place and plaintiff was proposed and nominated for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Mr] laU;klhx.k] x`gLFk] lukru/kehZ fgUnw turk] fo}Rifj"kn o Hkkjr /keZ egke.My o dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn lukru fgUnw /kfeZ;ksa dh laLFkk gSA mDr nksuksa laLFkk,Wa oknh dks gh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ekurs gSaA --- dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn --- dk eSa Hkh lnL; gwWaA --- dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn dh fnukad 12-9-1973 dks cSBd gqbZ FkhA ml cSBd esa eSa Hkh mifLFkr FkkA bl cSBd esa fo}Rifj"kn ds mifLFkr lnL;ksa us oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa euksu;u dk leFkZu djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&427 d] ist&2802&2803½ "...Krishnabodhasram has not nominated any person as his successor, therefore learned Pandits, Sanysis, Grihasthas, Hindu people believing in Sanatan religion, Vidwatparishad and Bharat Dharm Mahamandal nominated Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj as Jyotishpeethadhiswar.At the time of his nomination, Swami Hariharanand Sarswati, Swami Maheshnand Sarswati and other learned scholars were present there.I was also present..... Bharat Dharm Mahamandal and Kashi Vidwatparishad are institutions of believers of Sanatan Hindu religion.I was also present in that meeting.I was also present there as Journalist." (Paper no.427ka, page-2804) (English Translation by Court)I was present in the installation ceremony.Installation of Krishnabodhashram Ji was performed at Jyotispeeth but I do not know whether or not he got possession thereof.(Paper No. 427 ka, Page 87) (English Translation by Court) ^^iV~VkfHk"ksd ds lEcU/k esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds iV~VkfHk"ksd dk fjdkMZ ns[kk gSA --- dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn dh lHkk gqbZ FkhA mlesa vfHk"ksd dk izLrko ikfjr gqvk FkkA ^gj gj egknso* dgdj izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&88½ "In the context of coronation, I have seen the record of installation of Swami Krishnabodhashram. .... A meeting of Kashi Vidwat Sabha was convened, where a resolution for coronation was passed with acclamations of ''Har Har Mahadev'..." (Paper No. 427 ka, Page 88) ^^ --- ftu dkxtkrksa dk mYys[k eSaus gyQukek esa fd;k gS mu ij esjk gLrk{kj ugha gSA lkjs vfHkuUnu i= dh dqN izfr;kWa lqjf{kr gS dqN ugha gSA --- pwWafd 'kkUrkuUn th dks dk'kh dks fo)ku 'kadjkpk;Z ugha ekurs Fks eSa Hkh ugha ekurk FkkA muds ijEijk tks yksx vius dk 'kadjkpk;Z dg jgs gSa mudks Hkh eSa 'kadjkpk;Z ugha ekurkA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&91½ "..... The documents which I have referred to in the affidavit, do not bear my signatures.Some of copies of the ''Abhinandan Patras' (felicitation letters) are preserved but some are not. ...Since scholars of Kashi did not recognize Shantanand Ji as Shankaracharya, I also did not recognize.I do not recognize as Shankaracharya, the persons of his tradition, professing themselves to be Shankaracharyas.(Paper No. 427 ka, Page 91) (English Translation by Court)However, with regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973, we find no statement in deposition of PW-4 hence his deposition is irrelevant on this aspect.He only said about nomination on 12.09.1973 at Kashi.603. PW-5 Harihar Prasad Pandey is a teacher in Teek Mani Sanskrit College, Shakarkand Gali, Varanasi.He claims to be a member of KVP.He was also associated with Swami Brahmanand Saraswati being his pupil and with Jyotishmath/Jyotishpeeth since then.In cross examination (volume-1 page 93-105 of plaintiff respondent's paper book.), PW 5 has admited that affidavit was got prepared by shri Rajendra Mishra and it was read to him by Notary whereafter, he signed the same.He also admits that plaintiff is also a member of KVP but in this regard his statement is contradictory at two places.At one place he has said:Swami Swaroopanand never attended the meeting of Vidwat Parishad." (paper no. 426 ka,page101) (English Translation by Court)However with regard to nomination of plaintiff for installation as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 there is nothing in his statement, hence it is also irrelevant on this aspect.PW 6 Swami Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati is plaintiff himself.In his examination-in-chief he said that Swami Krishna Bodhashram passed away on 10-09-1973, whereafter B.D.M. VNS, KVP and other Shankaracharyas, etc, found him suitable for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and he was so declared.Relevant extracts of his examination-in-chief (Vol. 6 Page 2812-2829 of plantiff-respondat's paper book) read as under:^^Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] fon~orifj"kn rFkk rRdkyhu txn~xq:vksa o fo}kuksa dh jk; esa eq>dks vkpk;Z ds fy;s ;ksX; ik;k x;k vr% eSaus mudh chekjh ds le; ls esjk vfHk"ksd gksus rd 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k FkkA pwWfd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugha fd;k Fkk] blfy;s T;ksfr"ihB iqu% fjDr gks x;hA vr% ihB dh ijEijk o eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa fyf[kr fof/k ds vuqlkj Hkkjr/keZ egkea.As Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated anyone as his successor, so the Jyotishpeeth was vacated again.Thus, in accordance with the tradition of the Peeth and the mode prescribed in Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam, and with the consent of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Shankaracharyas of the other Peeths, the then Vidvatparishad, scholars and Pandits declared me eligible person for Jyotirmath-Jyotishpeeth on 12.9.1973 in Kashi. ...formally anointed me.As per the jurisprudence and the tradition of the Peeth, they duly anointed me as Shankaracharya Jyotirmath in Delhi on 07.12.1973 and recognized me as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath .... they all continue supporting me till today, and have been considering and recognizing me only as Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth. ..."esjk iV~VkfHk"ksd fnukad 7-12-1973 dks fof/k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj fnYyh esa fd;k x;k Fkk -----T;ksssfr"ihB dh lEifRr ij 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds vf/kdkj v/;klu esa gwWaA T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;ksZa dk o drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu yxkrkj fnukad 12-09-1973 ls djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA --- ** ¼isij ua0&423 d] ist&2819&2820½ "My installation took place in Delhi on 07.12.1973 in accordance with the jurisprudence.... I am in possession and have right over the properties of Shankaracharya, Jyotishpeeth.I am discharging duties of Shankaracharya in full knowledge of the defendant.The defendant never objected to it. ..." (Paper No.423Ka, page 2826)(English Translation by Court)There is long cross examination of plaintiff but we do not find anything therein to discredit his deposition with regard to holding of ceremonies for installation on 7.12.1973 at Delhi.He has also said that he is not claiming possession through Swami Krishnabodhashram for the reason that Swami Krishna Bodhashram did not make any nomination of his successor.With regard to Swami Krishna Bodhashram, in his cross examination (Volume 1, page 106-138 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book) plaintiff has said:^^d`".kcks/kkJe dk tks'kheB esa vfHk"ksd gqvk FkkA --- ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vfHk"ksd gksus ds igys 'kadjkpk;Z dk dk;Z fd;k FkkA **¼isij ua0&423 d ist&132½ "The installation of Krishnabodhashram took place at Joshimath. ... It is true that before my installation as Shankaracharya, I had done the work of a Shankaracharya.." (Paper No. 423A, Page- 132) ^^---------------- esjk tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rc T;ksfr"ihB fjDr FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk tc vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rks ml le; 'kkUrkuUn T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fojkteku Fks ,oa xn~nh fjDr ugha FkhA**¼isij ua0&423 d ist&137½ "...... When I was enthroned as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, the seat of Jyothispeeth was vacant.It is wrong to say that when I was enthroned, Shantanand had been installed as Jyothishpeethadhishwar at that time, and the seat was not vacant." (Paper No. 423A, Page- 137)(English Translation by Court)PW-8, Sri Deep Narayan Sharma, was a co-editor of research magazine Sarswati Shusma, published by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University.He was Sahityacharya, MA (Sanskrit), Ph.D. and Yogacharya.With regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya he said:^^oknh dk fo}kuksa ds }kjk tc dk'kh esa T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z gsrq euksu;u fd;k x;k Fkk] rc dbZ fo}ku mifLFkr gksdj oknh ds mDr euksu;u dk leFkZu fd;k Fkk] eSa Hkh mifLFkr FkkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&2840½ "When in Kashi, the plaintiff was nominated as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, many scholars present there had supported the aforesaid nomination of plaintiff, I also was present there".(Paper no.-482ka, page-2840) ^^lHkh fo}kuksa us oknh dks T;ksfr"kihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z gsrq lU;klh ikdj T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj gsrq oknh ds mDr euksu;u dk leFkZu fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&2844½ "Finding the plaintiff a sanyasi for Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, all the Scholars had supported the aforesaid nomination of the plaintiff for Jyotish Peethadheeshawar,."(Paper no.-482ka, page-2844)About factum of Sanyas taken by plaintiff and his installation on 07.12.1973 as Shankaracharya, he said:^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th Hkh czg~eyhu Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds f'k"; gSaA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh --- fnukad 09-01-1951 dks dydRrk esa lU;kl] n.M fy;k Fkk] rFkk muls lU;kl nh{kk fy;k FkkA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th us tc Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ls lU;kl nh{kk o lU;kl n.M dydRrk esa fy;k Fkk] rc eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&484 d] ist&2846½ "Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati also is a disciple of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati..... Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati ...had taken Sanyas and Dand (stick) at Calcutta on 09.01.1951 and had also taken Deeksha of Sanyas from him.I was present at the time when Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati had taken Sanyas Deeksha and Sanyas Dand from Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in Calcutta.M Hkh esjs lkeus fn;k Fkk] oknh us ladYi fy;k fd lkjk lalkj vHk; izkIr djsA --- oknh dk lU;kl ysus ds igys cpiu dk uke iksFkhjke mik/;k; Fkk --- oknh dks czg~eyhu Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds f'k"; ds :i esa tkuk tkrk gSA "It was Swami Brahmanand who had given the name of "Swaroopanand Saraswati" to the plaintiff.Swami Brahmanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had given Dand (stick) to the plaintiff.He had given Dand in my presence.Plaintiff had pledged a resolution that whole world may obtain fearlessness.**d`".kcks/kkJe ds fu/ku ds ckn mlds ,d eghus ds ckn izfr"Bkiu gqvk FkkA igyk izfr"Bkiu dk'kh esa gqvk Fkk fQj fnYyh eas gqvk FkkA mleas eSa FkkA --- lu~ 73 eghuk twu rkjh[k ugha ;kn gS dk'kh esa izfr"Bkiu gqvk Fkk fnlEcj lu~ 73 rkjh[k 7 Fkh fnYyh esa izf"Bkiu gqvk FkkA --- eq>s xokgh nsus ds fy, Lokeh Lo:ikuan th us dgkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&154½ "Installation took place after one month of the death of Krishanbodhashram.The first coronation was performed in Kashi and thereafter in Delhi.I was present there.The Installation was performed in Kashi in June in the year 73 but I do not remember the date.Swami Swaroopanand Ji had asked me to tender testimony."(Paper no. 482 Ka, Page-154)PW-11, Ashwin Bhai Purohit is a resident of Dwarka (Gujarat) and General Secretary of Sri Khsetra Dwarka Guggali Brahmin 505 Management Committee.Supporting plaintiff on his installation as Shankaracharya he said:^^oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt tc T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa lu 1973 bZ0 esa vf/k"Bkfir dj fn;s x;s Fks] rRi'pkr oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt 1973 esa }kjdk esa vk;s FksA }kjdk esa vkus ij Jh {ks= }kjdk xqXxqyh czkg~e.k 505 tkfr dh mDr lHkk us oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa HkO; Lokxr fd;k FkkA ml le; eSa mDr czkg~e.k lHkk dk lnL; FkkA**¼isij ua0&486 d] ist&2859½ "When the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati had been installed as Jyotish Peethadhishwar in the year 1973 A.D., thereafter plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had visited Dwarka in 1973.... The aforesaid association of Sri Kshetra Dwarka Gugguli Brahmin, 505 caste had given a grand welcome to the plaintiff as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar on his arrival to Dwarka.At that time, I was the member of aforesaid Brahmin association." (Paper no. 486 Ka, Page-2859)In cross-examination, however, he said that plaintiff visited Dwarka as Shankaracharya where he was felicitated and honoured but who nominated him and whether he was actually installed in Delhi is not known to him.His statement in cross-examination says:**Lo:ikuUn th tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj gksus ds ckn 1973 esa }kfjdk vk;s FksA eq>s irk ugha fd mUgsa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj fdlus ukfer fd;k Fkk ;k ugha--- eq>s Kkr ugha gS fd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fnYyh esa gqvk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&486d] ist&173½ "When Swaroopanand Ji visited Dwarika in 1973 after installation as Jyotispeethadheeshwar, I do not know as to who had nominated him as Jyotispeethadheeshwar.I am not aware whether the installation of Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotispeethadheeshwar was performed in Delhi." (Paper No 486 ka, Page 173)This witness did not prove the factum of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 but supports that in the capacity of Shankaracharya, plaintiff when visited Dwarka, was felicitated and honoured with his staus as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.PW-12, T.N. Yagyanarayan, proved installation of plaintiff on 07.12.1973 and in his examinatin-in-chief said:**oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 7-12-1973 bZ0 dks fd;k x;k Fkk rc Hkh eS Lokeh vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ th egkjkt tks ml le; }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj Fks] ds lkFk lsod ds :i esa fnYyh x;k FkkA oknh ds mDr vf/k"Bkiu esa Lokeh vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ th egkjkt }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa lfEefyr gq, FksA** ¼isij ua0&487,] ist&2869½ "When Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had been installed as Jyotipeethadheeshwar on 7.12.1973 A.D., even then I had gone to Delhi as Sewak (Servant), with Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerthji Maharaj who was the then Dwarka Shardapeethadheeshwar." (Paper no.-487A, Page 2870)In cross-examination, his statement in examinatin-in-chief could not be discredited and on the contrary he reiterated stating as under:^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa tykfHk"ksd] iV~VkfHk"ksd vfHk"ksd o vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 7-12-1973 dks fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&487d] ist&182½ "The consecration (sanctification with water), installation (vesting with sash), Abhishek (investiture) and Adhisthapan (enthronement) of Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotish Peethadheeshwar was performed on 7.12.1973." (Paper No 487 ka, Page 182)PW-13, Sri Vasant Gadgil, is a Journalist and Editor of Sharda Sanskrti Patrika and engaged in propagation of Sanskrit Language.He did not make any statement with regard to installation on 07.12.1973 but stated about his participation in Chatushpeeth conference as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.619. PW-14, Jonny Pellegreeni, an Italian, undergoing Vedic study also did not say anything about installation but stated about his meeting with plaintiff treating him as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.Similarly, PW-15, Radheyshyam Goswami also did not make any statement about installation but said that he was felicitated/ honoured when visited Jabalpur in the capacity of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.PWs-18 and 19, Dilawar Khan and Gauri Shankar Tiwari also stated about felicitation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in Madhy Pradesh.PW-20, C.V. Giridhar Shastri, a Teacher from Shringeri, District Chik Mangloor, Karnataka, also did not say anything about installation but stated that plaintiff participated as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in the meeting of Shankaracharyas of four Peeths.PW-21, Balram Pandey made statement about felicitation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 29.09.1975 at Varanasi.PW-22, Bramhachari Subudhanand is Personal Secretary of plaintiff and made statement with regard to installation as under:^^oknh dk tc fnukad 7&12&1973 dks fnYyh esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa iV~VkfHk"ksd fd;k x;k Fkk] rc mDr iV~VkfHk"ksd esa fuEckdzkZpk;Z Jh th egkjkt dks mifLFkr gksuk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&499 d] ist&2931½ "Nimbarkacharya Sri Ji Maharaj had to be present in the installation ceremony when the plaintiff was installed as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar in Delhi on 7-12-1973." (Paper no. 499 Ka, Page-2931)^^eSa jkeefUnj esa gq, vfHk"ksd ds oDr eSa mifLFkr ugha FkkA --- vfHk"ksd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk vfHk"ksd Lokeh egs'ojkuUn] dk'kh ds oSfnd fo}kuksa us o djik=h th us fd;k FkkA tks yksxksa us vfHk"ksd fd;k Fkk mlesa ls dksbZ T;ksfr"kihB ds ihBk/kh'oj ugha FksA --- oknh tc 'kadjkpk;Z gq, rc 1973 esa mUgksaus eq>s viuk lfpo fu;qDr fd;kA** ¼isij ua0&499d] ist&261½ "I was not present when the installation was performed at Ram Mandir... The installation of Swami Swaroopanand Ji was performed by Swami Maheshwaranand, Vedic scholars of Kashi and Karpatri Ji.Out of the persons who performed installation of Peethadheeshwar of Jyotishpeetha, none was Peethadheeshwar of Jyotishpeeth....When the plaintiff became Shankaracharya, he appointed me as his secretary in the year 1973." (Paper No. 499Ka, Page 262)627. PW-23, Nijanand Brahmchari, stated that he was present at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 at Delhi and said:**oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu o iV~VkfHk"ksd fnukad 07-12-1973 bZ0 dks dksBh ua-&7 esVdkQ jksM flfoy ykbu] fnYyh ftldks vc 'kadjkpk;Z ekxZ ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS] es fd;k x;k Fkk] rc eSa ekStwn FkkA** ¼isij ua0&500 d] ist&2943½ "Installation and coronation of the plaintiff Swami Swarupanand Ji as Jyotishpeethadheeshwer was materialized on 7.12.1973 at House no.-7, Metkaaf Road, Civil Lines, Delhi which is now known as Shankaracharya Marg.I was present at that time." (Paper No.-500Ka, Page no. 2943).^^fnukad 7-112-1973 dks 'kkL= lEer oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa tykfHk"ksd o in~VkfHk"ksd fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ caxyk ua0&7 ls 'kksHkk;k=k fudkyh x;h Fkh tks vtey [kkWa ikdZ esa ,df=r gq;h FkhA** ¼isij ua0&500 d] ist&2944½ "After installation and coronation of the plaintiff Swami Swarupanand Ji as Jyotishpeethadheeshwer in accordance with religious jurisprudence/scriptures, a procession (Shobhyatra) was taken from house no. 7 which assembled at Ajmal Khan Park." (Paper No.-500 Ka, Page no. 2944)In cross-examination also we find nothing to discredit above statement.In fact he has fortified his deposition as under:**eB esa dksbZ flagklu ugha gS tks og oknh ds lkFk esa gSA flagklu eSaus ns[kk gS flagklu pkanh dk cuk gqvk gSA eudkes'oj esa dksbZ flagklu ugha gSA flagklu oknh ds lkFk esa pyrk gSA T;ksfr"kihB dk flagklu ;gh gS tks oknh ds lkFk esa pyrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&500d] ist&285½ "There is no throne in the Math.The throne which exists is with the plaintiff.I have seen the throne.The throne accompanies the plaintiff.This is the same throne of Jyotishpeetha that accompanies the plaintiff wherever he goes." (Paper No. 500Ka, Page 285) **ftl le; fnYyh esa oknh dk vfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk mldh QksVks [khaph x;h Fkh** ¼isij ua0&500d] ist&286½ "When the Abhishek of the plaintiff was performed in Delhi, its photographs were taken." (Paper No. 500-Ka, Page 286)PW-24, Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Brahmarishi Ram Krishnanand, did not say anything about the factum of installation of plaintiff but stated that he was being recognized by said Agni Akhada as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.Though in cross-examination he said that plaintiff was installed in 1973 but not being a witness to installation as such, the deposition of PW-24 on this issue is of no assistance to plaintiff.630. PW-25, Kaivalya Nand Brahmachari, a Preecher and resident of Raj Anandpur, District Puschim Singhbumi (Jharkhand), said that he was present at the time of nomination of plaintiff for Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and also at the time of installation.His deposition reads as under:^^oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd fnukad 12-09-1973 bZ0 dks /keZ la?k f'k{kk e.My ds lHkkxkj esa nqxkZ dq.M] okjk.klh esa fd;k x;k FkkA mDr vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd esa] eSa mifLFkr FkkA** ¼isij ua0&505 d] ist&2985½ "The formal consecration of the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Sarasawati ji Maharaj as a Jyotishapeethadheeshwar was conducted on 12.09.1973, in the auditorium of Dharm Sangh Shikchha Mandal, Durga Kund, Varanasi.I was present in that formal consecration." (Paper no-505 Ka, Page-2985) ^^fnYyh esa fd;s x;s mDrvfHk"ksd ds deZdk.M esa eSa ekStwn Fkk] vkSj deZdk.M dks ns[kk FkkA --- jftLVj ^^Mh** ds dkxt la[;k&Mh&3 dk f}rh; fp= ml volj dk QksVks gS] tc fnukad 07-12-1973 bZ0 dks J`axsjh ihBk/kh'oj dh rjQ ls vkpk;Z pYyk y{e.k 'kkL=h th us oknh dks oL= vks<+k;k FkkA bl fp= esa --- dkxt la[;k Mh&4 dk f}rh; QksVks oknh dk fnYyh esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fd;s x;s fnukad 7-12-1973 dks iV~VkfHk"ksd ds volj dk fp= gSA** ¼isij ua0&505 d] ist&2985½ In the rituals of the above consecration performed in Delhi, I was present and had witnessed it.Second photograph of paper no-D-3 of Register-D is the snapshot of that occasion when on 07.12.1973, Aacharya Challa Laxman Shastri ji had covered the plaintiff with ceremonial cloth on behalf of Sringeri Peedthadheeshwar.He has also proved various photographs taken at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 and thereafter on various occasions when plaintiff visited different places, and was treated and recognized as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.In cross-examination he proved factum of his presence on 12.09.1973 and also having signed register of KVP.He said:" Paper No. 505A, Page - 318) **fn0 12-9-73 dks dk'kh eas ,d vk;kstu gqvk FkkA ;g vk;kstu dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA --- vk;kstu dh ?kks"k.kk dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn us gh dh FkhA ml le; dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn ds egkea=h jktukjk;u 'kqDy FksA ml vk;kstu esa izeq[k ia0 dkyhizlkn feJ] ia0 iV~VkfHkjke 'kkL+=h] ia0 cnzhukFk 'kqDy] ia0 ';kek pj.k f}osnh] ia0 HkkypUnz f}osnh] ia0 jsok izlkn f}osnh] ia0 f=ukFk 'kekZ] ia0 pUnznso f}osnh] ia0 jekxksfoUn f=ikBh] ia0 JhukFk oSfnd] ia0 tks"k.k jke ik.Ms;] ia0 gfjgj izlkn ik.Shyama Charan Dwivedi, Pt.Bhalchandra Dwivedi, Pt.Rewa Prasad Dwivedi, Pt.Trinath Shrama, Pt.Chandradev Dwivedi, Pt.Ramaagovind Tripathi, Pt.Joshan Ram Pandey, Pt.Harihar Prasad Pandey and others.All of these persons had put their signatures on the register.The register will still be at the office of Kashi Vidwat Parishad. ... On the proposal of the Vidwat Parishad, the scholars declared the selection of the plaintiff." (Paper No. 505A, Page - 319) **vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd esa dksbZ 'kadjkpk;Z mifLFkr ugha FksA fn0 12-9-73 dks dsoy fo}ku o n.Mh Lokfe;ksa ds vykok dksbZ egke.Mys'oj o vk[kkM+k ifj"kn mifLFkr ugha gqvk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&505d] ist&320½ "In the formal installation, no Shankaracharya was present.Except scholars and Dandi Swamis, no Mahamandaleshwar and Akhara Pariashad turned up on 12.09.1973." (Paper No. 505A, Page - 320)PW-26, Acharya Jitendra has deposed about participation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in Rashtirya Ganga Mukti Sammelan on Magh Krishna Chaturdashi 2063 (2006) but he is not a witness to the factum of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya.PW-32, Nand Kishore Nautiyal, is a witness to the functioning of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and not a witness to his installation.PW-34, Pandit Raj Shri Rajnarayan Shastri, at the time of deposition was General Secretary of KVP and has proved certain documents of KVP and not himself is a witness to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya.He stated that he was present at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 and said:**tc fnukad 7-12-73 dks oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa iV~VkfHk"ksd fnYyh esa fd;k x;k Fkk] eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&586d] ist&3073½ "When installation of the plaintiff as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar was performed in Delhi on 7.12.73, I was present.(Paper No. 586 Ka, Page - 3073)In his cross-examination also we find nothing to discredit his statement.PW-39, Swami Harinayananand Ji, Founder-General Secretary of Bharat Sadhu Samaj, also deposed about functioning of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and not a witness to the factum of installation.Similar is the statement of PW-40, Mahant Prakash Puri Guru Kapil Maha Muni Ji and PW-41, Shankardev Chaitanya Brahmachari.Therefore, these statements also have no relevance so far as factum of installation of plaintiff is concerned.DW-1-Swami Vimaldevashram eSa Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dks ns[kk gwWaA pkjksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa ds lEesyu esa Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh Hkkx fy;k djrs gSA"I have seen Swami Swaroopanand Ji.Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati used to attend the conferences of Shankaracharyas of all the four peethas.DW-37-Brahhmchari Atmanand ^^}kfjdk 'kkjnkihB esa ,d rks Lo;a Lokeh Lo:ikuan ljLorh Lo;a ;g 'kadjkpk;Z gS] nwljs ;ksxs'jnRr rhljs jktjkts'ojh vkJe Hkh vius dks }kfjdk 'kkjnkihB dk 'akdjkpk;Z dgrs gSa ftls /kkfeZd turk lHkh dks leku :i ls lEeku nsrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&752½ "At Dwarka Sharadapeeth, firstly Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati himself is Shankaracharya; secondly Yogeshwar Dutt and thirdly Rajrajeshwari Arshram too call themselves Shankaracharya of Dwarika Sharadapeeth, due to which religious people pay equal respect to all of these." (Paper No. 981Ka, page-752) ^^eSa rhuksa yksxksa dks leku :i ls iz.kke djrk gWw D;ksafd mDr rhuksa yksx n.Mh Lokeh gSA ** ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&753½ "I equally salute all the three persons because the aforesaid three persons are Dandi Swami." (Paper No. 981Ka, page-753)The deposition of PWs-2, 6, 9, 23, 25, 35 and DWs-1 and 37 and above discussion show that a ceremony of installation of plaintiff to place him in the seat of Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 was held at Delhi and therefore tenth point for determination is answered in favour of plaintiff.However, as we have held that seat was already occupied by Swami Shantanand in 1973 and alleged installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram on 25.06.1953 was invalid and nullity hence there was no resultant vacancy caused on 10.09.1973 when Swami Krishna Bodhashram died.Therefore the alleged installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya is of no consequence.It is wholly invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law.We answer point no. XI against plaintiff and in favour of appellant.With regard to the installation of appellant in the seat of Shankaracharya and holding of ceremony on 14/15.11.1989 no issue has been framed before Court below, hence it does appear that with regard to such ceremony, there is no dispute but what has been argued is that installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 in the seat of Shankaracharya was invalid.Hence, now we have to consider this aspect but before it an incidental issue has been raised that suit, as instituted by plaintiff, rendered infructuous after installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 and same we propose to consider at this stage.Point for determination-13, therefore, would be "whether suit in question filed by plaintiff rendered infructuous after installation of appellant in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11.1989?"He submitted that amendment sought to be made by application filed on 1.9.2006, having been rejected, would go to show that very relief for which suit for injunction was filed, had rendered infructous on 14/15.11.1989, after installation of defendant-appellant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence, impugned judgment having failed to consider this aspect in accordance with law is clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.He urged that this ground goes to the very root of the matter and renders entire subsequent proceedings inoperative, illegal and of no consequence in law.Admittedly, when suit in question was filed, plaintiff initially, vide plaint dated 09.11.1989, sought following reliefs :"A. The defendant may be restrained by means of permanent injunction decree from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram Himalaya and proclaim himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram and to hold Dand, Chhatra, Chhawar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeetha.B. Costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff, against the defendant.C. Any other reliefs which deems fit and proper may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant."Appellant claimed that he was actually installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11. 1989 at Brahmaniwas, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad i.e. when the suit became pending.Plaintiff filed amendment application on 1.9.2006 and besides others, he intended to add following relief:It be declared that the alleged installation of the defendant as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram, Himalaya Purporting to be done and performed on 14.11.1989/15.11.1989 at Braham Niwas 7, Alopibagh, Allahabad, is invalid, ineffective, illegal and void and the defendant got no right and title to hold the office of Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth, Badrikashram, Himalaya and to function as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of the said peeth."This amendment was rejected by order dated 22.12.2006 though some part of amendment of plaint was allowed but that is not material.We are concerned with part of relief which was admittedly rejected by Court below.The alleged installation of defendant appellant took place on 14/15.11.1989 when suit was duly instituted, registered in Court below and was sub judice.The prayer in the plaint, as we have already noticed, can be read to have three parts of relief as under:(i) for restraining defendant-appellant from installing as Shankaracharya;(ii) to restrain him from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya; andThe aforesaid two reliefs cover a situation where incumbent, if had already come to the office, still, if justified, such injunction could have been granted.Whether such injunction would be granted or not is a question to be decided in the light of evidence but the mere factum of installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 will not render the aforesaid second and third part of reliefs, infructuous.Therefore, the question no. XIII whether entire suit has rendered infructuous after alleged installation of defendant-appellant as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989 has to be answered against appellant for the reason that the second and third part of relief, as noted above, was open to be considered by Court and in respect of even first part, unless a finding is recorded that alleged installation was valid and in accordance with law, even that part of relief cannot be said to have rendered infructuous.We, therefore, answer Question No.