id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
172,478,327 | State of M.P. & another) (2 on 07.03.2019 before Police Station Mahila Thana Satna.It is mentioned in this report that petitioner-accused No. 1 is posted as Cashier Gramin Bank Satna.They blessed one girl, her father-in-law petitioner no. 2 was also came there.Petitioners-accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry.They abused filthy language.They tortured and humiliated her.They told her that petitioner- accused no. 1 will solemnize another marriage because respondent no.2 is not beautiful and mentally retarded then she telephoned.Her parent was agreed to give Rs. 4,00,000/- but petitioners-accused were not ready for that.State of M.P. & another) (3 settle in separate house in Jabalpur city.But the present petitioner-accused no. 1 being a government employee he was posted in Gramin Bank in Village- Bamorekala, District Shivpuri.He wanted to live with the respondent no. 2 at Village Bamorekala but respondent no. 2 and her family members clearly refused the same and they had put into the minds of the respondent no. 2 that she will reside with the present petitioner-accused No. 1 only if he agrees to live in a separate house in the Jabalpur City and not in any villages.In the month of December 2013 petitioner No. 1 got transferred from Village Bamorekala District Shivpur to Satna.The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.As M.Cr.Whether approved for reporting:Law laid down:Significant paragraphs:(08/01/2020) Petitioners- accused have filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Respondent no. 2 submitted written report M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs.On 14.01.2019 she reached in the office of the petitioner-accused no. 1 where petitioner- accused no.1 abused filthy language, he pushed her so she returned to her parental house, thereafter on 06.03 2019 she again reached in the house of petitioners-accused at Satna.Petitioners-accused met her, they again demanded dowry, abused filthy language, threatened her, so she is living in her parental house.FIR was registered, statements of witnesses have been recorded.She never takes care of any household responsibilities and since marriage respondent no. 2 wanted to live separate from her in-laws and M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs.Respondent no. 2 again refused to go to Satna with petitioner no. 1 and she went to for her parental house at Bamhnoda Panager, District Jabalpur.Petitioner no. 1 rented a house in Satna and tried to bring back respondent no. 2 to live together at Satna, but respondent no. 2 and her parents did not agree for the same, but anyhow the petitioner no. 1 succeeded to take back his wife and started living with her at Satna.On 17.09.2014 daughter namely Aradhya Pandey was born from the wedlock of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and since birth of their daughter the respondent no. 2 started living with her parents, therefore, petitioner no. 1 and his relatives have visited multiple times to in-laws house to bring back to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 and his parents and other family members M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs.State of M.P. & another) (4 insulted the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives.Finally respondent no. 2 agreed to return back Satna on the condition that parents of the petitioner no. 1 will never visited the place where petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are residing.The parents of petitioner-accused no. 1 living in Jabalpur and they are not allowed to visit the resident where the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are living.Respondent no. 2 and her parents used to regularly demand money from the petitioner no. 1, therefore, petitioner no. 1 regularly giving money in various amounts from time to time to his mother-in-law and respondent no. 2 used to go to her parental house without informing to the present petitioner no.Respondent no. 2 abused, insulted and threaten to the petitioner no. 1 since the marriage without any reason.Since 21.12.2018 respondent no. 2 is living at her father's house and she was not willing to come back to the house of petitioner no.Respondent no. 2 and her parents created worst situation in the marital life of the petitioner no. 1, therefore, on 02.01.2019 petitioner no. 1 filed an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs.Respondent no. 2 received notice of the divorce case filed by the petitioner no. 1 thereafter as a counter blast just after 10 days respondent no. 2 approached respondent no. 1 and presented herself to be tortured by the petitioners-accused by concealing the real facts lodged false report.FIR was lodged as a counter blast, so there is no case is made out against the petitioners-accused under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So quash the criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna against the petitioners-accused.It appears that he has implicated M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs.So this is a fit case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked in regard to petitioner-accused no. 2-Radhika Sharad PandeyThus, present petition is dismissed in regard to petitioner- accused No. 1 Amit Kumar Pandey | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,479,062 | It is undisputed that the appellant was having two wives.He left his first wife Bhangdibai.She took shelter at her maternal home with her two sons Sardar and Madiya born out of her wed lock with the appellant.Gyansingh (PW-6), Fundibai (PW-7) and Man Singh (PW-5) are father, step mother and step brother of the appellant.The deceased Ramtubai was daughter of Fundibai & Gyan Singh.House of Man Sihgh is situated near the place of the incident and at the time of the incident, Gyan Singh, Man Singh and Fundibai were all present on the spot.It is the case of the prosecution that Ratansingh was having two wives.He left his first wife Bhangdibai with her sons Sardar and Madiya and they were residing in her maternal home in village Paretha.When they grew up, they demanded share in the land of the appellant.Man Singh alongwith some other villagers asked the appellant to give them land.The appellant obeyed the direction given by the villagers.A piece of land in the village Ghudadliya was given to them.They started living there.At the time of the incident, they were making a hut for them.The appellant got annoyed by this.Stating that when he has already left his wife and sons then why Mansingh is helping them.Due to this enmity on 17.06.2003, at about 5:00 in the evening, when Man Singh was ploughing his field, sister Ramtubai was collecting fodder and father Gyan Singh was cleaning bushes, the appellant Ratansingh came there with bow and arrows.He shot an arrow at Man Singh, but he escaped and ran away towards his house.Then he (Ratansingh) shot another arrow on Ramtubai, which hit her on her chest.She fell down and died on the spot.Ratansingh then shot another arrow at Gyansingh which hit his foot.Thereafter he fled away from the spot.(Delivered on 30/11/2017) Per: Virender Singh, J.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against judgment and order dated 18.08.2005 passed in S.T. No.257/2003 by Add.Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District Dhar whereby the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for four months.Both the sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently.On the same day, Mansingh filed FIR (Ex.P/7).A crime No.79/03 under Section 302 and 324 of IPC was registered at Police Station -Tanda, District-Dhar.The police visited the spot, prepared spot map (Ex.P/8A), Punchnama Lash (Ex.P/5) and sent the dead body for post mortem, arrested the accused and after completing investigation, filed the charge- sheet.The appellant charged, tried and punished as stated in para no.1, above.The appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the facts of the case.The learned trial Court failed to consider the unrebutted testimony of Richhu (DW/2), whose presence is admitted by the prosecution witnesses (PW/5,6 & 7) and who has stated that Madiya and Sardar were given their part of land, but they were trying to encroach another land of the appellant with the aid and advice of the complainant and his family and in pursuance of this, they have cut the tree standing on the field of the appellant and were using wood of this tree in constructing their house at the appellant's field.When the appellant raised objection, then father of the complainant had beaten him up with Lathi and caused injury on his head and elbow.Mansingh shot an arrow to kill the appellant, but he ducked down then the arrow hit Ramtubai.The prosecution did not examine Richhu as prosecution witnesses for no reason.The learned trial Court discarded his testimony only on the ground that he is real brother of the appellant, therefore, there could be possibility of giving false evidence, whereas, it is settled law that the defense witness is entitled to equal treatment with those of prosecution witness.The prosecution did not explain the injury sustained by the appellant.The trial court has committed error in not considering the impact of such non- explanation by the prosecution and non-production of MLC report of the appellant.The trial Court expected to consider pros and cons of admissions made by Fundibai (PW/7) in her cross-examination and its effect on prosecution case, but it has failed to do so for no reason.The trial Court also failed to appreciate evidence of defense witness no.1, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and the same be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.Prosecution witnesses Mansingh (PW/5), Gyansingh (PW/6) and Fundibai (PW/7) have stated and Dr. Dilip Rao (PW/2) has confirmed and the accused has not challenged the fact that on the date, time and place of the incident, Ramtubai died due to injury on her chest caused by some sharp object.In para no.13 onwards, the learned trial Court has considered the statements of the Man Singh, Gyan Singh and Fundibai (PW/5,6,7) who have stated that on the date of the incident at about 5'O clock in the evening, the accused shot an arrow at Mansingh, but he successfully saved himself, then he shot another arrow at Ramtubai who was collecting fodder there, the arrow hit her on her chest, she fell down and died on the spot.Another arrow was also shot by the accused, which inflicted injury on the foot of Gyansingh.All these statements have remained unrebutted in the cross- examination and had found support in the statement of Dr. H.S. Muvel (PW-1) Dr. D. Rao (PW-2) and Investigating Officer Sub Inspector, S.S. Tomar (PW-8) and corroboration from the reports and other documents like spot map (Ex.P/8A), Punchnama Lash (Ex.P/5) and FIR (Ex.P/7, medical report Ex.P/1, Post mortem report Ex.P/2) prepared during the investigation, preparation of which has also not been challenged by the appellant.The learned trial Court has considered all this evidence and relying on the same held the appellant guilty for causing death of Ramtubai and simple injury to Gyan Singh and on close scrutiny we do not find any ground to differ with opinion of the learned trial Court.Evidence available on record is sufficient to fasten guilt on the appellant.In para 18-22 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has considered the defence of the accused and rightly hled that the statement of Richhu is not reliable.We have considered this issue also and found that Richhu never disclosed the incident before the police during the investigation.No explanation is submitted by the appellant in this regard.Admittedly, he is real brother of Ratansingh.The injuries found to the appellant are minor.It is not come in the investigation that the stones were pelted at the time of incident, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the defense of the appellant.In the present case admittedly, the appellant was having two wives and had left his first wife whose children Sardar and Madiya grew up in their maternal village Paretha.They demanded share in the property of their father Ratan Singh (appellant), Man Singh helped them in getting the land and also in making hut there.Annoyed by this help extended by Man Singh, the appellant shot arrow on him, who escaped the assault and ran away.At that time, the appellant saw the deceased collecting fodder nearby, in a fit of rage, he shot arrow on her, which hit her chest and killed her on the spot.Gyan Singh also tried to run away.The appellant again shot an arrow which hit his leg.The whole incident happened in a spur of moment. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,482,834 | The applicant shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE tajHe is also not having any criminal antecedents.In the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant- Manoj Charmkar shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,490,948 | C.R.M. 6567 of 2018 sg Ct.No.34 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr.Mr. Uday Sankar Chattapadhyay, Adv.Mr. Santanu Maji, Adv.Ms. Snigdha Saha, Adv.Ms. Payel Shome, Adv....for the petitioner.Mr. Rudradiptya Nandy, Adv....for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No. 79 of 2018 dated 06.03.2018 under Sections 341/186/325/326/353/333/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The State seriously opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that despite the petitioner being a headmaster of a school, he instigated the students to beat up government officials who were on duty.Considering the nature of the allegations, there is no need to immediately take the petitioner into custody as long as the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.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 on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,500,824 | rrc/A.Deb Ct.No.16 CRM 5233 of 2020 CRAN 3526 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In re : An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.07.2020 in connection with Jalangi P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020 dated 16.05.2020 under Sections 498A/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Md. Golam Mostafa @ Muntu ..... petitioner Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir ........for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Dutta Mr. S.D. Roy ....... for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The petitioner claims that the petitioner stands on the same footing as others who have obtained anticipatory bail.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.) | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,507,933 | 1. P. Rajagopal, the respondent herein is the first accused in S.C. No. 414 of 2002 which relates to the offences of conspiracy, abduction and murder of one Santhakumar, the husband of Jeevajothi, the complainant.The case was ripe for trial.At that stage, the respondent along with other accused went to Thethakudi village where the complainant, P.W. 1 resides and attempted to tamper with her evidence by compelling her to receive a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs.On her refusl, the respondent and his henchmen attempted to attack the inmates of the complainant's house.The brief facts leading to the filing of the application are as follows:"(a) The respondent Rajagopal is the owner of Saravana Bhavan Hotel at Chennai.The complainant Jeevajothi and her husband Santhakumar were working under the Hotel Management.The respondent wanted to marry Jeevajothi as his third wife.This was resisted by both Santhakumar and Jeevajothi.Therefore, Jeevajothi was abducted by the respondent and others with an intention to compel her to marry him.(b) With reference to this incident, on 9.11.2001, Jeevajothi gave a complaint to J7 Velacherry Police Station, Chennai.A case was registered against Rajagopal and others in Crime No. 1030/2001 for the offences under Sections 147, 451, 352, 354, 365, 366, 342, 323, 327, 498 and 506(ii) read with 109 IPC.Pending investigation in this case, the respondent and others on 24.10.2001 abducted her husband Santhakumar from Chennai and took him to Kodaikanal and murdered him, since the respondent felt that he was a stumbling block for his ill-design to marry Jeevajothi.A separate case was registered for this murder in Crime No. 1047/2001 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 342, 364 and 302 I.P.C. by the very same Police of Chennai.(h) The prime witness, the de-facto complainant Jeevajothi is residing at Thethakudi village at Nagapattinam District along with her parents.(i) At this stage, according to the State, on 15.7.2003 at 9.00 p.m., Rajagopal, the accused, his Legal Adviser Rajendran and his men went to Thethakudi village with a cash of Rs. 6 lakhs and odd and went to the house of the complainant and asked her not to give evidence in the murder case as well as in the abduction case and compelled her to receive the cash more than six lakhs.Rajendran, the lawyer who was with him also asked her to give evidence in the murder case in favour of the defence.When she refused for the same and shouted at these people, her brother Ramkumar and other relatives came to the main hall and intervened.Then, Rajagopal asked his henchmen to attack the complainant and her brother.One of the accused took a knife and attacked Ramkumar, the brother of the complainant and caused injury on right hand.In the meantime, the villagers gathered there on hearing the hue and cry of the inmates of the house.On noticing this, the accused persons swiftly got into two Toyota Qualis cars and escaped from the spot.Unfortunately, Advocate G.Rajendran was not able to get into the car and as such, he was caught red-handed by the villagers.(j) Jeevajothi gave a complaint to the Vedaranyam Police Station on the same day at about 11.00 p.m. and the case was registered in Crime No. 701/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 506(ii), 324 and 307 I.P.C. against Rajagopal, Rajendran and others.(k) In the complaint, Jeevajothi gave the registration numbers of the two Toyota Qualis cars by which the other accused escaped.On the basis of those particulars, a wireless message was given to all the police stations in the district about the escape of two Toyota Qualis cars.On receipt of this information, Rajesekaran, Sub Inspector of Police, Tanjore Town Police Station stopped those cars and arrested A1 Rajagopal, who was found in the car, and others and recovered the cash of Rs. 6, 11, 950/- kept in the car.He then handed over a special report on 16.7.2003 and produced the arrested accused in Vedaranyam Police Station.Then, all the accused including Rajendran, the Advocate were sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi for remand along with remand report.Few years back, one Ramasamy of Thethakudi village, Nagapattinam District, was working as Assistant Manager in the Saravana Bhavan Hotel at Chennai.He left for Malaysia leaving his wife and daughter Jeevajothi and son Ramkumar.Rajagopal married one Valliammal and through her, he had two sons.In 1994, he married one Krithika, aged about 27 years, as his second wife.Earlier, the said Krithika got married to one Ganesan, who was an employee of the said hotel.Rajagopal persuaded him to break the matrimony with the said Kiruthika after making payment of money.Having been attracted by Jeevajothi, Rajagopal wanted to marry her also as his third wife and asked her husband Santhakumar to sever his marital tie with Jeevajothi.The complainant's brother sustained injuries.Then, all of them escaped from the scene and sped away.With reference to this incident, a case was registered.The respondent and others were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.(c) On 23.11.2001, Rajagopal (A1) surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram.In both the cases, namely Crime No. 1030/2001 and Crime No. 1047/2001, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on 27.2.2002, granted default bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that charge sheets were not filed in time.(e) Subsequently, an application had been filed for modification of the condition in Crl.M.P. No. 4123 of 2002 before this Court.By the order dated 30.4.2002, this Court modified the condition to the effect that the accused Rajagopal to remain at Kanchipuram and report before the Judicial Magistrate for a period of two months.(f) The case in Crime No. 1030/2001 relating to the abduction of the complainant Jeevajothi in S.C. No. 55 of 2003 is pending before the Mahila Court, Chennai.The case in Crime No. 1047/2001 relating to the murder of her husband Santhakumar in S.C. No. 414 of 2002 is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai at Poonamallee.(g) S.C. No. 55 of 2003, pending trial before the Mahila Court, Chenai, was ripe for trial and the same was posted for examination of P.Ws.Accordingly, they were remanded.(l) On the same day, i.e. on 16.7.2003, the respondent and Rajendran and other accused filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.Rajendran, Advocate alone was released on bail subject to some conditions purely on medical ground.The bail application by the others was dismissed.(m) On 18.7.2003, the State filed the present application in Crl.(n) In the meantime, the accused Rajagopal and others filed an application for bail before the Principal Sessions Court, Nagapattinam in Cr.However, again he filed another application in Cr.M.P. No. 3345 of 2003 and on 31.7.2003, the same was ordered by the Principal Sessions Judge granting bail.As such, he has come out on bail in the case in respect of the incident of tampering and threatening the witness in the murder case even before this application for cancellation of bail was entertained by this Court."The present application for cancellation of bail came up for admission before this Court on 1.8.2003 and notice was ordered.On receipt of notice, the learned senior counsel for the respondent appeared and filed the counter-affidavit.The matter was argued at great length by both Mr. I. Subramanian, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. N. Natarajan, the learned senior counsel representing the counsel on record on behalf of the accused/respondent.The submissions made by the Public Prosecutor in brief are as follows:"Jeevajothi, the de-facto complainant in both the cases in S.C. No. 55 of 2003 relating to abduction pending in Mahila Court, Chennai and S.C. No. 414 of 2002 relating to the murder of her husband pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee is the prime witness.The case in S.C. No. 414 of 2002 had been posted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee on 18-7-2003 for the appearance of the accused Rajagopal.Though the occurrence had taken place in Chennai and the trial is pending before the Courts at Chennai, the de-facto complainant and other witnesses left Chennai and started residing in Thethakudi village, Nagapattinam District along with her parents and relatives.Just before the commencement of trial, i.e. on 15.7.2003, the accused Rajagopal along with his legal adviser Rajendran, a practising advocate at Chennai and with his other henchmen came to Thethakudi village, Nagapattinam District in two Toyota Qualis cars to strike a deal with Jeevajothi by asking her to resile from her earlier version and to support his defence.They offered money more than six lakhs.She was not amenable.She raised a hue and cry.Her brother and others came and intervened.At the instigation of Rajagopal, one of the accused attacked her brother and he sustained knife injury on his right hand.Then, all the accused tried to escape by getting into the cars.Ultimately, they succeeded in fleeing away from the scene.Unfortunately, Rajendran, the legal adviser was left in the lurch in the village itself, thereby the villagers were able to catch hold of Rajendran alone.Immediately, the complaint was lodged with police at 11.00 p.m. itself and the case was registered.On receipt of message, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanjore intercepted the cars near Tanjore and arrested the accused and recovered the cash.While the bail was granted by this Court on 1-4-2002 to the accused Rajagopal, this Court specially imposed the condition directing the accused not to tamper with the witnesses and if there is any complaint of tampering, the bail granted would stand cancelled.Now, the incident of tampering with the witnesses has taken place on the eve of trial.Through the sufficient materials in the form of statement of the witnesses, wound certificate, recovery of cash, the recovery of the chappals belonged to the accused from the spot, etc., the State has established the act of the accused in having made an attempt to tamper with the witness, by all the probabilities.As such, the respondent misused his liberty of bail and consequently, the same has to be cancelled."In reply to the above submissions, Mr. N. Natarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent accused has made the following contentions:"The respondent has never gone to Thethakudi village to tamper with the witness.The case is falsely foisted against him.The affidavit seeking for cancellation of bail has been filed only by the investigating officer in S.C. No. 414 of 2002 and the officer who is the investigating the case over the incident which took place at Thethakudi has not chosen to file any affidavit.The witnesses for the incident have never filed the supporting affidavits.The application has already been filed on 7.7.2003 by the prosecution for transfer of the case from Mahila Court to Poonamallee Sessions Court to try both the cases.Even then, subpoena was obtained on 14-7-2003 from Mahila Court to be served on the witnesses at Thethakudi.Those summons were never served on the witnesses.On the way to Vellore, he went to Thirunallar Saneeswarar temple, Tanjore District and after darshan, he proceeded to Vellore-via Tanjore.At that time, the Police intercepted and took them to the Vedaranyam Police Station.One Ramachandran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range, Chennai was present at the Vedaranyam Police Station on 16-7-2003 at about 8.00 a.m. Even though he is not the investigating officer in S.C. No. 55 of 2003 and S.C. No. 414 of 2002, from the beginning he has shown undue interest in these cases .The presence of the said officer attached to Chennai Range in Vedaranyam Police Station on 16.7.2003 itself would show that a drama was enacted only at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai, in order to create a ground for cancellation of bail.The incident is so artificial.The place of the arrest of the accused is near Tanjore, which is situated 83 kms.away from Thethakudi village.The injury found on the right hand of the witness was so simple and minor injury.Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an attempt to murder the brother of the complainant.Considering the situs and nature of the injury, the Sessions Court concluded that it cannot be a case of Section 307 I.P.C. and granted bail.Since there are no sufficient materials produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident took place on 15.7.2003 and in view of the materials available on record to show that the defence case is more probable, the bail may not be cancelled."In view of the specific allegations made against Ramachandran, Assistant Commissioner of Plice, Guindy Range, in the counter-affidavit of the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor filed the reply affidavit sworn to by the said Ramachandran denying those allegations.According to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, he is Guindy Assistant Commissioner of Police, having jurisdiction over Velachery Police Station in which both the crime numbers relating to S.C. No. 55 of 2003 and S.C. No. 414 of 2002 were registered.As Assistant Commissioner of Police having jurisdiction over the Velachery Police Station, he was supervising in the investigation in these cases.He received information from the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam about the incident of threatening and tampering with the witness which took place on the nigh of 15.7.2003 at Thethakudi village.Since he was interested in the safety and welfare of the prime witness-Jeevajothi, he rushed to Vedaranyam Police Stationon 16.7.2003 and ascertained the facts and also ensured the adequate protection to the witness and returned to the city on the very next day.Immediately after the arrest of Advocate Rajendran, an intimation was sent to the relatives of Rajendran at Chennai as well as to the President of the Advocates' Association and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court regarding his arrest as per the procedure.He has never shown any undue interest in these cases.Neither Rajendran nor Rajagopal had made any complaint against the Assistant Commissioner of Police and other police regarding this to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi who remanded them.The summons were not served on the witnesses in the cases, since on the application filed by the State for transfer of the cases to have joint trial in one Court, the cases were stayed by this Court.As such, the allegations against the officer are false.Both Jeevajothi and her husband resisted the unlawful attempt of Rajagopal.One day, both were abducted and Jeevajothi was taken to a separate place and she was threatened and beaten to marry him.Regarding this incident, on the complaint of Jeevajothi, a case was registered against Rajagopal and others on 1.10.2001 in Crime No. 1030/2001 for the offences under Sections 147, 451, 352, 354, 364, 366, 342 and 506 Part II I.P.C. On 24.10.2001, Santhakumar, the husband of the complainant was abducted from Velachery and taken to Kodaikanal at the instigation of Rajagopal, the accused and he was murdered there and the body was thrown away in the hills.The further condition was specified stating that he should not attempt to tamper with the witnesses and if any complaint is received, it is made clear that the bail granted to him will be cancelled.Thereafter, the condition to reside at Cuddalore was modified to the effect that he may reside at Kanchipuram and report to the court only for two months.After the said period, the condition to stay at Kanchipuram had automatically elapsed.However, the condition "that he should not attempt to tamper the witnesses and if any such complaint is received, the bail granted to him will be cancelled" is in tact.There is no dispute in the fact that S.C. No. 414 of 2002 relating to the murder of the de-facto complainant's husband and S.C. No. 55 of 2003 relating to the abduction of P.W. 1 with an intention of compelling her to marry Rajagopal were nearing the trial stage.According to the State, on 15-7-2003 at about 9.00 p.m., the first accused Rajagopal, his legal adviser Rajendran (A2) and other accused came in two Toyota Qualis cars to Thethakudi village where P.W. 1, the de-facto complainant is residing and they entered into the house of the complainant Jeevajothi for the purpose of tampering and intimidating her in order to prevent her to give evidence in the murder case in S.C. No. 414 of 2002 against Rajagopal and offered to pay the money of Rs. 6 lakhs and odd and when the same was resisted, the witnesses were threatened with dire consequences and one of the witnesses sustained knife injury at the instance of the respondent accused and on noticing the crowd of villagers coming to the scene, the respondent and others speedily got into the two Toyota Qualis cars and sped away, without knowing that the respondent's legal adviser was left in front of the house of the complainant and he was caught by the villagers.While refuting this accusation, the senior counsel Mr. Natarajan would contend on the strength of the counter-affidavit filed by Rajagopal (A1) that he never went to Thethakudi for tampering with the witnesses, and on the other hand, he went in the two Toyota Qyalis cars along with his men on 15.7.2003 to Vellore in order to supervise the arrangement being made for opening of a branch of his hotel to be held on 1.9.2003 and on the way to Vellore, he went to Thirunallar Saneeswaran Temple and after Darshan, he was proceeding towards Vellore through Tanjore and at that time, the cars were stopped and the accused were taken to Vedaranyam Police Station and as such, the incident is a make-belief affair which has been enacted for the purpose of creating a ground for cancellation of bail at the instance of Ramachandran, the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has taken undue interest in this case.However, this Court graciously granted regular bail in the very same order even in the absence of any application by the accused seeking for bail by imposing some conditions.The State was not aggrieved over this order.The original condition in the bail order imposed by this Court on 1.4.2002 is that the respondent must reside at Cuddalore and report before the court till the examination of main witness is completed.But, the respondent filed an application in Cr.M.P. No. 4123 of 2002 seeking for modification of the condition to allow him to reside at Chennai.This Court by the order dated 30.4.2002 modified the condition to the effect that the respondent/accused must reside at Kanchipuram and report to the court only for a period of two months.This order conveys the meaning that after two months, he could come to Chennai and stay there or any other place wherever he likes.Thus, it is clear that the State was not interested in opposing each and every application filed by the accused nor had insisted for the earlier condition nor for any other condition so as to cause hardhip to the respondent accused.However, it is to be noted that the condition which has been imposed by this Court on 1.4.2002 that the petitioner should not tamper with the witnesses at any cost failing which, the bail will be cancelled, has not been 'allowed' to be relaxed.It is also pertinent to note that the State has never shown any undue interest from 1.4.2002, the date of order of bail till 15.7.2003, the date of the incident, either by taking steps in sustaining the condition to reside at somewhere else till the examination of main witnesses is completed or in getting him back in custody to enable the trial is go on without giving room for intimidation.In the light of the said fact situation, let me now consider the materials regarding the incident in question.After hearing the arguments of both the counsel, this Court summoned the records from the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, such as remand report, the statement of the accused before remand court, remand order and the bail applications filed by the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi as well as the records from the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam relating to the bail applications and the dismissal order at the first instance and the second application filed and the bail order passed for the purpose of proper appraisal of the contentions made on either side.Accordingly, on receipt of those records from both the courts, the said records were perused.The case diary produced by the Public Prosecutor also was perused.On a careful perusal of those records, the following factors are revealed.The arrest memo relating to Rajendran, legal adviser and Rajagopal, the respondent herein, another accused, available on record would show that Rajendran, legal adviser was arrested near the house of the complainant at Thethakudi village and Rajagopal along with the others were arrested near Tanjore when they were travelling in the Toyota Qualis cars at 12.10 mid night on 15.7.2003, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanjore on receipt of the wireless message from Vedaranyam Police and the cash of Rs. 6, 11, 950/- was recovered from Rajagopal.Immediately after the arrest, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanjore presented a special report and produced the accused along with the cars and the cash recovered before Vedaranyam Police on 16.7.2003 at 8.30 a.m. This special report signed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanjore and also the voucher signed by the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam are available on record.Similarly, it is noticed that the complaint was given by Jeevajothi, the de-facto complainant in her own handwriting and the same was registered on 15.7.2003 at about 11.00 p.m. In this complaint, she mentioned about the registration numbers of the Toyota Qualis cars in which the accused persons except Rajendran, legal adviser, escaped.Only after registration of the case, the accused Rajagopal and others were arrested and the said Toyota Qualis cars and the cash were recovered at about 12.10 mid night.In the common remand report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam, while remanding all the accused including A2 Rajendran, legal adviser together, he has mentioned all these factors.According to the statements of witnesses, when the accused got into the cars and tried to escape, one car hit against a tree and the car glasses got broken and Rajagopal escaped in the car after leaving his chappals in front of the house of the complainant.The observation mahazar and recovery mahazar and the records would show that the car glass pieces found near the tree and the chappals belonged to the accused Rajagopal have been recovered.In support of the complaint, the Inspector of Police obtained statements from her brother Ramkumar, the injured witness and relatives Thavamani, Ramasamy, Thasamani, the villagers Govindasamy, s/o Subramania Gounder and Govindasamy, s/o Kuppusamy Gounder.Ramkumar, the injured was taken to hospital where he was treated.The accident register was also issued by the Doctor mentioning the injury found on his right hand which was alleged to be caused with knife in the incident took place on 15.7.2003 at 9.30 p.m. near his residence.To decide whether these materials can be considered to be prima facie materials to conclude that the incident has been established, it would be worthwhile to refer to the case of the defence at this stage itself.If the case of the defence is more probable, then it is quite easy for this Court to say that the incident in question is improbable.Considering this situation, let me now deal with the defence theory.The remand order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi dated 16.7.2003 would show that when A2 Rajendran was produced, he reported that the case filed against him is false and one policeman in ununiform obtained his statement under duress.When A1/respondent, A3 and A4 were produced before the court, those accused said that they had nothing to make any complaint against the police.These statements were recorded.Therefore, the arrest of the Advocate(A2) near the complainant's house and the respondent(A1) and others near Tanjore had not been disputed.Though there is a statement in the handwriting of the advocate available in the case diary to the effect that he came along with the first accused Rajagopal to meet the Vedaranyam M.L.A. and on the way, Rajagopal went to Thethakudi village and had some conversation with P.W. 1, the said statement need not be given any importance at this stage, especially when he stated before the Magistrate that some statement has been obtained from him under duress.As a matter of fact, Advocate Rajendran (A2) has filed an affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi on 16.7.2003 while he was remanded admitting that he came from Chennai to Thiruthuraipoondi for some professional work and was having heart ailment and as such, he has to be released on bail.Only on the basis of the medical ground, he was released on bail on the same day by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.Therefore, there are prima facie materials to show that A2 Rajendran found near the residence of the complainant was caught by the villagers who kept in their custody, while the other accused sped away.He was produced to the police by the villagers at about 5.00 a.m. when the police came to the village Thethakudi.It is also noticed that immediately after the arrest of A2 Advocate, the intimation about the arrest was sent to his relatives as well as to the President of the Advocates' Association, High Court, Madras.The copy of the intimation is available.The same is as follows:"Advocate Tr.G. Rajendran, Aged 58/03 S/o Govindasamy, No. 51, South Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, the legal adviser of P. Rajagopal, the owner of Saravana Bhavan Hotels, was arrested on 16.7.2003 at 5.00 hrs.at Thethakudi North village in Vedaranyam P.S. limit in connection with Vedaranyam P.S. Cr.No. 701/2003 u/s 147, 148, 324, 452, 506(ii) and 307 I.P.C. and he has to be sent for remand to the Court of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi."This shows that the investigating agency on receipt of the complaint and arrest of the accused Advocate who was available in the scene, was careful enough to intimate about the arrest to the relatives as well as to the Advocates' Association and to the Hon'ble Chief Justice immediately, as per the guideline given by the Supreme Court.It is seriously contended that the incident is nothing but a farce one and it was nothing but a drama successfully enacted by Mr. Ramachandran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range, who was present at the Vedaranyam Police Station on the relevant date.It is true that the Assistant Commissioner of Police himself admitted in his reply affidavit that he came to the Vedaranyam Police Station next day, i.e. on 16.7.2003 and he was present throughout the day and next day, he left for Chennai.According to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, an intimation from the Vedaranyam Police was received by him that the witnesses in the murder case at Thethakudi village were threatened and intimidated and so he rushed to the Vedaranyam Police Station in order to ensure protection to the witnesses to be examined in the murder case pending in Chennai court.Under those circumstances, this Court is unable to hold that he has shown undue interest in this case and as such, he only enacted the drama.Even assuming that his presence in the Vedaranyam Police Station on 16.7.2003 is unnecessary, there is no necessity to show the arrest of the Advocate near the residence of the complainant.No enmity has been attributed against Assistant Commissioner of Police for booking a case against an Advocate.As it is noted earlier, there are materials from the case diary as well as in the lower court records that the second accused Rajendran was the legal adviser for the first accused Rajagopal.When this Court confronted with the senior counsel appearing for the respondent/first accused as to why A1's legal adviser was to be present near the place of occurrence during the relevant time, the senior counsel on the basis of the instruction given by the lower court counsel, who was present in this Court, would submit that Rajendran had never been the legal adviser for the respondent and so, he could not give any reason for the presence of the advocate accused at the scene of occurrence.He would further emphatically submit, on instruction from the lower court counsel, that the respondent has no connection whatsoever with the said advocate.This Court further asked the learned senior counsel as to whether the said aspect, namely that there was no connection between the respondent accused and Advocate accused, has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent.The senior counsel would fairly submit that such thing has not been mentioned.However, he represented the same only on the basis of the instruction given by the counsel appearing for the lower court counsel.It is the consistent case of the prosecution as mentioned in F.I.R., Remand report and state of witnesses and the affidavit filed for cancellation that A2, as a legal adviser accompanied Rajagopal and others and went to the complainant's house and A1 and A2 both threatened the complainant.On the other hand, according to the State, all the people consisting of A1 Rajagopal and A2 Rajendran, legal adviser along with the other accused came together in two Toyota Qualis cars to Thethakudi village in order to tamper with the witness by offering money and threatening and as such, after arrest of all the accused, a common remand report was filed by the Inspector of Police before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.On the same day, bail application was filed on behalf of the respondent/first accused and others in Cr.M.P. No. 5071 of 2003 by one V. Rudrapathy, Advocate.The perusal of the said bail application filed before the Judicial Magistrate would indicate that originally, Rajendran's name was mentioned as one of the petitioners and subsequently, it was struck off.In the same way, in the memo of appearance also filed on behalf of the first accused/respondent Rajagopal, Rajendran's name was mentioned as second petitioner and then struck off.R.P. Filed on 18.7.2003 asking for the copy of the order, Rajendran's name was originally mentioned and then struck off.This would show that originally, a single counsel was engaged by all the six accused inclusive of the respondent(A1) and A2 Rajendran, advocate and application for bail was filed in Cr.M.P. No. 5071 of 2003 through one Rudrapathy and subsequently, Rajendran's name was struck off and Rajendran thereafter filed a separate application in Cr.M.P. No. 5072 of 2003 through one Dhananjeyan, Advocate. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,510,837 | The deceased in this case was one Ms.She was a sex worker, doing the said business illegally.P.W.7 is a pimp, who used to arrange sex workers for the accused.It is alleged that on 29.05.2012, both the accused asked P.W.7 to arrange the deceased for them to have sex.A sum of Rs.1300/- was fixed as remuneration for the same.Both the accused took the deceased to the place known as Kutlamparai, where both they had repeated sexual intercourse with the deceased.At the end of the affair, they developed a desire to rob things from the deceased.Therefore, they strangulated the deceased with her Saree and killed her.Then they removed the chain worn by the deceased.Then, they took the dead body of the deceased to Perumparapu graveyard and threw the dead body into a pond.They fled away from the scene of occurrence.The occurrence was not witnessed by any one.On 01.06.2012, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the pond.The Village Assistant of the said village informed the same to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1).P.C(drowning).P.16 is the First Information Report.He forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch after removing the body from the pond.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for Post Mortem.Bladder 150 ml of clear urine, Uterus Normal in size.Head scalp- normal , Vault intact, membranes intact, brain 900 gms in weight , liquefied base of skull intact. Ex.P.13 is the Post Mortem certificate.He forwarded the vital organs for the chemical examination.The report is Ex.P.W.11 opined that the possibility of death due to drowning could not be ruled out.P.W.14, collected the clothes from the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court.He made vide publicity of the photograph of the dead body in news papers, in an attempt to identify the dead body.But, no clue came forward from any source.On 30.09.2012, since, he was transferred, he handed over the case diary to his successor.6. P.W.15 continued the investigation from 01.11.2012 onwards.On 10.12.2012, at about 1.00 pm., he was involved in a regular vehicle check up near Noyal check post.P.W.10 the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant were with him at that time.An Omni Van bearing registration No.TN 33 AJ 4898 was passing through the said Check Post.P.W.15 intercepted the said vehicle.In the said vehicle, A.1 and one Mr.Manikandan were present.During interrogation, A.1 confessed his involvement in the present case.From out of the confession made by A.1 the gold chain (M.O.2) belonging to the deceased was recovered from the shop where A.1 had pledged the same.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellant is A.2 in S.C.No.107 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Erode.A.1 was one Mr.P.W.1, visited the place of occurrence and verified the facts and then, he went to Kodumudi Police Station and made a complaint under Ex.On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.13, the Head Constable, registered a case in Crime No.197 of 2012, under Section 174 Cr.Left lung 250 gms in wt .Right lung 275 gms.Hyoid Bone intact.Abdomen : distended c Gas on opening foul smelling putufied gas escaping.Stomach distended c gas contains partially digested food particles 75 gms in weight, mucosa - liquefied.Intestines distended c gas contains partially digested food particles.Liver 100 gms in wt, flabby , dark brownish red in colour, spleen 80 gmsin wt flabby, soft dark brownish red in colour, Kidneys- Rt kid 90 gms Lt kid 90 gms dark brownish red in colour.A.2/appellant was arrested on 24.12.2012, based on the confession made by A.1 to the Police.He also made a confession.Out of the said confession, M.O.11 a ladies hand bag, M.Os.12 to 27 were all recovered out of his disclosure statement.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against both the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited, besides 27 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that he found the dead body of the deceased floating on the pond on 01.06.2012 and made a complaint to the Police.P.W.2 has spoken only on the basis of hearsay information and he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.P.Ws.3 and 4 have spoken about the Mahazars prepared in the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has stated that on 29.05.2012, at about 8.15 p.m., he found A.1 and A.2 in the occurrence village.P.W.6 has stated that he found both the accused with a woman at 9.00 p.m. in the village.P.W.7 has stated that at the request made by A.1 over phone to send a sex worker, he requested the deceased to go.Accordingly, the deceased went alone, but did not return.She identified the photograph of the dead body as that of the deceased.P.W.9, Head Clerk of the Court has spoken about the forwarding of Material Objects for chemical examination.P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of A.1 on 10.12.2012 and the confession made by him and also recovery of Material Objects.P.W.12 is the Constable, who carried the dead body to hospital for post mortem.P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.Ws.14 and 15 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses on their side.Their defence was a total denial.10.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found both the accused guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case of no evidence against the appellant/A.2 and the trial Court has convicted him based on mere surmise.But, from this accused, there was no incriminating material recovered out of the disclosure statement made.The Material Objects recovered out of the disclosure statement made by this accused/A.2 have not been proved that it may have any relevance with the crime or with the deceased.The learned counsel would further point out that there was no complaint made about the missing of the woman for such a long time.For all these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellant/A2 is entitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this Criminal Appeal.According to him, the accused and the deceased were seen together lastly and it is also stated that A.1 and A.2 were found moving somewhere near the place of occurrence during the relevant time.From these circumstances, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant/A.2 beyond reasonable doubt.We have considered the above submissions.According to P.W.7, it was only A.1 who called him over phone and wanted to send a girl for sex.Accordingly, P.W.7 sent the deceased Ms.She went on her own and not being accompanied by anyone.Thereafter, she did not return.But, no complaint was made to the Police even after missing of Ms.16.It is the case that from 29.05.2012 onwards, the deceased was missing, but, no complaint was made within a reasonable time.Despite the fact that vide publicity was made in the newspapers, no one come forward to identify the dead body.Only on the arrest of A.1 and one Mr.Recovery of a gold chain (M.O.2) at the instance of A.1 cannot be made use of against this accused/A.2, as no connection has been established between this accused/A.2 and the gold chain.17.So far as this accused/A.2 is concerned, M.O.11 a ladies hand bag & M.Os.12 to 27 were all recovered under Ex.But, nothing has been elicited and brought on record to connect these Material Objects either with the crime or with the deceased. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,512,294 | 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant, andMr.The application at "Exhibit-37" was preferred by the presentApplicant, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 2CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: for rejection of the Election Petition on the count that, it does notdisclose the material particulars.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::The reason given for challenging the electionis that, in the Nomination Form, the Applicant has not disclosedcomplete information, which was mandatory for him to do so.It iscontended in the Election Petition that, the Applicant herein has statedonly about one criminal case pending against him, whereas, according toRespondent No.1, there were two more criminal cases pending againstthe Applicant, which pertain to the offences involving moral turpitude.Respondent No.1 has given the particulars of the two criminal cases,which read as under :-(a) Regular Criminal Case No.294 of 2015 (F.I.R. bearing No.CR-I 231 of 2000, registered at Naupada Police Station, Thane), wherein the Applicant is Accused No.2 and which is pending before the Court of 1 st Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 r/w. 34 of IPC.CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::Therefore, the contention raised by the present Applicantthat the material particulars were not given in the Election Petition,cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::It wasfurther held that, as the Election Petition has to contain concisestatement of all the material facts, which are essential to clothe the 6CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: Election Petition with complete cause of action and failure to plead evena single material fact, would amount to disobedience of mandate ofSection 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, resulting indismissal of the Election Petition at the threshold itself, under Order 7Rule 11 of CPC.In paragraph No.50 of the said Judgment, it was heldthat, so far as the Election Petition filed on the ground that the materialfacts relating to the pending criminal cases were not disclosed in theNomination Form, it must contain following particulars :-::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::"(i) The fact that Respondent No.1 is an accused in the offences under specific section/s of specific Act/s with short description of such offence/offences together with Cases/FIR number with the details of the concerned Police Station;(ii) The fact that the offence/offences alleged against Respondent No.1 is/are punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or more;(iii) The fact that such case/cases were pending against Respondent No.1 on the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33 of the said Act, along with the Case No./Nos.(iv) The fact that the charge/charges were framed against Respondent No.1 prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33 of the said Act in respect of the offence/offences alleged against him along with the specific date of framing of 7CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: charge/charges by the Court of competent jurisdiction; and::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::(v) The fact that there is a failure to disclose or non-disclosure or concealment or suppression of the aforesaid material facts by Respondent No.1 in his affidavit in Form No.26 delivered along with the Nomination Form under Section 33-A(2) of the said Act to the Returning Officer.If all the aforesaid facts are pleaded or found in the Petition, then, it can be said that, a cause of action is made out to attract the provisions of Section 33-A(1)(i) of the said Act and to claim rejection of the Nomination Paper under Section 36(2) therein.It is thereafter the Court can proceed further to complete the trial."In the above-said judgment, as it was found that, the material factthat the 'Charge' was framed against the Respondent in a case pendingin respect of the offence punishable with imprisonment for a period oftwo years or more and the date of framing of such 'Charge' or the date oftaking cognizance of the said case being not pleaded, the Petition wasliable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC.Relying heavily on this Judgment, learned counsel for theApplicant has submitted that, in the present case also, Respondent No.1has not stated in the Election Petition this material fact as to whetherthe cognizance of the criminal case was taken by the Court and, if yes, 8CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: when ? Merely relying on some document to show that the summonseswere issued in the said criminal case is not sufficient, unless it is shownthat the summonses were duly served on the Applicant.Then only, theApplicant can be implicated with the knowledge of the said criminalcase, so as to disclose the same in the Nomination Form.It is urged that,in the absence of such material pleading in the Election Petition, theElection Petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself.::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::DevendraGangadhar Fadnavis (Supra), the material fact was the specific date oftaking cognizance and / or framing of 'Charge' in the case, as the entireElection Petition was based on "non-disclosure" of the criminal cases andthere was no allegation of undue influence or corrupt practice, therefore, 21CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: the said fact was relevant.It is clarified that, whatever observations made here-in-above arefor the purpose of deciding this Civil Revision Application and the TrialCourt is not to be swayed or influenced by them in any way at the time ofdeciding the 'Election Petition'.[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 24CRA-100-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2018 02:25:13 ::: | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
172,512,788 | The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 26/27 th April, 2004, the deceased Atiq and Babbu at about 10.30 PM had gone for a walk and had met two eunuchs at the gate of Woodland Park.Atiq went inside the park with the smaller eunuch and the taller eunuch followed them.Thereafter there was a quarrel.Babbu saw the quarrel Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 1 of 18 and called others.Atiq was stabbed.The two eunuchs were apprehended by the public and Atiq was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.He was unconscious and not responding.His pulse and blood pressure were not palpable and recordable.He was declared brought dead.The MLC records CIW present over abdomen.The body was packed and sent to the mortuary for post-mortem.The post mortem report of Atiq Ex. PW13/B records that the deceased had one stab wound over mid part of left hypochondrium region just below last rib.It measured 1.8 cm x 1 cm and deep to peritoneal (sic. peritoneum).The edges were regular.The cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon rupture of spleen and abdomen followed by stab injury inflicted by sharp edged weapon (knife).Thus, the homicidal death of Atiq is established and proved by the said documents i.e. MLC and post- mortem report, PW13/A and PW13/B respectively.A. 580/2009 Page 2 of 18A. 580/2009 Page 2 of 18The next question relates to involvement and whether the appellant had committed the said murder and had caused the stab injury.Babbu (PW7), in his testimony in court, had stated that he and Atiq had gone for a walk after meal at about 10.30 PM.Two eunuchs, in female clothes, were standing near the gate of Woodland Park.Atiq went to them stating let us have fun.The two eunuchs demanded Rs.100/- but the amount was finally settled at Rs.80/-.The taller eunuch proposed that Atiq should take the shorter eunuch.Atiq and the shorter eunuch went inside the park.The taller eunuch followed them.PW7 remained outside the gate and did not go inside.Quarrel took place between Atiq and the eunuchs and they started grappling with each other.The shorter eunuch ran towards PW7, on which the said witness ran away and met Feroz Ahmed (PW2), Shahid (PW6) and Anis (PW4) at some distance.He told them about the quarrel.PW7 Babbu went to call other colleagues and when he returned, he saw that crowd had gathered at the gate of the park.The eunuchs had been apprehended by the public.Atiq had been stabbed and was taken to the hospital where he died.PW7 Babbu recognized the two eunuchs as Shabbir and Om Prakash.Shabbir being the present appellant and the taller eunuch.PW-2 - Firoz Ahmed in his statement has stated that on 26th April, 2004, at about 10.30 PM, he along with Anis and Shahid were walking towards Woodland Park and they reached near taxi stand, when Babbu Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 3 of 18 came running to them.Babbu informed them that some persons were assaulting Atiq in Woodland Park, and on their way there, they stumbled across a tall person near the gate of Woodland Park.The said tall person was identified by the said witness as Shabbir.There were blood stains on his clothes.They could hear faint sounds of groaning coming from Atiq.PW-2 Feroz went into the park where he found Atiq crying.Atiq was lifted and brought to the gate of the park, where he told Anis that Shabbir had stabbed him with a knife.PW-4 Anis is the brother of Atiq.In his statement, he has stated that he along with Feroz went to Woodland Park.At the gate of the park they met Babbu who came running towards them from inside the park.He told them that two eunuchs were beating Atiq.Feroz PW-2 and Anis went inside the park.A tall eunuch collided against him.The tall eunuch was identified as Shabbir.He caught hold of the tall eunuch.Shahid was also there and helped in apprehending the eunuch.The clothes of Shabbir were stained with blood.Feroz (PW2) went inside the park and brought Atiq.The history Crl.PW-19 SI Udai Singh, the first police officer who reached the spot has stated that when he reached at Chawla Band, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, several persons had collected and two eunuchs Shabbir @ Neha and Om Prakash @ Helan, were there.They had been caught by the public and given beating.He was told that both the eunuchs had assaulted Atiq with knife.But this is incorrect as Atiq had only suffered one knife stab.He had also stated that both the accused were sent to DDU Hospital for medical examination but MLC of Om Prakash @ Helen was not placed on record.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Feroz PW-2, Anis PW-4 and Shahid PW-6 were declared hostile and were cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and therefore, their testimonies were debatable and doubtful.A. 580/2009 Page 11 of 18 truthful and they have not over stated the case.We have not taken into account the exaggerations and over statements in their statements under Section 161, which they refused to accept and admit even when cross- examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.PW-2 Feroz refused to accept that he had seen the eunuchs assaulting Atiq in the park and when they tried to run away they were overpowered.He denied that he had stated to the police that Babbu had told him that two eunuchs were beating Atiq because he had not given money to them after having intercourse with them.He had also denied that he had seen two eunuchs beating Atiq and they tried to run but were overpowered.PW-6 Shahid, in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, stated that Babbu did not tell why the quarrel had taken place and he had not stated to the police that the quarrel had taken place because Atiq had not paid the eunuchs.He did not state that he had seen two eunuchs beating Atiq nor had he stated to the police that on seeing them, the two eunuchs tried to run away and they overpowered both the Crl.PW2 in his examination in chief had stated that there were blood stains on the clothes of the accused i.e. the appellant.In the cross- examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he had also stated that the accused was wearing Salwar and Jampath and they were taken into possession by the police.However, he admitted that he would not be able to identify the clothes which the accused were wearing.He was being truthful.PW-4, Anis also stated that the clothes of the appellant accused were stained with blood.However, in the cross-examination, he expressed ignorance and was confronted with a statement under Section 161 Ex. PW4/A, wherein it is not recorded or stated that the clothes of Shabbir were stained with Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 15 of 18 blood.PW-6 Shahid had stated in the cross-examination that he did not know if there were blood stains on the clothes of Shabbir.PW-7 Babbu when cross examined on behalf of the appellant - Shabbir, had stated that he had not seen blood on the clothes of the accused when he had returned to the spot.Feroz PW-2, Anis PW-4 and Shahid PW-6, have stated that they were extremely nervous and were taken aback and shocked by the incident which had taken place resulting in stabbing of Atiq.PW-6, Shahid stated that he did not know if there were blood stains on the clothes of the appellant.However, PW-2 was clear and categorical that there were blood stains on the clothes of Shabbir.By order of sentence dated 21st February, 2009 the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life, to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for six months.Feroz PW-2 and Chottey Master (sic.Chottey Miyan) took Atiq in a tempo to Aman Hospital, but on doctors advise, Atiq was then taken to DDU hospital.A. 580/2009 Page 3 of 18Atiq told PW-4 Anis that the tall eunuch had stabbed him with a knife.In the meanwhile, other persons gathered and gave beatings to the appellant.Atiq was taken to the hospital and the appellant was handed over to the police.A. 580/2009 Page 4 of 18PW-6 Shahid has similarly stated that he along with Feroz (PW2) and Anis (PW4) had gone towards the park on 26th April, 2004 at about 9.00 PM.At the gate of the park Babbu met them and told them about the quarrel.In the meanwhile a eunuch came from inside the park and collided with Anis.The said eunuch was identified as the appellant Shabbir.He was overpowered.Feroz (PW2) went inside the park and brought Atiq on his shoulder.Feroz (PW2) and Chottey then took Atiq to the hospital.It is noticeable that the statements of Feroz PW-2, Anis PW-4, Shahid PW-6 and Babbu PW7 on important material aspects are identical and similar.The said witnesses clearly indicate that on 26th April, 2004 at night the deceased Atiq and Babbu (PW7) had gone towards Woodland Park.Babbu (PW7) came running and informed them that Atiq had been attacked in a quarrel.PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 (Feroz, Anis and Shahid) came towards the park where they stumbled across the tall person, i.e. appellant Shabbir, who was caught.PW-2 Feroz went inside the park and brought Atiq out, who was injured having a stab wound.The appellant was apprehended at the spot itself.9. PW-2 Feroz in his statement stated that Atiq told Anis (PW4) that Shabbir had stabbed him with a knife.PW-4 Anis in his statement had stated that Atiq told him that a tall eunuch, i.e. the appellant, had stabbed him with a knife.PW-6 Shahid has stated that Atiq had not told him Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 5 of 18 anything but when he was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant - Shabbir, he admitted that the appellant Shabbir was overpowered and given beating.He further stated that they had given beatings to the appellant because Feroz (PW2) had told him that he had stabbed Atiq.Feroz PW-2 was also cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on certain aspects.A. 580/2009 Page 8 of 18We also have on record the MLC of the appellant Ex. PW-21/J dated 27th April, 2004 at 6.35 AM issued by the DDU Hospital.In the said MLC, it is recorded that the appellant was brought for medical examination as he was allegedly beaten by the public, comprising of around 20-25 persons, as told by the patient himself.He had multiple bruise and abrasions, as has been noted in the MLC.He relied upon the statement of PW-7 Babbu, who in his cross-examination had stated that he had seen the knife in the hand of the shorter eunuch i.e. Om Prakash @ Helen.At this stage itself we may note that PW-7 (Babbu) was confronted with his statement Ex. PW7/DA, wherein he had stated that he had seen the knife in the hand of shorter eunuch.The aforesaid statement of Babbu PW-7 does not help the appellant in the present case in view of the dying declaration made by Atiq to Anis PW4 that the appellant had stabbed him with a knife.The said aspect has been admitted and accepted by PW-2 Feroz, and PW-4 Anis in clear and categorical terms.PW7 Babbu had not stated that there was blood on the knife in the hands of Om Prakash.Probably Om Prakash ran away.The contention/ plea therefore should be rejected.The ld.Counsel submitted that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant accused.We considered the said contention but do not find any merit in the said contention.The testimony of Feroz PW-2, Anis PW-4 and Shahid PW-6 which have been reproduced above, are Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 12 of 18 eunuchs.The witnesses, it is apparent, were embarrassed, hesitant and did not want to state that Atiq had sexual intercourse with any eunuch.A. 580/2009 Page 12 of 18In fact, if we read the statements of Feroz PW-2, Anis PW-4 and Shahid PW-6, who were together and had reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, they are identical on all material aspects.They have denied the suggestions given by the Additional Public Prosecutor that they have gone inside the park and that they had seen the eunuchs beating Atiq on the pavement.Statement of these witnesses cannot be ignored only on the ground that they were cross-examined by Additional Public Prosecutor after being declared hostile on certain aspects that may be relevant as far as accused Om Prakash is concerned but as far as the appellant herein is concerned, they are speaking in unison and together in the same voice and are against the appellant as the person responsible and who had cause the injury resulting in the death of Atiq.Our attention is drawn to the testimony of PW19 SI Udai Singh and PW21 Ram chander who was also the SHO, Khajoori Khas and the Investigating Officer.PW21, Insp.Ram Chander has stated that both the accused persons had taken them to the spot and at the instance of Shabbir, the knife was recovered.Earlier Shabbir had made disclosure statement Ex. PW19/F. PW-19 had stated Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 13 of 18 that after disclosure statement PW19/F was made by Shabbir, the knife was recovered.Shabbir has disclosed that he had thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife in a kyari inside the park near western side of Woodland Park.In the cross-examination he admitted that knife was lying in the open space below a tree.The pointing memo (Ex. PW19/J) was prepared on the recovery of the knife.He had also admitted that they stayed at the spot for about one and a half hour.A. 580/2009 Page 13 of 18PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander, on the recovery of knife in the cross-examination had stated that the knife was found hidden in the hedge along the path which existed in the middle of the park but no site plan was prepared.He has further stated that Om Prakash had made disclosure statement at about 9.00 AM in the police station.However, in spite of disclosure statement of Shabbir, which PW-21 had stated that he had recorded in his own hand writing in police station, he claimed to have reached the spot at 9.00 AM.It is apparent that the story propounded and set up by the PW-19 and PW-21, with regard to the disclosure statement and recovery of knife, is incorrect and wrong.The alleged story of discovery of knife hidden somewhere is improbable.This is also clear when we examine the testimony of PW2 (Feroz) who, when cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, had stated that the knife was not recovered Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 14 of 18 on the pointing of the accused.He voluntarily stated that the knife was lying at the place of occurrence and it was picked up by them and handed over to the police.However, even if we completely discard the disclosure statement and recovery of knife pursuant thereto, there is ample evidence and material to uphold the conviction of the appellant.A. 580/2009 Page 14 of 18PW-2 had further gone to describe clothes worn by the accused as Salwar and Jampath.The clothes worn by the appellant were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/J. These clothes were later on sent to CFSL for scientific analysis.The report submitted by CFSL dated 18th August, 2004, refers to packet Exhibit marked 4 which contained of one salwar and jampath.Both of them tested positive for the presence of blood.The said report has been marked as Ex. PW11/A. However, the blood group could not be ascertained conclusively.Knife (Ex. PW12/A) which was recovered was also sent for CFSL examination.The CFSL report dated 29th October 2004 states that the vest (baniyan) was examined and compared with the knife under stereomicroscope.It was observed that the Knife- Ex. Marked as 1- could have caused the Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 16 of 18 cut which was present on the vest.The cut mark on the vest was sharp in nature and the edge of the knife was also sharp.A. 580/2009 Page 15 of 18A. 580/2009 Page 16 of 18It is clear from the aforesaid that the examination of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 are reliable and trustworthy.Testimony of PW-7 shows and discloses the motive or the cause of the violence i.e. that there was dispute with regard to payment.The appellant was working as a sex worker which is clear and also established from the clothes worn by the appellant which were seized and then sent for examination.PW-7 establishes that there was a fight and a quarrel.This is also confirmed by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 who reached the spot immediately after Atiq was stabbed.They in unison and in affirmative have stated that the appellant was trying to run away when he was caught.PW-2 has stated that the appellants clothes were blood stained.PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that the Atiq had told PW-4 Anis that the appellant had stabbed him.PW-6 had also stated that he started beating the appellant as Feroz PW-2 had told him that the appellant had stabbed Atiq.The statement made by the deceased Atiq to PW-4 is dying declaration and is material and relevant.Principle of res gestae also apply.We may also note that Anis PW-4 was not cross-examined on the said aspect.The statement of PW2 that Atiq had told him that stab wound was given by the appellant, i.e. the tall eunuch remained, Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 17 of 18 unchallenged.The detention, and thereafter the arrest of the appellant at the spot itself, is also established.A. 580/2009 Page 17 of 18Thus, the prosecution has been able to successfully establish chain of circumstances which clearly point and implicate the appellant and exclude anyone else from commission of offence.We may note that the presence of Om Prakash @ Helen has not been doubted by the learned trial court.Om Prakash has however, been given benefit on the ground that he did not share common intention with the appellant.In this regard, the statements made by PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 can be referred to and relied upon.In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed.The appeal is dismissed.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (S. P. GARG) JUDGE August 22, 2012 kkb Crl.A. 580/2009 Page 18 of 18A. 580/2009 Page 18 of 18 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,024,403 | She has also submitted a copy of her aadhar card as proof of her identity.M.C. No.423/2019 Page 3 of 7 outset and future guidance of trial courts, some of the crucial ones may be flagged as under:--M.C. No.423/2019 Page 3 of 7At the hearing the first petitioner handed over to the second respondent and she received a demand draft bearing no.501797 dated 11.07.2019 for Rs.70,000/- in her favour drawn on Punjab National Bank.In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, the court must examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal prosecution resulting in conviction.In fact-situation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace.The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.Dasti to both sides. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,252,208 | Shri A.R.S. Chauhan, learned P.L for the respondent No. 5/State.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and issue direction that Criminal Case No. 315/2011 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C, Ajaygarh be committed to the Court of Special Judge, Panna where the Special Case No. 56/2011 is pending for trial so that both the cases be tried together.Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are that allegedly an altercation took place between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 22.07.2011 near Naua Nala, Andha Baba, Nayagaon under Police Station Dharampur, Distt.On the report of the respondent No. 1, Crime No. 92/2011 was lodged at Police Station Dharampur for offence under Sections 307, 341, 294, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Report was also lodged by the petitioner- Bhagwandeen against the other party on which Crime No. 93/2011 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C has been lodged at Police Station Dharampur.In the report lodged by the respondent, the incident shown to have occurred at 5 pm and the report was lodged at 7.40 pm; whereas in the report lodged by Bhagwandeen the incident allegedly took place at about 7 pm.Subsequently, the same was transferred to Police Station Dharampur for the jurisdiction under which the incident took place was under Police Station Dharampur.Learned J.M.F.C was earlier directed by order dated 06.10.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4537/2015 to consider the circumstances whether the incident took place is a "counter case" and, if so, pass appropriate order.However, on 06.12.2016, learned J.M.F.C held that the time of incident shown as 7.30 pm in one report and the time of incident has been shown as 5.00 pm in another report, though in both the incidents, injured persons shown to be Deshraj Bedia, Bagwandeen Dubey and Bhura @ Ishwardeen are common in both the cases.It is also observed that the document does not show that after the happening of one incident, the second incident took place.In order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the learned A.S.J, Panna also, it has been observed that report has been lodged at Kotwali Panna as Crime No. 0/2011 at the instance of Bhagwandeen but subsequently, the same was transferred to Police Station Dharampur for incident occurred under the jurisdiction of Police Station Dharampur.The place of incident shown to be Naua Nala, Andha Baba, Nayagaon.In the F.I.R at Crime No. 93/2011 lodged on 23.07.2011, it is shown that after the incident when the complainant Bhagwandeen and others were going to Police Station Dharampur for lodging a report, the accused persons were standing on the way, therefore, due to fear they returned back and went to Panna by a jeep and lodged the report at Police Station Kotwali, Panna.Keeping in mind that the F.I.R lodged by Deshraj was at 7.40 pm at Police Station Dharampur, therefore, he could not have been available at 7.30 pm at the place of incident. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,256,750 | A.No.397 of 2014 For Respondent(s):Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, APP for respondents in both Criminal AppealsCOMMON JUDGEMENTS.NAGAMUTHU, J.The appellants in Crl.Charge NumberCharge(s) framed againstPenal provision under which charge framed1A1 to A3Section 120(B) of IPC2A1 to A3Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC3A1 to A3Section 201 of IPC4A1 to A3Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC5A4Section 465 of IPC6A4Section 468 of IPC7A1 to A3Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC8A1 to A3Section 468 r/w 109 of IPCThe trial court, by judgement dated 17.07.2014, convicted and sentenced the accused under various penal provisions as detailed below:-The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.P.W.2 was owning a Toyota Qualis bearing Regn.The deceased was working as driver under P.W.2 driving the said car as a taxi.P.W.3 was also a tax driver who was operating the taxi from the taxi stand at Meenambakkam Airport in Chennai.On 12.07.2003, around 08.30 p.m. A1 to A3 approached P.W.3 at the taxi stand and wanted a toyota qualis car with air condition to go to Ulundurpet.Since P.W.3 did not have qualis car with air condition, he contacted Modern Travels at Pallavaram.P.W.1 was the proprietor of the said travel agency.P.W.3 told P.W.1 that some people are coming from Singapore and they wanted a qualis car with A/C for hire.P.W.1, in turn, contacted the deceased and fixed his car bearing Regn.The deceased came with the said car to the travel agency run by P.W.1 at Pallavaram.From Pallavaram, P.W.1 and P.W.32 went in the same qualis car driven by the deceased to Meenambakkam Airport.At the airport, A1 to A3 were present in the taxi stand.P.W.3 told P.W.1 that these three accused were to go to Ulundurpet in the car.P.W.1 as well as the deceased agreed.A1 to A3 go into the said qualis car.P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.32 also got into the car.The deceased drove the car upto a petrol bunk at Pallavaram and filled fuel for Rs.2,000/-.Then, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.32 got down from the car and returned to their respective destinations.The car started towards Ulundurpet driven by the deceased.A1 to A3 travelled in the car.Thereafter, the deceased did not return. P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are the wife and sister respectively of the deceased went in search of the deceased and the car.P.24 is the FIR.He, therefore, forwarded both the complaint (Ex P.23) and the FIR (Ex.P.24).He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few others and recorded their statements.[Mr.Naganathan, the brother of the deceased, who made the complaint, was not examined before the trial court as he died subsequently].On 21.07.2003, during investigation, he gave intimation to all the District Police Offices about the missing of the car and the deceased.But, he did not make any progress in the investigation.On 29.09.2003, according to P.W.41, P.W.2 and Mr.P.W.41 recorded their statements.On 30.09.2003, P.W.41 along with P.W.2 and Mr.Naganathan, went to Gummidipoondi Police Station.On verification with the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, P.W.41 came to know that a case was registered in Crime No.324 of 2003 under Section 302 of IPC and the toyota qualis car in question had been seized by the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, in connection with the said murder case.The photographs of the accused involved in the said murder case were also kept in the police station at Gummidipoondi.While in custody, A2 also gave a voluntary confession P.W.41 recorded the same in the presence of the same witnesses.On the same day at 04.00 a.m. P.W.41 arrested A3 also in the presence of the same witnesses.On such arrest A3 gave a voluntary confession in which he made certain disclosure statements.In pursuance of the same, certain relevant facts were later on discovered.In pursuance of his disclosure statement, A1 took the police and the witnesses to his house at Gummidipoondi and produced a bag (M.O.5).P.W.41 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P.5).On 07.10.203, he altered the case into one under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. He forwarded A2 and A3 for judicial remand.In the disclosure statement made by A1 he had disclosed the place where they had buried the dead body of the deceased.A2 and A3 were again entrusted to P.W.41 in police custody as per the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.A1 to A3 took the police and the witnesses around 11.20 p.m. on 08.10.2003 to Thondi riverbed at Senthur Village.The relatives of the deceased had also come there by that time.A1 to A3 identified the place where they had buried the dead body of the deceased.On 09.10.2003 and 10.10.2003, in response to the request made by P.W.41, a team of doctors could not come to the said place and therefore exhumation could not be done.On 11.10.2003 around 12.00 noon in the presence of the Tahsildar and P.W.6, P.W.41 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence.But, from the dress materials found on the human skeletal remains, the wife and the sister of the deceased identified the same as that of the deceased.A4 on such arrest produced M.O.10 a fake Office Seal of the Regional Transport Officer, driving licenses (M.O.11-series), and a Registration Certificate (M.O.12).He recovered the seal and the other documents under a mahazar.On 12.10.2003, he altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.Earlier pursuant to the disclosure statements of A1 and A2, a crowbar (M.O.7), a garden hoe [spade]-(M.O.8) and a nylon rope (M.O.9) were recovered by P.W.41 under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses.For Appellant(s):Mr.V.C.Gopinath, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sasikumar for Appellants in Crl.A.No.406 of 2014:S.Ananthanarayanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sasikumar for Appellant in Crl.A.No.406 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the sole appellant in Crl.A.No.397 of 2014 is Accused No.4 in S.C.No.694 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.The trial court framed as many as eight charges against the accused as detailed below:-A1 gave a cash of Rs.2,000/- for the same.He also could not locate the car nor the deceased.One Mr.Naganathan, the brother of the deceased also went in search of the deceased.Since he was not seen, Mr.Naganathan made a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Meenambakkam Airport Police Station, Chennai on 15.07.2003 at 08.00 p.m. P.W.39, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2003 for "Man Missing".P.23 is the complaint of Mr.After having ascertained the engine and chassis number of the said car he came to know that the car seized in Crime No.324 of 2003 under Section 302 of IPC was the car belonging to P.W.2 bearing Regn.P.W.41, therefore, made a request to the judicial Magistrate, Alandur, for issuance of P.T. Warrant for the production of A1 before the said court.Accordingly, he was produced.On an application made by P.W.41, A1 was entrusted to the custody of the police on 06.10.2003 at 06.00 p.m. On the same day, while in police custody, A1 gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.17 and one Mr.In the said voluntary confession, A1 made certain disclosure statements which later on led to the discovery of certain relevant facts.On the same day, in the presence of witnesses, the place identified by the accused was dug from where some bones including the skull were recovered.The doctors conducted autopsy on the human skeletal remains on the spot.The skeletal remains were sent for DNA examination in which the DNA of the wife and the children of the deceased were used.The DNA examination proved the identity of the deceased.Then, on completing the investigation, P.W.41 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed below.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 41 witnesses were examined, 39 documents and 12 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.9 to 13, 18 to 21, 23, 24 and 36 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.1, the owner of the travel agency, P.W.3, a driver operating taxi at Chennai Airport taxi stand and P.W.32 have stated that on 12.07.2003, the deceased filled fuel at a petrol bunk at Pallavaram, drove the qualis car carrying A1 to A3 towards Ulundurpet.They have further stated that thereafter neither the car nor the deceased was found.A1 to A3 also were not found.P.W.2, the owner of the qualis car has stated about the missing of the car and the driver [the deceased].P.Ws.4 and 5, the wife and the sister respectively of the deceased have also stated about the missing of the deceased and the car.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police at the place of occurrence.P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer has stated about the exhumation of the dead body on 10.10.2003 at the place identified by the accused in the presence of the Tahsildar and the team of doctors.P.W.8, a Poclain vehicle operator has stated that he dug the place spotted by the police to help the investigating officer to retrieve the dead body.P.W.14, a tailor by profession has stated that the shirt found on the human skeletal remains was stitched by him for the deceased.P.W.15, yet another tailor, has stated that the pants on the human skeletal remains was stitched by him for the deceased.Thus, from these two witnesses, the prosecution has tried to prove the identity of the deceased.P.W.16 has spoken about the exhumation of the dead body.P.W.17 has spoken about the arrest of A1 and the confession made by A1 on 06.10.2003 and also the consequential recoveries made.P.W.22, the then Superintendent at the Office of the Regional Transport Officer has stated that the registration number TN 20 K 2337 was allotted to a TVS 50 XL motor cycle and not to the toyota qualis car in question.P.W.25 has stated that on 13.07.2003, A1 to A3 came in a car and parked the same near his house for some time.P.W.26 is the owner of the TVS 50 XL motor cycle bearing Regn.He has stated that the registration of the said vehicle stands in his name.P.W.27, the Head Constable has stated about the postmortem conducted by the team of doctors with his help.P.W.28 has spoken about the postmortem conducted.He has further stated that neither the identity of the dead body could be made out nor the cause of death could be ascertained since only skeletal remains were found on exhumation.P.W.29, an Assistant in the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the internal organs which provided no clue.P.W.30, an Assistant Director at Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Government of Tamil Nadu,has spoken about the DNA examination conducted from which identity of the deceased has been established.P.W.31 has stated that A4 used to come to her for attestation of certain forms for being submitted to the Regional Transport Office.P.W.34 has again spoken about the serology examination conducted.P.W.35 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the shirt and pants wherein he found human bloods.P.W.37 has not stated anything incriminating.P.W.39, the Tahsildar has spoken about the exhumation conducted and also the inquest held by him.P.W.39, the Sub Inspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint made by Mr.Naganathan, the brother of the deceased.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Neither the records relating to the car were marked.The witnesses to speak about the arrest of A1 and the consequential recovery of the car in question from his possession were also not examined.This court, thus, found a lot of flaws in the conduct of the trial before the trial court.The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station filed miscellaneous petitions Crl.M.P.Nos.7331 and 7332 of 2016 before this court seeking to summon the witnesses and to examine them as additional witnesses and also to recall some of the witnesses examined already and to prove certain documents.After affording sufficient opportunity to the accused, by order dated 08.08.2016, this court allowed those miscellaneous petitions.The copies of the documents sought to be relied on by the prosecution were also supplied to the accused in advance.The accused were ordered to be produced before this court.Accordingly, they were present before this court.P.W.42, in his evidence, has stated that on 30.08.2003 near Arambakkam Railway Station, the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, arrested A1 and recovered the car with the number plate carrying the Registration No. TN 20 K 2337 under a mahazar.The said car is a Toyota Qualis car.He has stated that on 30.08.2003 around 03.30 p.m. when he was waiting near Arambakkam Railway Station, in search of the accused in connection with the said murder case, a vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 20 K 2337 white colour Toyota Qualis car came towards the said place.All the four were the accused wanted in connection with the murder case and therefore, P.W.43 arrested them.He has further stated that he seized the said car.He noted the chassis number and the engine number of the car in the mahazar.P.41 is the copy of the registration certificate of the said car.7. P.W.2 was recalled and examined on 11.08.2016 before this court.P.41 is the registration certificate of the car.The counsel for the accused cross examined all these witnesses in the presence of the accused.After the examination was over, A1 to A4 were questioned under Section 313 of cr.P.C. in respect of the fresh evidences received by this court.They denied the same.The case was then posted for arguments.Thereafter, we heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 to A4 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we also perused the records carefully.There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was lastly seen alive on 12.07.2003 around 10.30 p.m. P.Ws.1, 3 and 32 have stated that they accompanied the deceased up to Pallavaram where fuel was filed for the car at a petrol bunk.A1 to A3 engaged the taxi to go to Ulundurpet.From the skeletal remains, DNA was extracted and the examination of DNA conducted with the DNA drawn from the children and the wife of the deceased had proved the identity of the deceased.The ragged shirt (M.O.1) and the ragged pants (M.O.2) found on the skeletal remains were identified by the wife (P.W.5) and the sister (P.W.6) respectively of the deceased, P.Ws.14 and 15, who are tailors by profession, have also identified the dress materials on the human skeletal remains.Thus, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the skeletal remains, which were recovered on 11.10.2003 on exhumation, was that of the deceased.P.W.28, the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the skeletal remains could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death.It is quite natural and understandable that from the mere skeletal remains it may not be possible for the doctor to find out the cause of death.But, on that score, it cannot be held that the death of the deceased was not a homicide inasmuch as there are other circumstances to prove that the death of the deceased was a homicide about which we will discuss a little later.P.Ws.1, 3 and 32 , as we have already pointed out, have stated that the deceased was engaged by A1 to A3 and they went along with the deceased in the car in question.Though P.Ws.1, 3 and 32 have been subjected to gruel cross examination, at length, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve their version.In our considered view, the evidences of these three witnesses by themselves would be sufficient to hold the accused guilty.But, fortunately, there are other evidences also to prove the guilt of the accused.Naganathan, who made the complaint has not been examined before the trial court as he had already passed away.On 30.08.2003, when he was searching for the accused involved in the said crime, near Arambakkam Railway Station, he found the Toyota Qualis car bearing Regn.No. TN 20 K 2337 moving suspiciously.Immediately, he intercepted the car in which A1-Sudhakar and three others by name (1) Krishnan (2) Ramesh and (3) Srinivasan were travelling.While recovering the car from the possession of A1, he had noted down the engine number and chassis number of the car in the mahazar (Ex.P.40).Thus, the number plates which were fixed at the car were fake number plates.P.W.2, the owner of the car has proved the certificate of registration of the car as Ex.A comparison of the chassis number and engine number in Ex.Thus, it has been clearly established that the stolen car bearing Regn.But, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.43 and the mahazar witness (P.W.17).Therefore, we hold that A1 was in possession of the stolen car for which he has got no explanation.From this fact, we have to raise a presumption as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that A1 was one of the perpetrators of the crime.P.W.41, on getting information about the seizure of the car by P.W.43, immediately visited the Gummidipoondi Police Station and after having verified the fact with the available records he came to know that the stolen car was the one which was seized by P.W.43 in connection with the other murder case.In the mean while, A1 along with the other accused who were involved in a murder case, were all remanded to judicial custody.Then, A2 and A3 were also arrested.They also made independent disclosure statements.From those disclosure statements only, more particularly, the disclosure statement made by A1, the fact that the deceased was no more and that the dead body of the deceased was buried on the Thondi Riverbed at Senthur Village came to light.This is a very important piece of circumstance falling under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But for the disclosure statement made by A1, the fact, that the dead body of the deceased was buried there, would not have come to light at all.In fact, the very fact that the deceased was no more also would not have come to light.Thus, the discovery of the dead body from the place of exhumation on being identified by A1 pursuant to his disclosure statement is a very important piece of evidences.A2 and A3 also had identified the place where the dead body was buried.Thus, the fact of A2 and A3 in identifying the place where the dead body was buried is a very strong incriminating circumstance against A2 and A3 falling under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The accused have got no explanation as to how they came to know the fact that the dead body was buried at particular place.Had it been true that they were innocent and they came to know about the burial of the dead body from the other sources, nothing would have prevented them from explaining the same to the court.But, their defence is a total denial.So far A4 is concerned, we find no evidence against him except the evidence of P.W.31 which is also a very vague piece of evidence.Therefore, the conviction of A4 cannot be sustained.In view of the foregoing discussion we hold that the trial court was right in convicting A1 to A3 for offences under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w 34, 201, 392 r/w 397 of IPC, however, the conviction of A1 to A3 recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC is not sustainable and instead they are liable to be convicted under Section 465 of IPC simpliciter.Now, turning to the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court, the same is proportionate having regard to the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances.Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentences so far as A1 to A3 are concerned for the offences under Section 120-B, 302 r/w 34, 201, 392 r/w 397 of IPC.However, the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC are set aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 465 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two weeks.Therefore, we are inclined to partly allow the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.406 of 2014 filed by A1-Sudhakar, A2-Alaudeen and A3-Ayyappan and we are inclined to allow the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.397 of 2014 filed by A4-Nizam Baig in its entirety.In the result, (i) Crl.A.No.406 of 2014: This criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:-(a) The conviction of the 1st appellant/A1-Sudhakar, 2nd appellant/A2-Alaudeen and the 3rd appellant/A3-Ayyappan for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34, 201 and 392 r/w 397 of IPC and the sentences imposed thereunder by the trial court are hereby confirmed.(b) The conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st appellant/A1-Sudhakar, 2nd appellant/A2-Alaudeen and the 3rd appellant/A3-Ayyappan by the trial court for offence under Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC are hereby set aside and instead they are convicted under Section 465 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two weeks.(ii) Crl. | ['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,025,927 | Learned P.L. for the respondent/ State has opposed the application.Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have made out a case for bail.Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.It is directed that the applicants Mahesh Mehra @ Rinku and Ganeshram @ Gannu shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.It is further made clear that if it is found that any applicant is involved in any other case during the trial, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically in relation to that applicant without further reference to the Court and the Police will be at liberty to arrest that applicant.A typed copy of this order be forwarded to the Office of the Advocate General and to Shri Punit Shroti, Ld. Panel Lawyer, on their respective email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned.The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the Learned Court below.With the aforesaid, the present application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2020.06.27 16:47:06 +05'30' | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,265,449 | It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of "QI Group" formed a company under the name and style "Gold Quest International Private Limited".Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins.In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,000/-though the gold was less than 10 gms.Thereafter, the purchaser of the gold coin becomes a member of the group.He was required to make more persons as the member of the Gold Quest International Private Limited.On the basis of the number of members which he brings, he was placed to get the commission.So he was supposed to bring minimum two persons and the hierarchy had pyramid structure.So one member treated at the right side and second member was treated on the left side.It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused Suresh Thimiri was appointed as Indian head and C.E.O. of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited and the applicants/accused Michael Ferreira and Malcholm Desai had joined the said company in the year 2006 and actively participated in the expansion of this company.They stopped the business of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited company but formed a new company by name Q Net.Under this brand of Q Net, three companies i.e. Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd, Transview Enterprises India Private Limited and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt.The police have recorded the statements of three persons who have stated that the seminars were conducted for the persons who were interested in getting degree of M.B.A. They have stated that as per the representation made before them, they paid the amounts as they were promised E-course of M.B.A. which was affiliated to some Swiss University.They were informed that as and when payment is made, you will get identity and one "Independent Representative" (I.R.) number and a link will be provided with a password so that they could have access to the site.However, 10 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] irrespective of their efforts they could not get access and could not complete the degree and thus they were cheated.He submitted that Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd. and Pallava Resorts Private Limited have created a Website and travel packages.He submitted that the company gives rosy picture of 'money back scheme' to the public at large.However, once a person become a member, he is called as 'Independent Representative' (I.R.) and then he can get the commission.However, he does not earn money as promised.For that purpose, workshops are conducted where study and business material is provided with a jugglery of words, promises and dreams.applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 2 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::The volume of the said business after enrollment of new member increases when 1000 units are credited to 3 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] the account of the old member which are treated equivalent to the commission of Rs. 11,500/-.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::It is the case prosecution that in the year 2003 a fraud was detected and the offence was registered at Chennai against the said Gold Quest International Private Limited company.So the owners of the said company repaid everything to the members to whom they have promised to pay and the offence was compounded.Hence, the first information report was quashed.However, the company continued the illegal activities by forming another company by different name i.e. "QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited".They started one "Pallava Resorts Private Limited" and also launched various products especially the products by name Biodisck, Chi Pendent, Watches, Gold Coins.These products were sold from minimum Rs.30/- to Rs. 7 lacs.The false representation was made by the company that the said product Biodisk cures diseases.Biodisk is to be kept in the water and due to molecular effect, the quality of the water is changed and if that water is consumed, it will give good result and cures the diseases including like cancer.4 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::In the said company, the applicant/accused Malcholm Desai was holding 20% shares and the applicant/accused Michael Ferreira was holding 80% shares.Other two applicants /accused Magaral Balaji and Shinivas Vanka were appointed as Directors of the Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. Under the said Vihaan company, they continued the activities of selling the same products of Biodisk, Gold coins, Chi Pendents etc. They established one Pallava Resorts Private Limited and Vanmala Hotels, 5 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd. The applicant/accused Suresh Thimiri was the C.E.O. since 2010 and became Director of Transview Enterprises India Private Limited.The holiday packages were issued by the said company.However, all these holiday packages were not given but only few were provided.Many persons also became members could not get a business as promised by the company.Therefore they felt deception.Thereafter the police registered offence on 16th August, 2013 against the present applicants/accused.At that time, it was found that nearly 90000 members were cheated at the hands of applicants/accused and they suffered wrongful loss of amount of Rs. 425 Crores and as such money laundering was of Rs. 425 Crores.However, till today during the investigation, it was found that number of members who are deceived are around 5 lacs and misappropriation and money laundering was about more than of Rs. 1000 Crores.Hence, this complaint.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::Mr. Amit Desai, Mr. Ashok Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Girish Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent.6 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] They have neither cheated anybody nor committed any offence.It is submitted that the complainant is a motivated person who has lodged a false complaint against the applicants/accused due to business rivalry.Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. company has total 50 products and they are categorized sales known for nutrition and herbal products, the tourism holiday, wellness products etc. Mr. Amit Desai, the learned Senior Counsel, further has submitted that the applicants/accused neither promoted any investment nor collected deposits in any scheme.They are selling products and the buyers get the commission.He described the policy of the company as "if you sell more, you earn more".He relied on the terms and conditions of the contract/policy which every member has to sign with the company after he gets Independent Representative number and the membership.He submitted that the 7 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] company has also refund policy and the persons who did not receive the service or are not satisfied with the service, they can approach the company.The company has refunded nearly 95-100 Crores.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of Gold Quest International Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases, 235 where the company has filed Petition for quashing the first information report and wherein a compromise/settlement between the parties has taken place and the Supreme Court quashed the first information report and allowed the Appeal.He further relied on para 6 of the said ruling.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::The learned senior counsel has submitted that since the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Case, 260 to the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the law on the point of arrest has changed as the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and jurisdiction of such arrest on the basis of investigation.He relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 565 and Siddharam Mhetre (supra), wherein the principle of arrest in the cases of anticipatory bail is explained.It was the case under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of grant of anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::Mr. Pradeep Gharat, the learned special prosecutor submitted that Chi Pendent and Biodisk were sent to Bhabha Atomic Research Center for radio activity test which was conducted on 20 th February, 2015 wherein it was reported that no radio activity was detected.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::The commission was not paid on the products though the new members were introduced.The registered office of Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Limited company is a call center.He further submitted that in December, 2014 the Ministry of Corporate Affairs sealed their office at Chennai and declared Gold Quest International Private Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited as the fraud companies.Thus money is collected on-line and though the Independent Representative number is given, actual money was not available for withdrawal.Said money was laundered outside India.The police in the investigation have come across 73 bank accounts of Q Net Limited and total laundering of Rupees is around 135 Crores.The learned special prosecutor further submitted that in the year 2014 the complaint was filed against Q Net Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited companies of Q1 Group as they have 11 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] cheated many persons.He submitted that Q1 Group is from Malaysia and through the said group these activities are carried out under different name and style.There are multiple bank accounts, there is mens rea to cheat the people and thus, the companies i.e. Transview Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. and Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. cheated many persons and that is continued till today.There is money- trail which is disclosing money level circulation scheme.In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities:::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::5) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I., in Cri.7) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anil Sharma, S.C, rd Cri.12 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::8) Sudhir vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, Cri.In the said case, the Court has referred Section 45 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and which has overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::The complainant Gurupreetsingh Anand who was present in the Court wanted to address the Court and so in all fairness, the opportunity was given to him.He was heard.He has also filed the intervention application.He stated that QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited carried out their business and after the prosecution of 14 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited, they introduced the business plan under the name and style Q Net Limited.The applicants /accused and the other representatives are not accessible and finally the person lose his money.He submitted that the same persons are rotated from QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited to Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that the payments were promised and the partnership was as per the business plan.He submitted that nearly 15000 Independent Representative of Q Net Limited were transferred to Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. company.The complainant relied on the business plan of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.So also the Frequently Asked 15 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] Questions(FAQ) in the business of Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::So also the genealogy report.He submitted that they are attracting people by giving false promises.The learned counsel for the applicants/accused in reply submitted that the applicants/accused have fully cooperated the police and the details of financial transactions also supplied to the police.Only few crores have gone out of India.The learned senior counsel Mr. Desai has submitted that direct marketing is promoted by Government of India and Government has supported direct marketing i.e. how the applicants/accused are carrying out the business and all the activities are legal.The applicants/accused who are running company explained the facts to the public at large and the persons who became members.A contract is entered between them.The entire business is legal so that people can earn more money and quick money and it is not dependent on enrollment of members but on the sell.He submitted that in this scheme, income is on the basis of sale of 16 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 ::: [email protected] products.It is not compulsory for any person to become member and enroll in it.He submitted that earlier it was Gold Quest International Private Limited and if at all there is some fault or illegality found in the scheme, then the person can change the scheme as per the requirement of the law and it can be corrected and therefore a new scheme can be introduced.Therefore, there is difference between Q Net Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.There are no registration charges for becoming Independent Representative in Q Net Limited, which were compulsory in QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.The commission depends only on sale of goods.There is also a refund policy in the working of Q Net Limited.The applicants/accused are not sitting on anybody's money.In the case of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited, the Madras High Court initiated the prosecution against different persons than the applicants/accused.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:12 :::However, the order passed by the Madras High Court was subsequently set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the parties entered into a compromise.17 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::"The scheme is so grossly unworkable that the persons who made representations to that effect and induced persons to part with money did entertain the contumacious intention.They knew fully well that unworkable false representations were being made.The obvious attempt, it can be presumed at this stage, was to induce persons by such false unworkable representations to part with money.Initially some subscribers can be kept satisfied to induce them and others similarly placed to join the long queue.But inevitably and inescapably later subscribers are bound to suffer unjust loss when they swallow the false and therefore the charge can be 19 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] framed under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code at the said stage."::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::A letter dated 1st January, 2015 issued by the Chief General Manager, R.B.I. is placed before me, wherein R.B.I. has cautioned the public against multilevel marketing activities as the people due to attractive offers are falling prey to the said schemes and finally they suffer losses.In the case of Shrinivasa Enterprise (supra), the competency of the legislature to enact the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 was challenged.20 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] "In the matters of economics, sociology and other specialised subjects, Courts not embark upon views of half-::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::Perused the documents presented by both the sides.I have gone through the plan which is given by Qnet to every individual representative (IR).I have gone through the statements of many witnesses, who claimed that they have been cheated under the scheme launched by Qnet.22 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::Apart from these offences for which the applicants/accused are prosecuted, cheating is the only non-bailable offence under section 420 of the IPC.While hearing the case of the prosecution and the defence, my main query to both the parties and myself was whether offence of cheating is prima facie made out or not.In order to attract the offence of cheating, the ingredient of intention to cheat should be present in the mind of the accused.The entire business was Internet based and, therefore, the persons who are responsible i.e., the top brass i.e., the applicants/accused, were not approachable to the persons who were aggrieved.The nature of the business was knitted in the interest of the Directors and shareholders in such a manner that the persons who are at the lower level of the pyramid cannot get any access to put 24 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] up their grievances.The manner in which the persons were contacted, incentives offered, the workshops were conducted, are best examples of inducement.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::Undoubtedly, all these workshops and sessions and training centres are run at the behest of the applicants/accused by the Directors and shareholders i.e., the applicants/accused and thus, they have control either directly or remotely, over the dishonest 25 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] inducement and aggressive marketing which is the modus operandi of this company.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::The motto of the company 'sell more, earn more' appears very attractive and 26 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] innocuous.However, this motto is fully camouflaged.The company stands on a basic statement that people can be fooled.Thus, the true motto is 'sell more earn more' by fooling people.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants-accused that selling the product at a very high price is not an offence, is true and cannot be controverted in the marketing business.It depends on the marketing capacity of an individual and so the level of his profit.However, in this marketing, the IRs are directed to give all the names and details of the relatives, phone numbers of their acquaintances, references and thereafter the persons in the higher level, who are given some positions, contact these acquaintances and references and the chain is multiplied.The persons who are gullible, are bound to be prey of such kind of persuasion which is coloured with inducement.Thus, the deceit and fraud is camouflaged under the name of e-marketing and business.27 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants, has submitted that the law under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has developed and changed a lot till today.The Supreme Court has taken a very liberal view and a humanistic view on the point of arrest.He relied on Joginder Singh Sibiya and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra) and submitted that in the cases especially where the punishment is less than 7 years, the Supreme Court has disapproved arrest and, therefore, section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enacted.It is true that the Legislature in order to avoid illegal arrest, rather to check the police-mania of arrest, has enacted section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court responding to the said legislation in Arnesh Kumar (supra), has laid down guidelines directing the police how to give notice and the person should get opportunity to put up his explanation.The applicants/accused were granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge and thus, the applicants/accused have visited 28 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] the police station on a number of occasions and gave explanation to the police, which they wanted to.However, the police have opposed their applications for pre-arrest bail in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has denied the same.It shows that section 41A was in fact fully complied with.This shows that the police whatever explanation and information they received from the applicants/accused are not satisfied.I made searching queries to the learned Prosecutor in order to clear the doubt as to whether the police wanted to arrest the applicant-accused only out of vengenace or they have made it a prestige issue.However, after going through the record, which is placed before the Court and the submissions made by both the parties, I found that such element is absent.There may be misdirected over-enthusiasm on the part of the prosecution in sending Biodisk and Chi Pendent to BARC.However, I am of the view that they need to investigate properly and more effectively to find out the money trail and from where the products are manufactured, also to check the correct addresses, bank accounts, networking of the company, etc. Moreover, by this deceitful inducement, large number of people, may be approximately 2.5 lakh people, are trapped in this money-tree planting business and 29 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] everyday, as it is an ongoing activity, more people are accepting these attractive camouflaged offers.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::It has very grave and serious impact on the economic status and mental health of the people on a large scale.On considering parameters of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not inclined to protect the accused.It won't be out of place to mention that such circulation is required to be stopped.Though by stopping this business, a large group of people may get financially affected, however, it will save larger groups of people from becoming prey of this activity.In the result, the Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected.Criminal Applications for interventions stand disposed of.At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/accused seeks continuation of earlier interim relief for a period of 10 weeks as the applicants/accused intend to challenge the 30 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: [email protected] order before the honourable Supreme Court.Learned Prosecutor has opposed this oral prayer.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 31 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:13 ::: | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