-XIII in negative and against appellant holding that suit did not render infructuous as pleaded by appellant.Now we have to examine capacity of appellant to become Shankaracharya, which has been answered in negative by Court below holding him ineligible, unqualified for installation in the seat of Shankaracharya.Amendment was sought in certain paragraphs of plaint as well as addition of relief.Amendment application vide order dated 22.12.2006, was largely rejected and certain minor amendments in the plaint were allowed.Since amendment for addition of prayer was specifically rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation, meaning thereby, the facts which plaintiff desired to bring on record as a part of pleadings having been rejected, neither by permitting parties to lead evidence nor otherwise, in respect of those facts, any finding could have been recorded and Trial Court to this extent has erred in law.Sri Shashi Nandan, per contra, argued that pleadings, already available, if cover a particular aspect, same could not have been ignored and evidence adduced in this regard could not be refused on the ground that detailed pleadings are not available.The argument is that by way of evidence, an issue raised can be clarified and expanded.It shows that application was filed when parties were yet to adduce evidence before Court below.Delay was sought to be explained with reference to disposal of ad-interim injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and interim injunction was granted on 22.02.1999 restraining appellant from proclaiming himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.Thereagainst appellant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1999, which was dismissed on 27.04.2000 by VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad.Thereagainst, appellant preferred writ petition no. 24085 of 2000, wherein an interim order was passed on 22.05.2000 and parties were directed to maintain status quo.Writ petition was finally decided by judgement dated 23.01.2004 whereagainst both parties preferred Civil Appeal No. 4613 of 2005 before Apex Court.Vide order dated 02.08.2005, Court directed parties to maintain status quo.Aforesaid proceedings caused delay in filing amendment which also became necessary due to subsequent events and claim made by appellant regarding installation as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989 i.e. after filing of suit.Amendment was, therefore, requested in the plaint as well as replication.Plaintiff requested for addition of paragraphs 44/1 and 44/2 in plaint and 22 grounds challenging installation of appellant on the ground of lack of qualification, ineligibility etc. He also prayed for addition of relief A/1 after prayer A already made.Justice Broome vide order dated 14.09.1971 allowed application and granted leave to election petitioner to deliver interrogatories for examination of respondent and rejected objections raised by respondent.During pendency of appeal respondent filed an application before this Court under Order 11 Rule 7 C.P.C. praying that the interrogatories served on her may be set aside as they were "unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, unnecessary and irrelevant".31 interrogatories were served on respondent.If a pleading on a reasonable construction, could sustain the action, the Court should accept that construction.Challenging election of Mahadeo Rao Sukaji Shivankar who was elected from Legislative Constituency, Bhandara, Maharashtra, an election petition was filed in 1999 at Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) by Ramratan Bapu, on the ground of corrupt practice adopted by returned candidate.High Court by order dated 15.02.2003 rejected two applications filed by returned candidate but allowed application filed by election-petitioner.This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court.Aggrieved thereby, returned candidate filed appeal in Supreme Court.In Bhagawati Prasad Vs Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and future mesne profits was filed stating that plaintiff is the owner of House No. 59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur.It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendant were friends and enjoying mutual confidence.In 1948, first floor was completed and the same was also let out to defendant on an additional rent of Rs.150/- per month and in 1950 second floor was constructed and the same was also let out to defendant on a further additional rent of Rs. 150/- per month.Thereafter it committed default, hence suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was filed.No question was put to any witness of the plaintiff-respondents why this delay had occurred The plea depended on questions of fact in respect of which evidence could have been given and facts elicited.Such a plea could not be considered for the first time at the appellate stage when the party concerned had no earlier warning and did not have any opportunity to give evidence explaining the reason for the delay." (emphasis added)The plaintiff was also cross-examined with respect to the address of Bhagavathi Valli, and the only witness examined on the side of the defendant deposed about the notification and was not cross-examined on this point.The absence of an issue, there-fore, did not lead to a mistrial sufficient to vitiate the decision."In Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 491, a suit was filed for declaration, possession and injunction against Bachhaj Nahar and Sujash Kumar Ghosh.The reliefs sought in the suit read as under:(iii) a permanent injunction restraining first defendant from interfering with the suit property."Defendant resisted the suit contending that he had purchased land from second defendant under sale deed dated 05.05.1982 and suit land actually is his property.Trial Court formulated following eight issues:"(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?(ii) Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action to file the suit as against these defendants?(iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and also on the principle of waiver estoppel and acquiescence?(iv) Whether the description of the suit land is vague?(v) Whether the suit land is part and parcel of land of the plaintiff purchased through registered kewala or the suit land in exclusive possession of Ishan Chand Ghosh, and after his death of second defendant, and after purchase of first defendant.(vi) Has first defendant encroached any portion of the suit land?(vii) Whether the plaintiffs got title over the suit land? Or were they using the suit land under express permission of the late Ishan Chand Ghosh and his son?(viii) To what relief or reliefs, plaintiffs are entitled?"Trial Court decreed suit, in part, holding that suit property was part of plaintiffs' property and first defendant had encroached over it to the extent of 15 sq. ft. and raised construction thereat.Therefore, instead of restoring possession, it allowed damages and compensation for such encroached portion to the plaintiff.Defendant filed appeal and plaintiff filed cross objection.First Appellate Court held that plaintiffs failed to prove their title and therefore, allowed defendant's appeal and dismissed plaintiff's cross objection and reversed the decree of Trial Court.Consequently, suit was dismissed.It is also ununderstandable as to how while declaring that plaintiffs have only an easementary right over the suit property, the Court can reserve a right to the plaintiffs to establish their title thereto by a separate suit, when deciding a second appeal arising from a suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of title.Nor is it understandable how the High Court could hold that the apart from plaintiffs, other persons living adjacent to and north of the suit property were entitled to use the same as passage, when they are not parties, and when they have not sought such a relief."In the present case injunction was sought against appellant from functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotispeeth on various grounds and one pleaded in para 42 is that appellant did not possess requisite qualification as provided in Mathamnay and Mahanushasan so as to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotispeeth.Thereafter appellant also filed an additional written statement.Now the only question to be considered is, "Whether appellant was qualified, eligible and competent to be installed as Shankaracharya."In fact, after the so called date of taking reclusion (Sanyas), appellant throughout remained in employment till 13.11.1989, i.e. just the day earlier to date of his alleged installation.He was never a 'Sanyasi' as per established customs or usages having force of law hence, incompetent to hold seat of Shankaracharya.He further deposed that appellant whose earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi, was appointed as Head of Vedanta Department on 10.08.1979 and worked till 13.11.1989 and received salary.It is also pointed out that aforesaid institution, in which, appellant was appointed and worked, is an aided institution from the State Government.Appellant submitted resignation on 13.11.1989 (Paper No. 538C i.e. Ex.137) from the aforesaid employment.The factum of employment of appellant has also been corroborated by PW 28, Sri Shiv Kumar Tiwari.The defendant used to give the salary, which he received for teaching, to his wife or father whoever came to the Alopibagh ashram for household expenses."I had been appointed on 01/04/1979 on the post of Head of the Literature Department, in grade pay 650-1280."**izfroknh dk ewy uke lkseukFk f}osnh iq= Jh rhFkZjkt f}osnh gSA mDr uke ls] izfroknh dh fuq;fDr mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds in ij fnukad 10-8-1979 dks osrudze 650&1280 esa gqbZ FkhA izfroknh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh us Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky;] 'kadjkpk;Z vkJe] vyksihckx] bykgkckn esa lkseukFk f}osnh iq= Jh rhFkZjkt f}osnh ds uke ls fnukad 10-8-79 bZ0 ls fnukad 12-11-1989 bZ0 ¼ckjg uoEcj lu~ mUuhl lkS uoklha½ rd mDr fo|ky; esa loSrfud v/;kiu dk;Z fd;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 13-11-89 dks] izfroknh] tks lkseukFk f}osnh ds uke ls mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds :i esa loSrfud v/;kiu dk;Z fd;k Fkk] osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k in ls R;kx i= fn;k FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3058½ "Original name of defendant is Somnath Dwivedi, s/o-Shri Tirthraj Dwivedi.Defendant Vasudevanand had taught in Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shankracharya Ashram, Alopibag, Allahabad in the name of Somnath Dwivedi, S/o-Shri Tirthraj Dwivedi, from 10/08/1979 to 12/11/89(Twelve November eighty nine) on salary basis and the defendant, who had taught as Head of the Vedant Department in the said School, on salary basis in the name of Somnath Dwivedi, had resigned from the post of Head of Vedant Department on 13/11/89."^^Jh lkseukFk f}osnh vFkkZr izfroknh 'kklu }kjk foRr iksf"kr mDr fo|ky; esa fnukad 10-8-1979 ls 12-11-1989 rd osruHkksxh v/;kid jgsA lkseukFk f}osnh tks bl okn esa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ds uke ls izfroknh gS] fnukad 10-8-1979 ls 12-11-1989 rd v/;kiu dk;Z dk osru izkIr fd;k FkkA --- izfroknh vizSy 1989 bZ0 ls viuk uke lkseukFk f}osnh ds vykok oklqnsokuUn ljLorh Hkh crkrk jgk gSA**¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3058½ "Shri Somnath Dwivedi i.e. defendant was salaried teacher in the said School from 10/08/1979 to 12/11/1989 which is financially aided by Government.Besides Somnath Dwivedi, defendant had been telling his name Vasudevanand Saraswati also."In the second phase, he had traveled from 5th February, 1983 to 4th April, 1983."**bl okn esa oknh dh rjQ ls nkf[ky dkxt la[;k&538x@141 yxk;r 538x@149 gS] ftleas Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ¼izfroknh½ ds uke ds lkeus fo'ks"k dkye esa Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ds }kjk fnukad 13-11-1989 dks R;kxi= fn;k tkuk vkSj mDr frfFk ls mUgsa dk;ZeqDr fd;k tkuk fy[kk x;k gSA --- izfroknh lkseukFk f}osnh ¼orZeku uke oklqnsokuUn ljLorh½ mDr fo|ky; esa v/;kiu dk;Z ls tks osru izkIr djrs Fks] mldks ?kj x`gLFkh [kpZ gsrq viuh iRuh o vius firk o HkkbZ dks fn;k djrs FksA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3061]3062½ "Paper no.-538G/141 to 538G/149, submitted by plaintiff of this case, are the copies of documents wherein against the name of Somnath Dwivedi in special column resignation tendered by Somnath on 13.11.1989 and his relieving from duty with effect from said date is mentioned.Defendant Somnath Dwivedi(present name- Vasudevanand Saraswati) used to give salary obtained from teaching in said Vidyalaya, to his wife, father and brother for expenditures of household."In 1983, he was talking of his wish to take sanyas (renunciation), but I don't know whether he took sanyas (renunciation) or not.Shivarchan Prasad Upadhyay and Somnath Dwivedi, now called Vasudevanand, had gone abroad.Both of them had gone abroad on a pleasure trip."**;g dguk lgh gS fd Jh lkseukFk f}osnh vkSj eSa ,d gh rglhy ds fuoklh gSaA**¼isij ua0&572d] ist&449½ "It is true to say that Somanth Dwivedi and I are the residents of the same Tehsil."**ftu lkseukFk f}osnh dk ftdz dj jgk gWw ogh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ds uke ls tkus tkrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&450½ "The Somnath Dwivedi I am speaking of is known as Swami Vasudevanand."Relevant extract of statement of defence witnesses produced by appellant himself reads as under:DW-2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi XXX Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk lU;kl iwoZ uke lkseukFk fo|kFkhZ FkkA --- Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh vfHk"ksd ds iwoZ i The name of Swami Vasudevanand before he took Sanyaas was Somnath Vidyarthi.Thereafter said that he kept studying until he became Shankaracharya in the year 1989.(Paper No. 656 Ka, Page 26) (English Translation by Court) DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, appellant XXX esjk iwoZ uke lkseukFk czg~epkjh FkkA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&121] 122½ My previous name was Somanth Brahmchari.(Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 121, 122)(English Translation by Court) DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, XXX Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA lkseukFk f}osnh Hkh bl fo|ky; esa v/;kiu dk dk;Z djrs FksA --- eSa lkseukFk f}osnh ,oa f'kokpZu mik/;k; ,d lkFk fons'k ;k=k fd, FksA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&198½ The former name of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati was Somnath Dwivedi.Somnath Dwivedi too used to teach in this school.... I alongwith Somnath Dwivedi and Shivarchan Upadyaya had gone abroad all together.(Paper No 645 ka, Page 198) esjs gyQukek ds nQk 13 esa egjktJh dks tks osru izkIr gksrk Fkk] okD; fy[kk x;k gS og egkjktJh oklqnsokuUn th gh gSA ;g osru T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx ls feyrk FkkA fo|ky; dk Hkou vkJe dh ifjf/k ls vyx gSA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&215½ The sentence 'the salary used to be paid to Mahraj Shri', as mentioned in para 13 of my affidavit, is written for Mahraj Shri Vasudevanand Ji.This salary was drawn from Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh.The Vidyalaya building is separate from the precincts of Ashram.(Paper No 645 ka, Page 215) (English Translation by Court) DW-8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla XXX osnkUr foHkkxk/;k{k Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt FksA mudk iwoZ uke Jh lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&743 d] ist&323½ Head of the Department of Vedanta was Sri Swami Vasudevanand Sarasawati ji Maharaj.His former name was Sri Som Nath Dwivedi.Please tell whether my above statement is right or wrong.Ans: I don't know anything in this regard whether he was salaried or not.Because (he) taught many students.He taught the students of the institution.He taught the students other than the institution, who came from outside, who were not the students, (but) just came to study for other reasons.I know only this much that he taught them and managed their expenses from other resources/contacts.Is my above statement right or wrong?Ans: I don't have any information when did he apply for this job; nor do I know as to when he resigned from it." (Paper no-743 Ka, Page-341) (English Translation by Court) DW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey XXX oklqnsokuUn th Hkh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx esa v/;kid FksA ;s osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k FksA eSa ;g ugh crk ldrk fd Lokeh oklqnsokuUn th us uoEcj lu~ 1989 esa R;kxi= fn;k Fkk ;k ughA Lokeh oklqnsokuUn dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh Fkk ijUrq f}osnh ugha fy[krs Fks czg~epkjh fy[krs FksA ¼isij ua0&770d] ist&399½ "Vasudevanandji was a teacher in Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh.He was the Head of the Department in Vedanta.I can not tell whether Swami Vasudevanand had resigned in November 1989 or not.Swami Vasudevanand's earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi but he did not write Dwivedi and used to suffix Brahmachari.In 1966 Somnath Dwivedi was Brahmachari.Somnath Dwivedi used to teach in Alopibagh Ashram.When the installation of Jagadguru Shankaracharya took place, then he had left it.He had left the teaching work on 13th November 1989." (Paper no.-772Ka, Page-430) (English Translation by Court) DW-21 Acharya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi XXX ^^eSaus oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dks loZizFke tqykbZ 1982 dks ns[kk Fkk ml le; os czg~epkjh Jh lkseukFk ds uke ls tkus tkrs FksA os lkseukFk f}osnh Hkh fy[krs Fks ;k ugha] crk;k fd eSa ugha tkurk gwWaA tc eSa loZizFke feyk Fkk ml le; os v/;kiu dk dk;Z dj jgs FksA ml le; Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx bykgkckn esa i<+k jgs FksA --- 13 uoEcj lu~ 1989 rd v/;kiu dk dk;Z fd;s tc rd os v/;kiu dk;Z fd;s rc rd mUgsa osru feyrk FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&894d] ist&478½ I had seen Vasudevanand Saraswati for the first time in July 1982, when he was known as Brahmachari Shri Somnath.Stated that I do not know whether he used to write Somnath Dwivedi too or not.At the time when I met for the first time, he was teaching.At that time, he was teaching at Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh, Allahabad. ...He tought till November 13, 1989; he got the salary till the date he taught.(Paper no. 894Ka, page-478) (English Translation by Court) DW-23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla ^^Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&897 d] ist&498&499½ "Somnath Dwivedi was the past name of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati." ¼Paper no.- 897 Ka, Page-498-499½ (English Translation by Court) DW-28 Sri Srimohan Dubey XXX ^^tc ls esjh T;ksfr"ihB fo|ky; esa fu;qfDr gqbZ rHkh ls eSa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn th dks tkurk gwWA ftl le; esjh fu;qfDr fo|ky; esa gqbZ Fkh ml le; Lokeh oklqnsokuUn dk uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA --- lu~ 1983 ls lkseukFk f}osnh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh gks x;sA^^¼isij ua0&902 d] ist&546½ "I am acquainted with Swami Vasudevanand Ji since I have been appointed in Jyotishpeeth Vidyalaya.At the time I was appointed in Jyotishpeeth Vidyalaya, the name of Swami Vasudevanand was Somnath Dwivedi.Since 1983, Somnath Dwivedi became Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati".(Paper no.-902 ka, page-546)(English Translation by Court) ^^mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkx Hkh gSA lu~ 1984 esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k Jh lkseukFk f}osnh FksA og fnukad 13 uoEcj 1989 rd osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgs gSaA fnukad 13 uoEcj 1989 dks Jh 'kksHkukFk f}osnh txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij mudk euksu;u gks x;k FkkA blfy;s mUgksaus mDr fnukad dks viuh LosPNk ls r;kx i= ns fn;k FkkA Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; esa Jh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh ds uke ls fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa v/;kid dk dk;Z ugha fd;k gS cfYd Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ds uke ls v/;kiu dk dk;Z fd;k gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&902 d] ist&551½ "There is Vedant Department also in the said school.In 1984, Shri, Shobhnath Dwivedi was the Head of Vedant Department.On 13th November, 1989, Shri Shobhnath Dwivedi was nominated for the seat of Jagat Guru Shankracharya.That is why he had voluntarily resigned on the said date.It is also true to say that Shri Sobhnath Dwivedi and Shivarchan Prasad Upadhayay had traveled abroad for 73 days in the year of 1983." (Paper no.-902 ka, page-552)(English Translation by Court) DW-33 Swami Yogeshwaranand Giri XXX ^^;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd ftl le; olh;r dh fy[kk i<+h gq;h Fkh rc Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh v/;kiu dk dk;Z NksM+ pqds Fks ;k ugha] eq>s ;kn ugha gSA Lokeh oklqnsokuUn lU;kl fy;s gq;s gSaA ;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd mUgksaus v/;kid dh ukSdjh NksM+dj n.Following is the seniority list of Teachers working in your institution, prepared on the basis of report of Assistant Inspector, Sanskrit Schools, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, received through letter no.317-20/89-90 dated 19.9.1989 and accounts showing income and expenditure, made available by you from time to time :No. Name of Teacher Post Date of substantive appointment Pay Scale 1 Sri Rajnarain Tripathi Head of Deptt., Literature 1-9-67 650-1280 2 Sri Rampher Shukla Head of Deptt., Grammar 1-9-76 650-1280 3 Sri Somnath Dwivedi Head of Deptt., Vedanta 18-8-79 650-1280 4 Sri Krishnadeo Pathak AssistantHead of Deptt., 15-11-72 540-910 5 Sri Devi Shanker Dubey AssistantHead of Deptt., 1-4-77 540-910 6 Sri Shirvacahan Prasad Upadhyay AssistantTeacher, Grammar 19-9-70 400-620 7 Sri Harishankar Tripathi AssistantTeacher, Literature 1-5-77 400-620 8 Sri Umashanker Mishra AssistantTeacher, Modern.Another document is letter dated 11.09.1991 (Paper No. 538C/126 I.e. Exhibit 132), sent by Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad to Manager of aforesaid institution in which appellant was working, raising an objection with regard to payment of salary when teachers including appellant, Somnanth Dwivedi, (subsequently named as Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati) had gone on foreign visit.The said letter in fact is a show cause notice under Section 314 of Education Code, with respect to alleged irregularities in payment of salary when appellant was on foreign visit.This declaration he did not seek in rem but impleaded only three defendants in the said suit i.e. Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati), Dwarika Prasad Tripathi and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati.Declaration, therefore, plaintiff sought in the aforesaid suit, was against aforesaid three persons only.Till new Shankaracharya is installed at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.In view of divided success we permit the parties to bear their own costs.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 795-797 1263-1265 42 DW 42 Sri Radhakrishna Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Vol.II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 798-819II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 820-875 Appendix-"C"Plaintiff's Documentary Evidence S. No. Details of documents Date Paper No. Exh-ibit No. Volume Pages23.08.1979 91-C 210 Vol.3 1271Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth.17.11.1974 92-C 211 Vol.3 1272Proclamation/declaration of Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Dwarka Sharda Peeth Sri Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth.17.12.1973 93-C 212 Vol.3 1273Suggestion letter (Sujhav Patra) of Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Maharaj no.2035 Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth.Samvat 2035 94-C 213 Vol.3 1274Letter of thanks, Rashtrapati Bhawan, 04.12.1973 95-C 214 Vol.3 1275-1284Regret Letter from British High Commission, New Delhi.Motion of protest by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Dr. Paramhans Misra 03.12.1983 105-C 224 Vol.3 1285Objection by Dwarikeshananad Saraswati 106-C 225 Vol.3 1287Opinion by M. Khatri, Advocate 107-C 226Certificate by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 108-C 227 Vol.Ram Ji 137-C 256Report of Head Copyist, Tax Assessment, Nagar Nigam, relating to mutation of the name of Swami Swaroopanand, pursuant to order of Commissioner 30.5.1989 140-C 4 Vol.3 1412Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 95 (True Copy) 141-C 5 Vol.3 1413-1418Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 80 (True Copy)142-C 6 Vol.3 1419-1421Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 85 (True Copy) 143-C 7 Vol.3 1422-1424Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 90 (True Copy) 144-C 8 Vol.3 1425-143065. Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 100 (True Copy) 145-C 9 Vol.3 1431-1433Extract Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 105 (True Copy) 146-C 10 Vol.3 1434-1436Ram Ji Tripathi 20.10.1962 158-C to 172C 11 Vol.5 2430-2782Copy of will/Resignation letter written by Shantanand Saraswati, stating that Swami Vishnudevanand was installed/enthroned on the seat of Peeth 28.04.1980 159-C 12Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad (RD.AD) 21.11.1983 343A/22 64Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Sri Rati Narayan Shastri Vikram No. 2032 343A/23 31Swagat Abhinandan V.S. 2032 344C/B7 167Ujjain Mahakal Mandir V.S. 2032 Varanasi 344C/B7 168Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 26.11.2001 344C/8 276 Vol.3 1588Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh, Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/B-8-9 99 Vol.3 1589-1590Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/14B 26 Vol.3 1594Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/15B 279 Vol.3 1595Subhabhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Samvat 2030 344C/43B 105Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Samwat 2030 Paush Purnima 344C/44B 301Abhinandan Patra 16.03.1974 344C/B-47 106Pranamaujalaya Ashvin Krishna 11 Budh 2032 344C/48B 304 to26.05.1974 344C/64B 97Abhinandan Patra 03.01.1981 344C/B-68-69 108Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 26.05.1974 344C/B-70-71 109Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by all Members of Sanskardhani, Srimat Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swagat Samiti, Jabalpur 02.01.1974 347C/8 to 347C/9 318 Vol.3 1621-1622Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagatguru Shankaracharya Amrit Mahotsav Evam Chaturmas Samorah Samiti Evam all devotees.347C/10 to 347C/11 115 Vol.3 1623-1624Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Akhil Bhartiya Adhayatmolyan Mandalasya 19.12.1994 347C/12 to 347C/13 116 Vol.3 1625-1626Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Digvijay Singh, Chief Minister, M.P., Chaturmas Samoraha Samiti 05.09.1997 347C/14 to 347C/15 41 Vol.3 1627-1628Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 19.09.1996 347C/16 to 347C/17 42 Vol.3 1629-1630Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) alongwith Photoghaphs Magh Krishna 2 Guro, 2030 347C/18 to 347C/19 117 Vol.3 1631-1645Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 16.09.2006 347C/20 to 347C/21 319349C/1 337 Vol.3 1670Delivery of heart touching welcome speech, welcoming Present Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Nischalanand Ji Maharaj, Jyotirshpeethdhishwar of Puri Govardhan Peeth, by present Shankaracharya Evam Jagatguru Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Nareshacharya Ji Maharaj along with Jyotishpeethadheeshwsar and Shankaracharaya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj in Akhil Bhartiya Virat Sadhu Mahatma Sammelan , Puri 349C/2 338 Vol.3 1671Abhinav Sachichidanand Teerth Ji attending the chatuspeeth Sammelan held at Shrigeripeeth along with Shankaracharya of Shrigeripeeth and the then Shankaracharya of Jyotispeeth.349C/16 352 Vol.3 1684Swami Bharti Teerth and Swami Swaroopanand Ji on the same podium 349C/17 353 Vol.3 1685One more photo showing Govindacharya and Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji with the present Shankaracharya of Shringeri.Punya Shobhayatra in Prayag Mela and the Prashasak of Shringeripeeth Shri V.R. Gaurishankar, receiving orders from Jyotishpeethadheeshwar at Dwarika Math.349C/18 354 Vol.3 1686Acharyas of Juna Akhara Mandaleshwar Swami Awadheshanand Ji Maharaj with Ja.Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj.Garlanding of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ji by the aforesaid Swami Awadheshanand Ji Maharaj, and a Minister from Chhatisgarh State Shri Ravindra Chaubey, welcoming Ja.Swami Swaroopanand Ji 349C/19 355 Vol.3 1687In a Programmeme, Puri Shankaracharya, Agni Peethadheeshwar, President of Bharat Sadhu Samaj and Kashi Peethedheeshwar and others with Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj The then Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/20 356 Vol.3 1688The then Shringeri Peethadheeshwar Jagadguru Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth Ji performing Abhishek of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ja.Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj as Shankaracharya at Dwarika Peeth.Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Shankaracharya of Puri 349C/30 366 Vol.3 1698Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Nepal Nath 349C/31 367 Vol.3 1699Mothi Lal Ghera worshipping Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj 349C/32 368 Vol.3 1700Sri Suresh Ram, Kendriya Mantri, Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Sri Mandan Mishra 349C/35 349C/36 349C/37 371 372 373 Vol.3 1703Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Sri Ratnakar Pandey 349C/38 349C/39 374 375 Vol.3 1704Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Vice Chancellor Smapoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidlaya 349C/40 376 Vol.3 1705-1709Welcome in Smapoornanand Vishwavidyalaya 349C/41 377 Vol.3 1710Welcome of Maharaj Ji with Freedom Fighters 349C/42 378 Vol.3 1711Jyotishpeethadheeshwar being welcomed by the Mandaladhyaksh of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sewa Mandal Shri Ram Kishore Sharma 349C/43 379 Vol.3 1712In both the photos above and below, Hon'ble Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao with Maharaj Ji 349C/44 380 Vol.3 1713Panchagni Akhara Mahant Gopalanand with Maharaj Ji, President of Dharam Sangh Shankar Dev Ji with Maharaj Ji.349C/45 381 Vol.3 1714Photo with Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Digvijay Singh 349C/46 382 Vol.3 1715Photo with Gorakhpur University's Vice Chancellor R.K. Mishra and Ambwani Ji of Reliance Group 349C/47 383 Vol.3 1716Maharaj Ji on the occasion of Sampoornanand Foundation Day, Ajeet Jogi with Maharaj Ji, 349C/48 384 Vol.3 1717Photo with Kashi Naresh and Shringeri Peeth's Mudra Adhikari Pawan Shastri 349C/49 385 Vol.3 1718Photo with the saints from Ayodhya in a massive saints' mega conference 349C/50 386 Vol.3 1719Photo with Shri Vedanti Ji, Asht Siddhi Hanuman Mandir, Awadh Praant Udasin 349C/51 387 Vol.3 1720Shri Vishram Singh and Ashok Bhadoria with Uttaranchal University 349C/52 388 Vol.3 1721351 A/1/ E-34 446 Vol.3 1783Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Dharamvir Dal Samiti.351 A/1/ E-35 447 Vol.3 1784Letters Shri Mansha Mata Mandir Sewa Trust.Copy of affidavit Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other.360C/1 to 360C/3 496 Vol.4 1903-1905Copy of order in Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other.03.07.2006 362C/1 & 362C/2 (361C/4) 497 Vol.4 1906-1907Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/2 88 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/3 89 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/4 90 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/5 91 538 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/6 92 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/7 93 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/8 94 Vol.1 278 to 300Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/9 95 Vol.1 278 to 300Copy of the judgement of Civil Judge-IV, Varanasi in Case No. 93/80, Swami Dwarkeshanand Vs Swami Vishnuedevanand and Shantanand Sarswati.25.10.1980 538C/7 to 538C/9 138 Vol.4 1986 to 1989Copy of the orders in Case no. 93/80 Dwarkeshanand Vs Vishnudevanand.27.01.1994 to 19.02.2008 538C/10 to 538C/16 139 Vol.4 1986 to 1989Copy of the plaint in case no. 955/1989 titled as Dwarkeshanand Vs Vasudevanand.538C/17 to 538C/24 140Copy of the application by tenants of Shri Krishnanand Sarswati Trust for depositing rent in the name of Swami Swaroopanand 538C/25 -34 141True copy of Case No. 6 of 2005 u/s 107/116 IPC 538C/35-39 142Copy of judgement passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chamoli in original suit no. 7/98, titled as 'Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Indu Prasad Upadhyay' and in another matter, the said respondents were restrained.24.02.2003 538C/41 to 538C/43 143Copy of judgement in case no. 13A/2003, Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Proprietor, Asia Scientific Gayatri Pathshala.07.01.2003 538C/44 to 538C/48 144CA 1148/08 True copy, order dated 8.4.2006 08.04.2006 538C/44-50 144Copy of decree in the aforesaid case.538C/49 to 538C/50 498CA 1151/08, True copy, order dated 8.4.2006 12.9.2006 538C/63-68 147CA 1154/08, True copy, order dated 12.9.2006 12.9.2006 538C/63-68 148CA 1157/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/75-79 149True copy of judgment in C.A.1151 of 2008 538C/63-68 147CA 1158/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/80-84 150CA 1156/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/85-89 151CA 1155/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/90-94 152Copy of the judgement passed by the Jabalpur Court against the tenants in favour of Swami Swaroopanand.538C/63 to 538C/94 147 to 152Copy of the judgement in the appeal no. 11/07, Gulati Enterprises Vs Swami Swaroopanand.Copy of First Appeal no. ..of 2007 and copy of order 13.04.2007 538C/100-104 154Copy of the 5-year Khasara of Jaardguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan, Khasara of Mauja Saraud, Khasara of Patan, Khasara of Gayatri Sanskrit Pathshala and Khasara of Math Taal.Form 02.01.2008 538C/105 155 Vol.4 2080Copy of 5- year Khasra 02.01.2008 538C/106 156 Vol.4 2080Copy of 5- year Khasra 20.12.2007 538C/107 157 Vol.4 2083True copy of application 20.12.2007 538C/108 158 Vol.4 2081True copy of application 02.01.2008 538C/109 159Original mukhtarnama by Rajendra Prasad Mihsra.538C/110 to 538C/114 160The statement of Chandrashekhar Shastri in the case No. 3/54; who had proved that abhishek (investiture) of Krishna Bodhashram was performed at Joshi Math.16.10.1991 538C/128 to 538C/134 134 to 135 Vol.4 2091 to 2097Receipt of required amount deposited for copy.23.04.2008 538C/135 501 Vol.4 2099Copy of the order given to Swami Vasudevanand by Registrar, Societies & Chits, Allahabad informing that he had been restrained from declaring himself as 'Shankaracharya'.Photograph of Krishna Bodhashram with other Shankaracharyas 540 C/22 183 Vol.7 3127490. Bill/ Cash memo of photographer Tiwari 540 C/23 184 Vol.7 3129Photograph along with negative of Banglamukhi, Jabalpur.540 C/24 to 24/1 185 Vol.7 3131Photographs with negative of the Banglamukhi Temple.540 C/25 to 540 C/27 186 to 188 Vol.7 3132Photograph with negative of the compound of Banglamukhi Temple Ashram 540 C/28 189Photograph of the building of Banglamukhi Ashram, being place for stay of plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Dwarika Sharda Peethadeeshwar.540 C/29 190Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math Banglamukhi Temple.540 C/30 191Photo with negative of Banglamukhi Temple 540 C/31 192Photo with negative of Yagyashala constructed by the plaintiff in the Banglamukhi Ashram.540 C/32 193Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram, Jabalpur.540 C/33 194Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Ashram, Banglamukhi, Jabalpur.540 C/34 195Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram 540 C/35 196Photograph with negative of new building in Banglamukhi Ashram constructed by the plaintiff 540 C/36 197File no.2/2 Invitation Letter.92-143 198File no.2/3 Photograph digital 44-181 199File no.2/4 Photograph digital 182-251/ 3 200Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Gate 540 C/37Photograph with negative of temple situated at Banglamukhi Ashram 540 C/38 508Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram/ Temple 540 C/39 509Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math.540 C/40 510 Vol.7 3137Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math Lakshmi Narayan Temple, Ramnagara.540 C/41 511540C/70 524 Vol.7 3158Photograph of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi performing Charan Poojan of plaintiff 540C/71 525 Vol.7 3158Photographs 56 to 66 of the plaintiff with Shringeri Peethadheeshwar.540C/94 538 Vol.7 3172Letter of Swami Harinarayananand, Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Suraksha Samiti and Akhil Bhartiya Ved Prachar Samiti 27.01.2007 540C/95 539 Vol.7 3175Letter of Rastriya Mantri, Bharat Sindhu Samaj.540C/96 540 Vol.7 3176Letters from various Hindu Societies addressing Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotispeethadheeshwar 540C/97 to 540C/101 541Copy of application, Swami Shantanand etc. 556C 668 Vol.4 1971-1973Certified copy of minutes of meeting of Bharat Dharam Mahamandal 568C/1-289 203Copy of amendment application in Execution Case No.22 of 1977 585C 669 Vol.4 1979-80Copy of objections on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati filed in Execution Suit No. 22/77 09.07.1977 876C 674 Vol.4 1961-1962Copy of Amendment Application on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 25.07.1977 filed in the suit.25.07.1977 877C/2 675 Vol.4 1963-1964Copy of objections on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 05.04.1977 878C 676 Vol.4 1965-1968Copy of affidavit of Narayan Swaroop Brahmchari 879C 677 Vol.4 1969-1977Copy of application on behalf of Swami Shantanand Saraswati 880C 678Copy of affidavit of Bhagwati Prasad 881C 679General Attorney of Swami Shantanand Saraswati in favour of Bhagwati Prasad 882C/1 882C/2 680 Vol.4 1977 & 1978Copy of order passed in Execution suit no. 22/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand 06.04.1985 883C 681 Vol.4 1979 & 1980Certified copy of the office-order, office of Meladhikari, Kumbha Mela, Haridwar.08.03.2010 927C/9 685 Vol.4 1860Certified copy of the list of police personnel deputed during the Shobha Yatra (grand procession) of Jagatrguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj.927C/10 to 927C/15 685 Vol.4 1861-1866Copy of the amendment application in Civil Suit No. 09/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath.927C/16 and 927C/17 685 Vol.4 1867-1869Copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 9/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath.Copy of the order in Civil Suit No. 09/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath.Copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 93/94 Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami.1044C/1 (1045C) 687 Vol.5 2131-2138Copy of the written statement in Civil Suit No. 93/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shambhawanand.1044C/2 (1046C) 688 Vol.5 plff./Respt.2139-2146Copy of the memo of Misc.Appeal No. 286/95, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati Vs.Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati.1044C/3 (1047C) 689 Vol.5 2147-2150Copy of the affidavit, Misc.Appeal No. 286/95, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati Vs.Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati.1044C/4 (1048C) 690 Vol.5 2151-2157Copy of the plaint in Misc.Case No. 321/98, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs.Swami Shambhwanand Sarswati.Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 321/98, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs.Swami Shambhwanand Sarswati.Copy of the plaint in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.1044C/7 (1051C) 693 Vol.5 2158-2164Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.1044C/8 (1052C) 694 Vol.5 2165-2176Copy of the order in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.09.11.2000 1044C/9 (1053C) 695 Vol.5 2177-2180Copy of the plaint in the Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhvanand Sarswati.Copy of application in Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhvanand Sarswati.01.02.2013 1044C/12 (1056C) 698 Vol.5 2182Copy of the letter of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad.01.02.2013 1057C 699Copy of the Order of Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in writ petition 4976/2012 30.01.2013 1044C/14 (1058C) 700 Vol.5 Plff./Rspdt 2183-2184Copy of the Nyas Patra (trust-letter) Urdhwamnyay Shri Kashi Sumeru Peeth Varanasi.1044C/15 (1059C) 701 Vol.5 2185-2188Questionnaire Suit No. 321/98, Civil Judge, Varanasi.1044C/16 (1060C) 702 Vol.5 2189Copy of the Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs.So called Jagatguru Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati, Urdhwanyay Shri Kashi Sumeru Peeth Nyas.(1061C) 703 Vol.5 2190-2194Copy of the judgement in Civil Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Urdhwanyay Vs So called Jagatguru Shankaracharya Chinmyanand Sarswati.31.01.2008 1044C/19 (1062C) 704 Vol.5 2195-2199Application for obtaining information.1044C/20 (1063C) 705 Vol.5 2200Copy of the order in the original Suit No. 1171/1992 Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi.01.09.1992 1044C/23 (1066C) 708 Vol.5 2214-2220Copy of the order sheet in the original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.From 31.7.1992 to 29.8.1995 1044C/24 (1067C) 709 Vol.5 2221-2231Copy of the application 19C in the original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.Original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati.Copy of the order in the original Suit No. 321/1998, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Narendranand Sarswati.21.09.2011 1044C/27 (1070C) 712 Vol.5 2239-2240Copy of the application in the original Suit No. 321/1998, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Vs Narendranand Sarswati.Copy of the order in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shambhawanand Vs Swami Chinmayanand.From 28.10.1996 to 09.01.1997 1044C/29 (1072C) 714 Vol.5 2241-2244Copy of the Vakaalatnama in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shambhawanand Vs Swami Chinmayanand.Statement of witness Dayashanker Pandey in the original Suit No. 7A/93, Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Vs Smt. Sharda Devi and others.1074C/1 and 1074C/10 716Copy of the claim in Suit No. 1171/1992 Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand.1044C/35 (1075C) 717 Vol.5 2255-2262Copy of the order-sheet in Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.3.5.2000 to 26.10.2013 1044C/38 1078C 720 Vol.5 2272-2336Copy of the objection under Rule 97 Order 21 CPC in Suit No. MJC 91/03, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.1044C/39 (1079C) 721 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2337-2345Copy of the affidavit in Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.1044C/40 1080C 722 Vol.5 2346-2350Copy of the application, Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.03.05.2010 1081C 723Copy of the order in Suit No. 321/98, Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhawanand in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.03.04.1998 to 17.10.2013 1082C 724Copy of the order in the Civil Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs So called Jagatguru Shankaracharya, in the Court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (Essential Commodity Act) Varanasi.31.01.2008 1044C/44 1083C 725 Vol.5 2351-2354Copy of paper no. 4C, Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.1044C/45 (1084C) 726 Vol.5 2355-2361Copy of the judgment in Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.15.09.2008 1045C/46 1085C 727 Vol.5 2362-2366Copy of the vakalatnama in Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.1044C/47 (1085C) 727 Vol.5 2367-2369Copy of memo of appeal in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.1044C/48 1086C 728 Vol.5 2370-2385Copy of the complete order-sheet in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.1044C/49 (1087C) 729 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2386Copy of the vakalatnama in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi.Copy of plaint in Suit No. 13/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Munsif Court, city Varanasi.1044C/56 1094C 736 Vol.5 2419-2426Copy of application 6C and disposal thereof, in the Suit No. 93/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi.6.9.1995 1044C/57 1095C 737 Vol.5 2427-2428Copy of memo appeal 4A, in Misc.Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati Vs Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi.Certified copy of application for specimen signature in O.A. No. 30 of 2005 : Uco Bank Vs.M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 28.08.2007 1156C/1 to 1156C/12 741M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 02.07.2007 1158C/1 to 1158C/2 743Certified photocopies of order sheets in Original Suit No. 513/89, Swami Swaroopanand Vs.In first photograph, Karpatri Ji Maharaj and Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati Ji announcing nomination of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeetha.Jal Abhishek (anointment) of plaintif at Jyotishpeetha with water collected from all Teerthas (pilgrimage sites) in the midst of vedic hymns, in the photograph below.D-4 340 Vol.3 1673In both the photographs, photo of the plaintiff chairing the Kashi Vidwat Sabha and photo of the scholars of the Vidwat Parishad leaving the Sabha D-5 341 Vol.3 1674Photograph of the Chatushpeetha Sammelan of all the four Peethas at Shringeripeeth in which Jyotishpeeth was represented by Swami Swaroopanand, Shringeripeeth was represented by Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth, Puri Peeth was represented by Niranjan Dev Teerth and Sharda Peeth was represented by Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth.In the photo below, plaintiff sitting with Sachchidanand Teerth.D-16 352 Vol.3 1685In the photographs, above and below, Swami Swaroopanand sitting with Shringeripeethadheesh-war Swami Bharti Teerth D-17, D18 353 354 Vol.3 1686In first photo, plaintiff with the Chief Minister Digvijay Singh and in the second photo, with the Vice Chancellor Rajendra Mishra D-46 382 Vol.3 1715Gorakhpur's Vice chancellor Dr. R.K. Mishra Ji D-47 383 Vol.3 1716In second photograph, Chief Minister Shri Ajeet Jogi receiving Ashirvaad (blessings) from the plaintiff.In the photo below, Rajendra Mishra, Legal Advisor to plaintiff offering banana to Ajeet Jogi.D-48 384 Vol.3 1717Kashi Naresh receiving blessings from plaintiff D-49 385 Vol.3 1718In the first photograph, President of Kashi Vidwat Parishad receiving blessings from plaintiff and in the second photograph, Justice Girdhar Malviya receiving blessings from him D-67 403 Vol.3 1736In both the photographs, Kashi Naresh greeting the plaintiff D-68 404 Vol.3 1737Distinguished Muslim persons obtaining instructions from the plaintiff in Ganga Safai Abhiyaan D-69 405 Vol.3 1738In its third photograph, the plaintiff with Puri Peethadheshwar at Kumbh in Ujjain D-73 408 Vol.3 1742Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by the President, Agni Akhara In second photograph, Dr. Vishwanath Shastri welcomes the plaintiff.In third photograph, Mantri of Joona Akhara Hari Giri welcomes the plaintiff D-77 412 Vol.3 1746Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Ajeet Jogi welcomes the plaintiff D-80 415 Vol.3 1749 Appendix-"D"Defendant-appellant's Documentary Evidence Sl.No. Details of documents Paper No. Deft/appellant paper book Vol.& Part S. No. Details of document Date Paper No. Ext.Copy of plaint in OS no.36 of 1965 30.1.1965 871C (43/C) 126 ka III(I) deft/ appellant.16-21Copy of judgment in Original Suit No.36 of 1965 (Munsif West Allahabad), Swami Shantanand Ji Mahraj Vs.Swami Krishna Bodhashram and two others, decided by Court of Vth Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and copy of abatement order in Civil Appeal 59/1970 15.01.1970 45-C/2 to 45-Ga/52 127 ka III(I) III(I) 33-114 115-122Certified copy of plaint of Original Suit No. 1A/1974 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya vs. Ram Ji Tripathi, Court of District and Sessions Judge/JSCC, Allahabad 28.06.1974 69C/1 to 69C/25 128 ka III(I) 123-134Certified copy of written statement in aforesaid original suit in 1A of 1974 30.10.1979 70C/1 to 70C/31 129 ka III(I) 135-155Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in FAFO No. 20/56 Swami Swaroopananad Saraswati vs. Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 31.07.1959 164C 130 kaCertified copy of Bank statement of November 1998 in favour of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar 165C 131 kaAdditional District Judge, Allahabad and others 302C 137 ka Vol.III (Part II) Deft/ applnt.PB 433-773Copy of judgment and order in petition no. 24085 of 2000 23.1.2004 137 ka Vol.III Part II 774-811Somnath, Ramendra Tiwari regarding arrangement 508C/19Photo digital at the time of installation 508C/A-19-I 9-KaPhoto digital garlanding new Shankaracharya 508C/A-20-II 10 kaPhoto digital, on the occasion of Installation, garlanding.Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-24-I 14-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-24-II 76-KaSri Krishna Kant Chaturvedi speaking in Pr.Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/25 142-kaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-25-I 15-KaPhoto digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-25-II 77-KaDigital photo 508C/A-26 16-KaDigital photo at the time of installation of Jagatguru 21.11.1989 508C/A-27 17-KaMaharshi Mahesh Yogi worshiping Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru ShankaracharyaDigital photo 21.11.1989 508C/A-28 18-KaDigital photo 15.11.1989 508C/A-29 19-KaDigital photo 15.11.1989 508C/A-30 20-KaJyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya sitting on main Seat (throne)Photo digital, sitting on main seat, Peethadheeshwar 508C/A-53-II 65-KaPhoto digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh, Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, 508C/A-64-I 98-KaPhoto digital, year 1998 on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-64-II 99-KaPhoto digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-65-I 100-KaPhoto digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-65-II 101-KaPhoto digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Kumbh 508C/A-66-I 102-KaDr. Shivarchan Upadhyay with Maharaj Shree sitting on throne along with counselors in Shobha Yatra (procession) in Varanasi after Abhishek (coronation/installation) of New Shankaracharya 508C/72 150-kaMaharaj Shree alongwith counselors entering the Ashram after returning from Nagar Shobha Yatra pursuant to Abhishek (coronation/installation) of New Shankaracharya 508C/73 151-kaEnthroned New Shankarcharaya alongwith counselors addressing Vidvat Sabha, Varanasi after Abhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/74 152-kaMaharaj Shree addressing congregation of Vidvat Sabha and on his left side is sitting Senior Shankarachaya.Karuna Pati Tripathi, eminent scholar and chancellor, Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya Varanasi, Pt.Ram Prasad Tripathi, Pt.Dev Swaroop Misra and other scholars, present in Vidvat Sabha Kashi 508C/76 154-kaBhupendra Pati Tripathi, renowned scholar of Kashi and residents of Ashram after Abhishek 508C/77 155-kaRam Preet Tripathi Head of Department of S. Sanskrit University and President of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Karuna Pati Tripathi and other Learned persons addressing on the occasion of Varanasi Vidvat Sabha 508C/78 156-kaDr. Paras Nath Dwivedi and Karuna Pati Tripathi delivering Welcome speech on the occasion of Kashi Vidvat Sabha 508C/79 157-kaRam Prasad Tripathi and Pt.Dev Swaroop famous scholar of Kashi addressing congregation on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/80 158-kaDev Swaroop Misra, Pt.Karuna Pati Tripathi, Pt.Ram Prasad Tripathi and Pt.Raj Narain Tripathi addressing congregation and delivering speech in Kashi on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/81 159-kaBrahmchari Mauni Ji, a learned scholar of Kashi reading out welcome speech on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/82 160-kaSenior Shankaracharya present in Kashi Vidvat Sabha and Karuna Pati Tripathi, Pt.Ram Prasad Tripathi and Pt.Dev Swaroop Misra addressing the congregation 508C/83 161-kaBharti Mata hailing from Landon welcoming Maharaj Shree on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/84 162-kaFormer Secretary of Vidvat Parishad conferring blessings to son of Pt.Raj Narain Shukla 508C/85 163-kaSenior citizen of Lucknow Pt.Dayashankar Pandey garlanding after worshiping on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/92 170-kaMahant Sri proceeding for Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) alongwith Parshads (counselors) 508C/106 183-kaMahant Sri sitting on chariot-throne alongwith Parshads (counsellors) at the time of Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) 508C/107 184-kaSenior Shankaracharya giving instructions for Nagar Shobha Yatra.Sri Shankaracharya Ji Mahraj, having Darshan of Lord Nrisingh, at the time of Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) 508C/109 186-kaMaharaj Ji alongwith his followers entering the temple for Darshan of Narsingh Bhagwan 508C/110 186-kaShankaracharya Ji Maharaj, sitting right alongwith all Acharyas (Teachers) participating in Swarn Patotswa Jayanti Dharm Sammelan organized by Nimbarkacharya Sri Radha Sarveshwar Sharav Ji Maharaj 508C/115 191-kaSri Mahraj Ji, presiding over 6th Dharma Sansad Adhiveshan, Kashi, 508C/116 192-kaSri Mahraraj Ji sitting alongwith Parshads on the stage of Jaipur Chaturmas Gomata Dharm Sammelan and Panchkhand Peethadheeshwar Acharya Dharmendra Ji sitting beside him.Acharya Dharmendra presenting photograph of Lord Krishna to Sri Mahraraj Ji while sitting on Seat (Singhasan).Sri Mahraraj Ji sitting before devotees in Training Camp of Swami Balendu Giri in Arvind Vidya Mandir, Jaipur 508C/119 195-kaSri Shankaracharya Ji Mahraraj sitting on chariot in Shobha Yatra, organized by Swami Balendu Giri Yog Prashikshan Shivir, Sanganer, Jaipur.Letter of Vishwa Guru Ji Maharaj Yog Samrat Mahamandleshwar on the occasion of laying down foundation stone of historical Vishwaguru Ghat 21.10.1996 509C/23 238-kaProgramme in Central Jail Jaipur, organized under "Bandi Kalyan Karyakram"12.09.1994 509C/24 239-kaInvitation 08.02.2008 509C/37 248-kaPatrika 509C/B-37 37-KaBook Hindu Chetana 509C/38 38-KaExtract of newspaper Gandeevam 20.11.1989 509C/39 249-kaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 509C/40 250-kaInvitation Ganga Sanskrit Pravah Yatra 20.02.2008 509C/41 251-kaHindu Chetna magazine 509C/42 39-KaBharti magazine, Guru Purnima Vishesank July 2001 509C/43 40-KaPanthey Kan Patrika 509C/45 41-KaSri Tulsi Peeth Saurabh 01.03.1996 509C/46 42-kaHindu Chetna Patrika 15.09.2003 509C/46 42-KaHindu Chetna Patrika 16.02.1995 509C/47 252-kaHindu Chetna Patrika 01.10.1997 509C/48 253-kaBhartiya Guru Purnima, Visheshank July 2001 509C/49 254-kaSmarika 509C/50 43-KaHindu Chetna Pakshik Patrika 01.09.2003 509C/51 44-kaJorata Hai Setu 509C/52 45-KaRam Setu Sanatanam 509C/53 46-Ka6th Dharma Sansad Kashi Smarika 16.03.1994 509C/54 255-kaDhrama Pravah Masik Patrika 01.01.2008 509C/55 256-kaJodta Hai Setu Sri Ram Raksh Sammelan 30.12.2007 509C/56 257-kaRam Setu Satya Sanatanam Patrika 27.05.2007 509C/57 258-kaSadhna Mandir Pran Pratistha Samaroh Smarika 18.05.1997 509C/58 259-kaPatrika "Nai Sadi"Magazine Kisan Features 01.08.2003 509C/59 260-kaDevarshi Shikhar Samadar Samaroh 22.01.2007 509C/60 261-kaSringerpuram Smarika 01.11.1995 509C/61 262-kaRajim Kumbh Chhattisgarh Sarkar 2006 509C/62 48-KaJyotirgamay, Jaipur 14.01.1995 509C/63 263-kaShiv Sankalp 509C/64 49-KaPatrika "Antim Vikalp"Amrit Ghat Devasur Sangram 01.01.2002 509C/66 51-KaHindu Vishwa Patrika 01.03.2007 509C/67 264-kaShiv Sankalp Patrika 509C/68 265-kaAntim Vikalp Patrika 01.07.2007 509C/69 266-kaAmrit Ghat Devasur Sangram 01.01.2002 509C/70 267-kaAkhil Bhartiya Daddhichi (Dayama) Brahmin Mahasabha Smarika, Salasar, Rajasthan 13-04-1996 509C/71 268-kaSarvabrahman Sammelan, Jabalpur Smarika, 20-05-1994 509C/72 269-kaLok Jagran, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad 1998-99 509C/73 270-kaChhadma Veshdhari Sanyasi 509C/B-73 118-KaSeema Sapoot Paschimi Rajasthan Ka Sahasi Saptahik Patrika 26-01-1995 509C/74 271-kaSri Ram Leela Smarika Daraganj, Ramleela Committee, Annual-1993 509C/75 272-kaLetter of Thanks,Sri Gyanodaya Parikh Sarvajanik Sampati Trust, Bikaner 19-10-2000 510 C/2 and 510 C/3 273-kaAbhinandan (Welcome) Kashi Vidvatgan 27-12-1997 510 C/4 274-ka266. 108 Kundalatmak Sri Laxmi Mahayagya, Chhatarpur, Welcome Letter by Agarwal Samaj 29-10-2004 510 C/5 85-KaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Palanpur Sadhvi Chandraprabha Jan Kalyan Trust, Gujarat 510 C/6 86-KaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), Mahant Rajendra Giri Surajgaon, Gujarat 13.11.2002 510 C/7Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Brahman Sanskar Sammelan, Dharma Prachar Samiti, Mahasi Bazar, Bahraich, 09.03.2007 510 C/8 88-KaDharma Prachar Samiti, Nainital, Haldwani Chaitra Krishna Chaturthi, Samvat 2062 Vikrami 510 C/9 89-KaAbhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 510C/10 275-kaPanchjanya 03.04.1994 511C/21 295-kaSwadesh, Jabalpur 18.10.1995 511C/22 296-kaDainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur 13.12.1995 511C/23 297-kaSwadesh, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/24Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/25 299-kaDainik Madhya Pradesh 15.12.1995 511C/26 300-kaAaj, Allahabad 25.01.2001 511C/54 328-kaAaj, Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/55 329-kaAmar Ujala, Dehradun 08.06.2007 511C/56 330-kaDainik Bhaskar, Jaipur 11.06.2007 511C/57 331-kaDainik Jagran, Dehradun 08.06.2008 511C/58 332-kaAmar Ujala, Allahabad 06.02.2008 511C/59 333-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 16.12.2007 511C/60 334-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 10.02.2008 511C/61 335-kaDainik Jagran, Allahabad 04.02.2008 511C/62 336-kaHindustan, Varanasi 12.02.2008 511C/63 337-kaCity Allahabad 10.02.2008 511C/64 338-kaAaj, Allahabad 17.03.1994 511C/65 339-kaSwatantra Bharat, Lucknow 18.03.1994900 511C/66 340-kaAmrit Prabhat, Allahabad 12-09-2007 511C/67 341-kaJagran, Jamshedpur 17-10-2007 511C/68 342-kaHindustan, Jamshedpur 17.10.2007 511C/69 343-kaHindustan, Allahabad 10-02-2008 511C/70 344-kaWill (Vasudevanand) 708A/1 to 708A/5 94-KaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/9Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/10 54-KaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/11 55-KaPhoto digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/14 56-KaRashtriya Ramayan Mela Shringverpur Dham Prayag, Card 812A/29 60-KaPhoto digital 812A/30 61-KaPoster Jyotirmath Sri Badrikashram 892A/6 Enclosure 1 67-KaExperts in religious matters 29 34 IV.Handwriting expert 34 V. Photographer 34 Other witnesses on specific aspects 30 34-35 12 I. Defendants witnesses to prove appellant as Shankaracharya 31 35-38 II.Experts in religious matters 31 37 III.About qualification of plaintiff 31 37 IV.Handwriting expert 31 38 V. Photographer 31 38 13 Findings of Trial Court 32-34 38 14 Amendment in Memo of Appeal 35 38 15 Misc.Proceeding during trial of Suit 36-41 39-40 16 Previous litigation 42-96 41-92 17 Misc.case no. 44 of 1953 45-50 42-47 18 Suit 3 of 1954 51-62 47-57 19 Suit 47 of 1954 63 57-58 20 Suit 3 of 1963 (abated)Suit 36 of 1965 64-81 58-73 22 Civil Suit 1-A of 1974 82-96 73-92 23 Marking of documents as exhibits 97-164 93-125 24 Points for Determination and Adjudication First Point: Shankaracharya, his antiquity, his philosophy, work carried out by him for propagating Sanatan Dharma, his influence over followers of Sanatan Dharma and position and status of Shankaracharya and his Peethas vis a vis the persons occupying those Peethas in the eyes of Hindu followers of Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy.Second point: Whether for installation of any person to head the Peethas established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, are there any set of discipline, Rules and Regulations?Third Point: Whether Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan are written work containing and prescribing Regulations laying down mode, manner, eligibility and other instructions for selection and installation of an appropriate person to Head the said Peethas.169-172 129-130 25 About Adi Shankaracharya 173 130 26 About Four Peethas: The Concept of Mutt:Sharda Peeth Dwarka 232 186 28 Shri Goverdhan Peeth-Puri 234 187 29 Shri Jyotirpeeth at Shree Peeth-Badarikashram 236 188 30 Shri Shreengeri Peeth-Shreengeri 237 189 31 Concept of 'Mutt' and "Religious Denomination"247-321 205-255 32 About Mathamnaya-Mahanushasan 322-342 255-270 33 Sanyasi 343-376 279-362 34 Answer (First Point): Adi Shankaracharya and four Amnaya Peeths established by him have a special but great reverence and significance in the entire religious denomination of this Country following Sanatan Dharma and Shankar Philosophy and we can take judicial notice of this fact that this denomination constitute majority people of this Country.Answers (Second and Third Points): "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" are commands of regulations of eligibility and suitability of person to be installed as Shankaracharya, the manner in which one can be appointed or removed and also containing conditions for regulation of these Peethas.For installation of Shankaracharya, the essential eligibility conditions includes that one must be a Sanyasi, well conversant in Sanskrit, well read of religious scriptures like Vedas, Upnishads, Brahmans etc., must be disciple of an Acharya of Amnaya Peeth in which he is to be selected and installed, and, should also follow all regulations and instructions which are provided in various scriptures like "Mathamnaya", "Mahanushasan" and Upnishads etc. 377 362-363 35 Fourth Point: Whether at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, installation of Shankaracharya has always followed Guru-Shishya Parampara or there has been an exception for installation of Shankaracharya thereat?378-387 363-372 36 Answer Fourth Point: In the past Guru-Shishya Parampara was followed in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth but due to unavoidable circumstances, it had broken sometimes in 1833 Vikram Swavat (1776 AD) and after 165 years, installation of Shankaracharya was made by selection of a suitable person by Manishigans and not following Guru-Shishya Parampara pursuant whereto Swami Brahmanand Saraswati came to be installed and functioned as such for about 12 years.387A 372 37 Fifth Point: Who came to be installed as Shankaracharya after Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in 1953?Fifteenth Point: Whether pleadings lack material facts or relevant particular pointing out the alleged disqualification on the part of appellant and Court below erred in law by proceeding to consider this aspect despite lack of appropriate pleading on this aspect?Answer Fifteenth Point: Point for determination no. 15 is answered against appellant.Answer Fourteenth Point: Points for determination no. 14 is answered against appellant 736 668 50 Point for determination regarding Section 10 C.P.C. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,484,902 | The facts of the case, in short, are that the deceased Mamta was the wife of the appellant Balmukund Singh.On 29.01.1996 Rambihari (P.W.6), brother of the appellant had given an intimation to police station Nagod, District Satna, that at about 2 a.m. in the morning, the appellant came to his house and informed him that the deceased Mamta was hanging in the room with the help of a rope.Rambihari immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and removed the deceased from the hanging position but she had already expired.Rambihari immediately informed about the incident to Mukhiya Ramdulare and others.On advise of one Baldeo Singh the dead body of the deceased was taken to the police station Nagod where the witness Rambihari had lodged Merg intimation Ex.The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.Dr. N.A. Khan (P.W.7), along with Dr. B.P. Mishra performed post- mortem examination on the dead body at the community health center, Nagod and gave a report Ex.The ligature mark was found below both the ears and on the front of her neck.Her face was swollen and blood mixed liquid was oozing out from her nostrils.Due to hair on the back portion of the neck ligature mark was not visible on the back side.No mark of knot was found, however, according to Dr. N.A. Khan, the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by hanging.Shyam Sunder Singh, father of the deceased submitted a report on 30.1.1996 at police station Nagod with the pretext that the deceased had been tortured by the appellant and his mother for demand of a buffalo and other articles like motorcycle.According to the complainant, Shyam Sunder Singh, appellant along with his mother killed the deceased.The police had registered a case of offence under Section 304-B of IPC also.On examination of the witnesses, the witness Ramlakhan (P.W.1), brother of the deceased had stated that in the night of the incident he was present in the house of the deceased and he saw the dead body of the deceased in the morning lying on the fodder collected near the room.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Nagod, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that his marriage with the deceased Mamta took place eleven years prior to the incident.One girl child was born to the deceased Mamta.In the night of the incident, Awadhraj and Rajesh, brother of the deceased stayed in his house.They slept on a Takhat (Setti -raised wooden platform) in Varandah.The deceased was sleeping in the room.In the early morning when he woke up he found his wife hanging with the rope, however, no defence evidence was adduced.The Sessions Judge, Satna, after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC but convicted him of offence under Section 304(Part- II) of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In the present matter Ramlakhan (P.W.1) has claimed that he went to the house of the deceased in the previous night along with a calf buffalo, which was gifted to his sister Mamta and the appellant.He has also stated that a quarrel took place between the appellant and his sister because the rice cooked by the deceased Mamta was not dried properly.Thereafter, the appellant slept with the deceased in a room and the witness Ramlakhan slept in another room.In the night the witness Ramlakhan heard some noise and he saw that the appellant and his mother were taking the deceased Mamta on the first floor of the house which was a Pator.The appellant gave an blow of handle of an axe on the nose of the deceased Mamta.When the witness Ramlakhan tried to ask the appellant about the fault of his sister then the appellant gave a threat to go and sleep otherwise he would be killed.On the next day in the morning he saw that the deceased was lying on fodder collected in the Pator (first floor).However, in cross-examination he has accepted that in his case-diary statement Ex.D/1 he did not state that he saw the appellant and his sister were quarreling due to improper cooking of rice or he saw that the appellant and his mother were taking the body of his sister to the first floor.He has also accepted that a staircase which is available to visit the first floor is not exactly a staircase but it is a ladder on which only one person can climb at a time.Hence looking to the cross-examination of the witness, it is clear that the deceased Mamta could not be taken to the Pator on the first floor because on that ladder two persons could not climb simultaneously and the dead body of the deceased could not be taken on the first floor.After considering the statement of the witness Ramlakhan, it appears that neither he was eye- witness nor he was witness of the circumstances under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence.On this aspect if the statement of Dr. N.A. Khan (P.W.7) is examined who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/5, then it would be clear that he found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased but no impression of knot was found anywhere on her neck.Dr. N.A. Khan did not say that the deceased Mamta died due to strangulation.Looking to the doubt of Dr. N.A. Khan it is to be decided by other circumstance as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not.Rambihari (P.W.6) had lodged a merg intimation Ex.P/3 on the next day.He took the dead body of the deceased Mamta to the police station and lodged that intimation.According to him, he immediately intimated to all the persons including the father of the deceased.Shyam Sunder, father of the deceased, did not examine himself before the trial Court whereas Chhutubai (P.W.5), mother of the deceased, was examined.Initially Chuttubai had stated that the marriage of the deceased took place four years back but in cross-examination it was found that the marriage of the deceased took place ten years prior to the incident and the trial Court has clearly mentioned that the period of Gauna could not be deducted from the period of marriage.Hence the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 304-B of IPC.The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of offence under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC and not under the charge of offence under Section 304-B of IPC because according to the observations of the Sessions Judge, death of the deceased was homicidal.However, such observation has no much basis.If the appellant would have killed his wife and the death of the deceased was homicidal then he must have some reason to kill his wife.The Sessions Judge has found that the appellant did not demand any dowry.It would be apparent from the statement of Ramlakhan (P.W.1) that he supplied a calf buffalo to the appellant.If the appellant had demanded a buffalo and a motorcycle then his part demand was fulfilled by Ramlakhan in the same night and, therefore, the appellant would have assured that he would get the motorcycle thereafter.However, the deceased was residing with the appellant for last four years after her marriage and there was no reason for the appellant to kill her.Hence the prosecution has failed to prove any motive against the appellant so that he would have killed his wife.If the factual position of the case is considered then Ramlakhan (P.W.1) was not an actual eye-witness of the incident.He simply claims that he saw the appellant and his mother taking the dead body of the deceased to Pator (first floor) with the help of a ladder.Hence in absence of any ocular evidence, circumstances proved by the prosecution should be considered one by one.The first circumstance would be that no motive was found with the appellant to kill his own wife.Learned panel lawyer has submitted that fact of last seen together was established by the prosecution.In the evidence of Ramlakhan, it is proved that the deceased was living with the appellant and soon after the incident the appellant was taking the deceased to Pator (first floor) of the house, however, if the evidence of Ramlakhan (P.W.1) is examined then in his case diary statement Ex. D/1, he has stated that in the night the deceased went to answer call of the nature and, therefore, the appellant gave the custody of the daughter of the deceased to the witness Ramlakhan so that the small child could sleep with the witness Ramlakhan.Thereafter, the witness Ramlakhan slept on his cot and when he woke up in the early morning, he found that his sister had expired and her dead body was lying on chaff of fodder.If the evidence of Ramlakhan is compared with his case diary statement then his claim that he saw the appellant and his mother taking the body of the deceased to Pator appears to be not acceptable and it appears that due to tutoring of someone Ramlakhan has claimed to see the transportation of the dead body of the deceased by the appellant in the night.He was informed that the deceased went to answer the call of nature and, thereafter, she did not come back.The appellant was husband of the deceased and certainly he would have slept in the room where the deceased was sleeping, but by such a fact, the fact of last seen as required for conviction of offence of a homicidal death is not established.According to the case diary statement of Ramlakhan, the deceased went to answer call of nature and, thereafter, she did not come back.Hence it cannot be said that the appellant was present when the deceased died due to asphyxia.The witness Rambihari (P.W.6), brother of the appellant, has clearly stated that on shouting of the appellant, he immediately went to Chhapri and found that the deceased Mamta was hanging on the roof of Chhapri with a rope.Since her body was tossing about, Rambihari with the help of the appellant removed her body from the rope.When she lied on the earth she expired.Rambihari had immediately informed the police after the death of the deceased and also informed the parents of the deceased and, therefore, the evidence of Rambihari appears to be acceptable.That, when the appellant found the deceased hanging with a rope, he immediately called his brother and mother who were living in a separate portion of the same house and all of them tried to save the deceased.If the appellant would have killed the deceased by forceful hanging then he would not have called his brother and mother and would not have removed the deceased from hanging.Also when Dr. N.A. Khan found the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased Mamta, but no strangulation mark was found then such type of situation could be caused in a homicidal death, where the appellant would have hold the neck of the deceased by tying a rope on her neck and, thereafter, both the ends of rope would have kept in the hand by the appellant and, thereafter, the deceased would have raised to a higher position.In such a case some symptoms of struggle would have been found on the body of the deceased when she would have tried to free her neck from the rope tied on her neck or she would have tried to injure the appellant.However, Dr. N.A. Khan did not find any such injury to the deceased Mamta which may be considered as an injury caused due to resistance of the deceased Mamta.I f a l l s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d simultaneously then it is not proved beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.When the death of the deceased was not found to be homicidal in nature, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 304(Part II) of IPC.If she had committed suicide then it was for the trial Court to convict the appellant of offence under Section 306 or 304-B of IPC.The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 304-B of IPC, whereas no charge of offence under Section 306 of IPC was framed by the Sessions Judge concerned.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, where the Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence against the appellant relating to dowry demand etc. and the appellant has been acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 304-B as well as Section 498-A of IPC, then there was no reason for the appellant to kill his own wife.As discussed above, the death of the deceased was not proved to be homicidal in nature and in all probability it was a suicidal death.There is no ocular evidence against the appellant relating to offence under Section 304(Part II) of IPC, whereas the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken.On the contrary the conduct of the appellant which is proved by the witness Rambihari (P.W.6) that the appellant with the help of his brother Rambihari tried to save his wife, who was alive at the time when they saw her hanging.Hence the Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.Under such circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable and, therefore, it is hereby accepted.The conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court of offence under Section 304 (Part II) against the appellant is hereby set aside.A Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below along with it's record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Vikram | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