702,687 | ORDER D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri Mundargi for the petitioners and Shri Kankaria for the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions.Both these petitions arise out of the order of issuance of process and rejection of the application of all the Accused for discharge by the Trial Court Magistrate i.e. Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Uran (Shri D.D. Kamble).The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 135 of 1997 is the Chief Officer of Uran Municipal Council and the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 136 of 1997 are the employees of the Uran Municipal Council.Accordingly the Police filed the report before the Magistrate and thereafter the Magistrate heard the complainant as well as the accused before issuing the process.The accused contended that whatever was done by them i.e. regarding demolition of the unauthorised structure and removal of the articles under Punchanama, was done in discharge of their official duties and therefore, if at all they were to be prosecuted, a sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was necessary.This prayer was strongly opposed by the complainant.However, after hearing both the sides, the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., ordered issuance of process against ail the accused Nos. 1 to 8 who are petitioners in both the petitions, under Sections 380, 451 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian , Penal Code and this order is challenged in the present petition.In the result, both the petitions are allowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
702,724 | A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to providesuccour to the victim as much as possible and then wanted toknow the magnitude of the loss of life and property.Itsurpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found thatthe blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured andproperty worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed.By all counts,it was thus a great tragedy; and revolting also, as it wasmen-made.All right thinking persons and wellwishers of thenation started asking; Why it happened ? How could it happen? We are not concerned in these ceses with why, but withhow.The State wasrepresented by Addl.ShriTulsi emphasised that we should bear in mind the illegalityof means as well.Group action being apparently involved, itwas urged that division of performances in the chain ofactions as happens in smuggling of narcotics should also betaken note of by us.The Addl.SECONDLY that you Abu Asim Azmi in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy conspired advocate advised abetted and knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorists act and acts preparatory to terrorists act i.e. bomb blast and such other act which were committed in Bombay and its suburbs on 12.3.93 by agreeing to do any by doing the following overt acts.(a) That you sent Sultan-E-Rome Ali Gul, Mohmed Iqbal Ibrahim, Shakeel Ahmed, Shah Nawaz Khan s/o Faiz Mohmed Khan, Abdul Aziz, Manzoor Ahmed Mohmed Qureshi, Shaikh Mohmed Ethesham and Mohmed Shahid Nizamuddin Qureshi, to undergo weapon training at Pakistan in furtherance of the objectives of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy by booking their tickets out of your own funds through M/s. Hans Air Services which was done by your firm M/s. Abu Travels and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and within my cognizance."The aforesaid shows that the individual charge againstbu is that he had done the act of booking the tickets of thepersons named in the charge; and this was done from his ownfunds through M/s. Hans.SECONDLY :- that you Amjad Abdul Aziz Meherbux in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period January, 1993 to February, 1993 knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorist act and acts preparatory to terrorist act i.e. bomb blast and such other acts which were committed in Bombay and its suburbs on 12.3.1993 by doing the following overt acts :-That you permitted your co- accused Yakoob Abdul Razak Memon to park motor vehicles laden with arms, ammunition and explosives which were part of the consignment smuggled into the country for committing terrorist act by Mushtaq @ Ibrahim @ Tiger Abdul Razak Memon and his associates and were brought to your premises by co-accused Abdul Gani Ismail Turq, Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Rafiq Madi and also handed over suit cases containing hand granades and detonators to your co-accused Altaf Ali Mustaq Sayed at the instance of Yakoob Abdul Razak Memon and thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and within my cognizance.THIRDLY :- That you Amjad Abdul Aziz Meherbux in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period 3.2.1993 onwards when arms, ammunition and explosives were smuggled into the country for committing terrorist act by Tiger Memon and his associates were in possession of part of the consignment i.e, arms, ammunition, handgranades and explosives which were brought in motor vehicles and which were parked in your compound at the instance of your co-accused Yakoob Abdul Razak Memon and.MP-14-B-5349 which was purchased by you in the name of yourWe were handedover a summary of these materials reading as below:i) Association with Tiger Memon: Raju Kodi, being the man of confidence of Tiger Memon, was dealing in disposal of smuggled gold and silver since long.He purchased M/scooter in April- 1992 and lent the same to Tiger Memon for smuggling activities and the same scooter was used as scooter Bomb and exploded at Kathya Bazar.The same amount was subsequently used by Tiger Memon for blast purpose.(the 'Hathi' account note was recovered at the instance of co-accused Mulchand Sampatraj Shah.Raju Kodi purchased the said M/Scooter and 3 Jeeps under fictitious names.Raju Kodi gave his men and four Jeeps for transportation of Arms, Ammunition and RDX landed by Tiger Memon.These Jeeps were provided with special cavities to conceal the arms, ammunition and RDX.These Jeeps were found with "traces of RDX vide F.S.L. Reports.ii) The accused Azgar Yusuf Mukadam is narrating in his confessional statement about the association of the appellant with Tiger Memon and dealing with him in smuggling activities and Hawala moneyiii) The co-accused Mulchand Sampatraj Shah is narrating in his confessional statement about the association of the appellant with Tiger Memon and dealing with him in smuggling activities and Hawala money.iv) The co-accused Salim Mira Moinddin Shaikh is narrating in his confessional statement about tie association with Tiger Memon and his smuggling activities.v) the co-accused viz. Abdul Gani Ismail Turk is narrating in his confession about association of the appellant with co-accused Tiger Memon and dealing in smuggling activities and Hawala money.The Tel. Nos. (RES. & official) of S.N. Thapa have been found entered in the Tel.(iii) Meeting with Tiger Memon and Gist of Conversation recorded on Micro cassettes:From his possession a number of include a manuscript of gist of conversation recorded on May 19, 1994 on Sony Micro cassettes, in the garden of the house of Yakub Memon in Karachi (Pakistan).Accused Yakub Memon, Syed Arif (Pakistani National) Hazi Taufique Jaliawala (Pakistani National) Tiger Memon, Suleman Memon and Yub Memon had participated in the conversation.This gist of conversation refers to various matter which show close association of Tiger Memon with Sh.In the gist of conversation there is reference of ISI of Pakistan and Tiger Memon speaking that one day Sh.Thapa had arrived at sea shore at the time of illegal landing and that Tiger Memon had paid him Rs.22 lacs for allowing the smuggling.The investigation had established that the said gist of conversation is in the hand-writing of accused Yakub Memon.Independent witnesses and the handwriting expert have proved his handwriting.(iv) Statement of L.D. Mhatre, Mhatre Customs Inspr.:L.D. Mhatre introduced a source (witness code No.Q-3360) to S.N. Thapa and it was decided that the source would pass on information about the illegal landings at Shekhadi to Sh.Thapa, through Mhatre and on receipt of the information Nakabandi may be kept at "Sai Morba-Goregoan Junction" because that was the main exit point after the landing.The source gave an information of the landing to Mhatre on 29.1.93 and it was passed on to Sh.Thapa by Mhatre.Thapa kept Nakabandi on the right of 30 & 31st Jan. 1993 at Purar Phata and Behan Phata on Mhasla-Goregoan Road leaving another route open for the escape of smuggled goods.He did not keep Nakabandi at the pre-arranged point.He lifted the Nakabandi after two days without any specific reasons.The source later on informed Thapa through Mhatre that on the night of 3.2.93 instead of silver same chemicals had landed at Shekhadi.Thapa did not contact the source to ascertain further details.Nor did he inform about it to his senior officers.He also did not submit the Operations Report, as was required.(v) Statement of Sh.R.K. Singh:Shri R.K. Singh in his confession, has stated that on the night of 1.2.93 at about 2.00 At Sh.Thapa gave him a telephonic message saving that something had happened beyond bankot in thelimits of Pune Customs and that he should personally verify.R.K. Singh, deputed custom officers for this job.On 4.2.93 another accused M.S. Syed, Customs Superintendent informed R.K. Singh that the smuggled goods and already passed.R.K. Singh received Rs.3 lacs as illegal gratification for the landing out of which he gave Rs.1 lacs to Sh.S.N. Thapa.(v) Awareness about landing : Sh.J U D G M E N THANSARIA.J Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today: financial capitalof the nation.Peoplestarted for their places of work not knowing what was intheir store.The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent onbreaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which neednot be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-outconspiracy to cripple the country by striking at itsfinancial nerve.As Bombay set down to work, blasting ofbombs, almost simultaneously, took place at importantcentres of commercial actvities like Stock Exchange, AirIndia, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels.The gigantic task led Bombay police, despite itscapability, to seek assistance of the CBI.An arduous andpainstaking investigation by a team of dedicated officialsshowed that the aforesaid bomb blasts were a result of deeprooted conspiracy concerted action of many, guided either bygreed or vengeance.The finale of investigation consisted incharge-sheeting 145 persons (of whom 38 were shown asabsconders) under various sections of the Penal Code and theTerrorists And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987(TADA), hereinafter the Act also.One died and two became approvers.(The total thuscomes to 146)Of the charged accused, four: (1) Abu Asim Azmi; (2)Amjad Aziz Meharbaksh; (3) Raju alias Raju Code Jain; and(4) Somnath Thapa have approached this Court having feltaggrieved at their having not been discharged.The State ofMaharashtra has approached the Court seeking cancellation ofbail granted to appellant Thapa.We were fortunate to have leading criminal lawyers ofthe country to assist us in the matter in asmuch as Shri RamJethmalani appeared for Raju and Moolchand, Shri RatinderSingh for Abu Azim Azmi, Shri R.K. Jain for Amzad Ali andShri Shirodkar for appellant Thapa.The appeals call for examination of three questions oflaw.These are:The alleged fact that the jeepsprovided by the appellant had cavities to conceal arms,ammunition and RDX.and that the Jeeps were recovered at theinstance of the appellant on 1.6.1993 in which were foundtraces of RDX.Apropos the case of the persecution that this appellantkept silence despite knowing about the aforesaidtransportation form his driver, the submission of ShriJethmalani is that there is nothing to show as to when theappellant had know form his driver about this fact.Thelearned counsel asked whether the information was givenimmediately after the driver had come back or after the bombblasts had taken place or after he was arrested ? May wemention that the fact of knowledge of the aforesaidtransportation was know as per the confessional statement ofthe appellant from his driver.Let the additional charge framed against him be noted:S.K. Bhardwaj, Collector of Customs,(Prev.) issued a letter dt.been received that big quantity of weapons would he smuggled into India by ISI alongwith gold and silver and these were likely to be landed in next 15-30 days around Bombay, Shrivardhan, Bankot and Ratnagiri etc. The Collector of Customs had directed the subordinate officers to keep a close watch & that all-time alert may be kept.The copy of this letter was also endorsed to Sh.In addition to the aforesaid letter from the statements of the customs officer, who had accompanied Sh.Thapa for akabandi on 30th & 31st Jan., 1993, it is clear that Sh.Thapa had knowledge that arms were likely to he smuggled by Tiger Memon.He had infact disclosed this information to the subordinate officers at the time of nakabandi.Thapa was conveyed by Sh.V.M. Doyphode, another Addl.Collector of Customs that landing of smuggled contrabants was about to take place near Mhaysla on the night of 2.2.93 Sh.Thapa intentionally sent a mis-leading wireless message that something had happened at Bankot therefore, maximum alert to be Wept in Alibagh region.Doyphode had not mentioned about Bankot.(vii) Vehicle and Vessel Log Book : When Nakabandi was kept on 30.1.95 by Sh.Thapa, the Govt. Maruti van No.MH-01-8579 was also taken by Sh.Thapa with him.However, the investigation had disclosed that the pages of the 109 book for the period 26.1.93 to 16.2.93 were missing from the log book, as these had been torn from it.In Alibagh Div. of Customs Deptt.one patrol vessel Al- Nadsem is provided.A logbook is maintained for the vessel.The investigation had disclosed that an entry dt. 2.2.93 has been made in the logbook showing the accused J.K. Gurav, Customs Inspr.The entry is made by J.K. Gurav, which is not correct because when compared with the entries made in the wireless logbook of Shrivardhan Customs office it is seen that patrolling commenced at 2345 hrs.on 2.2.93 and not on 2100 hrs.Gurav is also an accused in the case, and had actively conspired alongwith accused S.N. Thapa and other customs officers."From the above gist it appears that the main allegationto establish the case against Thapa is his allowing thesmuggling of the aforesaid goods by not doing Nakabandi atthe pre-arranged point but at some distance therefromleaving an escape route for the smugglers to carry the goodsupto Bombay.To appreciate this case of the prosecution, itwould be useful to know the topography of the area, as wouldappear from the following rough sketch handed over by ShriTulsi:-Shri Tulsi contended that Thapa had been forewarned bya communication of Shri S.K. Bhardwaj, Collector of Customs(Preventive) dated 25.1.93 addressed to S/Shri R.K. Singhand A.K. Hassan, Asstt.Collectors of Customs, thatintelligence had been received that big quantity of weaponswould be smuggled into India by Ist alongwith gold andsilver which were likely to land in next 15-30 days aroundBombay, Shrivardhan, Bankot and Ratnagiri etc., a copy ofwhich was endorsed to Thapa, who had seen the same.In facthe disclosed this information to his subordinate officersalso.(The fact that Thapa had received a copy of theletter, about which Shri Shirodkar mentioned many a time,has no significance as copy was apparently sent to appriseThapa of the contents, requiring him to take such steps aswould have been within the ken and competence of a highcustom official on the preventive side like him).Itdeserves to be noted that the information was not only aboutsmuggling of gold and silver alone, but of weapons and thattoo by the ISI-an agency alleged to be extremely inimical toIndia.This is not all.According to Addl.SolicitorGeneral, Thapa had facilitated the movement or be used toreceive fat sum of money from Tiger Memon as quid pro quofor help in his smuggling activities.Shri Shirodkar strongly refuted the contentions of theAddl.A perusal of the statement made by aforesaid twoInspectors shows that they had made two statements at twopoints of time.The first of these has been described as"original statement' by Shri Shirodkar in his written noteand the second as "further statement".In the originalstatement, these two Inspectors are said to have told Thapa,on being asked which would be crucial places for layingtrap, that the same were Purar Phata and Behan Phata, atwhich places trap was in fact laid.But then, in the furtherstatement the Inspectors are said to have opined that watchshould be kept at Sai-Morba-Goregoan junction, because thatwas the main exit point for smuggling done at Shrivardhanand Shekhadi.There is no doubt that if the subsequentstatement be correct, Nakabandi was done not at the properplace, as that left Sai-Morba Road free for the smugglers tocarry the goods upto Bombay.Shri Shirodkar submitted that the Nakabandi wasorganised at Purar Phata and Behan Phata also because a traphas to be laid at a little distance from the crucial pointso that it may not come to the notice of all and sundry,which may prove abortive, as information about the same maybe passed on to the smugglers.We do not propose to expressany opinion on this submission also, as this would be amatter to be decided at the trial when defence version ofthe case would be examined.As to the motive sought to be established on the basisof a gist of the taps recorded conversation said to havebeen recovered from absconding accused Yakub Memon, whichcontained the statement that one day Thapa had arrived atsea shore at the time of illegal landing and Tiger Memon hadpaid him Rs. 22 lacs for allowing the smuggling, thesubmission of the learned counsel is that it is hard tobelieve that Yakub Memon would have carried in his pocket agist like the one at hand.Even if we were to give somebenefit to the appellant on this score, that would tend todemolish the case of the prosecution mainly relatable tomotive, which is not required to be established to bringhome an accusation.As to Thapa, the allegation relates tofacilitating movement of arms, RDX etc., which act wouldamount to abetment, as it would be an assistance, whichwould attract clause (iii) of section 2(i)(a) of the Act,defining the word 'abet'.It may be noted that theindividual charge against Thapa is for commission of offenceunder section 3(3) of TADA, which, inter alia, makesabetment punishable.Shri Shirodkar submitted that the investigating agencywanted to rope in Thapa any how, which was apparent from thefact that it took recourse to even manufacturing ofevidence, as telephone number of Dawood Ibrahim was fed inthe digital diary found at the residence of this appellanton search being made.Shri Tulsi explained as to how thisaspect of the matter, except observing that investigation attimes is either sluggish or over zealous - it may over shootalso.All told, we are satisfied that charges were rightlyframed against Thapa.A perusal of thisCourt's order shows that when it had examined the matter,charge-sheet had not been submitted.It was, therefore,desired that the Designated Court should reconsider inmatter with a view to finding out whether the evidencecollected in the course of investigation showed hisinvolvement.A perusal of Designated Court's order showsthat though according to it a case was made out by theprosecution against Thapa, it took the view that there waswant of material which could be tendered as substantiveevidence to prove association of Thapa with Tiger Memon andhis associates.And so, it allowed Thapa to continue onbail. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
70,277,038 | i.e. after a delay of eighteen years and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix regarding the delay in lodging the FIR.It is further submitted that the present applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and there is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail.Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application and prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is 3 directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Mahesh Rathore s/o Biharilal Rathore shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.50352/2019 stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.12.04 15:37:53 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,426,979 | This firm is engaged in the business of export.Ramesh Suri, Mahender Suri and their father, K. L. Suri are partners of M/s. Orient Enterprises.This firm is carrying on import business.M/s. Orient Enterprises, it is stated, entered into an agreement with M/s. Bentrex and Company, a Singapore firm, for the import of cloves (Zanzibar quality) of the value of Rs. 40 lacs.They lacked finances and consequently entered into an agreement, dt. July 26, 1979, with Sawhney, Brothers.Under the agreement Sawhney Brothers agreed to open a letter of credit with its bankers at New Delhi for Rs. 40 lacs.They were to be paid 2% commission on the CIF value of the consignment of the value of Rs. 40 lacs.The agreement contained various other terms.Pursuant to this agreement, two insurance covers one for Rs. 44 lacs insuring the risk regarding the consignment in question and the other for Rs. 16 lacs insuring the profit on the said goods were obtained on July 31, 1979 from the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'Insurance Company').A sum of Rs. 19,378.40 was paid towards premium for the first policy and Rs. 7046.70 for the second.Insured in both the covers was M/s. Sawhney Brothers, New Delhi".Under the terms of these policies consignment was required to be shipped "per any first class and/or approved steamer (particulars of which to be declared hereafter)".This amount was to be paid to M/s. Bentrex and Company at Singapore on shipment of the consignment to India and on presentation of the usual documents.The documents were presented to the corresponding bankers of Sawhney Brothers at Singapore on the same day and letter of credit was encashed by Bentrex and Company.These items were agreed to be imported by the accused from Singapore co-conspirators in two ships m.v. 'Averilla' and 'Oh Dai'.The accused dishonestly induced other Indian parties to import these items and paid license fee and insurance premium on their behalf.The letters of credit were opened and insurance cover notes were secured.The accused managed to get ships Averilla and Oh Dai, managed transportation, loading and shipment of false goods like rice bran and water in place of cloves, PVC resin.The object of that conspiracy was to cheat the insurance companies.The second object was to cheat other export houses.2. T. S. Sawhney, the petitioner, is as partner of M/s. Sawhney Brothers.This condition could be waived only on specific conformation in writing and delivery of amended cover notes.On September 27, 1980 T. S. Sawhney the petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 420/120B, Penal Code, against Ramesh Suri.It was averred that the complainant opened the letter of credit on the assurances given by the first three accused that the goods would be shipped by a first class/approved steamer.K. L. Suri, accused, had assured that he would be personally present in Singapore and see that a first class ship was engaged for this purpose.Had this not been done he would have required Suris as well as Singapore party to ship the goods in a first class steamer and on their failure to do so required his bankers to withhold the amount of letter of credit.R. S. Gupta, S. K. Tandon and Shibben Lal, accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 respectively filed a petition under Ss. 297/401/482, Criminal P.C., for quashing the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.The order of this Court, quashing the complaint against the three insurance officials, was set aside.Brass scrap etc. The ships were scuttled in high seas and the goods were declared to have been lost.Heavy false claims were thereafter lodged on the basis of insurance covers. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,698,932 | A s per the prosecution story, on 31.07.2019 at 08:00 PM, when prosecutrix was alone at her house situated at Village Navegaon, applicant came there and molested her and also torn her clothes.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.It is further submitted that on the date of incident at 07:30 PM, husband Gyanchand Bisen and father-in-law Dhuranlal Bisen of the prosecutrix assaulted the applicant by stick due to which he sustained injury and on the report of applicant, police registered Crime No.226/2019 at Police Station Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC, due to which, prosecutrix lodged false report against the applicant.Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 20/09/2019 17:26:17 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,699,290 | Heard on I.A.No.20063/2016, eighth repeat application on behalf of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 namely Sahab Singh Yadav and Bhuddh Singh Yadav for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 333 & 332/34 of IPC and appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 333/34 & 332/34 of IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of complainant Markandey Mishra (PW/4) and other important prosecution witnesses.It is further submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and they had never misused the liberty granted to them.It is also submitted that other co-accused persons appellant No.3 Dada @ Hanumat Singh and appellant No.4 Amar Singh Yadav have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.06.2014 and the case of the present appellants is similar to that of released co-accused persons.The appellant are in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 03.04.2014, that way, they have completed more than 2 years and eight months' period against the awarded period of sentence of five years.It is, therefore, prayed that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail, as there is no likelihood of coming up of this appeal for final hearing in near future.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that the present appellants inflicted grievous injuries on person of complainant Markandey Mishra, who was serving as Head Constable on the date of incident, therefore, appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.This is eighth repeat application on behalf of the appellants, their earlier applications were rejected on merit.List the case for final hearing in due course.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE sj | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,704,589 | CRM No. 10891 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3rd December, 2018 in connection with Salar Police Station Case No. 87 of 2018 dated 7.7.2018 under Sections 498A/325/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Anisur Rahaman @ Anisur Molla & Ors. ...The petitioners claim that at a salishi organised to arrive at a settlement of a marital dispute between the principal accused and his wife, the principal accused picked up a sword and assaulted the brother of his wife and such brother succumbed to his injuries.The petitioners were present at the place of occurrence and claim that they had no role in the attack.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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. |
142,705,937 | First application for grant of bail filed by the applicants was dismissed by this Court on merit.The applicants are in custody since 29/6/2019 in connection with Crime No.177/2019 registered at Police Station, Belkheda Distt.Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 325, 186, 353, 333, 307/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case of the applicants, in short, is that the applicants along with co-accused Ram Barman assaulted on the Police party and obstructed them for doing their official work and inflicted injuries on Police personnel.One Ram Barman inflicted injuries by means of iron rod Sambal on the police personnel and the present applicants inflicted injuries by means of wooden stick on the other part of the police personnel.After investigation charge sheet has been filed.Both the applicants are bind the bar and spent one years in custody.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 21/05/2020 16:23:57 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,706,611 | On 31.05.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., he was proceeding towards treasury in his Hero HondaSplender and he was possessing Rs.10,90,350/- and he went towards Valliyoor at about 10.00 a.m., and he met one Siva Subramanian and received Rs.1,22,000/- for purchase of stamp papers and at 11.15 a.m., he went toPanagudy and met one Abdul Kalam Ashad and received a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- and entire amount was kept in a bag and returned from Panagudy towards his destination.Further, it has been alleged that at about 11.30 a.m., thepetitioner approached Panagudy to Thandayarkulam Road, three persons coming on motor bike, attacked him with an Iron Rod and stole away the entire cashof Rs.17,92,350/- and also stole his two wheeler.Subsequently, the accusedwere arrested and Rs.7,47,000/- along with jewels and 4 motor cycles havealso been recovered.Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, itwould be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker.In any case, such articles should be producedbefore the Magistrate within a week of their seizure.This Criminal Revision has been filed to call for the entire recordspertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli District in Cr.M.P.No.4044 of 2016 vide its order dated20.07.2016 and to set aside the same in so far as it relates to the return ofcash and consequently direct the above said learned Judicial Magistrate toreturn the cash property namely Rs.7,47,000/- to the petitioner which amountis involved in connection with the case in Crime No.213 of 2016 pending onthe file of the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, TirunelveliDistrict.A perusal of the First Information Report woulddisclose that the petitioner/defacto complainant was a stamp vendor and heused to purchase the stamp papers from Rathapuram Treasury.The petitioner/defacto complainant filed Cr.If required, the courtmay direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer forfurther investigation and identification.(iii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum ofRs.7,47,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of the JudicialMagistrate, Valliyoor.(iv) On compliance of the above said conditions, a cash ofRs.7,47,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand only) is ordered to be returned to the revision petitioner/defacto complainant by way ofinterim custody, with condition to produce the said amount whenever requiredby the Trial Court.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,707,185 | The FIR in question was registered on the basis of statement of PW-1 Baljeet Singh, who in his statement made before the trial court has deposed that on 7.7.2002 at about 8 pm he was sitting in the house of his nephew, Rajesh, along with him.At that time Rajesh told him that he wanted to go to Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 1 of 6 Bus Terminal Sultanpuri to take account of cash from his driver there.After this, the said boy went inside the bus terminal and returned with two other boys.They then caught hold of Rajesh and one of those boys attacked Rajesh with a bottle and as a result Rajesh started bleeding from his head and started bending down towards the earth.Thereafter, the third boy took out knife from his pocket and hit Rajesh on the left side of his chest.Thereafter, those boys ran away from the spot with the knife.This order shall dispose of the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner who is facing trial in Sessions Case No.249/2006 arising out of FIR No. 803/2002 under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi.He accompanied his nephew, Rajesh, to the bus terminal.When they reached the said bus terminal and were waiting for the driver of Rajesh, they noticed that one boy was giving beating to a poor man.Rajesh intervened and asked why he was so mercilessly beating a poor man.On this the said boy became infuriated and said that he would first set Rajesh right.Rajesh was removed to the Bhram Shakti Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead in the hospital.Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 1 of 6The petitioner was not arrested at the spot but was arrested on 20.07.2002 and sent up for trial.Hence, the present petition for bail.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged knife and bottle used for the commission of offence have neither been seized nor produced in court by the prosecution.Though it is asserted by the prosecution that the accused Deva made a disclosure statement to get the knife recovered, but there is no record to show its recovery.Further, as per Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 2 of 6 the testimony of Baljeet Singh, the bottle had broken at the spot but there is nothing on record to show that any efforts were made to recover the same and the reasons for its non-recovery are also not placed on record.Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 2 of 6It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no admissible evidence of identification of the petitioner so as to implicate him in this case.This fact thus frustrates the purpose of putting the petitioner to Test Identification Parade.Thus, his refusal to join the same is justified and cannot be read against him.At the most, he tried to prevent the deceased to leave from the place of incident.The petitioner has deep roots in the society and is a permanent resident of Delhi.His presence can be secured by posing stringent conditions upon him.The learned APP on the other hand has submitted that PW-1 Baljeet Singh when appeared in the Court has identified the present petitioner as one of the accused who caught hold of the deceased when he was stopped along Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 4 of 6 with other co-accused but was not arrested.It is also a matter of record that the petitioner refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade.Moreover, the manner in which the petitioner caught hold of the deceased shows the conscious involvement of the petitioner in the crime.In fact, his role is not simply that of catching hold of the deceased.Learned APP also made reference to the following portion of the statement made by PW-1 Baljeet Singh before the trial court:-Bail Application Number 1133/2009 Page 4 of 6"Soon thereafter that boy returned along with two other boys and those two boys caught hold of Rajesh and the first boy hit Rajesh with a bottle of glass which he had brought, on the head of Rajesh.Rajesh started bleeding from his head and starting bending down towards the earth.Rajesh tried to get up and tried to run away but the first boy who hit the Rajesh with bottle and another boy who along with other boy holding Rajesh, caught hold of Rajesh.The third boy took out the knife from his pocket and hit Rajesh on the left side of his chest and after hitting Rajesh, all the 3 boys ran away with the knife from the spot." | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,710,396 | This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 08.05.2016 passed by Special Judge, Shivpuri framing charges in Special Sessions Trial No.160/2016 against the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 148, 302 or 302/149, 323 or 323/149 (05 counts), 294, 506 (06 counts), 506 (Part-II) (06 counts) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and except for petitioner no.6 against other petitioners, i.e., 1 to 5 under the provisions of Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) (06 counts) and 3 (2) (v-a) (06 counts) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (for short 'SC & ST Act').It is the contention of the petitioners that the incident had taken place on 28.06.2016, when it was alleged that at about 2.00 PM, when the complainant reached on the field for ploughing, the accused persons came in the field and stopped him from ploughing his field and used abusive language against the complainant and had beaten him with axe and lathi and caused injuries to Netrapal, Manoj, Prem Bai, Hansmukhi and Prahlad.When Ramniwas and Kashiram came to rescue the complainant, then the accused persons threatened to kill them.As a result, a criminal case was registered against them under the provisions of Sections 294, 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.476/2017 (Jai Kumar & Others v. State of MP & Another) 323 and 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (v-a) of SC & ST Act. After 05 days of the incident, on 03.07.2016, Prem Bai died in the house of the complainant without there being any ante-mortem injury found over her body and there being no opinion of homicidal death by the Medical Expert and overlooking the fact that after MLC, the deceased had sustained injury only in her right little finger as is apparent from MLC report carried out by Dr. B.S. Chaturvedi, Medical Officer CHC Pichhore on 28.06.2016 to the effect that there was a contusion of 1-/12 x 1 cm on right little finger caused by hard and blunt object and the injury was simple and the patient complained of low backache, for which X-ray dorsal liberal spine was suggested and was referred to the District Hospital, Shivpuri.In the District Hospital, Shivpuri, Prem Bai's X-ray was carried out on 28.01.2016 itself vide X-ray Place No.1695 and no bony injury was seen.Therefore, her death was occurred on 03.07.2016 looking to the fact that she was about 55 years of age and could not have been brought within the purview of Section 302 or 302/149 or Section 148, IPC.Therefore, the objection is that the fourth charge, which has been framed under Section 302 or alternatively under Section 302/149, is not made out and it deserves to be quashed.Learned counsel has placed reliance on the post- mortem report of Prem Bai, in which it is mentioned that no definite cause was found by the doctors so viscera was preserved for chemical analysis to ascertain the cause of death.It is submitted that as per the report submitted by 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.476/2017 (Jai Kumar & Others v. State of MP & Another) Gajra Raja Medical College & J.A. Group of Hospitals, cause of death column mentions that since only heart specimen was submitted for histo-pathological examination, therefore, before deciding the final cause of death, findings of general post-mortem medical and treatment history of the deceased should be taken into consideration.In view of such facts, it is submitted that there was neither intention to cause death of Prem Bai nor it is made out from medical report or the forensic report, therefore, the petitioners should be discharged.Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Bai v. State of MP as reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 57, wherein the facts of the case were that there was a scuffle between applicant and deceased, the applicant pushed the deceased on road from the house and during treatment, she died.Charges were framed under Sections 302, 294 and 506, IPC against the applicant.Coordinate Bench of this High Court held that the deceased had not sustained any external or internal injury, she died due to cardio respiratory failure and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant intended to kill the deceased and no ingredients of Section 300 of IPC are attracted.Hence, no charge under Section 302 of IPC could be framed against the applicant.Similarly, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Indore Bench of this High Court in the case of Jassu alias Jasrath & Others v. State of MP as reported in ILR (2016) MP 1803, wherein the facts were that three 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.476/2017 (Jai Kumar & Others v. State of MP & Another) accused and deceased were cooking meals when altercation took place between them.When applicants were cleaning utensils, applicant no.1, in spur of moment, hit the deceased on his head and due to impact, the deceased fell down in Well and died due to drowning.On seeing the deceased falling in Well, all the three applicants fled away.It was held that even if entire prosecution story is accepted, since there was no prior meeting of mind and no act was done in furtherance of common intention, therefore, no case was made out against applicants no.2 and 3 and, therefore, charges framed against them were set aside.The application filed under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was rejected and, therefore, the revision was filed.When one of the complainants Netrapal claimed the field to be his own, then the injury was caused to the complainant party.Except for Netrapal, who has sustained one lacerated wound, all others have shown either abrasion or contusions.Deceased Prem Bai had sustained one contusion on right little finger reported to have been caused by hard and blunt object.Her X-ray revealed that she had not sustained any bony injury.Thus, it is apparent that there is no nexus between the cause of death, which took place after 05 days of the incident for which the post-mortem report dated 03.07.2016 does not assign any specific cause, but mentions that "in our opinion, after autopsy of body, no definitive cause found by us.So viscera preserved for chemical and heart preserved for histopathological investigation to know the cause of death" and there is no report as to the outcome of the viscera examination on record, but histopathological examination of the heart was carried out and the report given by Dr. K.S. Mangal on 09.09.2016 reveals that "precise cause of death of the deceased cannot be determined as only heart specimen was submitted for histopathological examination.However, before deciding the final cause of death, findings of general post- mortem medical and treatment history of deceased should be taken into consideration.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.476/2017 (Jai Kumar & Others v. State of MP & Another) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