374,883 | ORDER Usha Mehra, J.1. Darshan Singh son of Kartar Singh, the appellant herein has assailed the order of conviction and sentence passed by Addl.Sessions Judge dated 6th and 11th October, 1976 respectively.Darshan Singh s/o Shri Sunder Singh was an accused in another case under Section 304, I.P.C. The facts of that case were that in May, 1971, one Nagina Singh s/o Shri Ujagar Singh was killed and a case under Section 304, I.P.C. was registered against Mahinder Singh, P.W. 6, Darshan Singh S/o Lal Singh, P.W. 8 injured of that case, Joginder Singh, P.W. 11 son of injured Darshan Singh and Sudesh and Om Prakash sons of Balak Ram, P.W. 9 and one Subhash who came to attend the Court from the complainant's side in that case.All these were the accused in that case.The hearing of that case was over at about 11.45 a.m. and they came out from the Court and reached the stair case of the verandah.When they reached near the verandah, Chaman Singh, the accused in that case gave abuses and Darshan Singh retaliated and at that time Pyara Singh accused caught hold of Darshan Singh from his right arm and accused Darshan Singh s/o Sunder Singh caught hold of him from his neck.Ujagar Singh and Nirmal Singh also grappled with him stating that they would finish him that day and that time Darshan Singh s/ o Kartar Singh accused took out the knife from the dub of his payjama and stabbed Darshan Singh in his chest.The present appellant Darshan Singh s/o Shri Kartar Singh was nabbed at the spot by the Head Constable, Naresh Chand, P.W. 7 who was working as Naib Court in the Court of Addl.The knife was snatched from the hands of the appellant.Other accused managed to escape but were arrested from near the Court room.Injured Darshan Singh was removed to the hospital.It was under these circumstances that the case against the appellant and others was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C.On behalf of the prosecution number of witnesses were examined but the relevant witness on whom the Addl.Sessions Judge relied upon was that of Head Constable, Naresh Chand, who was working as Naib Court in the Court of Addl.The factum of relationship between Chaman Singh and Pyara Singh, Ujagar Singh and Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh are not disputed while the appellant Darshan Singh, son of Kartar Singh was not related to other accused.The factum of the pendency of a Sessions case under Section 304, I.P.C. is also not disputed.It is also an admitted fact that the case was fixed on that day for evidence.Sessions Judge.It is in the testimony of Naresh Chand, P.W. 7 that on hearing the noise he came out of the Court room and saw Darshan Singh s/o Kartar Singh present appellant stabbing Darshan Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh in his chest on the right side with a knife when the present appellant tried to run away, he caught hold of him and took away the knife from his hand.This deposition has remained unrebutted and uncontroverter on the record.To my mind, the Addl.Sessions Judge rightly placed reliance on his testimony.The appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,490,291 | 23.12.13 Item No. 06 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 06And In the matter of: Amal Halder & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioners Ms. Sonali Bhar For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 629 of 2013 dated 22.09.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and the other relevant material on record.In our opinion, the Petitioner No. 1, Amal Halder, who is the husband of the complainant does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail considering the material on record.As regard the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, in our opinion, there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,749,440 | Brief facts are stated hereunder:According to the petitioner, detenu/co-accused Peter @ John Peter concerned in C.C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of the Designated Court-II under TADA (P) Act, Chennai, was arrested on 19.11.2000 and remanded to judicial custody, however, he is kept in Jail for over five years.ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.One Ramachandran, friend of the detenu/co-accused, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for a direction to the respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, CID, Cuddalore, to produce detenu Peter @ John Peter, son of Pichamuthu, concerned in C.C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of the Designated Court-II under TADA (P) Act, 1987, Chennai, and set him at liberty.Other co-accused by name Kalai @ Ravichandaran and Punniamurthy @ Varatharajan were enlarged on bail by Designated Court-II, Chennai, yet, detenu John Peter was discriminated and his remand was extended mechanically from time to time without application of mind.Further, similarly placed co-accused were already released on bail.The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA Act) is dead and mechanical remand under the dead law is illegal.Further, the State of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.1180, Home, dated 31.12.1996, withdrawing TADA prosecution against all TADA Prisoners except the persons connected with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (shortly called LTTE).According to the petitioner, the case relating to the detenu comes under the domain of 'law and order problem' arising from retaliatory murder as Kullanchavadi Police personnel murdered two villagers and to take revenge therefor, Kullanchavadi Police Station was alleged to have been attacked, whereupon, the police fired at the mob and, in that mob fury, one constable was found dead.The prolonged custody over five years is oppressive, unjust, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The case in C.C. No. 9 of 1994 is only an outcome of a revenge murder as the Kullanchavadi Policemen killed two villagers while they were in custody; hence, TADA is not attracted.Further, the detenu has turned to a new leaf and he filed an affidavit along with his wife Johnsi stating that he has no connection whatsoever with any organization much less Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (in short TNLA).Since he was absconding from the date of occurrence, the Designated Court-II passed an order for proclamation.Though co-accused was released on bail, at the time of release, the trial in the above case was not commenced.But, in the above case, the prosecution examined 58 witnesses and closed their side on 04.10.2005 itself.The defence did not take any effective steps in spite of allowing of the recall petition to cross examine more than 44 witnesses including 6 eyewitnesses so far.As per the direction of the Supreme Court in Karthar Singhs case (reported in 1994 SCC Crl. 899), the State Government constituted a review committee and all the pending cases were reviewed and the Government issued Government Order-1 (D) No. 1180 dated 31.12.1996 and the cases wherein the accused are not the supporters/sympathisers of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam were ordered to be transferred to the regular court.Except the cases in C.C. No. 6/94 (Villupuram Town Police Station Crime No. 50/93) and C.C. No. 9/94 (Kullanchavadi Police Station Crime Number 346/93), the TADA Act offence cases were withdrawn.The act of the petitioner and other accused clearly attracted the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act, 1987, and they are the active members of the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army and also the supporters/sympathisers of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam.The hand written pamphlets and printed pamphlets recovered from the scene of crimes at Villupuram Municipal Office Gandhi Statue at Athur and at Kudavasal Congress Office clearly disclosed that the petitioner and others are the supporters of the LTTE.Earlier petition filed by the petitioner and other accused were dismissed by this Court.There is ample evidence against detenu John Peter, more over, the prosecution closed their side and the accused can very well agitate before Designated Court-II and get rid of the case.Even otherwise, the accused is in judicial custody and not in illegal custody; hence, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for in this Petition.Heard Mr.Admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the said order. | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,496,902 | FAO No.92/2017 Page 1 of 7The facts of the case are that the deceased Mohd. Sarif was employed as a driver by the respondent no.9 herein, one Sh.Jaffar, and who was the respondent no.1 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner.On 1.8.2014 at about 2.30 P.M. when the deceased Mohd. Sarif was driving the subject vehicle near Pandora Pul, Shiv Puri, Madhya Pradesh, he was looted and murdered by some persons.The incident took place under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kolaras, Shiv Puri, M.P. FIR No.260/2014 was registered with respect to the incident under Section 394/397 IPC.Post mortem of the deceased was conducted in a government hospital at Kolaras, Shiv Puri, M.P.The employer/respondent no.9 herein did not appear before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and was proceeded ex-parte.CW1/D, copy of driving licence of deceased Mohd. Sarif as Ex.CW1/E and copy of parivar register as Ex.CW1/F.The salary of the employee Rakesh Yadav was Rs.4500/- and a daily allowance of Rs.50/- per day.It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 1.5.2008 in the morning owner/Sh.Gopi Chand insisted that deceased employee drive the vehicle for supplying of milk to certain areas and which the deceased refused because he knew that there was a dispute between Gopi Chand and certain persons in the area and thus a mishappening may occur.However, on being compelled, the deceased Rakesh Yadav took the vehicle for supply of the milk.During the performance of his duty, at Maujpur; Delhi, at about 7.20 a.m, the deceased Rakesh Yadav was attacked by one Vikram and his two sons as they were having grudge for milk not being supplied.As a result of beating, the deceased Rakesh Yadav received multiple injuries and he was declared dead when brought to the G.T.B.Hospital.An FIR under Section 302/34 IPC bearing no. 178/2008 was registered with the police station Seelampur, Delhi where the accused persons are facing trial.It was pleaded that the beating of the deceased employee Rakesh Yadav took place when he was on duty i.e the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, and therefore the dependants were entitled to compensation under the Act.FAO No.92/2017 Page 3 of 7(i) Whether their existed any employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent?(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to the claimed amount, if so to what amount?The respondent no.1 and III were proceeded ex-parte.He also filed particular of Driving Licence in the form of Accident Information Report of Sh.This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 30.12.2016 by which the Employees Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed before him by the respondent nos.1 to 8 herein.The claim petition was contested by the appellant/insurance company and which was the respondent no.2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner.FAO No.92/2017 Page 2 of 7FAO No.92/2017 Page 2 of 7Respondent nos.1 to 8 led evidence and the respondent no.1 being the widow of Mohd. Sarif filed her affidavit by way of evidence and proved the copy of ration card as Ex.CW1/A, copy of Adhar Card as Ex.CW1/B, copy of PAN card Ex.CW1/C, copy of death certificate of deceased Mohd. Sarif as Ex.Smt. Sonia & Ors.2014 (1) RLR 546 wherein the claim petition was held to be rightly allowed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner in the facts when the deceased Sh.Rakesh Yadav/employee had died on account of his being attacked during the course of performing his duties of supply of milk.The appellant-insurance company was respondent no.2 before the Commissioner.It filed its written statement inter alia pleading that the death of the deceased employee Sh.On behalf of respondent no.II/Insurance Company, Legal Manager namely Sh.Mohit, Raj Nagar filed his affidavit alongwith computerized copy of policy No.3003/63548937/00/000 insuring vehicle No.UP-17C- 0540, a public carrier vehicle with Shri Gopi Chand as insured.Rakesh Kumar vide bearing No.R-640/BPT/2002 dated 2.1.2002 issued by the R.T.O., Bhagpat, U.P. which was issued for driving motor-cycle and LMV(T) only valid for the period 2.1.2002 to 1.1.2005 only.He was also cross examined by the A.R. of the petitioner.FAO No.92/2017 Page 4 of 7The matter was placed for arguments.Written arguments alongwith case laws were filed by the petitioner and oral argument were also heard of the parties.I have to give my findings issue-wise as under:-ISSUE NO.1 The case of the petitioner is that her husband namely Rakesh Yadav was employed with the respondent no.1 as driver at his vehicle Tata 407 No.That on 01.05.008, in the morning at about 7.20 a.m. the deceased/driver namely Rakesh while engaged as driver by the respondent no.1 and he was driving the said vehicle on the same day at Maujpur, Delhi and was supplying the milk during this process he was attacked by the accused Vikram and his two sons.After receiving the multiple injuries he was taken to the G.T.B.Hospital, where he was declared dead.A case was registered vide FIR No. 178/2008, U/s 302/34 IPC with P.S.Seelampur, Delhi.In support of the claim, petitioner namely Soniya filed an affidavit alongwith documents, certified copy of the FIR, Charge-sheet, Post Mortem Report, Site Plan and statement of witness.On going through the documents filed by the claimants i.e. FIR, Charge-sheet, P.M.R., Site plan and statement of witness, it is established that deceased namely Rakesh Kumar Yadav husband of claimant no.1 was employed as driver on the above said vehicle.It is also established as driver on the above said vehicle.Counsel for the appellant argued that respondent nos.1 to 8 had not filed the driving licence and therefore the claim petition could not have been allowed, however, it is seen that the respondent no.1 had deposed that the original licence was lost in the incident and the photocopy of the licence was proved and exhibited as Ex.CW1/E. It is settled law that strict provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to proceedings before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, and therefore the fact that the deceased Mohd. Sarif FAO No.92/2017 Page 6 of 7 had a valid driving license stood proved by Ex. CW1/E. In any case it is seen that there is no objection raised before commencement of the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 who deposed as CW1 that the driving licence cannot be exhibited because original of the driving licence is not produced.Once there is no objection to the exhibition of the document being the driving licence, subsequently an objection cannot be raised that the original driving licence had to be produced and the photocopy of the same could not be exhibited, because, this is the law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs.FAO No.92/2017 Page 6 of 7In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for this appeal to be entertained under Section 30 of the Act. Dismissed.FAO No.92/2017 Page 7 of 7 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
374,973 | It has furtherbeen argued that the money was entrusted to the accused Sanjay and as suchno offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-applicant.The learned AGA on the other hand argued that Charge sheet has been filedafter proper investigation and after collecting sufficient material making outprima facie case against the applicant.I have considered over the argument and also perused the papers.Order Date :- 11.1.2010Naresh | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,499,095 | Mr. Prashant Gurav for the Applicant.Mr. A.P.Patil , APP for the Respondent-State.CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.DATE : 6th NOVEMBER, 2019P.C. :Heard learned counsel for the applicant andthe learned APP for the State.Applicant is accused inCrime No.51 of 2010 registered with Aarey PoliceStation on 15th April, 2010 for the ofences punishableunder Sections 143,144, 147, 148, 307, 324 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' forshort) and Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.One Shrinivas Chelliya lodged FIR against the applicantand other eight persons.Charge-sheet in the crime wasShivgan 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 03:32:25 ::: 6-BA-2382-::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 03:32:25 :::At the relevant time, applicantwas reported absconding.As such, eight accused weretried in the Sessions Case No.85 of 2010 and thelearned Sessions Judge convicted all of them andsentenced to sufer two years rigorous imprisonmentand fine of Rs.10,000/-- each.2 On 16th April, 2019, present applicant cameto be apprehended.He seeks release on bail; his twoapplications were rejected by the learned SessionsJudge.Except this certificate, applicantShivgan 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 03:32:25 ::: 6-BA-2382-::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 03:32:25 :::2019.odthas not placed any material to support his contentionthat he was always available at his residence sinceafter registration of the crime till the conclusion of thetrial.6 Be that as it may, since the applicant wasabsconding nearly for nine years, his conduct isrelevant consideration.7 In view of this application deserves noconsideration.It is, accordingly, rejected.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2019 03:32:25 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
37,500,640 | pkgs x,A tks fHkUu&fHkUu voljksa ij mls fn, x, yfdu dkQh le; O;rhr gksus ds okotwn vukosnd LFkxu vkns'k ugh yk ldkA blls mlds fo:} Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k dh olwyh tkjh j[kk tkuk mfpr gSA vukosnd ij 12]65]000@& :- Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds :i esa vo'ks"k crkbZ xbZ gS] ftlesa ls mlds }kjk 3]50]000@& :- fnukad 30-03-2019 rd tek fd;s x;s gSaA blls vukosnd ij vo'ks"k Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k 9]15]000@&:- cdk;k gksrh gSA vukosnd us ;g jkf'k ,deq'r vnk fd;s tkus esa vleFkZrk tkfgj dh gSA Qyr% mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s vukosnd ds laca/k esa ;g vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og vkosfndk dks orZeku esa 30]000@&: izfrekg Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds lkFk vo'ks"k Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k esa vnk;xh gsrq 60 gtkj :i;s izfrekg vnk djs] vU;Fkk Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k dh olwyh ds fy;s dBksj oS/kkfud mipkj viuk;s tk;saxsA vr% vkosfndk ,oa vukosnd ds mDr vkosnu fnukad 27-11-2018 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 assails the order dated 04/11/2019, whereby the proceedings for issuance of arrest warrant have been initiated.The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner and respondent entered into wedlock on 13/01/2013 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals.After the marriage, petitioner and respondent could not live along with each other because of mental compatibility and behavioral problems, therefore, the petitioner served a notice for divorce and thereafter, filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before learned Family Court, Gwalior.On service of notice of divorce, the respondent lodged various complaints under Section 498-A of IPC and under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act and other provisions of IPC.Respondent has also preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Morena.Even though, 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.Smt. Priyanka) the petitioner who was working as Software Engineer in Delhi NCR, has engaged an Advocate at Morena but unfortunately the representation was not made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, ex-parte order has been passed by the Family Court, Morena vide order dated 30/09/2015 fixing monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be given to the respondent/wife.The petitioner had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30/09/2015 passed under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. which is still pending consideration.This Court was pleased to enhance the monthly maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.5,000/- vide its order dated 13/01/2017 .Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13/01/2017, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court bearing SLP (Criminal) No(s).39847/2017 and Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09/01/2018 issued notices in the matter and it is still pending for adjudication.Since petitioner got engaged in lot of litigations and he was not in a position to perform his duties at his office, therefore, he tendered his resignation vide letter dated 10/01/2019 which was accepted by his employer due to which the petitioner suffered depression.In such changed circumstances, it was impossible to deposit Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance.Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 04/11/2019 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.Smt. Priyanka) passed the order issuing arrest warrant of the petitioner.Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the same by way of present petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing impugned order.Copy of the application seeking issuance of arrest warrant was also not supplied to him.The order of issuance of arrest warrant was passed behind his back.Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. provides showing sufficient cause for non- compliance of the order.No such opportunity was ever extended to the petitioner, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.Earlier the execution warrant was issued against the petitioner after affording him full opportunity of hearing but in spite of that petitioner did not deposit the maintenance amount.On 27/06/2019, the petitioner transferred the property in other's name so that execution warrant can not be implemented.In such circumstances, this petition is baseless and the same deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.Heard learned counsel for the parties.For the proper adjudication of the matter, certain orders passed by the trial Court needs to be reproduced below:-"01/05/2019"Smt. Priyanka) o 24-04-2019 dk mijksDrkuqlkj fujkdj.k fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k dh vnk;xh gsrq fnukad 28-05-2019 dks is'k gksA 28/05/2019 vkosfndk }kjk Jh ucko [kku vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vukosnd }kjk Jh ds-,y-xqIrk] vf/koDrk mifLFkrA izdj.k Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k dh vnk;xh gsrq fu;r gSA vukosnd vf/koDrk us ,d vkosnu is'k dj dgk gS fd vukosnd dk vkt LokLF; [kjkc gks x;k gSA blfy;s og fQygky Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k vnk djus esa vleFkZ gS blfy, Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k tek djus gsrq le; fn;k tk;sA izdj.k ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 01-05-2019 ds vkns'kkuqlkj vukosnd dks vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd og fu;fer Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k 30]000@&: ds lkFk vo'ks"k Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k esa 60 gtkj :i;s vnk djs] vU;Fkk mlds fo:} dBksj oS/kkfud mipkj viuk;s tk;saxsA vkt vukosnd vuqifLFkr gS vkSj mldh vksj ls dksbZ jkf'k vnk ugha dh xbZA vukosnd us tks vLoLFk gksuk izdV fd;k gS] ysfdu chekjh ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gSA blfy;s vukosnd }kjk n'kkZ;k x;k dkj.k ln~Hkkfod izrhr ugha gksus ls vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% vukosnd ds fo:} py laifRr ls Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k dh olwyh gsrq dqdhZ okjaV tkjh fd;k tk;sA vkosfndk] vukosnd dh py laifRr;kssa dk fooj.k is'k djsA izdj.k dqdhZ okjaV fjiksVZ gsrq fnukad 03@07@2019 dks is'k gksA 03/07/2019 vkosfndk }kjk dh ucko [kku] ,M-A vukosnd }kjk dh ,y-xqIrk- ,MA okjaV tkjh ughaa gS ryokuk is'k ugha gSA okjaV tkjh ugha gSA vkosfndk }kjk iqu% ryokuk is'k djus ij 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.Smt. Priyanka) vukosnd ds fo:} olwyh A dqdhZ okj.V tkjh fd;k tkosA izdj.k okj.Since the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 01/05/2019, the trial Court vide order dated 28/05/2019 issued execution warrant against the petitioner to recover the amount of maintenance from his movable and immovable property.As earlier execution warrant was not issued, learned trial Court vide order dated 03/07/2019 again issued execution warrant and on 11/07/2019, matter was adjourned.On perusal of the order sheet dated 04/11/2019, it can be seen that learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in the matter and the case was fixed for the report of execution of warrant.On the very same day, counsel for the respondent filed an application seeking issuance of arrest warrant of the present petitioner and learned trial Court issued arrest warrant.From the aforesaid, it is clear that application for issuance of arrest warrant was filed on 04/11/2019 without supplying copy of the same to the counsel 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MCRC-50455-2019 (Deepak Singh Kirar Vs.Smt. Priyanka) for the petitioner.Without affording any chance to file reply and opportunity of hearing, trial Court issued arrest warrant.The SLP (Crl.) Nos.645-646/2018 is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 02/06/2020 passed following order:-"We have heard he learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband) and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife).During the course of hearing, both the learned counsel appearing for the parties state that their clients may be allowed to resolve their matrimonial disputes through mediation before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.The Supreme Court Mediation Centre shall make an effort to settle the matrimonial disputes between the parties and submit its report to this Court.The learned trial Court is directed to provide copy of the application seeking issuance of arrest warrant to the petitioner which was filed on 04/11/2019 thereafter grant opportunity of filing reply and proper hearing to both sides and pass an appropriate order with regard to issuance of arrest warrant.Accordingly, the petition stands allowed to extent indicated hereinabove.No order as to costs. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,278,941 | (Passed on this 10th day of November, 2020) The petitioner / accused has preferred this pe- tition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 (herein after referred to as "the Code", for brevity) for quashment of First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No.03/2020 registered against him at Po- lice Station A.J.K., District Khargone (MP) for commis- sion of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2)(n), 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (v) and 3 (2) (v-a) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Preven- tion of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.In short, the prosecution story is that on 16.03.2020 respondent No.2 / complainant made a writ- ten complaint against the petitioner / accused to the In- spector General of Police, Indore Zone, Indore (MP) al- leging that she is working as Police Sub Inspector in Madhya Pradesh Police Department; and presently, 2 MCRC No.36130/2020 posted at Police Station Bediya, District Khargone (MP).In the month of February, 2019, she was posted at Police Station Barwaha, District Khargone (MP); and present petitioner was also posted in the same Police Station.The present petitioner started intimacy with her; and on 19.03.2019 he called respondent No.2 / complainant for celebrating her birth day at his room situated at Kanwar Colony, Barwaha, District Khargone (MP) where he made physical relationship with her on a promise, that he would marry her very soon.Respondent No.2 trusted on his promise.Thereafter, the petitioner continued to take her advantage and committed sexual intercourse several times with her.When in the month of May, 2019, respondent No.2 asked the petitioner for their marriage, then all of a sudden, behaviour of the petitioner changed and he was keeping distance from respondent No.2; and started avoiding the complainant / respondent No.2 as well as her messages and mobile calls.Thereafter, when the complainant / respondent No.2 made pressure upon the petitioner for their marriage, then he started quarrelling with her and used to abuse her and also physically as- saulted her several times.When respondent No.2 ap- proached to the Higher Police Authorities, then the peti- tioner came to respondent No.2 / complainant and ten- dered his apologies.On 11.06.2019 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner married to respondent No.2 / complainant in Arya 3 MCRC No.36130/2020 Samaj Mandir, Indore (MP) so as to avoid legal conse- quences.The intention of the petitioner was not fair; and just to hide his crime, he married to respondent No.2 and sent her to Barwaha promising her that he would keep her as his wife, upon his return from Train- ing of Weapon Techniques in R.A.P.T.C, Indore (MP).After Training, the petitioner returned back to Police Station Barwaha, District Khargone (MP), how- ever, he avoided respondent No.2 and misbehaved with her.He also blocked her mobile number.When respondent No.2 saw the aforesaid message of the petitioner, then she immediately reported the matter to the Town Inspec- tor (TI) as well as Sub Divisional Officer of Police (SDOP), Barwaha District Khargone (MP).The matter was inquired and in enquiry, it was found that the peti- tioner spread the messages to defame respondent No.2 / complainant.When the petitioner came to know that he will be held guilty in the Departmental En- quiry (DE), then he expressed his feeling of sorry for his acts; and tendered his apologies to respondent No.2 / complainant in Police Station AJK, Barwaha, District Khargone (MP).Respondent No.2 trusted upon the peti- tioner, but his behaviour has not changed; and he has not kept his promise to keep respondent No.2 / com- plainant with him.On 17.08.2020, the petitioner again blocked the number of respondent No.2 and when she went to his house in DRP Lines, Khargone and asked him why he has blocked her number, upon which, he again misbe- haved with her.Therefore, she was forced to make com- plaint (s) against the petitioner.The present petitioner has absconded himself.At present, he is posted at DRP Lines, Khargone (MP).When the petitioner was posted at Police Station Bar- waha, District Khargone (MP), respondent No.2 was al- ready working there on the post of Sub Inspector of Po- lice.Respondent No.2 is senior to him in service, as she joined the services about two years prior to the joining of the petitioner.He further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 as per Hindu Customs and Ceremonies.However, respondent No.2 insisted on having a grand marriage reception and wanted to invite guests and relatives from both the sides.The petitioner explained to respondent No.2 that his family members were not in favour of their marriage, but he was confident of eventually changing their minds.Thereafter, a grand function would be organized.On 16.03.2020, respondent No.2 / com- plainant made a complaint to Inspector General of Po- lice, Indore Zone, Indore (MP) regarding the aforesaid il- legal acts of the petitioner; and an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner.Ear- lier, respondent No.2 reluctantly agreed to the petition- er's suggestion, but soon after their marriage, respon- dent No.2 started making it an issue, that the petitioner 6 MCRC No.36130/2020 did not organize a grand marriage reception and started making her own theories.Respondent No.2 started abusing and manhandling the petitioner and also started threatening him on a false implication in criminal case by using her contacts with senior officials of the Police Department.On 02.11.2019, taking advantage of her posi- tion the seniority in the Police Department, respondent No.2 made a false complaint against the petitioner whereupon a DE was initiated against him and on 05.03.2020 (Annexure P/4) three charges have been framed against him; and DE is still pending.Respondent No.2, still not satisfied with the said DE and being hell-bent to harass the petitioner, ap- proached to Police Station Kotwali Khargone to lodge a false FIR against him.However, as usual, respondent No.2 misbehaved, threatened the Staff of the Police Sta- tion and refused to record her statement through Videography.The demeanor of respondent No.2 was recorded in Roznamcha dated 13th March, 2020 (Annex- ure P/5).On 2nd April, 2020, during the pendency of the DE, respondent No.2 made an application to the Police Authorities, thereby retracting from her previous state- ment against the petitioner; and admitting the fact that all the allegations (earlier made by her) were made out of her matrimonial dispute with him.On 4th June, 2020, pursuant to the issuance of charges against the petitioner in the DE, a statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the DE in which she denied all her previous allegations made against the petitioner.The petitioner and respondent No.2 have already got married on 11th June, 2019 and she is his legally wedded wife.Apparently, respondent No.2, taking advantage of her position, has misused the process of law.The contents of FIR reflect that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living in separation and during their separation, the petitioner committed the alleged offence.Thus, provisions of Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC are not at- tracted against the petitioner.From the conduct of re- spondent No.2, FIR as well as her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code, no alleged of-MCRC No.36130/2020 fence is made out against the petitioner.Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.03/2020 registered against the petitioner at Police Station A.J.K., District Khargone (MP) for the aforesaid alleged offence; and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.The events and facts of the case show that the consent of respondent No.2 had never been a "willful consent", but the same had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and misusing the official position of the petitioner.It is further submitted that after the registration of the FIR, the petitioner is ab- sconding and he has not been arrested by the Police, as yet; and with intention to avoid his arrest in the case, he has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashment of FIR, though the same is not maintainable at this stage.Therefore, he prays for rejection of the pe- tition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents filed on behalf of the parties.Respon- dent No.2 made allegation against the petitioner, that he made physical relationship with her on pretext of false promise of marriage; and thereafter, he refused to marry with her.However, respondent No.2 denied the aforesaid marriage.On the basis of written complaint made by respondent No.2 to the Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone, Indore (MP), the present FIR / case has been registered against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (v) and 3 (2) (v-a) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Pre- vention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and the matter is under investigation.The question which arises for consideration is as to whether this Court can entertain the present peti- tion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973, at this stage, in view of the fact that the inves- tigation is going on and charge sheet has not been filed against the petitioner. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,062,865 | P.W.2, Pappanasa Pandian @ Pandian, is the victim in this case.The accused are brothers.The accused have got a sister by name Murugeswari.Murugeswari used to be in the petty shop of the 1st accused.There was a fruit stall by the side of the said petty shop belonging to one Mani.P.W.2 was working for some time in the said fruit stall.During that time, P.W.2 became very friendly towards Murugeswari.At one stage, it turned out to be a love affair.Four months prior to 14.10.2002, P.W.2 and Murugeswari had eloped to Chennai.They lived there for about four months and thereafter, returned to Tirupur.P.W.2 left Murugeswari in the bus stand at Tirupur and went away.Murugeswari came to the house of the accused and told the accused about the same.By about 11.00 a.m. on the same day, the 2nd accused found him and requested him to come to his house to talk about the marriage between P.W.2 and Murugeswari.They went to the petty shop of the 1st accused.Murugeswari and her father were already there.The 1st accused also came there.They wanted the accused to agree to marry Murugeswari.The 1st accused suddenly took out an Aruval inserted in the roof of the shop and with that, he cut P.W.2 on his right hand.Taking the severed hand of P.W.2 in his left hand and carrying the Aruval in his right hand, the 1st accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The 2nd accused dragged P.W.2 to the main road and abandoned him there.The owner of the fruit stall Mani raised alarm.People from that locality gathered.The general public snatched the hand of P.W.2 from the 1st accused and then, they took P.W.2 and the severed hand together to Tirupur Government Hospital.P.W.1 Balasubramaniam known as Mani, was running a fruit stall by the side of the petty shop of the 1st accused.He would state that since P.W.2 did not agree for marriage with Murugeswari, he went away.Then, after some time, he found the 1st accused going out of the petty shop with the severed hand in one hand and the Aruval in the other hand.He took P.W.2 along with others to Tirupur Government Hospital.P.W.10 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Tirupur Rural Police Station.On 14.10.2002 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the Police Station and preferred a complaint in respect of the said occurrence.P.1 is the complaint.A cut injury measuring 1 x 2 m.m. on the middle of the back of chest.He gave first aid to P.W.2 and referred him to the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore.The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.150 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore.They stand convicted for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigourous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this appeal.He forwarded the First Information Report and the complaint to court.Then he handed over the accused to P.W.11 for investigation.He found the following injuries:The right hand was amputated below the shoulder joint;The severed right hand of P.W.2 brought to him was examined;A cut injury measuring 6 x 3 x 1 c.m.found on the left fore hand;A cut injury measuring 2 x = x = c.m.found on the left upper hand;A cut injury measuring 4 x 3 x bone depth found on the left fore hand;A cut injury measuring 8 x 5 x bone depth on the lower one third; andHe sent the severed hand along with him to the hospital.Despite the efforts of the Doctors, the severed hand could not be refixed.According to him, the injuries 1 and 5 are grievous in nature and others are simple in nature.He has opined that the said injuries would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 Aruval.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.He also prepared a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence.He recovered blood stained earth as well as the sample earth from the place of occurrence under the cover of Mahazar.He recovered a rope from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.13 Mahazar.M.O.4 is the blood stained earth and M.O.5 is the sample earth seized from the place of occurrence and M.O.2 is the rope recovered from the place of occurrence.At 5.30 p.m. on the same day, he arrested the accused at Tirupur Bus stand in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession.He disclosed that he had hidden the Aruval in a bush near Mahalakshi Ginning Factory.He took the police as well as the witness to the said place and produced M.O.1 Aruval.The same was recovered under Mahazar in the presence of witnesses.The Aruval was found stained with blood.The said statement has been marked as Ex.P.2 (Though it is inadmissible in evidence as hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C., the trial court has admitted the same).Then, he examined few more witnesses.He forwarded the accused to court for remand.He also examined P.W.4 and recovered the photographs taken from him.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against both the accused under Sections 307 and 342 read with 307 of IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the first accused and as against the second accused under Section 342 read with 307 of IPC.Since both the accused denied the charges, they were put on trial.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked.As I have already narrated, P.W.2 is the injured and P.W.1 is the one who had seen the first accused proceeding from the shop with the severed hand and the blood stained Aruval.P.W.4 is an independent person.He is a Social Worker.He had his office at Sangilipallam on Tirupur to Tarapuram Road.According to him, on 14.10.2002 at about 12.15 p.m. when he was at his office, he found the 1st accused moving from south to north on the said road wearing a pant and shirt.At that time, he was carrying an Aruval on his right hand and a severed hand in his left hand.Sensing that some untoward incident had happened, P.W.4 states, he took photographs of the 1st accused, while he was walking as above stated.Two such photographs taken were produced by him to the police and they are M.Os.3 Series.P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and he has been treated as hostile.P.W.6 has stated that he found the 1st accused moving with Aruval and severed hand.P.W.7 has spoken to about the Observation Mahazar and P.W.8 has spoken to about the arrest of the 1st accused.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side.Having considered the above materials, the trial court convicted both the accused under Section 307 of IPC.and accordingly sentenced them to imprisonment and fine.Aggrieved over the same, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.I have heard Mr.Secondly, he would submit that there are certain contradictions between the evidences of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and therefore, the case of the prosecution should be disbelieved as the contradictions impeach the credibility of these witnesses.Thirdly, he would submit that the photographs said to have been taken by P.W.4 are not admissible in evidence, because the negatives of the photographs have not been placed in evidence Nextly, he would submit that the clothe belonging to the injured were not recovered and they were not sent for chemical examination.He would further submit that the case sheet and the treatment records at Government Hospital, Coimbatore have not been produced in evidence and the Doctor who treated P.W.2 also has not been examined.This, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.The learned Government Advocate would however oppose this appeal stoutly.According to him, P.W.2, who lost his hand, has come to the court and deposed narrating the entire occurrence in a vivid fashion.Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of this appeal in respect of the 2nd accused also.I have considered the above submissions and also perused the records carefully.Admittedly, P.W.2 is the injured eye-witness who has lost his hand in the occurrence.Earlier, he had seen the accused and P.W.2 having some talks about the proposed marriage between P.W.2 and Murugeswari.After that, he left the petty shop of the 1st accused and came to his shop.When he was in the fruit stall, he noticed the 1st accused moving out of his shop with the severed hand and blood stained Aruval.The photographs have been exhibited as material objects before the trial court.In this case, though initially, the intention of the accused in bringing P.W.2 to the petty shop was only to persuade him to marry the sister of the 1st accused.The purpose of bringing P.W.2 to the petty shop was only to persuade, as I have already stated.The talk was going on for some time in order to persuade him to marry Murugeswari.As I have already stated, the intention of bringing P.W.2 to the petty shop was not for the purpose of killing him and it was only for the purpose of persuading him to marry Murugeswari.When he was tied by the 2nd accused, the 1st accused was not armed with any weapon.Hence, the 2nd accused/2nd appellant is entitled for acquittal.Now coming to the question of sentence to be imposed on the 1st accused/1st appellant for the offence under Section 308 of IPC, having regard to the age, more particularly, the circumstances under which he got provoked to attack P.W.2 and all other attending circumstances, I am of the view that imposing a sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of 5 years would meet the ends of justice besides , a fine of Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the trial court.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms :The conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st appellant/1st accused by the trial court under Section 307 I.P.C is set aside, instead, he is convicted under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigourous imprisonment for three months; andThe conviction and sentence imposed on the 2nd accused/2nd appellant is set aside and he is acquitted.In all other aspects, the appeal stands dismissed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,293,981 | Heard on the point of maintainability.In this case the special session trial was decided by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, the learned Judge acquitted the present appellant from charges under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted him under Section 325/34 and 323/34 (2 counts) and therefore, the objection raised by the office is ignored.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the lower Court.Heard on I.A.No.2166/2017 which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant-Chintu @ Annu S/o Rajaram Dangi.The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended by the trial Court till 27.03.2017 as mentioned in para 3 of the application.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety 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 appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29.06.2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.C.C.as per rules.(ALOK VERMA) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,298,481 | T-413/18/2011 dated 08.03.2011 passed by Government of W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 2 of 24 India in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 5 of Extradition Act, 1962, the learned Extradition Magistrate conducted an inquiry as to the extraditability of the Petitioner for offences involved, by determining whether a prima facie case exists in terms of The Extradition Act, 1962 and the Extradition Treaty between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of USA and other applicable laws.W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 2 of 24The extradition of the Petitioner was sought pursuant to his indictment in a case of criminal sexual conduct committed in United States of America, details of which are given in paras 14 to 28 of the Prosecutor's Affidavit under the heading 'SUMMARY OF FACTS'.Charges, Potential Sentences and Statutory Provisions, as incorporated in Prosecutor's Affidavit, are as under :Specific violations charged in the Complaint and the Warrant of Arrest are as follows :The statutes cited in the Complaint and the Warrant of Arrest which Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul is charged with having violated, including applicable penalties, and which form the basis of the request for extradition are : Minnesota Statute 609.342, Subd.1(e)(i) and Minnesota Statute 609.342, Subd.1(c).The text of Minnesota Statute 609.342 is attached as Exhibit E.The Appeal has been carefully examined and the Central Government does not find reasonable grounds to accept the appeal.This issues with the approval of the competent authority.The Petitioner Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the Extradition Inquiry Report dated 25.08.2014 by learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts may be set aside and he be discharged.However, in para 22 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that the Petitioner filed a representation dated 01.09.2014 in terms of Section 7(4) of Extradition Act, 1962 to the Government of India seeking his discharge but no communication has been received by the Petitioner in this regard till date.W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 1 of 24On 31.10.2014, on urgent mentioning at 4.00 pm, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he received a communication through some relation of the Petitioner about the rejection of the representation of the Petitioner by Union of India.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on receipt of said communication, he has filed this writ petition.Surprisingly, in the prayer clause of this writ petition, the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Union of India has not been challenged.The prayer made in the present writ petition is to the following effect :'Set aside/quash the Extradition Inquiry Report dated 25.08.2014 passed by Shri Ajay Garg, ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in case being OLD CC No.48/1/11 and New CC No.13/1/13 titled Union of India v.Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul and discharge the Petitioner and render justice.'Notice of the writ petition was sent to Respondent/Union of India.Perusal of the record reveals that on the basis of Note Verbal No.2011-127/CONS dated 01.02.2011 received from the Embassy of USA and the order No.'CHARGES AND POTENTIAL SENTENCES1(c).The maximum sentence which may be imposed upon conviction of Joseph Palanivel Jeypaul of Count One of the Complaint consists of 30 years imprisonment and/or a $40,000 fine; of Count Two 30 years imprisonment and/or a $40,000 fine.All of the statutes cited herein were part of the criminal laws of the W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 3 of 24 State of Minnesota at the time of offenses alleged in the Complaint and when the Complaint was filed and are presently in full force and effect.W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 3 of 24Violations of the statutes which form the basis of the charges in the Complaint issued against Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul are felonies under the laws of the State of Minnesota, punishable by more than one year imprisonment.The offenses charged in the Complaint and set forth in the Warrant of Arrest are offenses for which extradition may be granted under the laws of the United States.' On the point of limitation, it is mentioned in para 12 of Prosecutor's Affidavit, as under :Minnesota Statute 628.26(f), sets forth the statute of limitations which governs prosecution of the offenses charged in the Complaint.'Indictments or complaints for violation of Section 609.342 to 609.345 if the victim was under the age of 18 years at the time the offense was committed, shall be found or made and filed in the proper Court within the later of nine years after the commission of the offense or three years after the offense was reported to law enforcement authorities.Since the Complaint was originally filed on December, 15, 2006 prosecution is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.'Learned Extradition Magistrate recorded the statement of Mr.D.K.Ghosh.Consultant Extradition, Ministry of External Affairs and after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the witness, recording the statement of Petitioner herein, heard learned counsel for the parties at length.By a reasoned order dated 25.08.2014, learned Extradition Magistrate W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 4 of 24 recommended extradition of the Petitioner to United States of America.This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by learned Extradition Magistrate.W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 4 of 24As noted above, though the Petitioner has not challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Government of India, even oral request was not made to this Court at the time of submissions to seek any amendment in the writ petition impugning the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Government of India.However, when attention of learned counsel for the Petitioner was drawn to this flaw in the writ petition, he submitted that on his oral request, the prayer may be read as also impugning the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Government of India whereby the representation dated 01.09.2014 of the Petitioner was rejected.This prayer was allowed.I have heard Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate for the Petitioner as well as Mr.As per para 12 of the Prosecutor's Affidavit, which quotes Minnesota Statute 628.26(f) W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 5 of 24 about the law of limitation applicable in the case, the limitation had expired for the reason that the matter was reported to the law enforcement authorities in October, 2006 (page No.43) and the second amended complaint (page No.61) in the case No.68-CR-06-465 filed on 28.12.2010 in the District Court for the County of Roseau in the State of Minnesota.Only the second amended complaint, which was filed on 28th December, 2010, was before the learned Extradition W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 14 of 24 Magistrate and in the absence of first complaint, he could not have arrived at any conclusion about the existence of first complaint.'Kindly refer to the representation dated September 1, 2014 seeking discharge from case filed by the Government of the United States of America for extradition.W.P.(Crl.) No.2210/2014 Page 23 of 24M.A. No.16896/2014 (Stay) & Crl.M.B. No.10838/2014 Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the applications have become infructuous and the same are accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,299,048 | The prayer in the present petition is to direct the respondent to alter the section in Crime No. 191 of 2017 and to include the Section 307 IPC.In view of the the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition has become infructuous and accordingly closed.10.07.2017Index:yes/noInternet:yes/The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.O.P.No.12492 of 2017 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,302,410 | BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 1 of 37The aforesaid FIR has been preferred on the complaint of one Javed S/o Khalil, who stated that he is running business of sale & purchase of used cars from Darya Ganj.ASI Amar Singh, HC Anil Kumar - the applicant, and the Constable Sarvan, were posted at PS - Sonia Vihar.They were creating troubles for him by claiming that he was running an illegal business.Javed stated that he was being threatened with arrest in some cases.On 30.04.2015, at 08:30 p.m. Constable Sarvan came to the office of Javed and demanded Rs.20,000/- from him for not arresting him in a case.Javed claims to have replied that he was having only Rs.10,000/- and he told Sarvan that the remaining amount would be given in the presence of Amar Singh and HC Anil Kumar - the applicant.On this, according to Javed, Sarvan left the workshop after receiving Rs.10,000/- by saying that on 01.05.2015 the complainant should reach near Balaji Properties, Near Traffic Light, Bhajanpura at 04:00 p.m. with the remaining amount.The complainant stated that he was against corruption.He stated that he did not have any personal enmity with ASI Amar Singh, HC Anil Kumar - the applicant, and the Constable Sarvan and he had no monetary transaction with them.He stated that he was giving the money under compulsion.The complainant claimed that he had recorded the voice of Constable Sarvan in his mobile phone and in the conversation, Constable Sarvan had asked the complainant to bring the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- on the following day because HC Anil Kumar and ASI Amar Singh had demanded their share from the amount.He produced Rs.10,000/- comprising of 10 notes of Rs.1,000/- each and he demanded legal action be taken against the three persons.As per the FIR, the panch witness Sh.Raj Prakash working as Assistant Secretary II, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, Government of BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 2 of 37 National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Institutional Area, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi signed the said complaint.Thereafter, the pre- raid proceedings were drawn up; the Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the GC notes and its test was explained to the complainant and the panch witness by giving a demonstration, and the complainant was instructed to remain close to the panch witness, so that he is able to see and hear the transaction of giving and acceptance of bribe amount.The complainant was instructed to give the money only upon the demand, and not otherwise.The panch witness was also instructed that upon satisfaction that the bribe amount has been accepted by the accused on demand, he should raise his right hand over his head to give a signal to the raiding party.The Raid Officer along with his team left the ACB at 04:00 p.m. At about 04:45 p.m., the Raid Officer with his staff reached near Balaji Properties at a distance of 100 metres from the Traffic Light.The complainant and the panch witness were sent ahead with suitable instructions, while the Raid Officer and the other members of the raiding party followed them from some distance.At about 04:45 p.m. the complainant and the panch witness entered the plot of Balaji Properties and at about 05:00 p.m. the panch witness came out and gave the pre-planned signal.The complainant stated that the applicant is an associate of Sarvan and Amar Singh.BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 2 of 37The applicant Anil Kumar tried to slip away from the spot, but was apprehended by the Raid Officer with the help of the raiding party.Upon disclosure of the identity of the Raid Officer, the applicant became BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 3 of 37 perplexed.The applicant was told that his search was required to be taken and if he so wish as, he could take the search of the Raid Officer or of the members of the raiding party.On hearing the name of ACB, the applicant got frightened and refused to search.On the instructions of the Raid Officer, the panch witness took search of HC Anil Kumar - the applicant.However, the bribe amount was not recovered from him.BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 3 of 37The panch witness was examined and he informed that he had accompanied Javed - the complainant, and reached the room on the back side of the said property.One person was present in the room, who identified the complainant and enquired from the complainant about the identity of the panch witness.Javed told him that the panch witness was his relative from Muzaffar Nagar.Thereafter, that person demanded Rs.10,000/-.Javed called that person as Sarvan.Javed told Sarvan that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was for all the three, i.e. ASI Amar Singh, HC Anil Kumar - the applicant and Sarvan.The complainant asked Sarvan to call ASI Amar Singh and HC Anil Kumar.On this Sarvan stated that both of them were present at the spot.Javed was asked to give the money to Sarvan, who stated that he would distribute the same amongst themselves.Javed took out the bribe amount from his pocket.Sarvan stated that he would call both of them and then he left the room at a fast pace and escaped from the plot.The panch witness also disclosed that while coming out of the room, Sarvan made gestures towards a person who was seated outside on a chair.That person BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 4 of 37 also followed Sarvan at a fast pace.The complainant identified the person following Sarvan as ASI Amar Singh.Both these persons managed to escape from the plot.The panch witness also informed that when he came out from the room, these persons were not present there.The panch witness also informed that the complainant Javed pointed out towards a person who was going out of the plot, and informed that he is HC Anil Kumar - the applicant.On this, the panch witness immediately gave the pre-planned signal.The raiding party rushed towards the spot.Insofar as it is relevant, it reads as follows:" NOTIFICATION No.F.1(21) /92-Home(P) Estt.In supersession of this Govt.'s Notification No. F.12(7) /86-HP-II dated 1.8.86 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No.II of 1974) read with the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.U- 11011/2/74-UTL (i) dated 20.3.74, the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby declares that Anti- Corruption Branch, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi at Old Secretariat, Delhi to be a Police Station for:-i) Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (No.49), 1988 andii) Attempts, abetment and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the aforesaid offences and any other offence committed in the course of same transaction arising out of the same set of facts, and it shall have jurisdiction all over the National Capital Territory of Delhi.By order and in the BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 8 of 37 Name of Lt. Governor of Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi."BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 8 of 37The notification dated 23.07.2014, inter alia, states:"having regard to the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission over the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Anti-Corruption Branch, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Central Government hereby declares that the notification number F.1/21/92- Home (P) Estt.1750, dated the 8th November, 1993 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi shall be applicable to the officers and employees of that Government only and for that purpose amends the said notification, namely:--In the said notification, after the existing paragraph, the following paragraph shall be inserted, namely:-- "2 This notification shall apply to the officers and employees of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.""The same stands amended on 23.07.2014 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.After amendment by the 23.07.2014 notification, the ACB is now empowered to exercise jurisdiction only in respect of the officers and employees of the GNCTD, and not in relation to officers of the Delhi Police, since the officers and employees of Delhi Police BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 9 of 37 are not employees of the GNCTD.The complainant had recorded the telephonic conversation that he had with Sarvan before and after the raid.In the said telephonic recorded conversation, the name of the petitioner is categorically surfacing as one of the persons who had demanded the bribe from the complainant.The transcript of the conversation which is stated to have been taken place between Sarvan and the complainant, points towards the conspiracy hatched by the applicant, ASI Amar Singh and Sarvan to demand and accept bribe from the complainant.Mr. Krishnan submits that, pertinently, the applicant was apprehended from the spot, which is the office of a property dealer - Balaji Properties.The place of apprehension, namely Balaji Properties falls outside the jurisdiction of PS - Sonia Vihar, where the applicant and the other two accused persons are posted.This letter talked BAIL APPLN.On receipt of the signal, the Raid Officer and the other members of the raiding party immediately rushed to, and reached the spot where the complainant and the panch witness were present.The complainant pointed out towards a person whose name was later revealed as Anil Kumar - the applicant.Javed pointed out HC Anil Kumar - the applicant to the raiding party.The raiding party overpowered the applicant - HC Anil Kumar.The panch witness also stated that on the instructions of the Raid Officer, he took search of HC Anil Kumar - the applicant, but the bribe amount was not recovered from his possession because Constable Sarvan along with ASI Amar Singh had managed to escape with the bribe amount.BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 4 of 37The FIR narrates the further action taken on the complaint.The Raid Officer, his party, the complainant, the panch witness and HC Anil Kumar - the applicant made efforts to trace Constable Sarvan and ASI Amar Singh but they could not be traced.No person could be contacted to give a lead about them.Consequently, the Raid Officer came back to the ACB.The Rukka was prepared for offences under Sections 7 & 13 of the PC Act read with Section 120-B/ 34/ 201 I.P.C., on which the FIR was registered.The applicant was, consequently, taken into custody.Neither the applicant is claimed to have made a demand of illegal gratification from the complainant, nor did he BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 5 of 37 accept any illegal gratification from the complainant during the trap proceedings, nor the GC notes were recovered from the applicant.The applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of the complainant - who is himself a discredited person, having several cases against him, and on the basis of the allegation that Sarvan claimed that his demand for bribe was made not just for himself, but also on behalf of the applicant and ASI Amar Singh.BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 7 of 37On 08.11.1993 the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi issued a notification.BAIL APPLN.878/2015 Page 9 of 37On the other hand, the State represented through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate has opposed the present bail application.On the merits, he has referred to the status report filed by the State.The status report discloses that during the course of investigation, mobile phone of the complainant and the compact disks of the recordings of the conversation between the complainant and Sarvan have been seized in accordance with law, and a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence issued.878/2015 Page 37 of 37 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,314,933 | This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging order dated 23.09.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,Bijnor, in S.T. No. 584 of 2007 (State Vs.307 IPC, P.S. Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor, whereby Court below has refused to stay the proceedings of above mentioned Sessions Trial, as well as entire proceedings of above case.Application under Section 482 Cr.Consequently, applicants filed an application dated 23.9.2008 for staying proceedings of aforesaid case.Thus feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 23.09.2008, applicants have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of present application before this Court, parties have entered into a compromise and have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court.In view of settlement arrived at between the parties a compromise deed dated 25.10.2018 was executed, original compromise deed along with compromise application supported with affidavit has been appended as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of compromise application.It is also their submission that since the dispute between the parties has terminated as they have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and compromise having been filed before this Court by means of separate application, opposite party No. 2 cannot dispute the same.Therefore, present application may be decided in terms of compromise.Opposite party No. 2 cannot have any grievance, in case, dispute is resolved by this Court in terms of compromise so entered between the parties.B.S. Joshi and others Vs.State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 6752. Nikhil Merchant Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]There shall be no order as to costs. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,796,316 | Contemnor 41, Amit Chahal was dealt by another judgment dated 21.04.2015 and looking to the fact the he had ceased to practice and was working as Assistant Teacher in primary school, this Court taking a lenient view in the matter accepted his unconditional apology with warning that in future such conduct shall not be repeated and he shall maintain proper discipline and disposed of contempt petition against him accordingly.Thereafter this contempt petition survives only with respect to Contemnors 15 and 33 i.e. Dilshad Ali and Basant Singh Saini.They wanted trial of the matter stating that they have been wrongly implicated.The district judgeship was created on 23.08.1999 and enunciated functioning in the erstwhile Court of Munsif, Amroha.New Civil Court Complex was constructed consisting of twelve functional Courts and office.Its shifting was to take place from old building to new one.District Judge, in the interest of Court, so that function may not be interrupted, decided to shift Courts in the evening of 06.03.2010 (Saturday) so that shifting may settle on 07.03.2010 (Sunday) and uninterrupted smooth functioning of Court may go on 08.03.2010 and onwards.The contents of Reference of District Judge's letter dated 12.04.2010, relevant for our purpose, is reproduced as under:-But their obstruction was foiled by the staff and officers of the judgeship.Not only this, it is 55 time more than what was occupied by them.It is a blessing in disguise, that too, over night.I have got constructed a beautiful gallery for approach of the Advocates to the court rooms which is not found anywhere in the whole nation, the photograph of which is being annexed, herewith as annexure no. 12."The contents of letters of Judicial Officers, forwarded by District Judge, alongwith his Reference letter, are also reproduced as under:-(a) Complaint on behalf of staff of Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar dated 06.03.2010;"llEeku fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 6-3-10 dks le; 6%30 cts lk;a] ftl le; uohu dpgjh Hkou esa f'kQ~fVax gsrq lkeku ykus dh rS;kj dh tk jgh Fkh] mlh le; vf/koDrkx.k ftuesa [kyhd vgen] unhe [kqljks] euq 'kekZ] d`iky flag] pSulq[k xksys] jktsUnz lSuh] lyhe [kku] jktho xksys] jkekSrkj xqIrk o ujs'kohj flag rFkk vU; 50&60 vf/koDrkx.k vk;s vkSj ge deZpkjhx.k ds fy;s vi'kCn rFkk vieku tud 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;k rFkk ge deZpkjhx.k }kjk f'kQ~fVax gsrq fd;s tk jgs dk;Z esa vojks/k mRiUUu djus dk iz;kl fd;kA"""With due respect it is submitted that today on 6.3.2010, in the evening at 6:30 pm, when preparations to bring the items, for shifting to new court building, were being made, Advocates Khalique Ahmed, Nadeem Khusro, Manu Sharma, Kripal Singh, Chain Sukh Gole, Rajendra Saini, Salim Khan, Rajiv Gole, Ramautar Gupta, Naresh Vir Singh and 50-60 other advocates came and used abusive and derogatory words for us- the employees and attempted to hinder the work of shifting being done by us.""fuosnu gS fd fnuakd 6-3-10 dks gekjh vfHkys[kksa dks u;s Hkous esa O;ofLFkr djus ds le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s ftuds uke gqde flaag lSuh] eaxr jke lSuh] twfu;j uh'kkr vdje] Hkxr flag lSuh] vj'kn Hkkjrh] pSu lq[k xksys] pkS/kjh ujs'k ohj ubZe vgen o Jh d`iky flag ;kno o vU; 40&45 vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s ftUgksaus vi'kCn dgsA vkSj xkfy;ka Hkh nh ,slh fLFkfr esa dk;Z djuk dfBu gks jgk gSA"""It is submitted that on 6.3.10, when we were arranging the records in the new building, following advocates namely Hukum Singh Saini, Mangat Ram Saini, Junior Nishat Akran, Bhagat Singh Saini, Arshad Bharti, Chain Sukh Gole, Chaudhary Naresh Vir, Naeem Ahmed, Shri Kripal Singh Yadav and 40-45 other advocates had come who uttered foul words and hurled abuses also, in this condition it is getting tough to work."(c) Complaint by staff of Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 6-3-10 dks ftl le; f'kQ~fVax ds fy;s lkeku dh rS;kjh u;s ifjlj ys tkus dh] dh tk jgh Fkh rHkh mlh le; vf/koDrk Jh dfiy fpdkjk] Jh xkSjo vxzoky] Jh jkekSrkj xqIrk] Jh lquhy ckcw] Jh foosd fo'uksbZ] Jh d`iky flag ;kno] Jh pSu lq[k xksys] Jh bUnziky xksys] Jh euq 'kekZ o blds vfrfjDr 40&50 vf/koDrk vk x;s ftUgksaus ges xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj vi'kCn dgs vkSj lkeku ykus esa O;o/kku mRiUu fd;kA"""It is submitted that on 06.03.10, when items were being prepared for shifting to new campus, at the same time Advocate Shri Kapil Chikara, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Shri Ramautar Gupta, Shri Sunil Babu, Shri Vivek Vishnoi, Shri Kripal Singh Yadav, Shri Chain Sukh Gole, Shri Indrapal Gole, Shri Manu Sharma and besides them 40-50 advocates came who abused us and caused obstruction in bringing the items."Following are the names of the advocates-Shri Rajendra Saini, AdvocateShri Rajiv Gole, AdvocateShri Chain Sukh Gole, AdvocateShri Ram Avtar Gupta, AdvocateShri Khalique Ahmed, AdvocateShri Rashid Miyan, AdvocateShri Chaudhary Naresh Vir Singh, AdvocateShri Kripal Singh Yadav, Advocate Besides, there were 40-50 more advocates."(g) Complaint by staff of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar;"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 06-03-2010 dks dh 'kke dks ftl le; iqjkus ifjlj ls u;s ifjlj esa vfHkys[k tkus dh rS;kjh dh tk jgh Fkh mlh le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s 1-bUnziky xksys 2-Jh fny'kkn vgen 3-Jh vj'kn Hkkjrh 4-[kyhd vgen 5- Jh lkftn jmQ 6- Jh pSulq[k xksys 7-Jh d`iky flag ;kno 8-Jh fouksn dqekj lSuh blds vfrfjDr 40&45 vf/koDrkx.k Hkh vk x;s ftUgksaus lHkh fyfidksa dks cqjk Hkyk dgk vkSj dk;Z esa O;o/kku mRiUu fd;kA"""It is submitted that in the evening of 06.03.2010, when preparation to shift the records from old campus to new campus were being made, at the same time following advocates had come :-Shri Dilshad AhmedShri Arshad BhartiShri Sajid RaufShri Chainsukh GoleShri Kripal Singh YadavShri Vinod Kumar Saini Besides them, 40-50 more advocates also arrived who abused all the clerks and caused hindrance in the work."(h) Complaint by staff of Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;"lfou; fuosnu gS fd ge deZpkjhx.k ubZ dpgjh esa lkeku fnukad 6-3-10 dks tc yk jgs Fks rc iqjkuh dpgjh ifjlj esa fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrk vk x;sA Jh ------------- Jh pSulq[k xksys] losZ'k 'kekZ] olUr flag lSuh vkSj blds vfrfjDr 40&45 vf/koDrk vk x;sA ftUgksaus deZpkfj;ksa dks xkfy;ka nh ftlls dk;Z djus esa dfBukbZ;ksa dk lkeuk gqvkA"""It is submitted that when we, the employees, were bringing the items to new court on 6.3.10, then following advocates came into the old court campus.Shri ............. Shri Chain Sukh Gole, Sarvesh Sharma, Vasant Singh Saini and besides them 40-45 advocates came who abused the employees which caused hardships in work."(i) Complaint by staff of District Judge, J.P. Nagar;"fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 06-03-2010 dks eqalQh U;k;ky; ds ifjlj esa dk;Zjr lHkh deZpkjhx.k dh vksj ls bl vk[;k ds izkFkZuk iz= izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa fd muds }kjk ljdkjh vfHkys[kksa dks uo fufeZr Hkou esa f'kQ~V djus gsrq rS;kjh djrs le; cgqr ls vf/koDrkx.k U;k;ky; ifjlj esa vk x;s gS xUnh xUnh xkfy;ka ns jgs gSA vieku tud 'kCn deZpkfj;ksa dks dg jgs gSaA ,slh fo"ke ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfHkys[kksa dk uo fufeZr Hkou rd ys tkuk cgqr dfBu gks jgk gSA""It is submitted that today, on 06.03.2010, applications by all the employees of the Munsif Court campus have been submitted wherein it has been reported that at the time when they were doing preparations for shifting Government records to the newly built building, many advocates, hurling abuses, have come into the court campus.They are uttering derogatory language for the employees.In such adverse conditions, it has become very tough to carry the records to newly built building." (English translation by Court)Record also shows that District Judge after receiving complaint from the staff, in order to enable shifting of record, furniture etc. passed following order on 06.03.2010 with a direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar;"Please act swiftly and do needful, not personally but through police and Executive Magistrate."Sir, It is most humbly submitted that the items of the court had been shifted from the old court to the new court on the orders of the Learned District Judge.Today, on 07.03.2010, I was on the duty of watchman and the employees of the court were putting the files in the court rooms and other documents and registers in the office, at the same time at around 12 o'clock, 100 counsels including Kripal Singh, Chain Sukh Gole, Jishan Ahmad, Avnish Sharan Bansal, Arshad Husain Bharti, Shailendra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Kapoor, S. P. Singh and Mohammad Ali Naqvi came hurling abuses and broke the lock of both the iron gates of the New Court Building towards Vikas Bhawan and tried to destroy the files and other Government records that employees were putting in the FTC courts situated on the side of Vikas Bhawan, which were saved with great difficulty by the employees working there.These advocates obstructed the official work being performed by the employees of the judges and created such an environment that ruckus got created among the employees.Kindly register the report and take legal action.This proposal was accepted by Court.At the time of shifting, not even a single lawyer was present since no one knew about shifting.That it is respectfully stated that on 13.03.2010 the Commissioner Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad who was inspection of new Court by the order of Principal Home, U.P State Government and filed his report and classified that the Library Hall, Bar Room, Chambers of Advocate will be established on the basis of Eastern Boundary Wall and layout 2003 and where this Hon'ble Court also directed to Learned District Judge for proceed.A true/ photo copy of Order-sheet and Vakalatnama is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.6 to this affidavit.He has said that District Judge, while getting record shifted got a video film prepared but the same has not been made part of Reference.The presence of Contemnor 15 may be got verified from the said CD.Contemnor 15 was enrolled in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh vide no. 3288/98 dated 30.04.1998 and joined legal practice under Senior Counsel P.K. Jain in district Moradabad.He maintains high respect for judiciary and cannot create obstruction in judicial or official function of Court.Earlier it was part of district Moradabad of 100 years old.Munsif Court was running in four rooms situated in middle of city.District judgeship was inaugurated on 23.10.1999 by the then Chief Justice, N.K. Mitra, accompanied by Justice Markandey Katju (as his lordship then was) and Hon'ble S.R. Alam,J (the then Administrative Judge) of J.P. Nagar.Contemnor 15, being resident of Amroha was interested to practice at Amroha itself.Due to lack of space, Advocates were at difficulty to find place for their sitting.The then Administrative Judge, Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi,J. visited district judgeship on 20.06.2001 and got old building of Rukmani Trust which was old Women's Hospital repaired and managed three rooms from Nagar Palika.Contemnor 15 is resident of village Salamatpur, Police Station, Didauli, which is about 14 kms.from Old Fort compound.It was not known even to Media or general public.Contemnor 15 came to know about shifting in the morning through newspapers.Reference letter dated 12.06.2010 is delayed by authority by 36 days and contain concocted story.As per allegations, eight Adcocates came at the site when shifting was taking place namely Indrapal Gole, Dilshad Ahmad, Arshad Bharti, Khaleek Ahmad, Sajid Rauf, Chainsukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav and Vinod Kumar Saini.These Advocates did not create obstruction nor abuse anybody.About other forty Advocates no details have been given.Contemnor 15 was not there at all.After framing charge requisite documents were not supplied to Contemnor.He stated that 40-45 people came and created obstruction.There was light at the place where (we) had loaded the items.Few advocates came there when we were loading the items.It was evening.It turned chaotic."f'kQ~fVax ds le; 30&40 vf/koDrk vk;s vkSj fojks/k Lo:i mu okguksa dks iyV fn;k ftuesa i=kofy;ka ;k fjdMZ~l f'kQ~V gks jgs FksA vHknz O;ogkj fd;k lwpuk ij iqfyl vkbZA eSa ml le; dk;kZy; ds vUnj Fkk vkSj dkSu ls vf/koDrk fdldks&2 xkyh ns jgs Fks eSaus vius dkuksa ls lquk ysfdu vkokt Li"V ugha lquhA mDr ?kVuk dh fyf[kr f'kdk;r eSa o vU; deZpkjhx.k us rRdkyhu tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks dhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks f'kdk;r f'kQ~fVax ds nks fnu ckn dh Fkh rkjh[k ;kn ugha gSA eq>ls fdlh us f'kdk;r djus ds fy, ugha dgk eSaus Lo;a ?kVuk dh f'kdk;r dhA nks fnu i=kofy;kW ;Fkksfpr :i ls j[kus esa le; yxk mlds ckn f'kdk;r dhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks ?kVuk dh lwpuk fcuk fdlh vU; ls jk; elojs ls dh xbZ FkhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks tks f'kdk;r eSaus dh Fkh og gkbdksVZ i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA rFkk jsQjsUl ysVj dk layXu 4 gS ;g esjs ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gSA eSus viuh f'kdk;r esa vf/koDrk fouksn lSuh] clUr lSuh] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen] fnus'k flag dks xUnh&2 xkfy;kW nsus okys vf/koDrkvksa ds :i esa vU; 40&45 vf/koDrkvksa ds lkFk ukfer fd;k gSA"""30-40 Advocates came at the time of the shifting and protestingly they overturned those vehicles in which files and records were getting shifted.After perusing letter dated 6.3.2010, said that his name is written on it which has been written by him.Then said that the Reader wrote his name; he had not written.In cross examination he has said as under:-Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.1. Heard Sri Dhruv Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contemnor, assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, special counsel appearing on behalf of High Court.This criminal contempt proceeding cropped up on a reference made by Sri Saeed Uz Zaman Siddiqui, District Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar at Amroha (hereinafter referred to as "J.P. Nagar") for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") read with Section 12 against 41 Advocates namely, (1) Sri Khaleeq Ahmad, (2) Kapil Chikara, (3) Rashid Mian, (4) Gaurav Kumar Agarwal, (5) Ram Autar Gupta, (6) Sunil Babu, (7) Rajeev Gole, (8) Saleem Khan, (9) Chaudhary Naresh Veer Singh, (10) Vivek Bishnoi, (11) Naeem Ahmad, (12) Kripal Singh Yadav, (13) Mohd. Ali Naqvi, (14) Indrapal Gole, (15) Dilshad Ali, (16) Sajid Rauf, (17) Dinesh Chauhan, (18) Manu Sharma, (19) Ali Imam Rizvi, (20) Arshad Bharti, (21) Jai Prakash Yadav, (22) Surya Pratap Singh, (23) Bharat Singh Saini, (24) Vinod Kumar, (25) Raj Chaudhary, (26) Nadeem Khusro, (27) Rajendra Singh Saini, (28) Dinesh Singh, (29) Vinod Kumar Saini, (30) Ashok Kumar Kapoor, (31) Chain Sukh Gole, (32) Sarvesh Sharma, (33) Basant Singh Saini, (34) Pawnesh Chauhan, (35) Avnish Sharan Bansal, (36) Shrafat Hussain, (37) Mangat Ram Saini, (38) Nitin Bansal, (39) Hukum Singh Saini, (40) Dalpat Singh; and, (41) Amit Chahal.All contemnors except Saleem Khan (contemnor 8), Dilshad Ali (contemnor 15), Basant Singh Saini (contemnor 33) and Amit Chahal (contemnor 41) pleaded guilty of contempt and sentenced one days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-.Contemnor 8, Saleem Khan also pleaded guilty and vide judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed separately, after holding guilty he was sentenced one days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and debarred from entering Court premises for a period of four months commencing from 13.07.2015 since it was second contempt on his part.This Court framed charge against aforesaid two Contemnors on 21.04.2015 as under:-"That both of you namely, Dilshad Ali and Basant Singh Saini, Advocates, along with others on 06.03.2010 resisted the shifting process of Civil Courts to newly constructed complex by burgling into the old Court complex.Your obstruction was foiled by the staff and officers of the justice.Thereafter Contemnor 15 moved an application for summoning three defence witnesses namely Israr Ali and Qayum Raza who are also officials of Court of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.That the staff members have reported this incident against 41 Advocates (vide annexure no. 1 to 8) who are being arrayed as contemnors.That the conduct of the contemnors is a clear obstruction in the Administration of justice.That, the Courts running in the erstwhile court of Munsif Amroha, were situated in a busy market in the heart of the city, that too, in narrow lanes and bye-lanes.The shifting process could not take place during the day time as heavy traffic, truck-loads cannot pass through during working hours.Secondly, that, as District Judge, I had to ensure that Court working should not be disturbed even for a moment...........That the contemnors were initially opposing and agitating, in a contemptuous manner, the shifting of old makeshift court complex to the newly constructed civil court complex meant for District now they have turned their Guns regarding choice of land allotted to the District Bar Association by the Hon'ble High Court.They want to sit adjacent to the courts and chambers of the officers so as to dominate and influence the judicial process by threatening the judicial officers, civil court staff, litigants and particularly the witnesses in heinous crimes like murder, dowry-death and gang rape.That the land allotted to the District Bar Association by the Hon'ble High Court vide letter no. 5426/Admin.(B-1) Section, dated 11.03.2010 which is annexed, herewith as enclosure no. 11 is much more than the requirement of the District Bar Association.(b) Complaint by staff of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;(d) Complaint by staff of IInd Additional Civil Juge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 6-3-10 dks ge deZpkjhx.k u;s U;k;ky; ifjlj ds fy, vfHkys[k o QuhZpj ykus dh rS;kjh dj jgs Fks fouksn lSuh] olUr lSuh] pSulq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen] fnus'k flag rFkk 40&45 vf/koDrk vk x;s ftUgksaus xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj lkeku ykus esa dfBukbZ iSnk dhA"""It is submitted that on 6.3.10, we, the employees, were doing preparations to bring records and furniture for new court campus, then Vinod Saini, Vasant Saini, Chain Shukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmed, Dinesh Singh and 40-45 advocates came who hurled abuses and caused obstruction in bringing the items.""lfou; fuosnu izdkj gS fd tc fnukad 6-3-10 dks tc ge viuk vkfQl dk lkeku iqjkus ifjlj ls u;s ifjlj esa ykus dh rS;kjh dj jgs Fks rHkh dqN vf/koDrkx.k Jh ljkQr gqlSu] fufru caly] gqde flag lSuh] nyir flag jk.kk] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] twfu;j uh'kkr vdje ] jkt pkS/kjh] euq 'kekZ] vj'kn Hkkjrh] [kyhd vgen o blds vfrfjDr cgqr ls odhy vk x;s ftUgksaus deZpkjhx.k dks pksj dgk vkSj xUnh&2 xkfy;k nh ftlls dk;Z esa cgqr dfBukbZ mRiUu gqbZA"""With due respect it is submitted that on 6.3.10 when we were doing preparation to shift the items of our office from old campus to new campus, then Advocates Shri Sarafat Hussain, Nitin Bansal, Hukm Singh Saini, Dalpat Singh Rana, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Junior Neeshat Akram, Raj Chaudhari, Manu Sharma, Arshad Bharti, Khalique Ahmed and besides them many advocates came who termed the employees as thieves and hurled abuses which caused grave hardship in work."(f) Complaint by staff of Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.P. Nagar;"llEeku fuosnu gS fd fnuakd 6-3-10 dks lk;a 6%00 cts tc U;kf;d deZpkjhx.k iqjkus U;k;ky; ifjlj dk QuhZpj i=koyh vkfn dk lkeku okguksa esa ykn jgs Fks] ml le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k xkyh xykSt djrs gq, U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ?kql vk;s vksj dgus yxs fd lkyksa U;kf;d deZpkjhx.kksa pksjksa dh rjg lkeku jkr esa dgkW ys tk jgs gks] ge yksxksa us dgk fd ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds ekSf[kd vkns'kkuqlkj mDr QuhZpj ,oa i=kofy;ka uo fufeZr U;k;ky; ifjlj tks;k ekxZ ¼jk;iqj½ dks ys tk jgsa gSaA bl ij vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d deZpkjh x.kksa dks xkyh xykSt djrs gq, rFkk /kedh nsrs gq, pys x;sA fuEu fyf[kr vf/koDrkx.kksa ds uke& 1-Jh jktsUnz lSuh ,M0 2-** jktho xksys ,M0 3-** pSu lq[k xksys ,M0 4-** jkevorkj xqIrk ,M0 5-** [kyhd vgen ,M0 6-** jkf'kn fe;ka ,M0 7-** pkS/kjh ujs'k ohj flag ,M0 8-** d`iky flag ;kno ,M0 buds vfrfjDr 40&50 vf/koDrk vkSj Hkh FksA"""With due respect it is submitted that on 6.3.10, at 6 o'clock in the evening, when court employees were loading the furniture, files etc of old court campus into the vehicles, that time, following advocates barged into the court campus while hurling abuses and began scolding abusively that where are you, the court employees, carrying away the items in the night like thieves.We said that we are carrying the said furniture and files to the newly built court campus, Joya Road (Raipur) as per the verbal orders of the Learned District Judge.On this, the advocates went off abusing and threatening the court employees.Chowkidar of Court also lodged First Information Report being Case Crime no. 340 of 2010 under Sections 147, 504, 353 and 447 IPC registered at Police Station, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar on 07.03.2010 at 12.00 in the noon regarding the incident which took place on 07.03.2010 at about 22.50 and the contents of said First Information Report reads as under:-"lsok eas Fkkuk/;{k Fkkuk vejksgk nsgkr egksn;] lfou; fuosnu gS fd ekuuh; ftyk tt lkgc ds vkns'k ij iqjkuh dpgjh ls ubZ dpgjh es U;k;ky; dk lkeku f'k¶V fd;k x;k FkkA eS vkt fnukad 7-3-10 dks pkSdhnkjh dh M~;wVh ij Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; ds deZpkjh U;k;ky;ksa esa i=kofy;ksa dks rFkk vU; jftLVjksa o dkxtkr dks dk;kZy; esa j[k jgs Fks rHkh le; djhc 12 cts 100 odhy ftues d`iky flag] pSulq[k xksys] th'kku vgen] vouh'k 'kj.k caly] vj'kn gqlSu Hkkjrh] 'kSysUnz 'kekZ] v'kksd dqekj diwj] ,l0ih0 flag o eksgEen vyh udoh 'kkfey FksA xkyh xykSt djrs gq, vk, rFkk fodkl Hkou dh rjQ u;s U;k;ky; Hkou ds nksuks yksgs ds xsVkas ds rkyksa rksM Mkys rFkk fodkl Hkou dh rjQ fLFkr ,Q0Vh0lh0 dksVksZ esa i=koyh rFkk vU; ljdkjh fjdkMZ ftls deZpkjh j[k jgs FksA dks Uk"V djus dk iz;kl fd;k ftls ogka ij dke dj jgs deZpkfj;ksa us cMh eqf'dy ls cpk;kA bu odhyksa us ttksa ds deZpkfj;ksa ds }kjk fd;s tk jgs ljdkjh dk;Z esa ck/kk igqapk;h rFkk ,slk ekgksy cuk fn;k ftlls deZpkjh b/kj m/kj Hkkxus yxsA rFkk fdlh deZpkjh }kjk lh0ts0,e0 lkgc dks lwpuk nh rc ekSds ij igys ls ekStwn rFkk ckn esa igqaph iqfyl us fLFkfr laHkkyhA ekSds ij ekStwn odhyksa ds lkeus vkus ij igpku ldrk gwaA fjiksVZ fy[k dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djasA izkFkhZA Sd vt; flag] vt; flag pkSdhnkj ts0ih0uxjA"""To the SHO, Police Station Amroha Dehat.Some employee gave information to the CJM then the police force already present on the spot and the police force which arrived later on controlled the situation.I can identify the advocates present on the spot on seeing them.Applicant- sd/- Ajai Singh, Ajai Singh Watchman, J. P. Nagar." (English translation by Court)The aforesaid Reference was placed before Committee constituted by Chief Justice for examining such matters and Committee consisted of Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J on 25.11.2010 recommended criminal contempt proceedings.Consequently notices were issued by a Division Bench consisted of Hon'ble Amar Saran and N.A. Moonis, JJ.to Contemnors on 13.01.2011 as to why they may not be punished under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") in view of allegations contained in Reference.Thereafter, notification for establishment of district judgeship at Amroha was also issued and old building of Women's Hospital at Amroha was utilized for opening of district judgeship, since earlier Munsif Court was running in this building for the last 100 years.Accommodation for litigant and Advocates was also earmarked adjacent to Court building within the land acquired, in the approved plan.District Judge made a recommendation that Advocates Chambers just adjacent to Court building may create obstruction in Court functioning and proposed a site for Advocates Chambers at the place which was assigned earlier for staff cycle stand which was outside Court campus.Entire shifting to new complex was done in a most secretive and guarded way.There was no untoward incident reported to police on that night nor a single general diary entry was entered against any lawyer police record in respect of any kind of hindrance.The incident was reported at 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. but Contemnor 33 was not present and had no knowledge of shifting.Para 8 of counter affidavit of Contemnor 33 reads as under:-"That it is respectfully submitted that in the reference against the present respondent no. 33 the incident shown was on 06.03.2010 at 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and on that day it is standing and Court was not proceed at 6.00 p.m. when respondent no. 33 was not present and had no knowledge, whatsoever of the aforesaid shifting."A First Information Report was lodged by Chowkidar, Ajay Singh on 07.03.2010 against nine Advocates on the order of District Judge that these Advocates created interference in shifting of records.A true/ photo copy of Ration Card (Address) and Aadhar Card of the deponent is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A-3 to this affidavit.That it is respectfully stated that the Learned District Judge's reference dated 12.04.2010 issued a shows cause notice and contempt proceeding also initiating against Contempt nor No. 41 which was one Amit Singh Chalel was discharge by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.04.2015 and present contemnor who given apology before the Hon'ble Court.A true/ photo copy of order dated 21.04.2015 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.That it is respectfully submitted that contents of charge framed against the deponent are absolutely wrong and hence denied and it is stated that at the time of incident the deponent was not present in old building and neither the deponent interfered nor used abusive language to the staff when records were Court shifted.That this Hon'ble High Court has issued a Letter No. 5426 add in (B-1) Section dated 11.03.2010 to the Learned District Judge, Joytiba Phule Nagar and regarding the allotment land of Bar Association Janpad Joytiba Phule Nagar for construction of Bar Rooms, Bar Library and Chambers for the Lawyer in the newly created District Joytiba Phule Nagar but the Learned District Judge not compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court.A true/ photo copy of order dated 11.03.2010 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-5 to this affidavit.That it is respectfully stated that the present contemnor was appointed as A.D.G.C (Criminal) on 09.08.2011 and he is still continuing and doing his job and before courts concerned and the concerned court has been pleased to issue a Character Certificate in his favour.A true/ photo copy of order dated 09.08.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.7 to this affidavit.A true/ photo copy of order dated 24.02.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.8 to this affidavit.That it is respectfully stated that there are several Contempt Criminal Case was initiating against the several Advocate and Administration of Jyotiba Phule Nagar where this Hon'ble Court was discharge the Administration Officer in Contempt Criminal Case No. 11 of 2010 and in 29/10 one Contemnor No. 41 was discharge by this Hon'ble Court so in light of this judgment this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to discharge the notice of Contempt.That the allegations contained in the reference sent by the District Judge, J.P Nagar prima-facie do not fall within the definition Criminal Contempt of Court as required under section 15(3) of the Contempt of court Act read with Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules since the allegations in the reference do not ever specify the contempt "of which" and" of whom" has been committed."Subsequently 105 hectares land was acquired by State Government on 11.02.2002 for new building of district judgeship and other administrative offices.District Judge, Saiduzzama Siddiqui, took charge on 08.04.1999 and got the foundation stone removed.He made a new proposal for Advocates Chambers to this Court.Since he started practice at Amroha on 24.08.1999, he shifted to a nearby area i.e. Kasba Joya at Delhi Highway in 1997 and thereupon distance was reduced by 10 kms.He was anxiously waiting for construction of new building and shifting thereof since at the old building problem of water logging in rainy season and poor condition of road used to create great difficulty in movement of Advocates and others.Contemnor's new home is near Court building.Contemnor took her wife from Chandausi to Delhi and in the morning came back from Delhi.The relations of District Judge and President, Bar Association were cordial.Contemnor 15, moved a bail application on 06.03.2010 of Pratap son of Sant Ram being Case Crime no. 125 of 2009 under Sections 302, 120-B, 364, 201, 147 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur and after taking a date went to his house.No Advocate was aware about shifting of record etc. from old Court building to new building.In what manner Contemnor abused, no details have been given.Contempt notice was issued in the name of "Dilshad Ahmad" while Contemnor is "Dilshad Ali" and this was pointed out on 21.04.2015 before this Court.He was not present when the alleged incident is said to have occurred.Charge has been framed against Contemnor without any show cause notice.In FIR nine Advocates are named but 41 Contemnors to whom notice was issued included only some of these Advocates.Mere shifting of record by Clerks from old building to new building, if obstructed, cannot constitute "criminal contempt".At the best allegations constitute an offence under IPC and not a "criminal contempt".Eight names have been mentioned in the application (Annexure 7) to Reference letter and name of Dilshad Ahmad is at serial no. 2 therein.He specifically said that he knows Contemnor 15 whose name is "Dilshad Ali" and he alongwith other Advocates was present.Qayum Raza, DW-2 has also confirmed obstruction created by Advocates while shifting of record etc. on 06.03.2010 in the evening stating that 7-8 Advocates names have been mentioned in the complaint which included name of Dilshad Ahmad.Advocates whose names are mentioned were present which included one Kripal Singh Yadav.He specifically said that Contemnor was present and he identified him.His statement in examination-in-chief reads as under:-The Reader had written this letter and I had put my signature.Police force had arrived after the items were loaded.They started obstructing the loading, thereafter the force arrived there.Learned Judge had given the verbal order.He had come before, then left and came afterwards.No Sessions Court was there.There items had gone after us.Their items were much, it had gone on the next day.Regarding the contemnor, (he) stated that the contemnor lives in Joya which is at a distance of around 12-13 km. Huge crowd was there and many advocates were present.Advocates were standing near the gate where it was getting dark, advocates were hurling abuses from there itself.Both, the President and the Secretary, were in the front.The crowd was quite big and you people were also there.The contemnor told the witness that he (witness) knows him and his family personally, his wife has died and he has kids and that he goes nowhere then he asked that witness had not seen him in the crowd.Witness didn't give any straight answer of that instead gave it a long thought and made grimace, the court clearly understood that he is facing much difficulty in giving answer.It is right that on 7th advocates broke the locks and on 8th they overturned the table.On the day following the clash, the District Judge had demanded the reply from us and we had submitted the written reply.The Reader had got it typed and we had signed, I don't know about other Presiding Officers.The Incident had taken place in the evening of 6th and the application had been given in the morning of 8th.I don't know that whether any video was made or not.I don't had any knowledge about any video of 6th.I don't have knowledge of the fact that when strike was going on, the contemnors were sitting outside near the shop.I don't have any knowledge even of this fact that only the contemnors and no other advocate was sitting in the tin shed that was got made.DW-4, Anil Kumar also verified the incident and said as under:-"eSa Qjojh 2005 esa fu;qDr gqvk FkkA orZeku esa eSa izFke vij tuin U;k;ky; esa fyfid ds in ij dk;Zjr gwWWA ;g ?Vuk fnukad 6-3-2010 dks 'kke dks yxHkx lk<+s lkr&vkB cts dh gSA ml fnu U;k;ky; [kqyk gqvk FkkA yxHkx lHkh vf/koDrk 5 cts rd U;k;ky; ls tk pqds FksA ftl ifjlj esa ?kVuk gqbZ mlesa vU; ljdkjh foHkkx Hkh gS vkSj muds ifjokj Hkh jgrs gSaA ubZ dpsgjh tks;k vejksgk ekxZ ij gSA mlh ekxZ ij igys dysDVªsV f'kQ~V gqbZ FkhA eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd bl ifjlj ds dqN vf/koDrk dysDVªsV Hkh tkrs FksA izkFkZuk i= ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa og is'kdkj lkgc fy[kdj yk;s FksA ml ij vnZyh ds gLrk{kj gSa ;k ugha eSa ugha dg ldrkA tks i= is'kdkj us fy[kk Fkk mlh ij eSaus gLrk{kj fd;s vyx ls fy[kdj ugha fn;k FkkA eq>s /;ku ugha gS fd izkFkZuk i= ij ?kVuk dk le; vafdr gS vFkok ughaA vusDpj 4 jsQjsUl dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;gh izkFkZuk i= gS ftl ij eSaus esa ftl ij eSaus gLrk{kj fd;s FksA ml fnu 'kke dks tt lkgc ekSf[kd vkns'k fn;k Fkk vkt dpsgjh u;s Hkou esa f'kQ~V gksuh gS vkSj ge yksx viuh Qkbysa vkSj vyekfj;kW xkM+h esa ykn pqds Fks rHkh 40&50 vf/koDrk yksx vk x;s vkSj xkyh nsrs gq;s dgus yxs fd rqe yksx pksjh ls f'kQ~V dj jgs gks vkSj ckdh 'kksj gksus yxk mlh le; QkslZ vk xbZ vkSj ge yksx QkslZ ds lkFk u;s ifjlj esa pys x;sA clUr flag dUVseuj ua0 33 us esjs lkFk dksbZ cqjk orkZo ugha fd;k Fkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds ckjs esa eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWA dqN vf/koDrk ;wuhQkeZ esa Fks dqN vU; izdkj ds diM+s igus FksA""At present I am posted in the First Additional District Court as a clerk.This incident has taken place on 06.03.2010 at around 7:30- 8:00 pm.Earlier the Collectorate had shifted on the same road.(They) behaved derogatorily, the police arrived on information.That time I was inside the office, heard that which advocate was abusing whom, but didn't heard the voice clearly.I and other employees gave written complaint of the said incident to the then District Judge.(We) had complaint the District Judge two days after the incident, (I) don't remember the date.In my complaint, I had named advocates Vinod Saini, Basant Saini, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmad, Dinesh Singh, as the advocates who were hurling abuses, along with 40-45 other advocates." (English translation by Court)In cross examination he said that incident took place on 06.03.2010 and he has wrongly written the date as 08.03.2010 in examination-in-chief.He further said in cross examination as under:-"vf/koDrkx.k fouksn lSuh clUr lSuh] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen rFkk fnus'k flag dks eSa O;fDrxr :i ls tkurk gWwwA ?kVuk ds fnu mijksDr yksx ekSds ij FksA mijksDr vf/koDrkx.k rFkk muds lkFk vU; vf/koDrkx.k iqjkuh dpsgjh vejksgk ls u, U;k;ky; Hkou esa f'kQ~fVax ds fojks/k eas FksA esjh vf/koDrkx.k ls dksbZ O;fDrxr yM+kbZ ugha FkhA"""I personally know advocates Vinod Saini, Basant Saini, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmad, Dinesh Singh.Aforesaid people were at the spot on the day of incident.Aforesaid advocates and other advocates with them were against the shifting from old District Court Amroha to New Court Building.I did not have any personal issues with the advocates." (English translation by Court)31. DW-6, Mool Chand also verified the incident and has said as under:-"eSa 6 ekpZ 2010 dks vij flfoy tt dh dksVZ esa rSukr FkkA vnkyr esa >xM+k gqvk Fkk mlls lEcfU/kr xokgh ds fy;s eq>s vnkyr esa ryc fd;k x;k gSA eSa viuh dksVZ esa Fkk ogkW dkQh odhy yksx vk;s vkSj xkyh xqIrk djus yxsA dgus yxs dksVZ cUn djksA esjs lkFk d`".keksgu is'kdkj Hkh FksA ml le; lkgc Mk;l ij cSBs gq;s FksA de ls de 30&35 yksx FksA ;s lkgc ds lkeus gqvk Fkk vkSj blds lEcU/k esa fy[k dj fn;k FkkA tks vf/koDrk yksx vk;s Fks mudks lc dks eSa ugha tkurk ysfdu FkksM+s cgqr dks tkruk FkkA eSa nks yksx pSu lq[k xksys vkSj d`iky flag ;kno dks tkurk FkkA ftudk uke i=kad fnukad 6-3-2010 ,usDpj 4 esa fy[kk gS mudks igpkurk gwWA fQj iwNus ij dgk fd eSa flQZ bUgha nks yksxks dks igpkurk gwW ckdh yksxksa dks ugha igpkurk gwWA ,slh dksbZ [kkl otg ugha gS fd eSa bUgh yksxksa dks igpkukr gwWA eq>s budks igpkuus esa dksbZ Hkwy ugha gqbZ gSA eSa ;s ugha tkurk fd ;s nksuks fdl pht dh odkyr djrs Fks nhokuh] QkStnkjh ;k jktLoA eSa ;s Hkh ugha tkurk fd ;s nksuksa dgkW jgrs gSA D;ksafd ;s vf/koDrk yksx dksVZ esa vk;s Fks vkSj xkyh xqIrk dj jgs Fks blfy;s i= fnukad 6-3-2010 fy[kk x;kA bu nks ds vykok ckdh yksxks ds ckjs esa dqN ugha dgukA ;s i= fy[kus ds fy;s lkgc us dgk FkkA lkgc dk uke [kqLrdnkfu'k gSA lkgc flfoy tt FksA eq>s ;s tkudkjh ugha gS fd lkgc us uke fy[kus ds fy;s dgk FkkA i= fnukad 6-3-2010 is'kdkj lkgc us fy[kk Fkk vkSj eSaus i<+dj gLrk{kj fd;k FkkA i<+k Fkk ckdh dkQh fnu gks x;s eq>s /;ku ughaA i=kad fnuakd 6-3-2010 ns[kdj dgk fd bl ij esjk uke fy[kk gS tks eSus fy[kk gSA fQj dgk fd esjk uke is'kdkj lkgc us fy[kk eSuss ugha fy[kkA"""On 6th March 2010, I was posted in the court of Additional Civil Judge.A clash took place in the court, I have been summoned in the court to depose regarding the same.I was in my court.Many advocates came there and began hurling abuses.They asked to stall the court.Krishna Mohan, the Reader, was also with me.That time, the Presiding Officer was sitting on the Dais.They were at least 30-35 persons.It took place in presence of the Presiding Officer and a written complaint regarding this had been submitted.I didn't know all the advocates that had come but few of them.On enquiring further, stated that I know only these two persons; I don't know rest of the persons.There is no specific reason behind the fact that I am identifying only these two persons.I had not made any mistake in identifying these persons.I am not aware of the field of their legal practice- civil, criminal or revenue.I am not aware of their residences also.As these advocates had come in the court and were hurling abuses consequently the letter dated 6.3.2010 had been written.Except for these two persons, I don't want to say anything about the rest of the persons.The Presiding Officer had asked me to write this letter.The name of the Presiding Officer is Khustak Danish.The Presiding Officer was Civil Judge.I am not aware of the fact that the Presiding Officer had asked to write the name.The Reader had written the letter dated 6.3.2010 and I had signed after reading.I had read; since many days have passed, I don't remember.Even defence witnesses summoned at the request of Contemnors have proved their guilt.It is true that in respect of other Contemnors, punishment of one day imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed but that was the view taken for those Contemnors, who realized their mistake, accepted the same and stood up before Court to bear the punishment by conceding.These two Contemnors, on the contrary, have tried to wriggle out of the consequences of their activities by taking a defence which they could not substantiate.Copy of this order shall be made available to District Judge, J.P. Nagar and Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar as also Registrar General, High Court Allahabad for communication and compliance. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
827,981 | The case of the prosecution in a nut-shell is as follows:After the marriage, both were leading the life peacefully only for three months.After that, accused/appellant has ill-treated and harassed her.Whenever quarrel arose between the accused/appellant and deceased Sumathi, PW1-Ganesan, father of the deceased, PW2-Chamundeeswari, mother of the deceased and PW3-Krishnamoorthi, paternal uncle of the deceased have mediated and compromised the matter.When the deceased was five months pregnant, the accused had assaulted her and demanded dowry.The accused gave a complaint to the police, stating that his wife is missing.The deceased who was at her parental home went to the police station along with her parents, where the deceased Sumathi has demanded divorce, but, however, on the intervention of the police, the matter has been compromised.After the birth of the male child, she went to the house of accused, where she was harassed and ill-treated by her husband and she has often intimated the fact to their parents.On 30.07.1998 at 11.30 a.m. the deceased Sumathi poured the kerosene on herself and set ablaze.She has sustained intensive burn injuries and she was admitted in Kilpauk Government Hospital.(ii) PW13-V. Saminathan, Sub Inspector of Police has received the information from the Kilpauk Government Hospital.He went to the hospital and recorded the statement from the deceased i.e. Ex.P.14, then he rushed to the K.K. Nagar Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.2258 of 1998 under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and prepared Ex.P.15-First Information Report.Gopinath gave information to PW8-Mr. Sethumadhavan, XII Metropolitan Magistrate to record dying declaration.PW9 has given a certificate stating that at the time of recording the dying declaration, the deceased was conscious.The deceased died on 29.08.1998 at 9.40 a.m. and the death memorandum was marked as Ex.P.11. PW14-Chandrasekaran, Sub Inspector of Police has altered the FIR under Section 498(A) into 304(B) IPC.He prepared an alteration report Ex.He gone to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P6-observation mahazar in the presence of PW6-Vincent and others.He has also recovered Mos 1 to 3 under Ex.P.7 seizure mahazar and examined the witnesses and recorded the statements.(iii) On 31.03.1998, PW15-Deputy Tahsildar has received the information and conducted the inquest.The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.As per the evidence of PW9-Dr.Gopinath, he has given the death intimation marked as Ex.P11 stating that she died on 29.08.1998 at 9.40 am.Nearly, after a month, she died.But as per Ex.This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in S.C. No.519 of 1999 dated 08.01.2003, convicting the accused/ appellant under Section 304(B) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.On receiving the requistion-Ex.P.8 for recording dying declaration, in presence of him he recorded the dying declaration.P.9 sent the same to regular Court as per Ex.After inquest, he sent the body for autopsy along with requisition Ex.PW12-Chinna Moses, Head Constable has handed over the body to PW11-Dr.Shanthakumar for autopsy.He has conducted the autoposy and the post mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P.13.wherein the following injuries were noted:"Infected burns covered with sough seen over the neck, chest both upper limbs fully (except front of right forearm) and back of the trunk.Healed burns seen over sides of the face and over right forearm.Hyoid Bone: IntactTraches: PaleLungs: Pale and oedematous.Lungs adherent to the chest wallHeart: Contained Fluid blood to all chambersBrain: Surface vessels paleStomach: Contained 100 ml of greenish yellow watery fluid without any specific odour.All the other internal organs on cross Section: PaleUterus: Contained copper 'T'Bladder: Empty"(iv) PW11 has given an opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of complications of burns-septicaemia.PW13-Swaminathan, Sub Inspector of Police has altered the case under Section 498(A) into 304(B) IPC and examined the other witnesses and recorded the statements and filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 304(B) and 406 IPC.The learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai taken the case as S.C. No.519 of 1999 and after following the procedures framed the charges.Appellant/accused pleaded not guilty.To prove the charges levelled against the accused/appellant the prosecution examined the witnesses Pws 1 to 16, Dws 1 & 2, marked Exs.After the completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatory circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused/appellant flatly denied them as false.The medical evidence would prove that she died on 29.08.1998 due to Septicaemia.The learned counsel would further submit that on considering the evidence of PW11-Dr.Santhakumar and Ex.P.13-Post Mortem Certificate, it is seen that PW11 has given an opinion in the post mortem certificate-Ex.P13 that the deceased appeared to have died of complication of burns-Septicaemia.So, he prayed for the acquittal of the appellant.There is no reason for interfering with the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions court, hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Appeal.Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.Admittedly, the marriage between the deceased Sumathi and accused Munusamy has been performed on 03.06.1996, which has been evidenced by Exs.So, the death of the deceased Sumathi has taken place on 30.07.1998, which is within seven years from the date of the marriage.As per the evidence of PW11-Dr.Senthil Kumar and Ex.P13-Post-mortem Certificate, the death of the deceased Sumathi is only caused by the burn injuries has been proved by the prosecution.Admittedly, Ex.P9-dying delcaration has been recorded by PW8-Mr.Sethumadhavan, XII Metropolitan Magistrate.On Receipt of the requisition-Ex.P8, he recorded Ex.P9-dying declaration.On considering the evidence of PW8-Mr.Sethumadhavan, XII Metropolitan Magistrate and Ex.P9-dying declaration, Dr.Jayaraman has given a certificate stating that the patient was fully conscious and well oriented when the above statement was recorded by the Magistrate.So, there is no reason for discarding the evidence of PW8 and Ex.In his cross-examination, PW8 has stated that at the time of recording the dying declaration, the doctor was present.He denied the suggestion that, the deceased Sumathi has given the dying declaration out of the fear.In such circumstances, I am forced to accept Ex.P9-Dying declaration.In the dying declaration, it was stated as follows:-,d;W 30/07/98 tpahHf;fpHik fhiy 9 kzpf;F. tPl;oy; ehd; ,Ue;jnghJ. vd; tPl;Lf;fhuh; bfhLik jhs Koahky; ehdhf fpUc&;zhapy; Cw;wp bfhz;L. tj;jp itj;Jf;bfhz;nld;/ mg;nghJ tPl;oy; ahUk; ,y;iy btspna jPa[ld; Xo te;njd;/ v';nf Xondd; vd;W bjhpatpy;iy.mUfpy; cs;s nfhapy; fpzw;wpy; tpGe;Jtpl;nld;/ vd;id fpzw;wpy; ,Ue;J vLj;j Ml;fs; ahh; vd bjhpahJ/ vd; mk;kh.Mah jhd; nf/vk;/rp/ M!;gj;jphpf;F vd;id Tl;o te;jdh;/ vd;id gw;wp mrp';f mrp';fkhf jpl;Lfpwhh;/ vd; fzth; vd;id gpof;ftpy;iy vd vd; fzth; brhy;yp Vd; vd;W ehd; nfl;l nghJ kaph; fij (N.C.) nfl;fhnj vd;whh;/ bts;is ngg;ghpy; ifbaGj;J nghl;Ltpl;L cd; mf;fh tPl;Lf;F XL vd;whh;/ mof;fo moj;J brj;jhy; rht[ eP ,y;yhtpl;lhy; ,d;bdhUj;jp vd brhy;fpwhh;/ ,ut[ kl;Lk; vy;yhh; vJf;F g{ th';fp bfhLj;J ey;yth; khjphp elf;fpwhh;/ ,d;W fhiy v';fhtJ xHpe;J bjhiy vd jpl;odhh;/ mjdhy;.ehd; jP itj;Jf;bfhz;nld;/On receipt of the information, PW13-Swaminthan, Sub-Inspector of Police, had gone to the hospital and recorded the complaint-Ex.P14 from the victim.On that basis only, a case has been registered.In Ex.P.14-complaint she has stated that on 29.07.1998 when she was in menstrual cycle, at midnight 12 O clock her husband forced her to have sexual intercourse with her for which she denied.Immediately, he assaulted in her cheek and scolded with filthy language.Since she was often subjected to cruelty and harassment, she had no another way except to commit suicide.At the juncture it is appropriate to consider the ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC, but, admittedly she has not stated that there was a demand of dowry.At first she has stated that her husband demanded Rs.2,000/-, as dowry and after that she has not stated anything about dowry, but she has stated that she was forced to commit suicide because of the cruelty meted out on her by her husband whereby, she was forced to have sexual intercourse, during the period of menstruation.Due to unbearable cruelty she was forced to commit suicide.On considering Ex.P.14-complaint and Ex.P.9-dying declaration, there is no evidence to show that there is demand of dowry.In such circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the decision reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal Page 69, (K. Prema S. Rao vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-As a method adopted for harrassment the Postal Mail of her relatives sent to her was suppressed by the husband who was in a position to do so being a Branch Post Master in the village.When the letters were discoverd by the wife and she handed them over to her father (PW 1) she was driven out of the house.This cruel conduct of the husband led the wife to commit suicide.P.9 and Ex.In such circumstances, one of the main ingredients of the offence of dowry demand being absent in this case, so, I am of the opinion that the accused/appellant could not be convicted for the offence under Section 304(B), but, he could be convicted under 306 IPC for abatement of suicide.On the side of defence DW1 and DW2 were examined to prove that there is no demand of dowry.But the learned counsel for the appellant/accused focussing upon Ex.Admittedly, the averment in Ex.P.9-dying declaration shows that she has not whispered anything about the demand of dowry, but she has stated that she was unable to bear the cruelty and harassment meted out by the appellant/accused as a result of which she was forced to commit suicide.Considering the entire averment in Ex.P.9-dying declaration and Ex.P.14-complaint it is clearly proved that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, which she was unable to bear and it forced her to commit suicide.So, human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other and different people behave differently in the same situation.Likewise, on 29.07.1998 at midnight 12 O clock, the accused/appellant forced the deceased Sumathi to have sexual intercourse with him even when she was in the menstrual period, which she was unable to bear and it forced her to commit suicide on the next day morning, viz. 30.07.1998, after his departure from the house.Considering the same, I am inclined to reduce the period of rigorous imprisonment from seven years to five years.In fine, i.this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
828,020 | JUDGMENT A.S. Tripathi, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th of October, 1979 whereby appellant Kamalsingh was convicted under Section 302 of the 1PC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, by II Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.Other appellants Ratiram, Kripansingh, Badamsingh, Ramsingh and Parmalsingh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each.Appellants Kamalsingh, Ratiram, Kripansingh, Badamsingh, Ramsingh and Parmalsingh were further convicted under Section 148 of the IPC and were sentenced to two years' RI each.Appellant Ramsingh was further convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and was sentenced to nine months' RI.Appellants Kamalsingh, Ratiram, Kripansingh, Badamsingh, and Parmalsingh were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to nine months' RI each.Appellant Kripansingh was further convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to six months' RI similarly, appellants Kamalsingh, Ratiram, Badamsingh, Ramsingh and Parmalsingh were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to six months' RI.Further, appellants Ratiram, Badamsingh, Ramsingh and Parmalsingh were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to six months' RI.Appellants Kamalsingh and Kripansingh were also held guilty under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to six months' RI.All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently.In brief, the facts of the case are that on 10th of April, 1979 the appellants along with others and formed an unlawful assembly in village Dahela.They had entered the Harijan Basti of Latura and others.There was enmity between to the community of Rajputs.The deceased Latura and other injured persons belonged to the community of Harijans.According to the allegations made by the complainant, deceased Latura and his family members were claiming a piece of land in which their cattle use to graze.The appellants had attacked Latura and Latura was fired by appellant Kamalsingh and Latura had died.This occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 2 p.m. The FIR of the occurrence was lodged at police station Isagarh, District Guna at 7.20 p.m. the same day.In this occurrence witnesses Suma, Mannu, Bharosa and Parwatibai were injured.The following ante mortem injuries were found in the postmortem on the dead body of Latura:-On chest wall on right side (laterally) - Injury No. (1) - Entrance wound (Gunshot wound) 1 cm in diameter, oval in shape on right lateral side of chest at the lower margin of 8th rib going horizontally, inflicted the rib, found fractured.Blackening and tattooing found around the entrance wound involving the area about 1/2 cm.(2) Exit wound (two in number) on the left lateral side of chest (A) -1 -1/2 cms.of diameter in between 8th and 9th rib (intercostal space).Margins everted and irregular.(B) - 1-1/2 cms.of diameter in between 9th and 10th rib (intercostal space).Margins everted and irregular.Around the exit wounds from 7th to 12th rib small round, boney, hard, ball like substance 6 in number found palable.This injury was caused within 48 hours of the examination.Injury reports of injured Soma, Mannu, Bharosa, Parwatibai and Karai are Ex. P-29, P-30, P-31, P-32 and P-33 respectively.P. W. 8 Sundara is another witness regarding the fact.He had reached later on and had seen the deceased and injured persons.P. W. 9 Gayaprasad is a witness of Panchnama of the dead body of Latura.P. W. 10 Swarnasingh had arrested four of the appellants.P. W. 12 Nand Kishore Parihar proved the sanction for prosecution of Kripansingh under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. P. W. 13 Kashiram had sent the sealed bundles from the hospital to the police station.P. W. 14 Narendra Singh is the police constable who had taken the deadbody to the mortuary for postmortem.P. W. 15 Mustafa Khan was the head-constable who had prepared the copy of the FIR and made entries in the general diary.P. W. 16 Muratsingh Chauhan is the Investigation Officer who had given out the detail of the investigation.Their personal bonds and surety bonds are discharged.Incisions were given at the site of stoney, palpable substance and 6 Chhafras, are taken from subcutaneous tissues of the chest wall (left side).Following injuries were found on the person of Soma:-(1) A lacerated wound 4 x 1 cms.Scalp deep shaped, on right parietal region, A. P. in direction.(2) A lacerated wound 2x1/2 cms.scalp deep of right side parietal region posteriorly, oblique in position.(3) A lacerated wound 2/3 x 1/3 cms on left parietal region on skull.(4) An incised wound 5 cms x 1/4 x 1/4 cm on lower region of right side of chest with abrasions on both the ends right extension of 8 cms and left extension of 6 cms.in a linear way obliquely.(5) An abrasion l-l/2x 1-1/2 cms on medial side and middle region or right leg.(6) A contusion 1 -1/2 x 1 cms on anterior side of left knee.(7) A contusion 2x2 cms on lateral side of right knee.Injuries Nos. 1,2, 3,6 and 7 are caused by hard and blunt object.Injury No. 5 is casued by friction against hard and rough surface.Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 are referred for X-ray examination to the Civil Surgeon, District Guna.Injuries Nos. 4 to 7 are simple in nature.Following injuries were found on the person of Mannu:-(1) A lacerated wound 2-1/2x1/2 cms scalp deep on right parietal region of skull, oblique in position, (2) A lacerated wound 1x1/2 cms scalp deep 3 cms posterior to injury No. (1) on right parietal region of skull.(3) A lacerated wound 1-1/2x1/4 cms scalp deep 'A' shaped on left parietal region of skull.(4) A contusion 2x2 cms on posterior side of left shoulder.(5) A contusion I x 1 cms on posterior side of right shoulder.(6) A contusion 3x2 cms on posterior side and middle region of left leg transversely.(7) An abrasion 3 x 1-1/2 cms on anterior side of right knee.(8) An abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cms on palmal side of distal phalyny of left little finger.(9) A semi linear abrasion of 5 cms on right cheek.Teeth markings present.Duration within 24 hours.Following injuries were found on the person of Bharosa:-(1) A contusion 7x2 cms (swelling present) on left shoulder extending up to back, caused by hard and blunt object.This injury referred to the C. S. Guna for X-ray examination.(2) A contusion 2 x 1/2 cms post, side and middle region of right forearm, caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature.Both the above injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination.Following injuries were found on the person of Parwati Bai:-(1) A contusion with swelling 3x3 cms oval in shape on upper and median region of forehead.(2) A lacerated wound 3x1/2 cms on base and upper side of left index finger extending ant.and post.(3) A lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cms on tip and bad of nail of left middle finger.(4) A contusion 2 x 1 cms posterior side and middle region of right forearm.Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 are caused by hard and blunt Object.Injuries Nos. 1,3 and 4 are simple in nature.Injury No. 2 was referred to the Civil Surgeon, District Guna for X-ray examination.All the above injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination.One Karai widow of Bihari Chamar was also injured in the incident and following injury was found on her person :-An abrasion 1 x 1 cms on forehead in upper end medial region.Similalry, on the side of the appellants, Ratiram, Kamalsingh, Kripansingh and Badamsingh were also injured in the above incident.They were also medically examined by Dr. G. K. Sharma (P. W. 17), vide injury reports Ex. D-7, D-8, D-9 and D-10 respectively.The doctor has found following injuries on the person of appellant Ratiram :-(1) Two abrasions 2x2 cms on left side of nose on (illeg.) (2) Abrasion 4x3 cms on posterior side of left elbow.Both above injuries are simple and caused by friction against hard and rough object.Injuries were caused during 24 hours of the examination.The following injury was found on the person of appellant Kamalsingh:-A lacerated wound 5 x 1 cm scalp deep on right parietal region of skull, just near to median place shaped and post, on direction.The above injury was caused by hard and blunt object and was referred to the Civil Surgeon Guna for favour of X-ray.The injury was caused within 24 hours of the examination.Following injuries were found on the person of appellant Kripansingh:-(1) A lacerated wound 3x2 cms scalp deep transversely.Infecture is present, on left side of forehead near median line, caused by hard and blunt object.This injury was referred to the Civil Surgeon, Guna for X-ray examination.(2) A lacerated wound 1 x 1 cms scalp deep.present, on left knee, caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature.(3) An abrasion 1 x 1 cms on left knee near injury No. 2, caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature.The above injuries were caused within 72 hours of the examination.Following injuries were found on the person of appellant Badamsingh:-(1) A lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 cms scalp deep A. P. in direction.Infection present.The injury was on right parietal region near median line.(2) A lacerated wound 2-l/2x 1/2 cms scalp deep in direction, inj.(3) A lacerated wound 1x1/2 cms scalp deep A. P. in direction, infection present, on right parietal region 2 cms.(4) A contusion 3x2 cms antero-lateral side of right thigh just above knee joints.All the above injuries were caused during 72 hours of the examination.Injuries Nos. 1 to 3 were referred to C.S., Guna for X-ray examination.Injury No. 4 was simple in nature.The necessary papers were prepared by the Investigating Officer like Panchnama, memos etc. and after completing investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, in Court.The prosecution had examined as many as 18 witnesses.P. W. 1 Bharosa, P. W. 2 Mannu, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 Taja are witnesses of fact.They had narrated about the incident.P. W. 5 Sundariya was also a witness of fact but she was declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution version.P. W. 6 Champa is another witness of fact who has supported the prosecution case.P. W. 7 Soma is another injured witness who had supported the charges against the appellants.P. W. 17 Dr. G. K. Sharma had proved the postmortem report and injury reports of the injured persons on the complainant side as well as of the accused side as indicated above.P. W. 18 Y. S. Agrawal was the Radiologist who had taken the X-ray of witnesses Soma, Mannu and Bharosa and proved the X-ray reports and plates Ex. P. 34 and P. 34-A.The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed.We have heard Shri J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri K. B. Chaturvedi, learned Government Advocate for the State and examined the record.It was pointed out that one of the appellants Kripansingh had died during pendency of the appeal.The appeal of Kripansingh stood abated.The Occurrence alleged to have taken place on 10th April, 1979 at 2 p.m. FIR was lodged at 7 p.m. the same day, which is Ex. P. 1 on record.Latura had died in this incident.From the version given by P. W. 1 Bharosa, who was injured in this incident, there was dispute between the appellants party and the party of the Harijans in the village.One Shishupal son of Ramsingh, the appellant, was grazing his cattle in the field of the witness.The witness asked him to remove his cattle from the field whereupon abuses were excharged.He also attacked Bharosa with a stick.Bharosa also gave a slap on the face of Shishupal.Thereafter, Shishupal went to his house, the witness also went to his house.Thereafter, Neemabai and Ratiram reached to the house of this witness.Neemabai had given a lathi blow to Bharosa, then Neemabai and Ratiram left for their houses.Again Ratiram came back and gave a lathi blow to Bharosa.His father Latura who was on the Chabutra of Kagalia, hided this witness in the house of Lampu.This witness then climbed over the roof of Gumna from where he witnessed that appellants Kamalsingh, Kripansingh, Parmal, Badam, Ramsingh, Ratiram and Lakshmansingh and others were coming towards that side.Kamalsingh was armed with a gun.Kripansingh was armed with a sword.Badarnsingh and Parmalsingh were armed with Luhangis and others were armed with lathis.Latura was on the Medh of the field.The appellants started talking with Latura.Witnesses Soma, Mannu, Sundra and Parwati came on the spot.Thereafter, Kamalsingh fired at Lalurn who fell down on the ground.Badam gave a lathi blow to Latura.The mother of the witness Champabai was given kick and fists-blow.Champabai also challenged the appellants who was also given kicks.Parmalsingh and Badamsingh had given lathi blows to Karaibai, the grand mother of this witness and also to his mother Champabai.Soma was given lathi blows by appellants Ramsingh and Ratiram.Kripansingh gave blow by a sword.Lakshmansingh had caught hold of Soma.In this way, the parties engaged in marpeet.Soma and Mannu had also received injuries.Latura had died on the spot.This witness, Bharosa, admitted in the cross examination that Shishupal was a boy of only five years, whom he had given a slap.Shishupal is alleged to have given stick blow to the witness which appears funny circumstance.The prosecution version that Shishupal had given a stick blow to the witness Bharosa is highly improbable.The boy of five years had given stick blow to Bharosa was not at all understandable in the circumstances of the case and it appears that very genesis of the prosecution case is doubtful.The other boy Munshi was only 10 years of age who was said to have been grazing his cattle in the field of the witness.In the cross examination this witness was confronted with the injuries caused on the side of the appellants.The witness denied that any of the appellants was injured.He went to this extent that none of the witnesses were armed with any weapon and they had not used any weapon in this incident.The witness specifically stated that they had not used any arm and no injury was caused on the side of the accused.He stated that he had no knowledge that any of the appellants was injured in this incident.Ultimately, he admitted that when the appellants ran away then only he reached near the body of this father Latura and he had seen the occurrence only after the appellants ran away.Other witnesses like Mannu (P. W. 2), Parwatibai (P. W. 3), Sundariya(P. W. 5), Champabai (P. W. 6) and Soma (P. W. 7) all belong to the same family of the complainant.They are highly interested and partisan witnesses.Even P. W. 8 Sundra also belongs to the same family.The alleged occurrence had taken place in the broad-day-light at 2 p.m. but no independent witness has been produced.A large number of villagers had assembled on the spot but the prosecution was not able to produce any independent witness in this case.None of these witnesses has been able to explain the injuries on the side of the appellants.It is important to note that the appellants had also lodged a cross FIR in this case but the same was not properly investigated.The injuries were also on the side of the accused.Appellant Kamalsingh was injured.Similarly, in this incident, appellants Ratiram, Kripansingh and Badamsingh were also injured and their Injury-reports are proved on record as Ex. D-7, Ex. D-9 and Ex. D-10 respectively.They had received large number of injuries.Contusions, abrasions were on their bodies and Kamalsingh also sustained a fracture.In this way, the appellants claimed that they had used their weapons in self defence.When Kamalsingh got a severe injury on his head i.e. fracture than he fired a gun shot in his self defence.The aforesaid injuries are proved on record on the side of the appellants.Learned counsel for the appellants raised a very important point that when injuries of the appellants were not explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case has to be thrown out.On record, the injuries of the appellants were proved as above.They ought to have been explained by the prosecution.There is no mention of any injury on the side of the appellants in the FIR.Also the witnesses did not disclose any injury on the side of the appellants.Even the witnesses showed their ignorance regarding any injury to any of the appellants.Highly interested and partisan witnesses were produced.Although some of the witnesses were injured but since they did not explain the injuries of the appellants, the prosecution story becomes doubtful.We have noticed after examining the entire evidence on record, that there is no explanation for injuries on the side of the appellants in this case.In such a case where a cross FIR was lodged, appellants were injured and were medically examined on their injuries were proved on record, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the side of the appellants or these injuries must have been explained by the prosecution witnesses.The prosecution and the witnesses both ignored this fact and no explanation was offered at any stage.The learned Additional Sessions Judge had already disbelieved the prosecution version in respect of the remaining accused like Lakshmansingh, Narayansingh and Dhoomansingh and they were acquitted of all the charges.Only the present appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.Once we find that injuries on the side of the appellants were not explained by the prosecution, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful and the charges could not be taken to have been established in such a case.In the case of Mitter Sen v. State of U. P., AIR 1976 SC 1156: (1976 Cri LJ 857), it was held that when the injuries on the side of the accused are neither self inflicted nor self suffered nor self sustained and they are not explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case has to be thrown out.In the alternative, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that they had used their weapon in self defence.Even Kamalsingh had fired his gun when he got a blow on his head which was fractured and other accused also after receiving injuries in the incident used lathis and sword in their self-defence.For the individual act of Kamalsingh also it has been argued that even he did not exceed the right of private defence when he fired his gun, in view of the fact that at first he had a lathi blow on his head fracturing his skull and only then he in this desperate moments he had fired his gun.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that even Kamalsingh did not exceed right of private defence as he fired his gun after getting a blow on his head fracturing his skull.The place of occurrence is outside the house on the path way.In that view of the matter also the place of occurrence was such that both the parites had come out from their houses and the incident took place on spur of moment in view of the slap given by Bharosa to a boy of five years.Both the parties got outraged and engaged in this marpeet and sudden quarrel was started on the fact that a boy of 5 years was beaten by Bharosa.Injuries of the appellants were not explained.On the same set of evidence some of the co-accused like Lakshmansingh, Narayansingh and Dhoomansingh were already acquitted by the trial Court and no State appeal was filed against their acquittal and the same finding had become final.All the prosecution witnesses are near relations, interested and partisan witnesses.No independent witness was produced in this case when a large number of villagers had assembled on the spot.The cross case of the appellants against the complainant party was not properly investigated and as such investigation in this case could not be said to be fair.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that the appellants had no right of self defence when Kamalsingh fired his gun which proved fatal for Latura.The other point argued on behalf of the State was that at least Kamalsingh had fired his gun exceeding the right of private defence and he should be held guilty.In those cases when several gun shots were fired it Could be said that right of self-defence was exceeded, but in the present case only one gun shot was fired and that too in self-defence after reveiving a severe blow on the head by Kamalsingh which fractured his skull.The probabilities in this case have to be examined in view of evidence and facts established on record.The quarrel started on account of the fact that Bharosa had given beating to a boy of only five years.Bharosa was called and both the parties, one of the Tahakurs and the other of the Harijans assembled and engaged in this marpeet when Kamalsingh was given a blow on his head, fracturing his skull, he used his gun.In view of the discussions made above, we find that the appeal succeeds.The appeal is allowed.The judgment and order, under appeal are set aside.The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,806,211 | Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2018 (Umesh vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.44 of 2016 (Umesh vs. Ram Prakash and others) under section 323, 324, 504, 506, IPC It is argued that in the impugned order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the Session Judge, Maharajganj is erroneous whereby he has set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22.11.2017 by which he had summoned the accused revisionists Ram Prakash, Vinod, Ashok and Santosh under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and accused revisionist Sanjai under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC on t he ground that such kind of bifurcation of offence was not in the domain of trial court.At the stage of summoning, only prima-facie evidence is to be seen.Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.Steps be taken within a week.Both the opposite parties shall file counter affidavits by the next date fixed.List this matter on 12.9.2018 before appropriate bench.Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2018 (Umesh vs. State of U.P. and others) shall remain stayed. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