142,714,341 | The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.In a quite number of cases, bedridden 8 grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net.We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view 7 on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view.However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed.The allegations are extremely general in nature.The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months.Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants.There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years.The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,117,303 | (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JUNE 12, 2017 s CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 4 of 4CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 4 of 4% (ORAL) Impugned judgment of 26th October, 2013 holds appellant guilty for committing offences under Sections 328/363/366/376/506(II) of IPC and vide order of 28th October, 2013, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of `4,000/- on each count under Sections 328/363/366 of IPC, with default clause.However, for the offence under Section 506(II) of IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of `3,000/- with default clause.For the main offence under Section 376 of IPC, appellant has been sentenced by trial court to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 1 of 4 of `10,000/- with default clause.Trial court has directed that the above sentences shall run concurrently.CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 1 of 4The facts noted in detail in the opening paragraph of impugned judgment need no reproduction.Suffice to note that as per prosecution case, the age of prosecutrix (PW-2) was fifteen years and on the strength of her evidence and that of her father (PW-2), her brother (PW-5), medical evidence and other evidence on record, appellant stands convicted and sentenced as noted hereinabove, while discarding appellant's plea of false implication.At the outset, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant on the day of incident i.e. 18th February, 2009, was in his early twenties and was unmarried and that he now has family to support and he is not involved in any other case.It is further submitted that appellant is a poor person and he has already remained behind bars for more than eight years and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and the minimum sentence provided for the offence of rape as on the day of the incident, was seven years, which has been already undergone by him and so, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State supports the impugned judgment and order on sentence and submits that though the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 376 of IPC on the day of incident was seven years, but the sentence awarded to appellant is just and proper.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has placed on record appellant's latest Nominal Roll of 9 th June, CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 2 of 4 2017 and submits that as per appellant's latest Nominal Roll, appellant has already undergone sentence of eight years, five months and eleven days and today, in pursuance of production warrants issued against him, he has been produced in custody in the Court.CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 2 of 4For the offence under Section 376 of IPC, the period of sentence in default of payment of fine is also reduced to simple imprisonment for two months in view of poor financial condition of appellant.In light of the aforesaid, the sentence awarded to appellant is modified as indicated above.Appellant is in custody.He be released forthwith, if he has undergone the above modified sentence and if he is not wanted in any other case.The concerned Jail Superintendent be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.CRL.A. 403/2014 Page 3 of 4With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,121,004 | as per rules.( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE ns NEERAJ NEERAJ SARVATE 2020.09.18 SARVATE 17:18:26 +05'30'This is First application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by applicant - Mukesh S/o Narayan Bhabhar, who has been arrested by Police on 26.01.2020 in Crime No.35/2020, Police Station Nowgaon, District Dhar concerning offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411of the IPC.Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the case diary.As per prosecution story, present applicant along with other accused (total six accused) committed theft of two Exide batteries, valued Rs.30,000/- in the office of Deputy Director.During arrest they admitted commission of similar offence in two other cases.Accordingly, three FIR have been registered against them.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the present case is concerned, applicant has been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there is no recovery from him.He further submits that in similar cases registered against the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.31631/20 and M.Cr.C. No.29870/20 he has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29859/2020 Mukesh S/o Narayan Bhabhar V/s.State of M.P.-: 2 :-He is in custody since 26.01.2020 and due to corona epidemic there is no progress in the trial.The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed.There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial.He, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant is having criminal antecedents.I have perused the case-diary.The fact remains that at present applicant is made accused on the basis of memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in similar cases registered against the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.31631/20 and M.Cr.C. No.29870/20 he has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.09.2020, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed subject to future good conduct and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a 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 for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.29859/2020 Mukesh S/o Narayan Bhabhar V/s.State of M.P.-: 3 :-If the applicant is found involved in any other criminal case then this bail order shall be treated as cancelled. | ['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. |
13,112,585 | Heard on the question of admission.Petitioner has preferred this 4th repeat petition under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.40/10, registered at P. S. Prathivipur District Tikamgarh for the offence of Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC against him and other co-accused. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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. |
131,126,100 | The prime witness in this case is the victim.She deposed that on 26.02.2018 at around 01:00 pm, she had gone to the house of Shanti Aunty in gali No.1, Khajuri Khas.While she was returning home, Chand bhai met her, she know him because he was a son of her mother's friend.He asked her to accompany him stating that he had some work from her.They travelled to Kashmere Gate in an auto.From Kashmere Gate, they took metro.She did not know where they were going.When they got out of the metro train, accused told her that they had reached Gurgaon.Accused then took her to a room of his friend and thereafter, he and his friend left her in that room.At night, accused came and she asked him whether they were not going home? Accused told her that he had already informed her mother and they would go home the next day.They had food and thereafter, they went to sleep.Accused then forced himself upon her.She protested and cried but accused did not let go off her and then raped her.During the night, accused did so three more times.In the morning, mother and wife of the accused reached that room.They were brought to PS Khajuri Khas.A careful examination of the testimony of the victim would reveal that the only ground on which she had accompanied the accused had told her that he had some work from her.However, she had not explained what kind of work the accused had with her.It is also to be observed that the victim accompanied the accused in a metro from Kashmere Gate to Gurgaon and even at that stage, the victim did not question the accused as to where he was taking her and why he was taking her.Even on reaching Gurgaon, she did not ask the accused to take her back and stated that accused had taken her to a room where she was allegedly raped.It bears my signature at point A. The final opinion is Ex.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (Oral) CRL.M.A.37209/2019 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.M.A.37208/2019 (for condonation of delay in filing) The present application is filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 10 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. 540/2019 Page 1 of 14By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.06.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO) North East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO').The brief facts of the case, as mentioned by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:She suspected that Chand had taken away her daughter.During investigation, victim was produced before SI Hema Chaudhary.Victim was counselled and her statement was recorded.Victim alleged that for last one years, she was in love with her neighbour Chand.On 26.02.2018, she and accused Chand had gone for an outing to Gurugram and stayed there for a night.Next day i.e. on 27.02.2018, she came to PS.She further stated that nothing wrong had been done to her.During investigation, statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded wherein she alleged that accused had raped her four times.Accused was arrested.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused."CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 2 of 14In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all.The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused person during his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case and chose not to lead any witness in his defence.5. Learned APP for State further contended that the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident.She further states that the Trial Court completely ignored the fact that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent, cogent and there are no major omissions and contradictions in her testimonies.Learned counsel for the State further contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated with the medical evidence, as her hymen was freshly torn.Moreover the FSL report had further supported her version as semen of the accused was detected on the vaginal sample of the prosecutrix.CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 3 of 14We have heard the learned APP for the State at length and perused the available material on record.Then police recorded her statement.She was also taken to JPC Hospital for medical examination where her salwar (Ex. P-1), suit (Ex.P-2), undergarment (Ex, P-3) and bra (Ex.P-4) were taken by the doctor.She further deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 4 of 14 recorded by a judge.However, the statement did not bear her signature and thus, it was marked as Mark PW 1/A.CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 4 of 14During her cross examination, she deposed that prior to that day, she had never gone for an outing with the accused.She admitted that she had stated to the counsellor that she was in love with the accused for past one year.She admitted that she had stated that no act was committed with her by the accused and volunteered, that she had lied because the counsellor was completely unsympathetic to her and told her that how she could go with a married man and she was destroying his married life.She denied that accused was her friend or that she was in love with him and volunteered, that she used to call him as brother.She admitted that the accused had married two months prior to the incident.She denied that as they were in love, she had insisted the accused to take her to Gurgaon.She denied that whatever had happened between her and the accused was with her consent.Till the time they had reached the room in Gurgaon, she was neither threatened nor forced by the accused to accompany him.She was not kept in that room forcibly.She stayed with the accused for the night because accused had told her that he had informed her mother.She knew that her mother would never have agreed for her staying alone at night with a male.She had no explanation why she did not call her mother to verify what the accused was saying despite knowing that her mother to verify what the accused was saying despite knowing that her mother would never agree to such a thing.When she was going with the accused, she was anxious and scared.She admitted that she was not afraid of the accused but was afraid of the reaction of her parents when they would return.She admitted that she was afraid because she knew that she should not have gone with the accused and her family would not have CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 5 of 14 approved.She denied that she had eloped with the accused of her own accord.CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 5 of 14It is correct that in such cases, the testimony of the victim should be given prior importance and it should alone be sufficient to bring the guilt of the accused.At the same time, it is also well settled that such testimony has to be of sterling quality.In the present case, it has not been disputed on behalf of the accused that victim had accompanied the accused.The claim of the defence is that it was a consensual relationship.At that place also, victim stated that accused told her that they would stay in that room for a night and would return the next day and told her that he had informed her mother and her mother had agreed to it, but at the same time, she stated that she knew that mother would never agree to it.If she knew about it, she should have raised some protest.On the contrary, she stated that she had no explanation why she did not verify from her mother CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 6 of 14 what the accused was saying.She had also admitted that accused had not threatened her and that she was not scared of accused.Thus, nothing stopped the victim from asking the accused to take her back.CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 6 of 14Another important aspect is that the prosecution has examined one more witness i.e. PW 17 Ashraf.He is the person in whose room the victim and the accused had stayed on the fateful night.He deposed that on 26.02.2018, Chand called him from Daulatabad.He went near Govt. School Daulatabad and met Chand and his wife.He brought them to his room.He left them at his room and then went to the room of his friend.During his cross examination, he deposed that from Government School, Daulatabad till his room, he had brought Chand and wife of a motorcycle.Chand in front of that woman had said that she was his wife.Therefore, it is also to be observed that in the presence of the victim, accused had introduced the victim to PW17 as his wife but the victim did not even protest in front of PW17 that she was not the wife of accused.Further the victim had stated that when accused was forcing himself upon her, she had shouted and cried.However, PW17, who was in adjoining room, has deposed that he did not hear any cry or shout for help.Thereafter, when she was recovered, she told before the counselor that she was in love with the accused but then went on to state as explanation during her cross examination that the counselor was unsympathetic to her.I accordingly found that in view of the circumstances emerging from the testimony of the victim, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the victim that she was not a consenting party of such an act and the accused had forced CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 7 of 14 himself upon her, as has been stated by her.As the victim was having the age of consent, the possibility of victim being a consenting party is very strong.Thus, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.The accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.His bail bond stands cancelled.CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 7 of 14Having discussed the judgment of the trial court and from the perusal of the evidence on record, we are of the belief that the prosecutrix willingly joined the company of the Respondent because during her cross-examination she deposed that "till the time we had reached the room in Gurgaon, I was neither threatened nor forced by the accused to accompany.I was not kept in that room forcibly.I stayed with the accused for the night because he told me that he had informed my mother.I knew that my mother would never had agreed for me staying alone at night with a male.I have no explanation why I did not call my mother to verify what the accused was saying despite knowing that my mother would never agree to such a thing".Further during her cross-examination when she was asked as to how she came to know about the marriage of the accused she deposed that "It is correct that the accused was married two months prior to the incident" and had further herself contradicted with her initial version and had deposed 'It is correct that I stated to the counsellor that I was in love with accused for past one year.It is correct that I had stated that no act was committed with me by the accused.I had lied with the counsellor because the counsellor was completely un- sympathetical and she said to me that how I could go with a married man and I was destroying his married life."CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 8 of 14Moreover the testimony of PW-17 Ashraf Ali completely negates the version of the prosecutrix because during his cross examination he deposed that "From Govt. School, Daultabad till my room I had brought Chand and his wife on a motorcycle.Chand in front of that women had said that she was his wife.It took us about 5 to 7 minutes to reach at my room.I left my room immediately on opening the room and handing it over to them.The friend's room where I went, was in the same house.Chand and his wife had reached at my room at about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. During their stay at my room, while I was in the adjoining room, I did not hear nay commotion, shout or cry for help.During this period, that girl also did not make any complaint against Chand".The relevant portion of the trial Court judgment has been reproduced as under:In the present case, no document in the form of birth certificate and certificate of first school attended by victim or in the form of matriculation certificate is available on records.Therefore, the only way to CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 9 of 14 determine the age of victim was through the ossification test.The report of the ossification test has stated the age of victim to be 15 to 17 years.In these circumstances, keeping the in view the precedents, if one year is added to upper age limit of victim, the age of victim becomes 18 years and thus the benefit has to accrue to the accused."CRL.L.P. 540/2019 Page 9 of 14Perusal of the above extracted findings reveals that 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 GTB Hospital, Delhi.As per the report of the Medical Board (Ex.PW-13/2), the age of the prosecutrix was determined as 15 - 17 years at the time of her medical examination.Further, in order to prove the report on record, the Radiologist of GTB Hospital, Delhi was examined as PW-13 who deposed as under:"On 02.05.18, I was posted as abovesaid in GTB hospital.On that day, Medical Board was constituted by Director, GTB Hospital; with Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines as Chairperson and I was one of the members of that board from the department of Radiology.I had examined the X-rays of shoulder, elbow, wrist, pelvis with hips of the victim.As per my X-ray report, the average radiological bone age of the victim was 15 to 17 years.I have seen my opinion.It bears my signatures at point A and the same is now Ex.I had also signed on the final opinion given by the report.The certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Tambol on the basis of which the details in the admission form (Ext. PW 5/A) was filled up by PW 5 has not been exhibited by the prosecution.Nothing hinges on the document exhibited by the prosecution as Ext. PW 5/B as that is the consequential certificate issued on the basis of the entries in Ext. PW 5/A. The mother of the prosecutrix who had allegedly signed Ext. PW 5/A has not been examined by the prosecution.On the other hand, we have on record the evidence of Dr Neelam Gupta (PW 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.Applying the law as laid down in Jaya Mala (Supra) to the facts of the present case, we find that the margin of two years is to be considered on the higher side giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused, which brings out that the prosecutrix had attained the age of consent and was fully competent to give her consent at the time of making sexual relations with the respondent and there exists no cogent reason to intervene in the findings of the Learned Trial Court in relation to determination of age of the Prosecutrix. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
131,133,685 | SK Court No.26 CRM 10656 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.12.2016 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 102/2014 dated 04.06.2014 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/338/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the I.E. Act and Sections 3/4 of the E.S. Act.And In Re: Sk.Faruk @ Sayed Faruk & Ors.Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr.Adv., Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Mr. Pronojit Roy ......For the Petitioners.Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das ... For the State.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.Perused the Case Diary.The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 6 are in custody for 2 and years and the petitioner nos. 5 and 7 are in custody for 9 months and the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 8 are in custody for 4 months, 5 months and 11 months respectively.The trial was already commenced in 2 March, 2016 against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 6 and after five witnesses were examined the petitioner nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 were arrested and against them charge was framed.Subsequently, the petitioner no. 3 was arrested and tomorrow is the date fixed for consideration of question of framing charge, so far he is concerned.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of political rivalry.Lastly, it is contended that during his treatment in the hospital, his dying declaration was recorded.In the said dying declaration the involvement of the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8 was not referred and the petitioner nos. 2 and 7 are not named in the FIR.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this is a very unfortunate case where a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Dubrajpur Police Station was brutally killed by the petitioners.He further submits that this officer when on duty, having receipt an information that two groups of miscreants were involved fighting with each other, he with force arrived at the spot and there he was assaulted.We have gone through the case diary.Now, considering the facts above and what we find from the perusal of the materials collected during investigation, the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2, namely, Mir Lalbabu @ Mir Anowar Sahadat stands allowed and the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offence and the fact that a police officer, on duty, was killed while he had been to the spot for maintaining law and order and considering their involvement, the prayer for bail of the remaining accused/petitioners stands rejected.It be noted that the petitioner no. 7 absconded for about one and half years.Let the petitioner no. 2 be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, Birbhum upon furnishing Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, one of whom must be local.The instant application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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. |
131,149,781 | M.C. No.721/2009 Page 1 of 9M.C. No.721/2009 Page 1 of 9"(a) To summon the record pertaining to the case titled Santosh T.V. Vs.Aradhana Vikram Singh u/s 420 IPC from the court of Sh.Pritam Singh, M.M., New Delhi, where it is now fixed for 17.03.2009; and from the Court of Sh.J.R. Aryan, ld.Ms. Aradhana Vikram Singh, the petitioner herein vide this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is seeking following prayer: Crl.ASJ the records pertaining to Criminal Revision No.258 of 2006 titled Aradhana Vikram Singh versus State and others;(b) To examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 08.12.05 AND 07-11-08;(c) To quash/set aside the order dated 08.12.05 and order dated 07-11-08 as well as the proceedings and discharge the petitioner."Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner came in touch with the complainant through one Rajeev Ozha.The petitioner, after taking respondent No.1 into confidence, requested him to make payment of Rs.6,20,000/- on her behalf to M/s. S.H. Group, Naya Bazar, New Delhi as she was undergoing some financial difficulties.She represented to the complainant that she was a resourceful lady.Believing the representation and assurance given by the petitioner that she would repay the amount to respondent No.1 within a week, respondent No.1 made payment of Rs.6,20,000/- vide pay order No.810443 dated 21.12.93 to S.H. Group, Naya Bazar on behalf of the petitioner.The petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of respondent No.1 on 22.12.93 and in addition to the promissory note, she also issued a cheque for Rs.6,20,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 on 30.12.93 drawn on Central Crl.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 2 of 9 Bank of India, Panchsheel Park, Delhi and she represented to the complainant that the cheque would get encashed within a week.The cheque, however, on presentation was dishonoured and returned with the remarks "Insufficient Funds." The respondent No.1 immediately contacted the petitioner and protested.The petitioner felt sorry for the inconvenience and asked him to resubmit the cheque.Cheque was resubmitted with the bank on 19.01.94 but it was returned with the remark the account holder has stopped payment.On the aforesaid allegations, respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 and 420 IPC.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 2 of 9Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after conducting preliminary inquiry, summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 420 IPC.After the recording of pre-charge evidence, the trial court heard the parties and directed the charges under Section 417/420 IPC to be framed against the petitioner.Aggrieved by the order of the revision court, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.12.2005 of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order dated 07.11.2008 of the revision court.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 3 of 9In the notice of demand, the respondent was not expected to give all the details of the transaction entered into with the petitioner.He was only required under law to inform the petitioner that the cheque issued by her was dishonoured and therefore, she should pay the cheque amount within the requisite period.Thus, the absence of allegations regarding cheating in the notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act served on the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 4 of 9It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in his cross-examination, complainant admitted that demand draft favouring M/s. S.H. Group was made on 21.12.93 and affidavit CW/1 was made on 22.12.93 whereas cheque is dated 30.02.93 and that complainant admitted that he asked the petitioner to give affidavit CW/1 and she did not give it on her own.From this, learned counsel contended that it is a purely civil transaction and no case under Section 420 IPC is made out.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 5 of 9M.C. No.721/2009 Page 5 of 9I am not convinced with the argument.Merely because the respondent (complainant) insisted for affidavit by the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that there was no intention to cheat on the part of the petitioner.Learned counsel argued that perusal of the material on record would show that respondent has not made a specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner dishonestly induced respondent No.1 to pay Rs.6,20,000/- on her behalf to M/s. S.H. Group, Naya Bazar, Delhi.Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent No.1 even in his testimony as CW1 has not stated about misrepresentation made by the petitioner or inducement on her part which led him to pay Rs.6,20,000/- on her behalf to M/s. S.H. Group.Complainant Santosh appeared as CW1 before the Magistrate and he has supported the allegations in the complaint wherein he stated on oath that keeping in view friendly relations with the petitioner/accused and coming under the impression created by her that she was in genuine need of money and would return the same, he issued a pay order of Rs.6,20,000/- in favour of S.H. Group, Naya Bazar, New Delhi which version, prima facie, show that respondent (complainant) had parted with Rs.6,20,000/- on behalf of the petitioner mainly believing the representation of the petitioner that she would repay the amount within seven days for which she also issued a post dated cheque.The statement of CW1 also finds corroboration from the statements of witnesses Thomas Ibrahim and Capt.Rajiv Ojha, who have categorically stated that at the time of transaction, the petitioner had assured that she would repay the loan money within seven days.From the evidence on record, it prima facie appears that the petitioner induced the respondent to pay Rs.6,20,000/- on her behalf to M/s. S.H. Group on the promise and assurance that the amount would be repaid within a week and she also issued a cheque of Rs.6,20,000/- in favour of the respondent.The said cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks "Insufficient Funds." Thereafter, on second presentation with drawee bank, it was dishonoured with the remarks "stop payment.The fact remains that the draft of Rs.6,20,000/- was given Crl.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 8 of 9 to M/s. S.H. Group by the respondent on behalf of the petitioner at her instance.M.C. No.721/2009 Page 8 of 9In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the trial proceedings.The petition as well as the pending application is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
68,353,619 | This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R.registered in Crime No.121 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,324, 427, 379(NP) & 506(ii) IPC, pending on the file of the first respondentPolice as against the petitioners.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2014 for theoffence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 427, 379(NP) & 506(ii) IPC against thepetitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 to 20 & 21 and inorder to quash the same, the petitioners are before this Court by filing thepresent petition, on the ground that both the parties have arrived at acompromise.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Selvaraj,the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, TirunelveliDistrict is present.The defacto complainant and the petitioners are presentand their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition tothe confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) through Mr.Selvaraj, the Special Sub Inspector ofPolice, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.Learned counselappearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respectiveparties.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed thisquash petition along with a joint memo of compromise filed on 25.04.2018,wherein, it is stated as follows:"4.It is submitted that since these petitioners and defacto complainantare relatives and they belong to the same religion and the said dispute wasregarding to family dispute and later the petitioners and defacto complainanthad entered into a compromise and settled the matter amicably before theirreligious elders.7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.The jointcompromise memo filed on 25.04.2018 shall form part of this order.Hence, each petitioner isdirected to remit a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Total sum of Rs.35,000/-) as costswithin a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,by way of an individual/collective Demand Draft drawn in favour of the HighCourt Legal Services Committee, Madurai Branch, who shall receive the saidamount as ?Environmental Fund? and make use of the said amount for the purposes mentioned in the order passed by this Court in CRP (NPD) No.1643 of 2010 on 20.06.2018 [D.Govindasamy Vs.L.Ganesh Naidu (Deceased) and 2 others].1.The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
68,364,063 | Taken into custody when and by whom07.09.2013 at 14.25 hrs Constable Road, near Ambedkar Statue North East 3km Inspector and party5Date & Hour of bringing to Station07.09.2013 at 16.15 hours6How disposed of with Date & Hour of disposedSent to remandifJ cj;jut[ rl;lg; gphpt[ 62 F/tp/K/r/1K/j/m/vz;-fh/ep/nf/7 I/rp/vg;/ fh/ep/F/vz;/ 672-20132Fw;wk;294(b).The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance.Learned counsel would point out that there is variation in the translation of the Arrest Report as could be found in pages 177 and 179 of the booklet, as regards the details pertaining to remand.Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention and on this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.980/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 12.09.2013, is set aside.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