82,811,532 | (45)(ap) C.R.R. No. 1676 of 2019 In re : Sagar Pravin Shah @ Sagar P. Shah & Ors...Petitioners.Re: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.07.2019 Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Anjan Dutta, Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Mr. H.R. Singh....for the petitioners.Even 1 2 before the Magistrate, the accused persons were not present despite a specific order in that regard.The accused persons are only on interim bail.The accused-revisionists shall, therefore, surrender before the Court below on the said date failing which the Magistrate shall take steps in accordance with law. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,403,501 | Shri Arpan Shrivastav, counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant.Having heard the counsel present at length, keeping in view their arguments, after perusing the case diary, in view of the averments of para-6 of the private complaint, according to which after happening the alleged incident on dated 30.7.12, a report in writing was given by complainant/respondent No.2 to the SHO PS Madan Mahal, to the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur and SHO Mahila Police Station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur.Out of such complaints, on behalf of the applicants, the copy of the complaint having the endorsement of receiving by Mahila Police Station on dated 1.8.12 ( Annex.A-4) has been filed while the copies of the complaint given to the Superintendent of Police and SHO Police Station Madan Mahal have not been placed on the record.The aforesaid copy of complaint placed on record has not been disputed by the counsel of 2 M.Cr.According to averments of such complaint not a single allegation for committing the rape by the applicant on the respondent No.2 has been stated at such initial stage and subsequently after a month some report was given to the superior officer of the police department in which on the first occasion allegation of the rape has been made.So, it is apparent that immediately after the alleged incident no complaint of the alleged act of rape was made by the prosecutrix to the police.As per the available record, it is also apparent that after filing the complaint the matter was sent to the police to inquire the matter and submit the report.Such report dated 10.10.12 is available on the record according to which the averments of the complaint have not been found to be correct.However, cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken by the JMFC against the applicant on the basis of the evidence recorded under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.As nothing was stated about act of rape in the initial complaint (Annex.(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL | ['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,404,942 | This petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing FIRbearing Crime No.8 of 2020, dated 09.01.2020 on the file of theBhimunipatnam Police Station, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offenceas alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent policeregistered a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447IPC and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act as against the petitioner.Hence heprayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that theinvestigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to filefinal report.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned2/7 W.P.No.4998 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.5898 of 2020Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.The investigatingmachinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime inaccordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India passed in Crl.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands5/7 W.P.No.4998 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.5898 of 2020dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2020, the firstrespondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.8 of 2020 andfile a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofcopy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.10.03.2020Internet : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non Speaking orderariTo:1.The Inspector,Bhimunipatnam Police Station,Vishakapatnam,Andhra Pradesh.W.P.No.4998 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.5898 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ari W.P.No.4998 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.5898 of 2020 10.03.20207/7 | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,412,432 | The factual aspects giving rise to the present applicationin brief, are as under :The present applicant No. 1 Usha isher sister-in-law where as the applicant No. 2, Narsiha is thehusband of applicant No. 1 - Usha.It has been alleged that at thetime of marriage, applicants had given false information to theparents of complainant Manisha that her husband Siddheshwar wasa businessman and he was running a firm of Chartered Accountantat Pune.The husband and in-laws of the complainant aswell as maternal uncle - Madhav Gaikwad used to torture andmaltreat the complainant for demand of money.But the parents ofcomplainant could not cough up the demand due to financial crises.It has also alleged that her father-in-law attempted to molestsexually to her minor daughter.They are residing atKallamb, District Osmanabad.ORAL JUDGMENT [PER K.K.SONAWANE, J.]1. Heard.Rule made returnable forthwith.Matter is takenup for finality on merit with the consent of learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 ::: {2} crapln 2345.18.odtparties.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::The present application is filed by applicants underSection 482 of Cr. PC, seeking relief to quash and set aside the firstinformation report bearing Crime No. 150/2018, registered at MIDCPolice Station, Latur for the offences under section 354, 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They had shown fake and fabricated documents to thecomplainant and her parents.After marriage, the complainant ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 ::: {3} crapln 2345.18.odtjoined the company of husband for co-habitation at Pune.Sheresided at Pune with the husband for about 8-9 months and at thattime she came to know that her husband Siddheshwar did notpossess degree as C.A., but he is in service somewhere else on avery meager salary.Moreover, her husband Siddheshwar wassuffering from illness of depression and he used to take tablets forthe same.It has been alleged that her mother-in-law as well assister-in-law used to beat and torture the complainant and sent herto the parents home at Nanded.However, during wedlock thecomplainant begotten one daughter from husband Siddheshwar.There was a demand of Rs. 3.50 lacs to establish business ofhusband at Latur.Fed up with continuous torture andindecent conduct of father-in-law with her minor daughter, thecomplainant approached to the police and filed the report.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::{4} crapln 2345.18.odtPursuant to FIR, police of MIDC PS, Latur registered thecrime and set the penal law in motion.Pending investigation, theapplicants preferred present application to quash and set aside thepenal proceeding initiated against them, by invoking powers u/s482 of the Cr.PC.Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitsthat the applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime but they are falsely implicatedin this case.According to the applicants, there are no specificallegations about the maltreatment and harassment to thecomplainant, as contemplated u/s. 498-A of IPC.All the allegationsare general and vague in nature.The applicants are the sister andbrother in-law of the husband of complainant.Moreover, theyare not beneficiaries of the marital discord between the complainantand her husband.According to learned counsel, the presentcomplaint against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of processof law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::{5} crapln 2345.18.odtIn refutal, the learned APP as well as learned counsel forrespondent No. 2 - first informant, raised objection and submitsthat the first informant has categorically described the maltreatmentand harassment on the part of the applicants in the FIR.Theapplicant No. 1 Usha played mischief and cheated the complainantby saying that her brother - i. e. husband of the complainant hascompleted C.A. education and he is doing business at Pune.Theapplicants also abused and assaulted the complainant for demandof money.There are specific allegations in the FIR and therefore,interference at the behest of the applicant is unwarranted.Having given anxious consideration to the argumentadvanced on behalf of both sides, it appears that the argumentsadvanced by Mr. Jadhwar, learned counsel for the applicant muchmore sustainable and considerable one.Perusal of the FIRadumbrates that the allegations cast against the present applicantsare general and vague in nature.The allegations about the mischiefof projecting the husband Siddheshwar as a Chartered Accountantdoing business at Pune, cannot be considered as cruelty underSection 498-A of IPC.She castallegations about molestation of her daughter against the father-in-law.No specific over acts are attributed to the present applicants fortorture or harassment to the complainant for demand of money.There are no details in the FIR about participation of presentapplicants for the act of maltreatment and harassment to thecomplainant.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::At this juncture, the question that arises, whether the FIRregistered against applicants can be quashed and set aside byexercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is worth tomention that the Honourable Apex Court in the case of - KansrajVs.State of Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SupremeCourt Cases, 207 observed that, "a tendency has, however, developedfor roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in thematters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged is likely to affect thecase of the prosecution even against the real culprits.In the cases,where accusations are made, the overt-acts attributed to personsother than husband, are required to be proved beyond reasonabledoubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further observed that, "in ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 ::: {7} crapln 2345.18.odttheir over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximumpeople, the parents of the deceased have been found to be makingefforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the caseof the prosecution even against the real accused."::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::State of Biharand another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court cases, 273, theHonourable Apex Court elucidated the fact that, "Section 498-A ofIPC is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious placeof pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather thanshield by disgruntled wives.The simplest way to harass is to get thehusband and his relatives arrested under this provisions." ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 :::{8} crapln 2345.18.odtIn the instant case, it would be unjust and improper to allowthe prosecution to proceed against the applicants.Hence,penal proceeding initiated against the applicants deserves to bequashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass followingorder :No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 06:19:44 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
17,242,080 | 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.26183/2019 (Lakhan s/o Mangilal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 01.07.2019 Mr. Nilesh J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.26183/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.07.02 12:45:33 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,724,221 | The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to set aside thejudgment passed in Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2006 on the file of the I AdditionalSessions Judge, Tirunelveli dated 01.10.2009 confirming the order passed by theJudicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil in Cr.2.The petitioner appeared party-in-person.The petitioner herein haspreferred a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Sankarankovil, which was dismissed stating that no prima facie case is made out.Against that, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision case inCrl.R.C.No.79/2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge (Fast TrackCourt No.1), Tirunelveli, where the same was allowed and the learned JudicialMagistrate was directed to take the complaint on file and pass orders inaccordance with law.Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate take the complaint on fileas Crl.M.P.No.3675 of 2006 and dismissed the application.Aggrieved over thesame, the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.103 of 2006 on the fileof the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, where the same wasdismissed confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.Against thatorder, the petitioner has preferred this present criminal original petition.The petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent herein has filed asuit in O.S.No.254 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,Sankarankovil for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and permanentinjunction against this petitioner and 4 others.After trial, the suit wasdismissed and hence, the petitioner come forward with a private complaintstating that since the 1st respondent herein has given false evidence and falsedocument in the said suit as plaintiff, the suit was dismissed and hence hewants to prosecute the 1st respondent for the offence under Sections 196, 197,198, 199 and 200 I.P.C and to prosecute the 2nd respondent for the offence undersections 191, 193 and 205 of I.P.C. and the same was taken on file inCrl.M.P.No.3675 of 2006 and the same was dismissed stating that no prima faciecase is made out.Against the same, he preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.103of 2006 before the 1st appellate court, where the same was dismissed and hence,the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal original petition.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would further submitthat the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.254 of 2002 fordeclaration of title, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.On the side of the respondent, 3 documents have been marked viz., Pattastands in the name of one Gurusamy, house tax receipts and plaint plan.This Court heard the rival submissions made on either side and perusedthe written argument filed by the petitioner.Furthermore, while considering the suit filed by the petitioner, Ex.For this also, to prove the primafacie case, the petitioner has not filed any documents.Hence, the trial Courthas considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and came to a conclusion,since the complaint has already been referred as mistake of fact, subsequently,the trial Court has dismissed the private complaint as no prima facie case madeout.The I Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the same in a properperspective and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality inorder passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, which was confirmed by thelearned I Additional District and Sessions Judge and they considered all theaspects in proper manner and hence, the same is liable to be confirmed and thecriminal original petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed as notmaintainable.1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,424,457 | The prosecution case was that on 04.02.2003 at about 06.00 p.m these accused went to the Mulberry garden of PW1 and allowed their cattle to graze there.On P.Ws.1 and 2 questioning the same, the accused entered into an agreement with them.The first accused threw stones on them and the second accused caused injury to on P.W.2, cutting his left hand and the rear of the neck using an Aruval.Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences under sections 323 (2 counts) IPC, 324 (2 counts) IPC and 506 (ii) IPC and the same was tried in C.C.No.76 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Hosur.Before the trial Court,the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, and marked ten exhibits.However, one witness was examined on behalf of the defence and three exhibits were marked.On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court under judgment in C.C.No.76/2003 dated 24.05.2007, whilst acquitting both the accused of offence under section 506 (ii) IPC, rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the first accused to undergo 3 months R.I and fine of Rs.300/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s.323 ( 2 counts) IPC and the second accused to 6 months R.I and fine of Rs.300/- i/d 1 month R.I for offence u/s.324 (2 counts) IPC.Against such finding, the petitioners/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.66 of 2007 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.The lower Appellate Court while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence.Sentence of 3 months R.I and fine of Rs.300/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s.323 ( 2 counts) against the first accused was modified to one of fine Rs.1,000/- i/d one month S.I. and that of 6 months R.I and fine of Rs.300/- i/d 1 month R.I for offence u/s.324 (2 counts) IPC against second accused to one of 3 months S.I and fine of Rs.300/- i/d 1 month S.I. There against, the present revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate Criminal side.Between agriculturists such is an issue which could evoke emotive responses.It is not uncommon for agriculturist to hold an Aruval, the same being an implement when used for agricultural activities.In circumstances where harm has been caused in a sudden quarrel and without any premeditation whatsoever, this court considers it appropriate to modify the order of the lower appellate court in so far as the sentence regarding the second accused/second petitioner is concerned.Accordingly, this court while confirming the findings of conviction as also the sentence imposed against the first accused, would modify the sentence regards the second accused for offence u/s. 324 IPC (two counts) to one of fine of Rs.5,000/-.Such fine amount shall be paid over in compensation to P.W.2 in keeping with Section 357 Cr.P.C.This Criminal Revision is disposed of with the above modification.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri2.The Judicial Magistrate I, Hosur3.The Sub Inspector of PoliceBagalur Police Station,Hosur Taluk4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.C.T.SELVAM, J.R.C.No.201 of 201031.10.2014 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,425,498 | 447/323/325/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,426,396 | HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (Oral) CRL.M.A.36512/2019 (EXEMPTION) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The report of the medical board is Ex. PW-15/A and bears my signature at point "A".On the other hand, we have on record the evidence of Dr. Neelam Gupta (P.W. 8) a Radiologist working in the Civil Hospital, Nalagarh who had given an opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years.Application stands disposed of.By this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), the appellant/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North West)-01, Special Court, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case bearing no. 104/2014 whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/376/420 of the CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 1 of 21 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in FIR No.60/2014 registered at Police Station Begumpur.CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 1 of 21Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:-" DD no. 70B dated 20.01.2014 at 9:55 p.m was recorded on a PCR call regarding daughter of the caller missing since noon.The IO reached the house of the complainant L, who reported that his fourth born child daughter S aged about 17 years is missing since 12:00 noon, who had gone by saying that she is going to a tailor but did not return.On his statement, this FIR u/s 363 was registered.On 28.3.2014, the missing girl S was recovered from the house of accused Deepak from Shamli (U.P) and the statement of the victim u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she stated that she knew accused since last one year and used to like him.On 20.01.2014, she left her home and went with Deepak to his village Shamli and after marriage started living with him in a rented accommodation.At Shamli she came to know that Deepak is already married and had a child from his marriage.Police recovered her.Accused was formally arrested and was medically examined.Victim was also medically examined and was found to be pregnant.Pregnancy was terminated with the consent of family members of victim and the samples were seized and sent to FSL.Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded where she has stated that she left with accused of her own and married him and established physical relations.There was no age proof of the victim and her ossification test was conducted where she was found to be between 16 and a half years to 17 and a half years and after completion of CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 2 of 21 investigation, present chargesheet was filed against the accused."CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 2 of 213. Charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363/366/420 IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act or in the alternate Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC were framed against the accused on 17.07.2014 to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all.Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences.6. Learned APP for the State contended that there are no discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed on the lines of the prosecution case, pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the testimony of PW-3 (Prosecutrix) in the correct perspective and based the acquittal of the accused on minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; that the respondent was already married which is evident from the testimony of PW-11 and on the false pretext of marrying the prosecutrix, the respondent deceived and cheated the prosecutrix to gain sexual favours/advantages; that the respondent forcibly got married to the prosecutrix who was a minor CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 3 of 21 at the time of the alleged incident and was not in the capacity to give a valid consent.CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 3 of 21We have heard the learned APP for the State at length and perused the available material on record.Deepak aur Maine 21.01.2014 ko shamli ke mandir mein shaadi ki thi aur hum dono vhi kiraye ke ghar mai pati-patni ke jaise rhene lage.Humare beech sharirik sambandh meri marzi se hi bane.Deepak ne mere sath koi zabrdasti nhi ki.Deepak mere pati hai.Bas yehi khena hai Q. Aur kuch khena chahati ho?CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 7 of 21The PW-3 (Prosecutrix) during her examination-in-chief deposed that:-"One year prior to the incident, Dinesh, residing in our neighbourhood, introduced me with accused Deepak.Thereafter, Deepak became my friend.Deepak told me that he loves me and wants to marry me.He assured me that I will be happy with him.He enticed me and I eloped with him on 20.01.2014 without informing anyone.Accused Deepak took me to Shamli, UP, and thereafter he took me to a temple where he forcibly put vermillion on my head.Then we started living in a rented room at Shamli as husband and wife.Accused made physical relations with me with my consent.After sometime, I came to know that accused is already married and is having a child also.On one day, police along with my parents came to Shamli and they brought me as well as accused back to Delhi.Police took me to a hospital for my medical examination where I came to know that I was pregnant.I got my pregnancy terminated.Earlier also I came to Court where my statement was recorded by the learned MM.It is correct that I came to know about the factum of marriage of accused after one month of my marriage with the accused at temple, and he told me that he will give divorce to his wife and thereafter he made physical relations with me without my consent. ........"During cross-examination, the prosecutrix deposed as under:-" .....It is wrong to suggest that I know from before that accused is married or that despite knowing this fact I eloped with the accused, it is wrong to suggest that accused did not have any physical relations with CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 8 of 21 me as I had put a condition that he should take divorce from his first wife and then only I would have physical relations with him.I came to know the marriage status of accused at Shamli.I do not remember who had informed me that accused is already married.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 8 of 21From a plain reading of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we find that the prosecutrix willingly joined the company of the Respondent and thereafter made physical relations with the appellant out of her own free will.However, during her examination-in-chief, she improved upon her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposed that 'Deepak told me that he loves me and wants to marry me.He assured me that I will be happy with him.He enticed me and I eloped with him on 20.01.2014 without informing anyone.' During her cross examination when she was asked as to how she came to know about the marriage of the accused, she failed to give any cogent reply and deposed that 'I do not remember who had informed me that accused is already married'.The conduct of the prosecutrix shows that she was aware about the marital status of the accused/Respondent at all times and she was willfully residing with the accused/Respondent out of her own free will and also developed physical relations with the accused/Respondent without any force or threat.It is further apparent from the testimony of PW-6 (father of the prosecutrix) that after two months when PW-6 (father of the prosecutrix) got to know about the whereabouts of her daughter and accused/Respondent, PW-6 (father of the prosecutrix) alongwith SI CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 9 of 21 Mahavir and other police officials went to Shamli, Uttar Pradesh and got her daughter recovered, who was residing with the accused/Respondent.Despite opportunity she neither tried to save herself from the clutches of the accused/Respondent nor tried to contact her family members through phone which proves that PW-3 (Prosecutrix) was willingly residing with the accused/Respondent and was aware about the previous marriage of the accused/Respondent with PW-11 (Sangeeta/wife of the accused/Respondent).Moreover, PW-11 (Sangeeta/wife of the accused/Respondent) during her cross-examination deposed that 'I knew victim S prior to the date of incident as she used to visit my house by showing her relation with my husband as brother and sister.Victim S knew about my son, born out of my wedlock with accused Deepak.My husband had good relations with me' which proves that the prosecutrix was throughout aware about the marriage of the accused/Respondent with PW-11 (Sangeeta) and her statement being unrebutted was treated to be accepted by the Prosecution.Hence, from the above, it emerges that the element of Mens Rea, CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 10 of 21 which is an essential ingredient of Sections 363/366/376/420 IPC is missing, therefore, this Court believes that the Respondent did not forcibly establish physical relations with the prosecutrix.CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 9 of 21CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 10 of 21Determination of Age of PW-3In order to determine the legal validity of the consent given by the prosecutrix as per the law, the focal point for discussion would be the age of the prosecutrix.The relevant portion of the trial Court judgment has been reproduced as under:As CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 11 of 21 per, the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Crl.Rev. P. No. 195/2018 titled as Shweta Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, if the age of victim is found to be between 16 and half years and 17 and half years, then the same has to be read as 17 and half years in favour of the accused.In the present case, the age of the victim was determined between 16 and half years to 17 and half years and therefore same has to be read as 17 and half years and with a margin of one year as provided under Rule 12(3)(b) of J.J. Rules, 2007, the age of the victim has to be considered as more than eighteen years as on 15.04.2014 and in facts the victim was major at the time of alleged kidnapping as on 20.01.2014 and her consent becomes relevant.Further, her father said that he mentioned her age on estimation and her Aadhar Card shows the year of birth as 1996."CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 11 of 21The prosecutrix when put to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused as to her age at the time of incident, the prosecutrix (PW-3) deposed as under:" xxx By Sh.Harit Chhabra, leaarned counsel for accused."It is wrong to suggest that accused never enticed me to elope with him.I do not know the distance between my house and the house of the accused.I do not know my date of birth.I am illiterate and have never been to school.My CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 12 of 21 parents have not got my date of birth registered with MCD, etc. My year of birth is mentioned as 1996 on Aadhar Card.I have brought my original Aadhar Card with me today.Photocopy of the same is now exhibited as Ex.PW-3/DA (OSR).It is wrong to suggest that I know from before that accused is married or that despite knowing this fact I eloped with the accused, it is wrong to suggest that accused did not have any physical relations with me as I had out a condition that he should take divorce from his first wife and then only I would have physical relations with him.I came to know the marriage status of accused at Shamli.CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 12 of 21The father of the prosecutrix was also examined as PW-6 who deposed as under:"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Thereafter, I went to PS and my statement was recorded, same is Ex. PW6/A, bearing my signatures at point A. I had told the police the age of my daughter is about 17 years.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 13 of 21In his cross-examination, he further deposed that:It is wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely."On the failure of the prosecution to provide any valid proof of age of the prosecutrix, the Learned Trial Court referred the prosecutrix for an ossification test to determine her age.The prosecutrix underwent the bone ossification test at the SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi.As per the report of the Medical Board (Exhibit PW-15/A), the age of the prosecutrix was determined as 16 - 17 years at the time of her medical examination.Further, in order to prove the report on record, the CMO of SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi was examined as PW-15 who deposed as under:Even on normal calculation, if seven months are deducted from the approximate age opined by the expert in October, 1981 detenu was around 17 years of age, consequently the statement made in the petition turns out to be wholly true.However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side.Undoubtedly, therefore, the detenu was a young school going boy.In this regard, we have considered the evidence and materials on record.The age of the prosecutrix has been CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 15 of 21 sought to be proved by the prosecution by bringing on record the School Admission Form (Exhibit PW5/A) and the certificate (Exhibit PW5/B) issued by one Jasdeep Kaur (P.W. 5), JBT Teacher of Government School Dungi Plate.P.W. 5 in her deposition has stated that the writings in the School Admission Form (Exhibit PW5/A) are in her handwriting and the signature affixed is that of the mother of the prosecutrix.CRL.L.P. 527/2019 Page 15 of 21In cross-examination, P.W. 5 had stated that the details mentioned in Exhibit PW5/A have been obtained from the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Tambol.The certificate issued by the Government Primary School Tambol on the basis of which the details in the Admission form (Exhibit PW5/A) was filled up by P.W. 5 has not been exhibited by the prosecution.Nothing hinges on the document exhibited by the prosecution as Exhibit PW5/B as that is the consequential certificate issued on the basis of the entries in Exhibit PW5/A. The mother of the prosecutrix who had allegedly signed Exhibit PW5/A has not been examined by the prosecution. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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. |
Subsets and Splits