68,385,588 | The doctor (PW.7) examinedSmt.MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.By the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2004, the High Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 143/1994 insofar as the appellant (accused No.1) is concerned, and consequently convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC.2.Signature Not Verified The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 4:30 pmDigitally signed byDEEPAK GUGLANI on 15.01.1994, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 (including the appellant)Date: 2018.06.0113:14:23 ISTReason:along with accused Nos.4 and 5, with the common intention of 2committing murder of deceased persons, namely Kumari Radhika(aged about 11 years) and Smt. Manjula, as well as to causegrievous hurt to the informant Smt. Honnamma, trespassed intothe house of Smt. Honnamma and quarrelled with her in filthylanguage; the appellant assaulted the informant with a chopperon her head and hands and caused grievous injuries to her; theaccused No.2 assaulted the deceased Smt. Manjula with achopper; the accused No.3 assaulted the deceased KumariRadhika with a chopper on her head.Due to the said assault,Kumari Radhika sustained grievous injuries as a result of whichshe died at 7:15 p.m. on 15.01.1994 at B.M. Hospital, Mysore.Based on the informationlodged by the injured eyewitness Smt. Honnamma, the crimecame to be registered.All the five accused were tried for theoffences punishable under Sections 326, 302, and 114 read withSection 34, IPC.The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, afterevaluation of the material on record and after hearing both theparties.However, the High Court set aside the 3judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the appellant andconsequently convicted him for the offences punishable underSections 302 and 326, IPC.3 Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, advocate, appearing on behalfof the appellant, having taken us through the material on recordsubmits that the High Court reversed the wellconsideredjudgment of the Sessions Court qua the appellant herein eventhough there is no cogent evidence against the appellant.Thefirst appellate court should not have interfered with the judgmentof acquittal, particularly when the judgment of acquittal wasbased on settled principles of law as well as on due appreciationof the evidence on record.The judgment of acquittal cannot besaid to be perverse, and the view taken by the Trial Court is oneof the possible views under the facts and circumstances of thecase, hence the High Court should not have interfered with thejudgment of the Trial Court.Per contra, Mr. Joseph Aristotle S.,advocate for the State, argued in support of the judgment of theHigh Court.4 As mentioned supra, the informant Smt. Honnamma is aninjured eyewitness.Apart from narrating the incident, it narratesabout motive for commission of offence also, i.e., there was adispute between the accused and the informant with regard topartition of the property.The first information discloses that at4:00 p.m. on 15.01.1994, the appellant and his elder brother,Puttaswamy and Rajesh came to the house of the informant andstarted quarrelling with her asking as to why she was not givingthe property to Jayamma (accused No.5), sister of the appellant.So saying, the appellant assaulted the informant, Smt.Honnamma (PW. 23) with a chopper on her head and hands.Puttaswamy (accused No.2) assaulted Smt. Manjula (who waspresent in the house) with a chopper on her head three to fourtimes.H.M. Rajesh (accused No.3) assaulted Kumari Radhika(minorwho was also present in the house of informant) with achopper on her head.No overt acts are attributed to Shankar(accused No.4) and Jayamma (accused No.5) in the firstinformation.It is needless to observe that specific allegations arefound as mentioned supra against Jayaswamy (the appellant),Puttaswamy (accused No.2) and H.M. Rajesh (accused No.3) only. 5In order to prove its allegations, the prosecution examined31 witnesses.However, the important witness in the matter isPW.23 i.e., the injured eyewitness/informant Smt. Honnamma.The case of the prosecution, thus, fully and mainly centresaround the evidence of Smt. Honnamma (PW.23), who survivedafter the assault by the appellant.Honnamma, Kumari Radhika and Smt. Manjula initiallyand issued wound certificates (Ex. P7, Ex. P6 and Ex. P8respectively).PW.14 (doctor) conducted the postmortemexamination of the dead body of Manjula.The doctor (PW.30)conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body ofRadhika.None of the witnesses (except PW.23) are eyewitnesses;the other witnesses examined are either panch witnesses orpolice officials.Three personssustained injuries and out of them two persons, namely KumariRadhika and Smt. Manjula, succumbed to the injuries.Theincident has taken place in broad daylight at about 4:30 p.m. It 6is not the story of the prosecution that the accused personsclosed the door after trespassing into the house and committedthe offences secretly; on the other hand, according to theprosecution, the accused have committed the offence openly.None of the neighbouring witnesses had come for the help of thedeceased and injured.Although the prosecution examined twoneighbouring witnesses, they are not the eyewitnesses.Looking to the evidence on record, the Trial Court as well asthe High Court were justified in concluding that the incident hadtaken place for the reason of a property dispute.Specific overt act had been attributed to the appellant bythe informant (PW.23) not only in her first information but also inher deposition.She has categorically deposed that the appellantassaulted her with chopper; neither did the appellant assault thetwo deceased, nor did he instigate others to assault the twodeceased.PW.23 has further specifically stated in the firstinformation as well as deposed before the Court that accusedNo.2, Puttaswamy assaulted the deceased Smt. Manjula with achopper and accused No.3 assaulted Kumari Radhika with achopper.The overtacts specified by PW.23 both in first information and herevidence reveal that there is no ambiguity in the deposition ofPW.23 with regard to the overt acts of each of the accused.Theacts of each of these accused Nos. 1 to 3 are compartmentalised,i.e., accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with a chopper,whereas accused No.2 assaulted Smt. Manjula with a chopper,and accused No.3 assaulted Kumari Radhika with a chopper.8But, in view of the specific ocular testimony of PW.23 that theappellant has assaulted PW.23 only, (motherinlaw of thedeceased Smt. Manjula and the foster mother of KumariRadhika), aforementioned note in the wound certificates loses itsimportance.It is relevant to note that PW.23 has fully supportedthe case of the prosecution and she is the only eyewitness.Moreover, her evidence is consistent with her averments found inthe first information.We do not find any reason to discard theevidence of PW.23, more particularly as her evidence isunambiguous, cogent and consistent with the case of theprosecution.By relying on the wound certificates, the High Court,as mentioned supra, convicted the appellant while confirming theacquittal of the other accused.She was referred to a neurologist for an expert opinioninasmuch as she had sustained an incised wound over the leftparietal area.She had also sustained a fracture at the lower endof her right forearm.Accordingly, the appeal isallowed in part, in terms of the following order: | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
6,839,387 | of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Joydeb Roy ... ... petitioner Mr. Jeenia Rudra ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Debjani Sahu ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Maynaguri P.S. Case No. 416 of 2018 dated 09.10.2018 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the father of the principal accused.The State produces the case diary and refers to several statements.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
67,116,591 | Heard on I.A. No.5591/2013, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal.As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 118 days.Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.7.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.35/2012, whereby respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).As per the prosecution story, on 8.10.2011, when prosecutrix was alone in the house, the respondent no.1 entered into her house and after closing the doors subjected her to rape after pressing her mouth.At that time, maternal grand mother of prosecutrix returned and seeing her, respondent no.1 fled from the spot.Prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her and neighbour Ratan Thakur and thereafter lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Tikariya.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment.After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court found that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age.Dr. Kirti Singh (PW11) had examined the prosecutrix and found that her hymen was old ruptured and she was habitual of sexual intercourse and, accordingly, prepared the report (Ex.P/17).Taking into consideration the entire evidence and material available on record, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. | ['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
671,170 | JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J.The substantive jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that a day before 24.11.1996 Ahru had stolen some Soya bean crop from the field of Hem Singh.Ahru was relative of appellants Charan Singh and Amar Singh.Kamla Bai, wife of Hem Singh had rebuked Ahru for his committing theft of the crop.Felt aggrieved, appellants Charan Singh, Amar Singh and their relative Tok Singh got annoyed.On 24.11.1996, at about 11.00 a.m. when Rai Singh (deceased) and Hem Singh went to their threshing-floor, they found appellants present there.As soon as they reached there, appellant Amar Singh rushed and caught hold of Rai Singh.At that moment Tok Singh and Sher Singh assaulted Hem Singh by fists and kicks and felled him.Immediately thereafter, Charan Singh picked up a spade which was lying there and dealt several blows from the backside of it on the head of Rai Singh, as a result of which, Rai Singh fell down and died.Thereafter, appellant Amar Singh took the spade from Charan Singh and dealt 2-3 blows from the back side on the head of Hem Singh.Bajru Bega (PW-3), who was present in the vicinity, raised alarm, then all the four appellants ran away from the spot leaving the spade there.Hem Singh went to his house and narrated the occurrence to Buddha Singh (PW-1).Buddha Singh went to Police Station Karanjiya, district Mandla and lodged report (Ex. P/1).Appellant Charan Singh has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Amar Singh have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.All of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the murder of Rai Singh.Appellant Amar Singh has been convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Charan Singh have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for causing hurt to Hem Singh.A marg report (Ex. P/2) was also recorded.Sub Inspector Rajendra Mohan Dubey (PW-13) went to the spot and carried out inquest proceedings.He sent the dead body of Rai Singh to Primary Health Centre, Karanjiya, for postmortem examination, where Dr. Pradeep Sinha (PW-12) carried out the postmortem examination.According to his report (Ex. P/16), Rai Singh had sustained one lacerated wound 2x1/2x1/2 cms.on left lower part of face, lacerated wound 2x1x1 cms.on left upper part of face and temporal region and Anr.lacerated wound 2x1x1 cms.on right upper part of forehead.There had been depressed fractures in the skull of left temporal region and right upper part of forehead.The brain had a lacerated wound on left temporal region and lower jaw was broken at three places.All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Cause of death was the injury to brain and intracranial region with haemorrhage.Nature of death was homicidal.On examining Hem Singh, Dr. Pradeep Sinha (PW-12) found one lacerated wound 2x1x1/2 cms.on post-central part of scalp.The injury was caused by hard and blunt object and was simple in nature.After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants on the allegations that they committed murder of Rai Singh and attempted to cause the death of Hem Singh.Trial Court, mainly relying on the evidence of Hem Singh (PW-2), Bajru (PW-3), Buddha Singh (PW-1) and medical evidence of Dr. Pradeep Sinha (PW-12), convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.Shri Mohd. Saleem, learned Counsel for the appellants, without disputing the occurrence, submitted that appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Amar Singh were not liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the act of appellant Charan Singh.He submitted that the conviction of Charan Singh for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was also not justified and at the most, he could be held liable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.He also assailed the conviction of appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that the injury found on the body of Hem Singh was not dangerous or sufficient to cause his death.Learned Counsel for the State tried to justify the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court.It has not been disputed, in our opinion rightly, that the presence of Hem Singh (PW-2) at the spot is established.Hem Singh (PW-2) testified that when he and Rai Singh went to the threshing-floor, all the four appellants abruptly pounced on Rai Singh.They scuffled and felled him.Appellant Charan Singh then dealt blows from the back side of spade on his head.When he tried to rescue him, they felled him and at that time appellant Amar Singh snatched the spade from the hand of Charan Singh and dealt a blow on his head.When Bajru (PW-3) raised hue and cry, all the appellants-accused, leaving spade there, ran away towards forest.According to him, along with Bajru he went to the house of his brother Buddha Singh (PW-1) and narrated incident to him.9. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that Hem Singh has improved upon his case diary statement (Ex. D/1) wherein he did not say that all the four appellants had pounced over Rai Singh and felled him.Hem Singh was confronted with his aforesaid statement (Ex. D/1) wherein he did not say that when Charan Singh had dealt blows of spade on the head of Rai Singh, other appellants had held his hands.On perusal of the relevant portion of case diary statement of Hem Singh (PW-2), it is revealed that when appellant Amar Singh had caught hold of Rai Singh and Hem Singh wanted to intervene, appellants Tok Singh and Sher Singh assaulted him by fists and kicks and, in the meantime, suddenly, Charan Singh picked up a spade lying at the spot and dealt its blows on the had of Rai Singh.Similarly, the earlier version of Hem Singh was that suddenly appellant Amar Singh had taken spade from the hand of Charan Singh and assaulted on his head.On perusal of the evidence of Bajru (PW-3), we find the same situation.In chief examination of his testimony, he said that all the four appellants had caught hold of Rai Singh and Charan Singh had dealt a blow by blunt side of spade and during the quarrel Amar Singh had taken the spade from the hand of Charan Singh and assaulted Hem Singh by its blunt side on his head and that on raising his hue and cry, all the appellants ran away.During cross-examination, this witness was also contradicted by his case diary statement (Ex. D/2) wherein he did not say that all the four appellants-accused had caught hold of Rai Singh.The evidence of Hem Singh (PW-2) finds corroboration from the testimony of Buddha Singh (PW-1), to whom he had narrated the incident.On careful examination of the evidence of these witnesses, we are satisfied that all the four appellants had participated in the incident in which Rai Singh suffered injuries at the hands of appellant Charan Singh and Hem Singh suffered simple injury at the hands of appellant Amar Singh.Now the crucial question before us is whether all the appellants are liable for causing death of Rai Singh and for attempting to cause death of Hem Singh with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is justified.On appraisal of the evidence of eyewitnesses Hem Singh (PW-2) and Bajru (PW-3), it appears that they have improved upon their earlier version given by them under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in attributing the act of holding Rai Singh by all the four appellants while the assault was made by appellant Charan Singh.It is not established beyond doubt that appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Amar Singh continued to hold Rai Singh till the assault on him was over.All that appears in the evidence is that appellant Amar Singh had scuffled with Rai Singh and, in the meanwhile, appellant Charan Singh had picked up a spade, which was lying at the spot and had assaulted by its back side on his head, as a result of which he died.Thus, from the mere fact that appellant Amar Singh caught hold of the deceased and scuffled with him while Charan Singh picked up a spade and assaulted him, it cannot be inferred beyond reasonable doubt that he formed common intention with Charan Singh to murder the deceased.Similarly, other appellants Tok Singh and Sher Singh also cannot be held liable for the murder of the deceased vicariously with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.On the same principle, appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Charan Singh cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury to Hem Singh (PW-2).It has clearly come in the evidence of eyewitnesses that suddenly appellant Amar Singh had snatched the spade from the hands of Charan Singh and assaulted by its blunt side on the head of Hem Singh.At the most, appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Amar Singh were liable for an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34, Penal Code.We are fortified in concluding so from the ratio of Shambhu Kuer v. State of Bihar , wherein the Apex Court held that from the mere fact that the appellant caught hold of the deceased and scuffled with him, while co-accused took out a knife and commenced the assault, it cannot be inferred beyond reasonable doubt that he shared the intention of co-accused to murder the deceased.At the most, he was vicariously liable for an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, Penal Code.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that since the assault by the blunt side of the spade was made in a sudden fight, the act of appellant Charan Singh was covered under the 4th Exception of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was only liable to be convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.For bringing in operation the Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender taking undue advantage and having not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side.In such circumstances, the cause for committing the offence of homicide is not clearly traceable to unilateral provocation i.e. whole blame cannot be placed on one side.In the instant case, the established facts are that when deceased had reached his threshing-floor, appellant Amar Singh had scuffled with him and immediately thereafter appellant Charan Singh had picked up a spade and dealt repeated blows from its blunt side on the head of deceased.There is absolutely no confusion that there had been bilateral quarrel between the deceased and the appellants.Dr. Pradeep Sinha (PW-12) had found three lacerated wounds on the skull of Rai Singh, which had resulted into depressed fractures of skull bones and laceration of brain.His lower jaw was also broken at three places.Aforesaid injuries had resulted into the death of Rai Singh.In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that appellant Charan Singh had caused the death of Rai Singh with the intention of causing his death.His conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is therefore affirmed.Since the injury caused by appellant Amar Singh to Hem Singh (PW2) was found to be simple in nature, his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.Conviction and sentence of appellant Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Amar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is set aside, instead they are convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.Conviction and sentence of appellants Tok Singh, Sher Singh and Charan Singh under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is set aside.They are acquitted of that charge.Conviction and sentence of appellant Amar Singh under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.All the aforesaid sentences of the appellants shall run concurrently.Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of appellant Charan Singh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is affirmed.Appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
67,121,909 | With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.The applicant has moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to release the applicant, though he has deposited the fine amount.However, he was sent to the jail because fine was not deposited within the time.C.No.12709/2013 After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a sorry state of affair that the learned Magistrate could not comply with the provisions of IPC etc. Vide corrected order dated 12.7.2013, fine of Rs.4,000/- was imposed and therefore, a default sentence was to be executed, if fine was not deposited.According to section 68 of IPC, as soon as the fine is deposited, the accused is to be released and no default sentence could be executed against him, though fine was not deposited within time.C.No.12709/2013 revision No.900/2005 then, he shall be released forthwith. | ['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. |
67,136,911 | Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.0254/2016 registered by P.S. Shahgarh District Sagar (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(2)(I)(N) of the IPC and 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 06/10/2016 prosecutrix found disappeared from her residential house situated at Shahgarh under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sagar.On the same date, applicant was also found disappeared from the village.So prosecutrix's mother Kranti Bai has lodged the report regarding disappearance of her daughter and narrated the name of the applicant as a person who has kidnapped her daughter.On that basis Crime No.254/2016 under Section 363 & 366 has been registered against the applicant.Later on, on 05/09/2018 prosecutrix was recovered in Shahgarh thereafter she was handed over to her mother and father.Her statement under Section 164 has been recorded.On that basis, Sections of 376 of the IPC and 5(M)/6 of the POCSO Act, have been added in the crime already registered against the applicant.He further submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix have performed marriage and both were living together as husband and wife.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.49901/2018 (Kallan @ Chhotu Raikwar Vs.State of M.P.) 2 On going through the prosecutrix's statement which has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it seems that she has gone with the applicant with her own will and she has also solemnized marriage with the applicant.Though the prosecutrix was technically minor at the time of offence but she seems to be quite prudent and has shown to accompany the applicant on the date of incidence.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2018.12.19 14:33:41 +05'30' | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 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. |
67,140,690 | The petitioner in this revision case is a third party to C.C.No.3766 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The respondent filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.3766 of 2011 against four persons and the first accused is a private limited company, namely, M/s. Soft Bank Micro Systems Pvt.Ltd., Chennai, A.2 is S.Sivasubramaniam, one of the Directors of the first accused company, A.4 is P.Kishore, one of the Directors of the first accused company, and A.3 is one R.Ramachandran.The prosecution filed charge sheet against the aforesaid four persons stating that the first accused committed criminal offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and substantive offences thereof; the second and third accused each committed criminal offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the fourth accused committed criminal offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC.On 9.11.2010, during search of the house of A.3, the Investigating Officer seized the Document bearing No.1635 of 2010 standing in the name of the petitioner and also came to know that 3 Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos.494129, 494130 both dated 01.09.2010 and 0113330 dated 09.11.2009 issued by Canara Bank, Anna Nagar East Branch, Chennai are also standing in the name of the petitioner and therefore, issued a letter to the said Bank to freeze the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts, without getting any order from the Court and also did not produce the Document bearing No.1635 of 2010 before the trial Court nor marked the same during trial.Therefore, the petitioner, who is the wife of the third accused, in whose name the sale deed Document No.1635 of 2010 and also Fixed Deposits stand, filed a Petition in CRL.M.P.No.914 of 2014 under Sections 451 and 457 r/w 102 of Cr.P.C. for return of the Sale Deed Document bearing No.1635 of 2010, to direct the respondent to withdraw the letter sent to the Sub-Registrar, Sriperumbadur and to de-freeze the three Fixed Deposit Receipts.The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed an order directing the respondent to return the Sale Deed Document bearing No.1635 of 2010 to the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of PW.42, Investigating Officer.Nevertheless, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate refused to pass any order with respect to the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the letter sent by the Investigating Officer to the Sub-Registrar, Sriperambadur, directing the latter not to register any Document relating to the property covered under the Sale Deed Document bearing No.1635 of 2010 and so also refused to de-freeze the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the petitioner.Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Case is filed.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent police without following the mandatory provisions under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., by way of letter instructed the Sub-Registrar, Sriperambadur not to register any Document relating to the property covered under the Sale deed Document bearing No.1635 of 2010 and also erred in freezing the Fixed Deposit Receipts standing in the name of the petitioner and therefore, such instructions of the respondent are liable to be set aside.He further submitted that the trial Court having directed the respondent to return the Sale Deed Document bearing Regn.No.1635 of 2010 to the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of PW.42, the Investigating Officer, as the Sale Deed has nothing to do with the crime, ought to have held that the letter issued by the Investigating Officer to the Sub-Registrar, Sriperambadur has to be withdrawn and therefore, the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in that respect has to be set aside.Therefore, in the absence of any evidence produced by the prosecution to the effect that the Fixed Deposit Receipts standing in the name of the petitioner were purchased from and out of the loan availed by A.1, A.2 and A.4 and the money was siphoned off by A.1, A.2 and A.4 through A.3, the order of trial Court in respect of Fixed Deposit Receipts is also liable to be set aside.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor (for CBI Cases) submitted that the trial has commenced and examination of PW.42 was over and others have to be examined.He, therefore, submitted that having regard to the stage of the trial, a suitable direction may be given to the trial Court to dispose of the case within a stipulated period and also direct the trial Judge to give a suitable direction with respect to Fixed Deposit Receipts which were freezed as per the direction of the Investigating Officer and also to withdraw the letter given by the Investigating Officer to the Sub-Registrar, Sriperambadur, depending upon the result of that case and therefore, no final order need be passed at this stage.The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in dismissing the prayer of the petitioner regarding the Fixed Deposit Receipts and withdrawal of the Investigating Officer PW.42's letter addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Sripermbadur is liable to be set aside?As stated supra, all the four accused were charge sheeted for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.It is further stated that A.3 Ramachandran was a Director in R.M.K.S. Minerals.In November, 2006, he joined as Director of R.M.K.S. Minerals only to offer third party collateral security.It is further stated that the property given as collateral security by A.3 in respect of the loan availed by A.1 was already mortgaged by A.3 with Bharath Overseas Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai and he also offered the sale deed of the property as collateral security in the loan availed by R.M.K.S.Minerals with State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Chennai.It is further stated in the charge sheet that the investigation revealed that A.2 forged the signature of A.4 in cheques in 23 instances and withdrew money by using those cheques.The loan availed by A.1 was also transferred to various accounts of different companies belonged to A.2, namely, Sakthi Super Stockists, Sakthi Broad Cast Pvt.Ltd., S.K.Enterprises.It is further stated that A.2 siphoned off Rs.1.17 crore from the account of A.1 Company.It is also stated that by the wrongful acts of A.2 and A.4 along with A.3, wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.374 laks was caused to the Punjab National Bank and corresponding gain to themselves.Therefore, they were charge sheeted for the various offences as stated above.As stated supra, PW.42 in his evidence only stated that he was of the opinion that the money of A.3 was converted into Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the petitioner.Further, he has not stated during cross-examination that the loan amount availed by by A.1, A.2 and A.4 was converted into Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the petitioner and he has only stated that he was of the opinion that A.3 money was converted into Fixed Deposit Receipts.Therefore, in the absence of any link connecting the misappropriation of the amount and that of the Fixed Deposit Receipts created, the Inspector of Police has no jurisdiction to freeze these three Fixed Deposit Receipts.Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the Fixed Deposit Receipts standing in the name of the petitioner with that of the loan amount available by A.1, A.2 and A.4 and having regard to the allegations made in the charge sheet that A.3 was not a Director and he only offered his property as collateral security and received commission and also in the absence of any steps taken up by the prosecution to mark Fixed Deposit Receipts during trial or letting in evidence to the effect that Fixed Deposit Receipts were created from and out of the loan amount available by A.1, A.2 and A.4, the Fixed Deposit Receipts standing in the name of the petitioner cannot be freezed.This was not properly appreciated by the trial Court.Though the trial is on the final stage, having regard to the findings rendered above, there is no need to direct the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass any orders with regard to Fixed Deposit Receipts while disposing of the case.As the Fixed Deposit Receipts are not the subject matter of the criminal prosecution and the Fixed Deposit Receipts are not marked as evidence, nor produced during investigation, the learned trial Judge cannot pass any orders in respect of those Fixed Deposit Receipts.Hence, the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 26.8.2014 made in Crl.The freezing order issued by the Investigating Officer to the Canara Bank, Anna Nagar East Branch, Chennai, in respect of Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos.494129, 494130 both dated 01.09.2010 and 0113330 dated 09.11.2009 standing in the name of the petitioner is set aside.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the Document bearing Regn.No.1635 of 2010 standing in the name of the petitioner was not relevant for the case and therefore, the Document was not submitted before the Court and the petitioner was entitled to receive the said Document.When the Document bearing Regn.No.1635 of 2010 was returned to the petitioner on the ground that the Document has nothing to do with the investigation of the case, the respondent police had no right to write such a letter to the Sub-Registrar not to register any Document in respect of the property covered under Document bearing Regn.No.1635 of 2010 and the same is also set aside.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases), High Court, Madras. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,163,111 | !For Appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.184/2009 .. Mr.G.MarimuthuFor Appellant inCrl.A(MD)No.439/2010 .. Mr.S.Mohandoss For Appellant inCrl.A(MD)No.342/2011 .. Mr.R.Jayaraman^For Respondent .. Mr.A.Ramar Addl.Public Prosecutor:COMMON JUDGMENT(The judgment of the court was made by M.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.) These three appeals have been filed questioning the legality of theconviction and sentence awarded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.190 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009,individually by A-3, A-1 and A-2 respectively.The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.184 of 2009/accused No.3 was convicted forthe offence under Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three yearsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.439 of2010/accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.342 of 2011/accused No.2,were convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 and 201 I.P.C andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence underSection 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorousimprisonment and both sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:(i) P.W.1-Muthusamy, Village Administrative Officer, Puthupalayam Villagealong with P.W.7- Muthuvel, Village Assistant, on information on29.05.2006, daytime at 12.00 o' clock, went to the Well of Kanthasamy Rajaopposite to Balaji cone factory at Rajapalayam-Sankarankovil road and noticedthe jute bag floating on the well ejecting the head of a dead-body and furthernoticed the plastic bucket with bloodstained dhoti and jacket on the southernside of the well and thereafter, lodged a complaint Ex.P1 with the RajapalayamSouth Police Station.P.W.22-Subburaj, the Sub-Inspector of Police on29.05.2006 at 14.00 hours after receipt of complaint from P.W.1 - Muthusamyregistered F.I.R - Ex.P32 in crime No.268 of 2006 under Section 302 I.P.C andplaced the case bundle before the Inspector of Police.P.W.27 - Venugopal, theInspector of Police after informing the dog squad and forensic expert, went tothe spot at 15.00 hours and prepared observation mahazar - Ex.P2 in the presenceof P.W.1 and P.W.7 and also drew rough sketch Ex.P43 and with the help ofmunicipal sanitary employee P.W.13 - Murugan lifted the jute bag containing thedead-body and in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars conducted inquestand prepared inquest report - Ex.P44 and sent the dead-body with the request-Ex.P23 to conduct post-mortem to Rajapalayam Government Hospital through theHead-Constable P.W.21 - Jeyapandi and thereafter, seized under mahazar - Ex.P3,the material objects i.e., bloodstained shirt - M.O.1, nighty - M.O.2, bedsheet-M.O.3, full hand shirt - M.O.27, two ropes - M.O.12, jacket - M.O.4, Saree threepieces - M.O.13 series, samll jute bag - M.O.5, cut and removed big jute bag -M.O.6, ammi stone - M.O.7 and waste clothes - M.O.8 series, in the presence ofwitnesses and thereafter the Inspector of Police, seized one plastic bucketfound fifteen feet away south-east from the Well, behind the thorn bushes andalso seized the towel - M.O.28, Kerchief-M.O.29, bloodstained jacket - M.O.30,broken bangles - M.O.10 under athatchi Ex.Ponnusamy, Senior Assistant Surgeon, RajapalayamGovernment Hospital on 29.05.2006, conducted post-mortem on the unidentifiabledead-body of a male and noted the following injuries and conditions:"A male body lies flat with left upper limb and left lower limbflexed;Right upper limb and right lower limb extended.Body swollen, blistersall over the body.Foul odour present.Eyes bulged out-softened.Exudationfrom mouth and nose present.Maggots moving over the back of the chest.Loosening of scalp hairs present with only a few hairs attached at the nuchalarea.Both hands skin peeled off.Eyes open.Nose intact.Mouth open,Tongue protruded out.Teeth absent in the upper jaw-lower jaw 2/4 only sixteeth present.Scrotum and penis swollen.No external injury.Abdomen: Distended.On opening gas escapes.Stomach empty.Liver, spleen,kidny intact, c/s softened and pale.Intestines distended with gas.Chest: Ribs intact, plasma intact, lungs-intact, softened c/s pale; Heart -chambers empty intact, c/s pale Hyoid bone intact.Skull: skin (NC) blister present.On opening the skin putrified liquid brainmatter mixed with blood oozes out.(1) T shaped crack fracture in the left temporal bone horizontal 10 cmlength vertically 5 cm length.No poison detected.P.M.No.1 y 93/2006 F.M. Hyoid bone intact."and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.(iv) P.W.10-Ramalingam, Booking Clerk of Saravana Lodge at Tiruchendur on28.05.2006 at 9.40 hours, allotted Room No.8 to the present accused Nos.1 and2, said to have told as husband and wife along with two children stating thefirst accused's name as Pandian and after staying over the night, left the lodgeon 29.05.2006 morning at 8.30 hours, Page No. 37 of the Register is Ex.On29.05.2006, the second accused Santhi along with her two children came toSelvamarimuthu - P.W.11's house at Madurai Sulaiman, who is related to A-2 andon enquiry, A-2 told that he came in search of her husband and also stayed overnight and left the house on 30.05.2006 morning at 11.00 o' clock.(v) P.W.2-Velusamy, leader of the community residing at RajapalayamGanapathiyarpuram on 31.05.2006, morning at 9.00 to 10.00 hours, when he was athome, the present accused Santi along with a lady came and informed him thatshe had murdered her husband Thalaimalaipandi after throwing "Ammi Stone" andshe further stated that she had the feared of police and police also searchingher and according to her dictation grand-daughter of P.W.2 namely Chandra-P.W.3recorded the statement of her.In the said statement-Ex.P13, P.W.2, P.W.3 andSanti affixed their signatures and produced the same to the police.(vi) On 31.05.2006, P.W.27-the Investigation Officer after receipt ofEx.P13, arrested and examined the second accused Santi in the presence of P.W.1one Muthusamy, Village Administrative Officer and P.W.9 - Jeganathan, VillageAssistant on the same day at 1.00 o' clock and the second accused gavevoluntary confession and based on the admissible portion of the voluntaryconfession - Ex.P6, recovered from the house of accused Shanti bloodstainedfloor-M.O.14, ordinary floor-M.O.15, bloodstained hair, bloodstained towel -M.O.16, bloodstained petticoat rope - M.O.17, nighty - M.O18 and beer bottle -M.O.19, under athatchi Ex.P7 and thereafter on identification of the accusedKumar by the accused Santi, P.W.27 arrested the first accused Kumar atSundarapandiapuram opposite to Nataraj primary school and on examination, hegave voluntary confession and on the basis of the admissible portion ofconfession Ex.P14, recovered the cell-phone - M.O.21 under athatchi - Ex.P16 andalso recovered the Hercules cycle-M.O.20 under athatchi Ex.P15 and thereafter onthe same day at 22.00 hours, at Ampalapuli bazaar on identification made by thefirst accused Kumar, arrested the third accused Sivagnanam and on examination,the accused Sivagnanam gave voluntary confession and based on the admissibleportion of the confession Ex.P17, recovered ladies cycle - M.O.11 from his houseunder athatchi-Ex.P18 and thereafter, after visiting the well in which the dead-body was thrown as identified by the accused and thereafter returned back to thepolice station along with the three accused and the material objects seized.(vii) P.W.24 - Ganapathy, when he was working as Tahsildar Rajapalayam on02.06.2006 after receipt of requisition Ex.P37(photocopy) from the Inspector ofPolice to exhume the body of Thalaimalaipandi gave requisition -Ex.P38(photocopy) to the medical officer and on 05.06.2006 in the presence ofmedical officer and Inspector of Police, with the help of P.W.13-Murugan, theburied dead-body was exhumed and three bones from the right side thigh were cutand taken and thereafter, buried the dead-body in the same place.(viii) P.W.12, Ramasubbu, Supervisor of Sri Kantha Spinning Mill, knewthat the first accused Kumar during the month of May, 2006 worked in the samemill as a labourer from 12.05.2006 to 14.05.2006, 20.05.2006 to 22.05.2006 andon 29.05.2006 and 30.05.2006 and the Attendance Register is Ex.P26 and P.W.18 Tmt.P.W.19, Dhanaseelan, Finger PrintExpert, after comparison of finger prints found in the beer bottle as evidencedfrom photograph-Ex.P28, with Ex.P29(Photograph of finger print of the accusedKumar), gave a report Ex.P.W.25, Vanaja, the Forensic Expert working atMadras Forensic office, took the blood from the deceased Thalaimani Pandian'smother P.Muthammal and after subjecting the blood as well as the bone for D.N.Atest, gave a report Ex.P.W.26 - Mrs. Nirmala Rajkumar, Deputy Directorworking at Madras Forensic Laboratory, examined the skull of a male body withphoto found in the group photo and after conducting superimposition test, gaveEx.(ix) P.W.27 - Inspector of Police, the Investigation Officer afterexamining the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing theinvestigation, filed final report as against the Kumar, Shanti and Sivagnanamunder Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 I.P.CWhen the accused were questioned about the incriminating evidencesadduced against them under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the same were denied.There is evidence on record throughP.W.5-Balasubramaniam that two years before, one day during the fifth month, onFriday night at 11.00 o' clock, the deceased Thalaimalaipandi as well as thefirst and second accused were chatting in front of the house and moreover, thereis also evidence that on the next day i.e., on Saturday night at 12.00 o' clockin two bicycles, one with jute bag luggage, the first accused Kumar and thesecond accused Santi, were moving along with another person.Moreover, there isalso evidence through P.W.5 that one of the small cycle noticed by this witnessalso identified and marked as M.O.11(ladies cycle with name Santi).Theabove single piece of admitted evidence of P.W.5, the brother of the deceased,shall not falsify the cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence of P.W.5, aswell as his wife P.W.6 Rukmani and P.w.8-Parameswaran, theneighbourhood residing to the house of the deceased Thalaimalaipandi about thefrequent visit of A-1 to the house of A-2 and also the locked premises in theabsence of the deceased Thalaimalaipandi.There is also evidence through P.W.6-Rukmani, thewife of P.W.5 to corroborate and strengthen the evidence of last scene theorythat on the fateful day night at 8.00 o' clock the first accused came to thehouse of the deceased Thalaimalaipandi and furthermore, the important evidenceof witnessing the cycle on 27.05.2006 night at 11.00 to 12.00 o' clock with jutebag in a big carrier.The above important two witnesses, who have spoken aboutthe last seen theory were subjected to lengthy cross-examination individually byall the three accused through their counsel, but nothing brought on record todisbelieve the cogent, convincing evidence of P.W.5 and 6 about the last seentheory of the accused persons with the companion of the deceasedThalaimalaipandi.Investigation started on 29.05.2012 based on the Ex.P1-Complaint madeby P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer Muthusamy after noticing the dead-body floating in the well of Kandasamy Raja, Rajapalayam - Sankarankovil road.There is also evidence through P.W.1 and P.W.7-Muthuvelu, Village Assistantworking under P.W.1-Muthusamy about witnessing of the dead-body in a jute bagand the Ex.P1-complaint made to the Sub-Inspector of Police - P.W.22,Rajapalayam South police Station namely Subburaj and there is also evidence thatP.W.22 after receipt of Ex.P22 that Room No.8 was booked in the nameof Pandian of Rajapalayam, as checked in on 28.05.2006 morning 9.40 a.m., andchecked out on the next day i.e., on 29.05.2006 morning at 8.30 a.m. As rightlypointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the above strongevidence along with the recorded evidence of Ex.P20, proved the disappearance ofA-1 and A-2 especially A-1 along with her two children from her permanent abodeto a far away place i.e., Tiruchendur as well as to Madurai.It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.05.2006, the secondaccused Santi was produced before the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam SouthPolice Station by one Veluswamy along with the statement of the accused recordedby him and thereafter, the Inspector arrested and further investigated the case.According to P.W.27, the Inspector of Police-Venugopal, he took theinvestigation in this case on 29.05.2006 at 14.30 hours and went to theoccurrence place and prepared observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.1-Muthusamy, P.W.7-Muthuvel and lifted the dead-body in a jute bag from the Wellwith the help of a sanitary worker of Rajapalayam Municipality and alsoconducted inquest on the dead-body of a male and prepared inquest report Ex.P44and thereafter, sent the dead-body with the requisition Ex.P23 to conduct post-mortem and also seized the material objects found in the jute bag thebloodstained coffee colour striped full hand shirt - M.O.1, yellow colour nighty- M.O.2, bedsheet - M.O.3, white colour full-hand shirt M.O.27, two ropes -M.O.12, red colour jacket-M.O.4, green colour saree(three pieces) - M.O.13series, small jute bag-M.O.5, cut and removed jute bag - M.O.6, 'ammi stone' -M.O.7 and waste cut clothes-M.O.8 series under athatchi Ex.There is also evidence through P.W.27-Investigation Officer that on31.05.2006 at 12.30 hours, he arrested the present second accused Santi producedby Witness Velusamy along with the statement said to have been given by theaccused Ex.P13 and on examination of the accused in the presence of witnessesMuthusamy P.W.1 and Jeganathan-P.W.9, the present accused Santi gave voluntaryconfession to identify the places and on the basis of the admissible portion ofthe confession statement Ex.P6 at 15.00 hours, the accused identified her houseand thereafter, he prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P5 and also drew roughsketch-Ex.P45 and at 16.30 hours, he seized the bloodstained earth - M.O.14,ordinary earth M.O.15, bloodstained hair, bloodstained cloth pieces-M.O.16,bloodstained petticoat rope - M.O.17, nighty M.O.18 and beer bottle M.O.19 underathatchi Ex.P7 and thereafter on the same day at 19.00 hours, he arrested thepresent first accused Kumar on identification of the second accused Santi infront of Nataraj Primary School and on examination, the first accused gavevoluntary confession and the first accused also had stated to identify theplaces and on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession-Ex.P14,seized the cell-phone - M.O.21 under athatchi-Ex.P.16 and also one Herculescycle - M.O.20 under athatchi-Ex.PRAYERThese criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2)Cr.P4, in the presence of same witnessesand sent the material objects under Form No.95, to Judicial Magistrate Court.(ii) P.W.5- Balasubramaniam, brother of the deceased Thalaimalaipandi,P.W.6-Rukmani, wife of P.W.5 and P.W.8-Parameswaran neighbour to the deceased,knew about the frequent visit of the first accused Kumar to the house of thedeceased and illicit intimacy with A2-Santi and P.W.5 also informed the same tothe deceased.P.Ws.5 and 6 on 26.05.2006 night at8.00 o' clock witnessed the visit of the first accused to the house of thedeceased Thalaimalaipandi, especially on the next day i.e., on 27.05.2006,Saturday night at about 11.00 to 12.00 o' clock, P.W.6 noticed one cycle withjute hag in a big carrier.P.W.5 on the same day noticed two cycles, one bigand one small and also noticed the first accused Kumar and the second accusedShanti as well as one another person and the said Kumar was moving the cyclewith jute bag luggage and others followed him and thereafter, the house of A-2,was locked for 2 to 3 days and the same was noticed by P.Ws.5 and 6 andthereafter, they could not see the deceased Thalaimalaipandi.(iii) P.W.15-Dr.(2) T shaped crack fracture in the right temporal bone horizontal 8 cmlength vertically 5 cm length.Durameter torn on both temporal sides.P.W.16-Elangovan, Expert from the Forensic Department, after examining the internalorgan of the dead-body gave a viscera report-Ex.P24, stating that 'no poisonoussubstance' and P.W.17-Dr.Kamalatchi Krishnamoorthy, after analysing the materialobjects sent for test including the hair, gave a chemical analysis report-Ex.P25and hair examination report-Ex.Though the accused intended to examine witnesses, later they did not chose toexamine any witnesses.After full-fledged trial, the learned learned Principal Sessions Judge,Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, convicted the appellants 2 & 3/accusedNos.1 & 2 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 I.P.C., and convicted the firstappellant/accused No.3 under Section 201 I.P.C., and awarded sentences asreferred to above.7.Aggrieved over the same, the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, individuallypreferred these appeal before this Court.This Court heard the submissions of the respective learned counselappearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the respective appeals andthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.P1 complaint, registered F.I.R-Ex.P32 in Crime No.268of 2008 under Section 302 I.P.C.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there isevidence through P.W.6 -Rukmani, wife of P.W.5 that the residence of A-2 Santiwas locked in between 27.05.2006 and 31.05.2006 and such evidence alsostrengthen and corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10 -the Booking Clerk ofSaravana Hotel namely Ramalingam, who has rightly identified the first andsecond accused before the Court about their stay on 28.05.2006 at Tiruchendurlodge and checked out on 29.05.2006 morning at 8.30 hours along with twochildren and such oral evidence also supported through the lodge Register aswell as the evidence of P.W.11 Selvamarimuthu about the visit of the secondaccused to Madurai along with her children on 29.05.2006 and left the house on30.05.2006 morning at 11.00 o' clock.A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.10 reveals that as rightlyspoken by P.W.10 with reference to Ex.P15 and thereafter at 22.00 hours onidentification made by the first and second accused Santi and Kumar, he arrestedthe third accused Sivagnanam at Ambalapuli bazaar Rajapalayam and onexamination, the third accused gave voluntary confession and on the basis ofadmissible portion of the voluntary confession-Ex.P17 seized M.O.11-ladies cyclefrom the house of A-3 under athatchi-Ex.After visiting the placesidentified by all the three accused P.W.27 returned back to police station alongwith the material objects seized.The above evidence of the InvestigationOfficer, is rightly corroborated by the valid evidence adduced by P.W.9-Jeganathan Village Assistant especially for the voluntary confession given by A-1 to A-3 and the material objects seized from the houses of A2-Santi, A1-Kumar,A-3-Sivagnanam especially ladies cycle-M.O.11 from the house of A-3 and cycle-M.O.20 from the house of A-1 under athatchi.Further, absolutely there is noevidence on record to disbelieve the above cogent, convincing corroborativeevidence adduced by P.W.9 and P.W.27-Investigation Officer and thereby provedthe respective material objects seized under athatchi and more specificallyladies cycle of A2-M.O.11 duly identified by P.W.5 Balasubramaniam.Eventhoughanother attested witness P.W.1 Muthuswamy-Village Administrative Officer wasexamined to prove the complaint made to the first Investigation Officer i.e.,the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.22 and for the material objects seized from theWell as well as nearby place to the Well under athatchi and the voluntaryconfession statement given by A-2 Santi and the material objects seized from herhouse under athatchi, since this witness did not fully support the case of theprosecution, this witness was treated as hostile and cross-examined.Evencross-examination effected, nothing brought on record to discord the above firstpart of his evidence with regard to Ex.Above all as pointed out above, there is convincing, corroborativeand cogent evidence through P.W.9 - Jeganathan, Village Assistant to that of theevidence of Investigation Officer P.W.27 Venugopal, for the arrest of all theaccused as well as material objects on the basis of the admissible portion ofthe confession under athatchi.Moreover, there is also evidence through P.W.17Dr.Kamalatchi Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Director of Madras Forensic Laboratoryfor chemical examination of the material objects seized from the Well talliedwith the material objects seized from the house of A-2, in which Item No.5tallied with Item No.22, Item No.10 silk cloth pieces tallied with Item No.21,Item No.20 hair tallied with sample hair and through her the reports are markedas Ex.P25 and Ex.P26 respectively.The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the report Ex.P40and disputed the relationship of P.Muthammal with that of the Thalaimalaipandiand the said Muthammal said to have been alive has not been examined before thetrial Court and hence doubt arises.In this regard, there is also valid corroborative evidence throughP.W.24-Ganapathy, Tahsildar and the Investigation Officer P.W.27-Venugopal aboutthe exhumation of the dead-body with the help of Sweeper P.W.13-Murugan on02.06.2006 and removal of the thigh bone by the doctor and subjected the samefor D.N.A test with that of the deceased mother Muthammal.Further P.W.25-Tmt.Vanaja, Assistant Director Madras Forensic Laboratory also deposed that andafter took blood from the Muthammal admitted mother of the deceased and aftertaking photograph of her also conducted D.N.A test and gave D.N.A report -Ex.P40 stating that the bone pieces is belonged to a male and the bone isbelonging to the biological son of Mrs.P.Muthammal.As pointed out above, there is evidence through P.W.25 that D.N.A testwas conducted from the blood taken from the admitted mother of the deceasedMuthammal, who was called to Madras Forensic Laboratory to prove that factualposition apart from the evidence of P.W.25, the photo taken at the ForensicScience Laboratory of the admitted Mother Muthammal is also pasted in Ex.There is also evidence through the InvestigationOfficer that he has sent the deceased Thalaimalaipandi photograph and skull forforensic test with requisition Ex.Nirmala, AdditionalDirector of Forensic Laboratory, Chennai also deposed that on 08.06.2006 whenshe was working in the same Department as Additional Director, gave a markedphotograph of a male as item No.3 and the skull as item No.2 and after dueexamination, gave a report-Ex.P42 with opinion that skull could have belonged toa male individual seen in the photograph.Moreover, as pointed out above, thesuperimposition test conducted by P.W.26-Additional Director of Forensic ScienceLaboratory, namely Tmt.Nirmala Rajkumar, with a photograph of admitted mothertaken from the group photo sent by the police is also tallied with skull is alsoproved through the superimposition report with the opinion, which is marked asEx.Such a due process of test effected by the Experts with regard toD.N.A test as well as superimposition test, tallied with the deceasedThalaimalaipandi, the above submissions made by the learned counsel for theappellant, shall not have any merit and substance and at any event, non-examination of said Muthammal shall not falsify the case of the prosecution andhence the above submission is rejected.A careful perusal of the above evidence of an Expert clinchinglyproved that skull of the dead-body floated on the well is nothing but a body ofa male Thalaimalipandi.There is also medical evidence through Dr.P.W.15 Ponnusamy, whoconducted post-mortem on 29.05.2006 at the request of the Inspector of Police-Ex.It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 had illicit intimacy withA-2, who is none other than the wife of the deceased Thalaimalaipandi and sincethe deceased was objecting such illegal intimacy, A-1 and A-2 committed murderand all the accused in order to destroy the evidence threw the deady-bodyalong with the ammi stone in a jute bag and other material objects into thewell.The motive, aspect is very well spoken by the brother of the deceasedBalasubramaniam P.W.5 as well as the wife of P.W.5 i.e., P.W6-Rukmani, which isalso well corroborated through the evidence of P.W.8-Parameswaran, who isresiding opposite to the house of the deceased.Thus, there is also validcorroborative evidence and thereby motive is proved by the prosecution.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there isunshakable evidence of P.W.5 that the 'Ammi Stone' found outside the house ofthe deceased Thalaimalaipandi, was missing was known to this witness throughParamasivan's wife Vijayalakshmi and the said 'ammi stone, which is markedbefore the trial Court as M.O.7 was recovered under athatchi along with dead-body floated in the Well, which is very well spoken and proved through themahazar witnesses and moreover the material objects i.e., clothes found andrecovered near the Well also tallied with the cloth recovered from the house ofA-2 and that too also proved through valid evidence and thereby established thelink to the chain of evidence in connecting the accused with the crime and moreparticularly, the undisturbed evidence of opinion given by post-mortem doctorP.W.15 with regard to the injury sustained on the head of the deceased withweapon of offence 'ammi stone' M.O.7, clinchingly proved the case of theprosecution.This Court while considering the evidence on record, has not advertedto the evidence of P.W.2-Velusamy, community leader as well as the extra-judicial confession given by A-2, Santi, which is marked as Ex.P3 and exceptthese evidences, we have come to a irresistible conclusion independently aspointed out in connecting the accused with the crime and hence the above casereferred to, shall in no way useful to the appellants/accused.The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.In the result, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed and the convictionand sentence awarded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, VirudhunagarDistrict at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.190 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009, are herebyconfirmed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur,2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South P.S., Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,167,345 | The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 5.7.2018 at 10 p.m. when the grand-daughter of the informant namely Km.Soni, who is aged about 15 years, had gone in the field for call of nature, the revisionist Jitendra Kumar Bind along with another co-accused came there and closed her mouth.Thereafter, they have taken her away at the house of the revisionist where they closed the door from outside.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2019 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019 (Radhey Shyam versus State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj dated 28.6.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.71 of 2019 (State vs. Jitendra Kumar Bind), arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2018, under Sections 342, 323, 376D, 506 IPC and under Section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as under Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava assisted by Sri B. Lal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The revisionist was present in the room and firstly he committed maarpeet with her and threatened to kill her and thereafter removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.In the FIR the age of the victim has been shown to be minor aged about 15 years whereas as per radiological report dated 7.7.2018 filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit, the victim is major aged about 18 years.As per supplementary medico legal report also, the radiological age of the victim is 18 years filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit.Thus, the victim was major on the date of alleged occurrence.Learned counsel further submits that there is a vast contradiction in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that the revisionist often used to come to her grand-father's house and he is well known to her and family members.On 5.7.2018 at 10 p.m. when she came outside for call of nature, the revisionist along with another person to whom she did not know, closed her mouth.Thereafter, they took her away forcibly in a room where another person closed the door from outside.Firstly, the revisionist committed maarpeet with her and threatened to kill her.Thereafter, when she tried to resist, he tied her hands and committed wrongful act with her.On the other hand, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that when she had gone outside for call of nature, two persons came from back side and closed her mouth.Out of them she is known to one person whose name is Jitendra and he lives in front of her house.She was caught by both the persons and Jitendra took her in his house and after taking her in a room, he tied her hands also.Another person closed the door from outside.When the victim tried to resist, the revisionist committed maarpeet with her and threatened to kill her and thereafter removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.The statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are self-contradictory.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is well known to the victim prior to the alleged incident and it appears that there was consenting relationship between the revisionist and the victim.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 15 years, 9 months and 16 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 16 years of age.He is in jail since 7.1.2019 in connection with the present crime and has completed more than half of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to rivalry/village partibandi.(vi) That the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.(vii) That both the courts below have committed gross illegality by rejecting the revisionist's bail prayer after declaring him juvenile.(viii) That both the courts below have given wrong findings without any material available on record.(ix) That there was no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family or background of the revisionist.(x) That there is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months.The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."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.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have filed their counter affidavit and have opposed the revisionist's case with the submission that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into association of some known criminals, besides, exposing him to moral, physical and psychological danger.State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2019 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019 (Radhey Shyam versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 28.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj in Case No.71 of 2019 (State vs. Jitendra Kumar Bind), arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2018, under Sections 342, 323, 376D, 506 IPC and under Section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as under Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act Police Station Phoolpur District Prayagraj, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Jitendra Kumar Bind through his natural guardian/ father Radhey Shyam be released on bail in Case Crime No.243 of 2018, under Sections 342, 323, 376D, 506 IPC and under Section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as under Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act Police Station Phoolpur District Prayagraj upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian/ father, Radhey Shyam will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his father, Radhey Shyam will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of October, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day. | ['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,169,892 | As per the complaint, accused person induced them to purchase the plots in Natural Valley Colony and cheated them by taking the money from them and not giving them their plots and not getting the plots registered their name.It is also alleged that accused 2 persons did not allot the plots to the complainants and they are cheated them.It is also alleged that the accused persons were not having any land in Betma Khurd, Mohna and Jamli, inspite of that they have entered into an agreement of sale of plots with the complainants and cheated them.(27/06/2019) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code ( in short " Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act No.7) Indore in Sessions Trial No.118/2018 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.(2).Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was filed by Shivkumar Raghuwanshi and 20 others on 14.10.2014 against the applicant and seven other accused persons regarding the act of cheating and fraud committed by them in selling the plots to the complainants situated at Betma Khurd, Mohna and Jamli, District Indore.The applicant was allegedly inducted as Director of the company.(4).The applicant has filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 470 and 120-B of I.P.C. registered against him, however, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2018, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.(5).Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not executed any agreement in favour of the complaints nor he has received any amount more over there is no allegation that he ever acted in his personal 3 capacity for the act of the company.The applicant cannot be held personally liable in the offence of legal fiction.The only averments in the FIR regarding the non- fulfillment of the promise which does not constitute for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. No mens rea is inducted on the part of the applicant based on the FIR.Under these grounds, it is prayed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.1056/2014 and charge-sheet dated 25.09.2018 filed against the applicant.(6).Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer by contending that there are allegations against the applicant that number of persons booked the plots in the Natural Valley Colony and they have paid the consideration amount of plots but despite the payment of full plots price no sale deed was executed in their favour 4 and applicant committed fraud with them, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.(7).I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. | ['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,170,828 | By means of this application the applicant Smt. Jaidevi has prayed to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2019, u/s 302 IPC, P.S. Barnahal, District Mainpuri.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State.Perused the record.Statments have been annexed with this bail application.Alleged dying declaration was not dying declaration of deceased rather it was a manipulation.Death was with a gap of 12 days.Hence, this was not a dying declaration, in close proximity of time of death.Hence, bail has been prayed for during trial.Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not oppose this fact that informant and other witnesses have not supported case of prosecution in trial.Having heard learned counsels for both sides and considering the statements recorded during trial before trial Court as well as nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.Let the applicant, Smt. Jaidevi, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. | ['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,901,722 | The date of incident is 17th April 1981 at 11.30 P.M. The accused in the case is the husband of the deceased, one Meena who bailed from Agra and was married to the accused about 4 years prior to the date of the incident.The place of incident.The place of incident is house No. 16/134, Bhapa Nagar, Karol Bagh.New Delhi.The deceased along with her husband, the present appellant was residing in this house for some time back.The alleged motive for the commission of the crime is that the deceased Meena was suspecting the appellant of having an affair with some other lady and was aggrieved of the behavior of the appellant as he was unfaithful to her.Yet another motive to do away with the deceased was that she was not bearing any child.The appellant as such was tried for having caused the death of his wife, deceased Meena in their afore-mentioned house at 11.30 P M. on the night of 17th April 1981 by pouring kerosene oil on her and thereafter setting her ablaze and that too while she was lying inside the room.It is further alleged that a candle stick was used for setting her ablaze.On spot verification the candle stick was found and kerosene oil was found spilt over the floor of the room.(3) At about I A.M. on the night of 17/18 4 1981 she was admitted to Safdarjang hospital by the appellant and one Rajinder Singh who was cited as Public Witness 7 in the case.She had suffered extensive burn injuries.Immediately on arrival in the hospital she is stated to have made a dying declaration before Pw 2 Dr. A.K. Sahoo, then Casualty Medical Officer who first attended on her.The declaration is to the effect that she sustained these burn injuries when her husband Deep Chand poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her inside the room at 11.30 PM.The appellant Deep Chand immediately on this declaration having been made by the deceased was detained in the hospital by Public Witness 2 Dr. A K. Sahoo.The deceased was found to have sustained 100% burns.(4) Information in this regard was transmitted to the police by duty Head Constable Mohinder Singh Public Witness 15 and this information is marked Ex. Public Witness 16/A. The information is to this effect : "Time 1.50 A.M. The Head Constable on duty Shri Mahinder Singh gave telephonic information from the casualty Safdarjang Hospital to the effect that Smt. Meena wife of Shri Deep Chand, aged 19 years, r/o Bhapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, was burnt by her husband and got admitted to Safdarjang Hospital from the house of Leila (?) situated in front of Double Storey Quarters and that Sbri Deep Chand was detained by the Doctor.Some officer may be sent to the place of occurrence.The report of Dr. Bharat Singh Public Witness is that when the dead body was brought to him he did not notice any smell of kerosene oil from the body.Skull hair were more or less completely burnt.Remaining hair were smelling of kerosene oil which were preserved and sealed.Eye brow and lashes were burnt.Public hair were completely burnt and eyes were closed.Mouth of the deceased was open and the tongue was in normal position.Nails were charred.JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) -THIS appeal is directed against an order of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 15th April 1982 convicting the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.(2) We may first of all take notice of the facts.On receipt of the telephonic information the report was recorded in the roznamcha."(5) This information was received by Public Witness 16 Nahar Singh A.S.I, at police station Karol Bagh and after entering the information in the daily diary, copy of this report was forwarded to the police post Tank Road as the incident had taken place within its jurisdiction.A police Officer, Asi Jaibir Singh Pw 26 upon receiving this information immediately rushed to the hospital and after procuring M.L.C. of Meena deceased got a case registered under section 307 IPC.The record shows that he did make hectic efforts to find out if the deceased was fit to make a statement but it was only at 7.30 A.M. that the deceased was declared fit to make statement.By that time S.I. Gujarmal Pw 27 had already reached the hospital and on the deceased having been declared fit to make statement, he recorded the dying declaration of Meena deceased.Earlier to this soon after Jaibir Singh Public Witness 26 had gone to hospital, S.I. Gujarmal Public Witness 27 accompanied by S.I. Budhi Parkash and constable Jawala Parshad bad gone to the spot of incident.He inspected the spot and after leaving his other two aforesaid companions on the scene of incident he ha j left for the hospital.(6) It would be relevant to mention as to what he had seen at the scene of incident when he visited the place first.He noticed the outer door of the house of the appellant open and the door of the room in the house was also lying open.He found kerosene oil spilt on the floor of the court-yard which is covered with roof and also a five litre capacity plastic can containing some kerosene oil was noticed near the door of the room.He also noticed a partly burnt cot and a partly burnt quilt, bed sheet, pillow etc. lying in the covered courtyard which were emitting smell of kerosene oil.In fact the application for issuance of fitness certificate was made by Public Witness 26 Jaibir Singh S.I. at 3.30 A.M. on 18.4.1981 but it was only at 7 35 that the patient was declared fit to make statement which was recorded by Public Witness 27 S.l.Gujarmal and the declaration is Ex. Public Witness 7/A and reads as under : "That on 17.4.1981 at about 11.30 p.m. I and my husband Deep Chand were present in our house.I was lying on the ground inside the room near the door and my husband was outside.He asked me as to where had I gone in the evening.On this he started quarrelling with me and set me aflame after pouring kerosene oil on me as a result of which I received burns." This statement was also attested by Rajinder Singh Public Witness 7 who had accompanied Deep Chand to hospital when the deceased was carried there.(7) Exhibit Public Witness 8/A, one of the proved documents would show that soon after recording the dying declaration of Meena deceased S.I. Gujarmal Public Witness 27 made hectic efforts to seek services of the Magistrate to record the statement of Meena deceased.In this regard soon after recording the declaration he lashed to contact a Magistrate.A 9.30 A.M. he contacted Shri L.D. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate who in his turn tried to contact Shri R.N. Jindal, his link Magistrate.He also noticed second to third degree fire burns all over the body from head to toe, with soot deposit at places.The doctor opined that injuries were ante mortem caused by fire.He also preserved Visceral and sealed the same for purposes of Chemical analysis.Death of the deceased according to him was due to shock from burn injuries and the time since death was 24 hours.The postmortem was conducted on 19.4.1981 at 10 A.M.(9) Adverting back, immediately after the nature of offence was changed from 307 to 302 Indian Penal Code and after it was found that the deceased had died, the investigating officer immediately went to the scene of incident and seized various articles such as plastic cane containing kerosene oil, a partly burnt cot, a partly burnt quilt, bed sheet, pillow, charred skin, burnt hair, candle stick, match box, burnt match stick etc. which were found lying on the spot.The investigating officer further got the scene of the incident photographed and also got the site plan prepared and some of the articles were thereafter also sent to C.F.S.L. for examination and opinion.Ulcerated wound measuring 1"x"" over nose right side.Two small abrasion wounds over the chin right side.One blister wound 1"x "" over the left band dorsal aspect.Few blister wounds measuring 1"X " x " x "" etc. over the right forearm lower part.Charring of the skin measuring 3"x2" over the right forearm upper part, dorsal and anterior aspect.Hair follicles also burnt over the right forearm.Duration of the injuries was 17 to 38 hours.Injuries were simple in nature and were opined to be caused by dry heat.(10) Public Witness 12 Dr. N.C. Bose has certified the death of Meena, Public Witness 23 Shri S D. Rawat, a record keeper of the hospital, has identified the certificate Ex. Public Witness 23/A about the fitness of the deceased to make a statement issued by Dr. Vinay Jain.This was necessitated as according to this witness Dr. Jain had left the service of the hospital and his present particulars were not known.We may also notice as to what are the results which were procured by the investigating officer from the CFSL.Pieces of burnt clothes of the deceased which for purposes of analysis were marked as Exts.P 4 and P 8 were found to contain kerosene residue and the plastic container was also found to contain kerosene oil.(11) So much about the facts.We may now embark on the examination of the evidence and find out how far it goes to conclusively implicate the accused in the commission of this crime.In doing so we are bearing in mind the contentions raised by Mr. J.C. Digpal and Mr. R.P. Lao, learned appellant's and State counsel, respectively.(12) The main evidence in the case constitutes of the dying declaration made before Public Witness 2 Dr A.K. Sahoo which was recorded at the time of admission on Mlc at 1 P.M , followed by nearly similar dying declaration though with a little more details before Public Witness 27 Gujarmal S.I, at 7.35 P.M. This evidence is supplemented by the testimony of Public Witness 21 and Public Witness 22 Smt. Sukhdevi and Kali Charan, mother and father respectively of the deceased.Their evidence is in support of the fact that the accused had a motive to kill their daughter.We may at this stage make a reference to the material evidence of these two witnesses The mother Public Witness 21 Sukhdevi has deposed that the deceased had complained to her that the accused was maltreating her and due to this she had stayed with them for about one year and was taken back by the accused and his brother on the assurance that they will treat her well.She also says that the deceased had not given birth to any child.She has also stated that the deceased had informed her about the accused being unfaithful to her and about the accused having illicit relations with some other woman.Public Witness 22 Kali Charan, father of the deceased, has also deposed that the deceased had informed him about the ill-treatment at the hands of the accused and that is why she was reluctant to stay with her husband.According to him soon after the marriage the deceased returned to them because of ill-treatment and the deceased was not willing to go with the accused as she apprehended danger to her life.(13) Public Witness 7 Rajinder Singh who was supposed to support the prosecution case has turned hostile and at trial has taken a stand which is almost similar to the defense set up by the accused.To our mind this is so, for obvious reasons and we will disclose it at the appropriate place.We may, however state that this hostility be has shown to the prosecution despite the fact that the dying declaration Ex Public Witness 7/A recorded by Gujarmal S.I. Public Witness 27 was also attested by him.Here we may again refer to the testimony of Public Witness 21 and Public Witness 22 mother and father of the deceased for a limited purpose that it is clearly established that soon after the marriage the accused started mal-treating the deceased as a result of which she had to remain with her parents at Agra for long intervals.It is also clear from the testimony of Public Witness 21 that the deceased was suspecting that the accused had illicit relations with some other woman.It is a common knowledge as to what effect such an apprehension would create on the mind of a wife.It must have undoubtedly made her sore.Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Public Witness 21 and Public Witness 22 that the relations between the parties were strained.This clearly goes to show that the accused did have a motive to do away with Meena.Furthermore, she was not bearing any child even though the marriage had been performed four years back.All this information about the cause of strained relations was given to Public Witness 21 and Public Witness 22 by the deceased.She had even expressed her reluctance to go with the accused as she was fearing harm to her life.This to our mind is quite natural because as daughter Meena deceased was bound to take her parents into confidence in such matters.We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of both these witnesses.(14) Before we proceed further we find it necessary to notice the stand taken by the accused which in short is to the effect that Meena deceased was suspecting him of having illicit relations with some woman, and she was feeling perturbed because of this impression.According to him on the day of incident he returned from his work at 10 30 P.M. and on her asking as to wherefrom he had come, he replied that he had come from the work.She started scolding and telling him that she had that day met his colleague Narain Singh Dw 3 and had learnt from him that the accused had left from the place of work at 4 P.M. Further says that since he was tired and he could not clear the suspicion of the deceased he left at 11 P.M and went to the house of Rajinder Public Witness 7 where 'Jagran' was being held.He further adds that after half an hour we heard some noise coming from the side of his house and be immediately rushed home and saw Meena in flames.He also slates that he tried to extinguish fire and in that process sustained injuries.He has also stated that while he was extinguishing fire the deceased scolded her and told her that she does not want to live and should be allowed to die.The neighbours had also come to the scene and they sprinkled water over her and when the fire extinguished she told him that now that she has burnt herself she will not spare him and his relations.He admits that he then took Meena deceased to the hospital.Dw 3 Narain Singh has admitted that be met and talked to the deceased.(15) Having noticed the stand of the accused we may at once point out that his own stand does support the testimony of Public Witness 21 and Public Witness 22 in so far as the motive part is concerned.We may also point out that the story about the 'Jagran' being held at the house of Rajinder Public Witness 7 was for the first time introduced by Rajinder Singh Public Witness 7 a relation of the accused even though this story was not in existence at any time during investigation and before the trial.It was only after we went through the testimony of Dw 4 Raghbir Singh that we found that they are related to the accused, (16) Adverting to the contention of Shri Digpal, learned counsel for the accused/appallant, that since there is a variation in the two dying declarations these should be discarded as unreliable and should not be relied upon without corroboration.We have given our anxious consideration to the argument.We however, do not agree as we do not find any infirmity in the two dying declarations, at least in material particulars.So far as the basic substratum of the prosecution case is concerned both the dying declarations are uniform.Pw 7 Rajinder Singh is the person who turned hostile and through him the accused laid the basis for the defense he has ultimately offered, as noticed earlier.Furthermore, there is significant admission by Dw 4 Raghbir Singh, father of Public Witness 7 Rajinder Singh which goes to show that he did have somewhat guilty conscience.We may quote that significant admission which is as under : "I did not mention before the police that Meena was uttering that she was dying and that she would not spare the accused and his relations because I was frightened of my implication in the case and the police did not make enquiry from him."(17) Caught we to know, why, if police did not make enquiry from him, he did not volunteer to tell these facts to the police or report the matter to any authority or Magistrate ? If he felt that the accused is being falsely implicated he would have certainly have disclosed this at the earliest possible stage ? Could this be the behavior of a relation of the accused ? May be know why he was afraid of being implicated ? This state of mind of Dw 4 Raghbir Singh coupled with the hostility to the prosecution caused by Public Witness 7 Rajinder Singh goes to show that the deceased had an impression that the relations of the accused were also conspiring to do away with her.That in all probability accounts for that statement about the relations she made before Dr. A K. Sahoo.In these circumstances even though the relations have not been named in the next dying declaration recorded by Gujarmal Public Witness 27 it does not lead to any adverse inference as otherwise in substance both the declarations are to the effect that the accused poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze.Admittedly, the accused was a suspect in the eyes of his wife deceased Meena and, he has also admitted the fact that he was trying to remove this misconception from her mind Normally, therefore, at 11.30 Public Witness .at night the accused who was a working labourer would be expected to be at home. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,177,893 | This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.A s per story of the prosecution is that Complainant Himanshu lodged a report on 17.06.2019 that he and Rahul Rajpoot were going from motor cycle, at about 11:30 pm, they reached in front of house of Surendra Rai, where present applicant No.1/accused/Durgesh Patel, Prabal Patel, Saurabh Patel and 5-6 persons abused with filthy language then complainant and Rahul told them why are you use abused filthy language.Thereafter, they had beaten them with rod and belt.Then, the present applicant/accused Durgesh Patel and other accused person had taken to the complainant-Himanshu and Rahul Rajpoot to SRG Office.Present applicant -Durgesh Patel and other accused inflicted injuries to complainant-Himanshu and Rahul Rajpoot with stick and belt.Thereafter, co-accused Prabal Patel told them to call Chhotu @ Shivam Rai, then present applicants/accused and other person had taken the complainant-Himanshu and Rahul to the house of Shivam Rai.Injured Shivam Rai and Mayank Chhira were standing on the road, then present Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 09/08/2019 16:46:33 2 MCRC-29284-2019 applicant/accused No. 2 Nilesh Patel and other co-accused person reached the spot where co-accused Prabal Patel fired bullet from Pistol on the Shivam Rai.Shivam Rail sustained injuries at that time his father Ishwar Rai reached the spot in the dress of police, then co-accused- Bablu Vishwkarma, Monu Patel, Raju Rajpoot and Monu Sharma inflicted injuries him with danda of baseball as result of which Ishwar Vishwkarma sustained injuries, then Mayak Chhira intervene to save him, then present applicant/accused Durgesh, co-accused Prabal Patel and Bablu Vishwkarma also inflicted injury to one Mayank Chhiya with rod and stick.Thereafter they thrown the stone on the house of Shivam Rai.Charge sheet has been filed.Trial will take long time for final disposal.The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Consequently, without commenting on merits of the case, the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants-Durgesh and Nilesh allowed.It is directed that the applicant No.1-Durgesh and applicant No. 2- Nilesh shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each 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 Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R.Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 09/08/2019 16:46:33 | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
190,178,493 | We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed.On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting larg quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck.One of the important object of this Act was to ensure that public at large should get safe and wholesome food.The Act incorporated salient provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and is also based on international legislations, ig instrumentalities and Codex Alimentaries Commission which related to food safety norms.The Act contains detail statements of objects and reasons.The Act defined term 'Adultrant'.It means, any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or substandard, misbranded or would contain extraneous matter (ramnants of raw material, packaging material etc.).The Act also define term 'food'.The food authority would also provide scientific data to the Government in the matter of framing policy relating to foods safety and nutrition.The authority would collect and summarize relevant scientific and technical data relating to food consumption and exposer of individual to risk relating to the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 ::: 15 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::consumption of food prevalence by biological risk etc. It should also collect scientific data in respect of contaminants of food and in respect of risks involved in consumption of food etc. The Act then provided general provisions about articles of food which includes use of food additives and processing aids contaminants, pesticides etc. It also imposes special responsibilities on food business operators.The Act thus provides various methods to provide safe and wholesome food for the society." Therefore, he prohibited manufactures support, distribution or sale of Gutka or Pan Masala, containing either tobacco or necotine or Magnesium Carbonate as ingredients.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that earlier to 2012 in Maharashtra, there were number of business men who were engaged in manufacturing Gutka or Pan Masala containing tobacco etc. These products were sold freely to the members of public earlier.The provisions of the FSS Act, 2006 made provisions for appointment of 'Designated officer' who would be in-charge of Food Safety administration for each district and 'Food Safety Officer'.The Act further provides as to what powers are given to the Food Safety Officer and ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 ::: 17 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::designated Officer.(c) keep it in the safe custody of the food business operator such article of food after taking a sample;and in both cases send the same for analysis to a Food Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken:Provided that where the Food Safety Officer keeps such article in the safe custody of the food business operator, he may require the food business operator to execute a bond for a sum of money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the Food Safety Officer deems fit and the food business operator shall execute the bond accordingly.(2) The Food Safety Officer may enter and inspect any place where the article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food, or exposed or exhibited for sale and where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such articles of food or adulterant for analysis.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::Procedure relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution.The food Analyst would submit his report as to whether the food was mixed with adulterant etc. In our cases, Gutka/Pan Masala was not sent for food analysis.DATE : 4th March, 2016 JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :-All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 ::: 11 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment.For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative.The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district.He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masala and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (in short, FSS Act, 2006).He further alleged that the petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.The police registered offence vide a Crime No. 70 of 2015 and arrested the petitioner.The petitioner secured bail, but asserted that lodging of complaint and registration of crime for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code was illegal.According to them, the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 ::: 12 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::On the day of incident, the prohibitory order was in force.It is, therefore, clear that admittedly the petitioners were found to have committed violation of the prohibitory order.(In the case it was found that the petitioner was transporting gunny bags containing Pan-masala pacages and tobacco pouches.Transporting such prohibited committee apparently amounted violation of the prohibitory order and the petitioner was liable for certain penal action.)It ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 ::: 13 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::consolidated the laws relating to food, and for establishing the food, safety and standards authority of India.Said Act was made also for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::The questions that arises then is, whether in such cases Food Safety Officers should have gone to the Police Stations for lodging complaints, and, secondly, whether acts complained amounted to any offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.On careful perusal of provisions of Chapter IX and X of the FSS Act, 2006 and the prohibitory order issued by the Commissioner, it appears to us that contravention of prohibitory order would amount to "failure to comply with directions of Food Safety Officers" as contemplated in S.55, which provided penal action.Section 55 of the FSS Act, 2006, reads as under :-The petitioner and applicants have stored/transported Gutka and Pan Masala in bulk quantity.They knew in most of the cases that the articles would be consumed in the State of Maharashtra.The question is, whether possessing such articles knowing that articles would be consumed in Maharashtra would amount to offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal code read as under :-::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:53 :::25 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.Sale of noxious food or drink.- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."Both these Sections deal with adulteration of article of food.The first question therefore is, whether Gutka or Pan Masala found in possession of the applicant / petitioner were "adulterated food".The Indian Penal Code does not define specifically what is food adulteration.However, we can assume that adulteration of food would mean mixing any material to food which would make the food unsafe and substandard.It reads as under :-In view of all above discussion, we proceed to pass the following order :-O R D E R A) All Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications are allowed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,079,636 | http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 2019das Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10261 and 10262 of 2019 26.11.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.2567 of 2019, on the file of Judicial Magistrate -II, Srivilliputur, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.06.2018, around 12.35 p.m., the petitioners along with other accused without getting prior permission from the concerned authority, unlawfully gathered in front of the Coronation Hotel, Virudhunagar Town, presided by the first accused and caused disturbance to the traffic by blocking the road for the reason that their party president was arrested, while he attempted to siege the Raj Bhavan at Chennai.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC, in S.T.C.No.2059 of 2019, on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 20193.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express once view or constitutionally protected rights under Part III and their enjoyment can be only in proportional manner through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India.He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assemble that is so essential to a democracy.According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written order from the authority.Further, he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 2019 Raj Bhavan at Chennai.Therefore, the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.9.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 201910.Accordingly, the proceedings inS.T.C.No.2567 of 2019, on the file of Judicial Magistrate -II, Srivilliputur, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate -II, Srivilliputur.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 2019 12/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17417 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,170,979 | ORDER B.M. Gupta, J.Petitioners by Shri N. P. Dwivedi, Advocate.Respondent/State by Shri A.S. Yadav, P. L. Complainant by Shri A. K. Barua, Senior Advocate with Shri Arun Barua, Advocate.2. Heard finally at motion stage.The instant petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. impugning the order dated 8th April, 2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Criminal Case No. 760/04, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.The main contention of Shri Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and in sessions triable cases a Magistrate has no power under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to take cognizance for those persons against whom police has not filed the challan.In support, he has drawn attention on the following judgments: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,100,878 | On these grounds, rt he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.ou Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State C opposes the bail application.After hearing arguments of both the parties and looking to the h ig whole facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view H that it would be appropriate to release the applicant on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE sp sh Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2018.05.09 14:42:09 +05'30' e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,171,016 | P.Ws.3and 4 are independent eye witnesses.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that there was a dilapidated well near theschool in the village and it was decided by the villagers to close the same anda resolution in the panchayat was also passed to that effect.The secondaccused, who was a Member of the 4th ward, was assigned with the job of fillingup and closing the well.On 24.05.1999 at about 11.00 A.M., A.1 to A.3, alongwith their workers, removed the stone in the wall of the well for their personaluse and on being informed of the same, P.W.1 told the accused not to take thestone since it belongs to the village, whereupon, the accused abandoned thetask, however, got angry.On 25.05.1999, i.e. on the next day, while P.W.1 wasin his residence, he heard the yelling of the deceased and rushed to the sceneof occurrence along with other witnesses and found the second accusedquarrelling with the deceased stating that she is a ward Member and how couldher son question her, when he is a ward Member.So saying, the second accusedcaught hold of the deceased and the first accused, with weed remover, assaultedthe deceased on the front and rear portion of the head and thereafter, kickedher on the right side of the stomach.The deceased fell down on the road andwhen P.W.1 went near to help her, A.3 prevented him.The deceased was taken inan auto rickshaw to the police station, where she made oral complaint and thesame was reduced into writing as Ex.Thereafter, the deceased was taken tothe hospital.P.W.1 identified M.Os.1 to 5 viz. sari and blouse of thedeceased, shirt and lungi of the first accused and the weed remover.P.W.2, the husband of the deceased, also accompanied the deceased and P.W.1to the police station as well as to the hospital.P.W.6 is the Panchayat President and he deposed that, after receiving arequisition from the Headmaster of the school to close the dilapidated well nearthe School, a resolution was passed to that effect and A2, Member of the 4thward was put in charge of the task with a direction to close the well and keepthe stone for common use in the village.He came to know about the quarrelbetween the accused and P.W.1 when A.2 removed the stone to his residence.P.W.14 the Sub-Inspector of Police, after receiving the complaint Ex.P.12on 25.05.1999 at 7.30 A.M. from the deceased, aged 53, with injuries on thehead, registered a case in Crime No.199 of 1999 under Sections 341, 323, 324 ofthe Indian Penal Code.P.13 is the printed First Information Report.Thereafter, the deceased was forwarded to the Government Hospital for treatment.On the same day, at about 9.00 A.M., A.2 appeared with injuries and presented acomplaint and the same was registered in Crime No.200 of 1999 under Sections341, 323, 336, 324 of the Indian Penal Code.She was also forwarded to thehospital for treatment.Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector went to the scene ofoccurrence at 10.30 A.M. and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.1 and roughsketch Ex.P.14 in the presence of witnesses.In the Government hospital, herecorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses.P.W.9, the Medical Officer, Government Rajaji Hospital, on 25.05.1999, atabout 9.10 A.M., examined the deceased, who was accompanied by her son.TheMedical Officer found the deceased unconscious and issued Ex.P.5, accidentregister, noting down the injuries.P.W.10 the Medical Officer, GovernmentRajaji Hospital, found the deceased deed on 25.05.1999 at 1.00 P.M. and Ex.At 3.00 P.M. on receipt of death intimation from the Government Hospital,P.W.14 went to the hospital at 4.00 P.M., received the memo, returned back tothe Police Station, altered the offence into one under Section 302 of I.P.C. andsent the Express Report under Ex.P.15 to the superior officials and to theCourt.P.W.8, the Head Constable, delivered the same to the Court on 25/05/1999at 19.25 hours.P.W.16 the Investigating Officer, on receipt of copy of the ExpressReport, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and, after verifying theinvestigation conducted by the Sub Inspector of police, examined the witnessesand recorded their statements.On 26.05.1999, he conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased and examined the witnesses present there.P.17 is theinquest report.A.3 was arrested on 26.05.1999 by the investigating officer andwas sent to judicial custody.P.18 isthe admitted portion of the statement.A transversely oblique sutured wound left parieto-temporal area5 x 1 cm x bone deep with contused margins.A transversely oblique contusion on the occipital area 6 x 3 cms."The Medical Officer opined that the deceased would appear to have died ofexternal injury Nos.1 and 2 and their corresponding internal injuries to theskull and brain (Cranio Cerebral Injuries).P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, despatched the Material Objects to theCourt with a requisition to send the same for chemical examination.P.W.13, theCourt Translator, forwarded those items under Ex.P.11 to the Forensic Lab forchemical analysis.P.9 and P.10 are chemical analysis and serologistreports.The investigating officer, after examining the witnesses and receivingforensic and medical opinions, concluded the investigation and filed finalreport before the Court.The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating materials adducedby the prosecution, for which, the accused denied their complicity in the crimeand pleaded innocence.On the side of the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 wereexamined and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked.In her evidence, she has stated that the District Collector passed anorder to close the well and a resolution also was passed to that effect by thePanchayat.Since she happens to be the Member of the 4th ward, a direction wasissued to her to fill up and close the well.When they were doing that workalong with the workers, P.W.1 and the deceased obstructed to the same.Thoughit was said that they were carrying out the job as per the directions of theDistrict Collector, P.W.1, armed with spade, assaulted her on the head andthreatened her stating that she would be done to death.When her son/A.1intervened, he was assaulted by P.W.1 with arruval.The Inspector of Police Checkkanoorani Police Station Madurai District.(The judgment of the court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI,J) The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in this case.Second and thirdaccused are the mother and grand mother respectively of the first accused.The case of the prosecution, in short, is that there was a wordyquarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of filling up andclosing of a well to form a passage and in pursuance of that, on 25/05/1999, at7.00 A.M., the second accused caught hold of the deceased, the first accusedcaused injury on the head of the deceased with a weed remover and when P.W.1intervened to save her, he was prevented by the third accused.Due to theinjuries sustained, the deceased died on the same day in the hospital.The trial Court framed two charges against the accused.As perthe first charge, on 25.05.1999 at about about 7.00 A.M. at Poochampatti, thesecond accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and thereby committed theoffence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.As per thesecond charge, during the course of the same transaction, when the secondaccused caught hold of the deceased, the first accused caused injury on the headof the deceased twice with a weed remover and further, kicked her on her flankand at that time, the third accused obstructed P.W.1, who rushed towardsdeceased to help her and thereby, A.1 to A.3 committed the offence punishableunder Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied thecharges and pleaded not guilty.Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 16,marked Exs.The learned trial Judge,after hearing both sides, convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 302 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for onemonth.A.2 was convicted also under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.The sentences imposed onthe second accused were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved against the orderof conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused have preferredthe present Criminal Appeal.On 04.06.1999, A.1 and A.2 were sentfor judicial remand.In the meantime, the dead body was forwarded throughP.W.12, Police Constable, for the purpose of post-mortem.P.W.11 is the medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body ofthe deceased on 26/05/1999 and issued Ex.P.7, the post mortem report, wherein,he has noticed the following:The deceased and othersthrew stones on her and she received injury on the right hand.The neighboursinterfered and separated them.Thereafter, she went to the Police station andpreferred a complaint and from the police station, she was forwarded to thehospital.Since the complaint given by her was not properly investigated, aprivate complaint under Ex.D.1 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate,Usilampatti.D.2 is the bail order, dated 05.07.1999, passed by thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Madurai, wherein, the case of the prosecution has beennarrated and the averments are in her favour.D.3 is the Telegram, dated27.05.1999, sent to the Sub Inspector of Police, Checkkanoorani.D.4 is therepresentation, dated 08.11.2001, sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,Usilampatti.D.W.2, the daughter of D.W.1, speaks about the enemity between theaccused and the deceased and also about the telegram sent in that regard to thepolice.The learned trial Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on eitherside and perusing the records placed, convicted and sentenced the appellants asaforementioned; hence, the present appeal.The learned counsel for the appellants at the first instance,submitted that A.3, a fragile old woman, who was aged about 63 years at the timeof occurrence, could not have obstructed P.W.1, who is said to have intervenedto help the deceased and it is apparent that she has been falsely implicated inthe case.It is alleged that A.2 caught hold of thedeceased to facilitate A.1 to attack the deceased.He further submitted that thedeceased party are the aggressors.As per the order of the District Collectorand the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, on 25.05.1999, A.2 wascarrying out the job with other workers and, while the work was at progress,P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased obstructed and indulged in quarrel.Though suchaspect is not disputed at all, the prosecution has conveniently suppressed theorigin and genesis of the facts.A.2 also sustained severe injuries on the headand immediately after the occurrence, she went to the police station and lodgeda complaint.She was also forwarded to the Government Hospital for treatment.Though a case was registered on the complaint given by A.2, no properinvestigation was conducted thereon and ultimately, the case came to be referredas mistake of fact.Learned counsel also submitted that admittedly, A.1 and A.2 alsosustained injury and, as per police memo, they were treated in the GovernmentHospital.The doctor, who treated the accused were not examined and the woundcertificates were not marked by the prosecution.The present case is a classicexample where the prosecution made all possible efforts to suppress thematerials from being produced before the trial Court.Even as per the evidenceof P.Ws.3 and 4, independent eye witnesses, there was a wordy quarrel betweenthe accused and the deceased in which both parties involved in "push and pull"and both parties sustained injuries and went to the police station.The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case lawreported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1659 (SUBRAMANI Vs.STATE OF T.N.),and pressed into service the following passage at page No.1661:-The injuries on the accused has not been explained.The occurrence took place at7.30 A.M. and report was given to the police without any loss of time at 8.00A.M. by the deceased herself.So, the complaint given by the deceased wouldamount to dying declaration.In the complaint, the deceased has narrated theoccurrence in detail including the motive and participation of all the accused.Ex.P.12, the complaint given by the deceased reached the Magistrate at 3.45 P.M.without any delay.Therefore, the truthfulness of narration in the complaintcannot be suspected.The ocular testimony ofP.Ws.1 to 4 has been corroborated by the medical evidence.After the arrest ofthe accused, blood-stained material objects were recovered through the accusedand the same connect them with the crime committed.The doctor has also opinedthat the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained.According to the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, the case of the prosecution has been proved beyondreasonable doubt and the reasonings given by the trial Court for convicting andsentencing the appellants are well founded, hence, the appeal is liable to bedismissed.We have meticulously perused the evidence available on recordand carefully considered the submissions made on either side.The complaint of thedeceased was entertained at 8.00 A.M. and that of A.2 at 9.00 A.M. Both thedeceased and A.2 were forwarded to the Government Hospital for treatment.The medical officer,who examined the accused, was not examined during the course of the trial.Thewound certificates given to A.1 and A.2 were not at all marked.On a perusal ofthe accident register issued to the accused, we could see that A.2 sustainedinjury on the forehead, which is a vital part of the body.Similarly, on aperusal of the complaint lodged by A.2, we could discern some truth in theallegation made against the deceased.Such allegation has been corroborated byP.W.6, the Panchayat President.He categorically deposed that A.2, Member ofthe 4th ward, was put in charge of the work to fill up and close the well andthat a quarrel ensued when the deceased party i.e., P.W.1 alleged that A.1 andA.2 took away the stone of the well for their personal use.It appears that the complaint of A.2 wasnot properly investigated.It is reported that the referral report was filedbefore the learned Magistrate only after the charge sheet filed in this case.It is true that the case of the prosecution has been initiated on the complaintgiven by the deceased and such complaint could be construed as a dyingdeclaration.Even in the dying declaration, though the participation of A.2 andA.3 with regard to causing of injuries on the deceased is mentioned, thoseaccused were robed with certain overt acts, which are flimsy in nature.A.3,grand mother of A.1 and a feeble woman is alleged to have obstructed P.W.1 atthe time when he intervened to help the deceased.P.W.1 was aged about 31 yearsat the time of occurrence and A.3 about 63 years.Independent witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4have spoken to about the wordy quarrel and the "push and pull" at the time ofoccurrence.If that was really so, A.2 would not have caught hold of thedeceased.The occurrence might have taken place in a spur of the moment and A.1would have caused such injuries.But, there exists an equal allegation thatP.W.1 and the deceased caused injury on the forehead of A.2 and on the lefthand.So long as the material papers andrecords pertaining to Crime No.21/97 are not produced before the Court, theCourt cannot find out even the genesis of the occurrence.Further, when four ofthe accused were also sustained injuries and they were sent for medicalexamination.It isunfortunate that the Investigating Officer did not take any effort in receivingthe wound certificate issued for the accused and marking the same before thetrial Court.The Medical Officer, who treated the accused, was not examinedbefore the trial court.On a perusal of the graphic narration of the factsmade in the complaint lodged by A.2 and taking note of the aspect that theinjuries sustained by the accused were not explained, we are of the view thatthe occurrence would not have taken place in the manner as put forth by theprosecution.The investigation in both the cases should have been taken up inthe manner known to law, but, it is unfortunate that the injuries sustained bythe accused were not explained and vital facts were suppressed and withheld bythe prosecution.Fine amount, if any, paid bythem shall be refunded forthwith. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,105,704 | He would further submit that they have made arrangements to conduct the election campaign peacefully on today or tomorrow.However, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that already two FIRs are pending against the petitioner.Moreover, definitely there would be a law and order problem as the spot chosen by the petitioner for conducting the public meeting is not a suitable place.Therefore, the second respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's request.It is seen that the petitioner is a member of Makkal Athikaaram. The said organisation already conducted meetings and two FIRs were registered against them.Prevention is always better than cure, that too at the time of election, to the State Assembly.As the police has got responsibility to give protection to all the people and candidates and also to maintain law and order problem, the second respondent has rightly rejected the permission sought for by the petitioner.Hence, the petition is dismissed.No costs.vkW.P.No.17842 of 201612.5.2016 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,108,490 | Therefore, we direct an offence to be registered by the police under the aforesaid Sections of IPC against the writ petitioner and investigate into the same.However, this order will not mean that the police will arrest the petitioner, who has already suffered a lot.After investigation, the police will submit its report under Section 173 of the Cr.This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 20.9.2012 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,711,298 | This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheetfiled in C.C.No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,Madurai District against the petitioners herein under sections 406, 465, 468and 471 of I.P.C.,2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2008 for theoffence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., againstthe petitioners herein.After completing investigation, the first respondenthas filed charge sheet and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.133 of2012 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai District and for quashing thesame, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are before this Court onthe ground that they have arrived at compromise.3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Dinakaran,Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai District ispresent.The petitioners and the second respondent appeared in persons andtheir identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to theconfirmation of the identity of the parties by the Government Advocate(Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.Dinakaran, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai District.Learned counselappearing for the parties also endorsed the identify of their respectiveparties.The parties have filed a joint memo of compromise on07.04.2018, wherein, it is stated as follows:2.It is submitted that during the pendency of the criminal case acompromise was reached between the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant and the petitioners herein in the presence of mediators who are well wishers ofour families.I, Madurai District in respect of thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed.The joint compromise memo filed on 07.06.2018 shall form part of this order.After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished tothe Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1.The Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
117,113,386 | 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry appearing for the respondent.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is the power agent of one B.Jayakumar and there are also settlement deeds bearing document No.4586 of 2010 dated 13.09.2010 and document No.4587 of 2010 dated 13.09.2010 registered by one Krishnamoorthy S/o.Since, no action was taken on the said complaint, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry submits that with respect of the same property, a case has been registered in Crime No.12 of 2011 under sections 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w.34 IPC and the investigation is on before the CBCID, Puducherry.He further submits that when the petitioner approached the respondent police, he was asked to come with all the documents, but he has not responded.Recording the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondichierry, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent police with all the documents and co-operate with the investigation. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,109,208 | 609 21.08.2014 AB C.R.M. 6375 of 2014 Re: An application for anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20th May, 2014 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 347 of 2014 dated 29.4.2014 under Sections 447/323/354A/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In re: Ramjan Malitha & Ors. ... Petitioners.Mr. Asraf Mondal ... for the Petitioners.Mr. Pratick Bose ... for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.( Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. ) ( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. ) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,116,203 | The body was taken by the family members of the deceased at the parental home of deceased where inquest was prepared.The FIR is hastily motivated and conjectural.There is no specific role assigned to the applicant except this claim that the deceased was beaten by the applicant and this claim is negatived by the post mortem examination report.As per the post mortem examination report no mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased.Learned A.G.A. has opposed prayer for bail.However, learned A.G.A. has not disputed the aforesaid facts.Let the applicant Talib involved in Case Crime No. 203 of 2018, (S.T. No. 480 of 2018) under Sections 498-A,304-B I.P.C. and section of D.P. Act Police Station Saidangali, District Amroha be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.Order Date :- 16.7.2019 N.A. | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,161,307 | P.W.1 is owning a jewellery shop.P.W.4, Oorvasi is the mother of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri.The deceased Vibha is the wife of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri.A.4 Manjula committed theft of some small amount from P.W.1's house.Therefore, P.W.1 dismissed her from service.A.1 Vellaisamy, the lover of A.4 Manjula along with A.3 Rangadurai @ Rengaraj came to the house of P.W.1 in support of A.4 Manjula and insisted P.W.1 to reappoint A.4 Manjula as she would work properly in future.P.Ws.1 and 4 refused to employ her again in their house.A.2 Senthilkumar is the neighbour and friend of A.3 Rangadurai.(b) The occurrence had taken place on 21.11.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. On that day, P.W.1 sent P.W.5 Pragadeesh, who was working in the jewellery shop, to his house for doing some electrical repair work.He came and effected the repairs in the house of P.W.1 and returned back to the jewellery shop at about 5.30 p.m. P.W.5 informed P.W.1 that he finished his repairing work and asked P.W.1 to go and verify the same.So, P.W.1 went to his house at about 6.30 p.m. in his car.While he was getting down from his car and making an entry into his house, he saw A.1 Vellaisamy running out of his house with a plastic bag in his hand.(c) On entertaining suspicion, P.W.1 went inside the house and found his wife Vibha, the deceased lying down in a pool of blood with injuries all over her body and gasping for life.His two children were crying.P.W.1 noticed that the almirahs were broken.On seeing the condition of the deceased Vibha, who was not able to breathe, P.W.1 swiftly took her to Sea Horse Hospital at Trichy.(d) At about 7.35 p.m., P.W.7 Dr. Venkatesan, attached to Sea Horse Hospital, attended the deceased, but while treatment was given, she died.Thereafter, he prepared a medical report Ex.P.36 is the printed F.I.R.(e) Next day, P.Ws. 1 and 4 prepared a list of the jewels and others articles, which were found stolen.P.2 is the list.In the meantime, on 21.11.1997 at about 9.15 p.m., the Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.37 and observation mahazar Ex.Then, he went to the hospital, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and examined the witnesses.P.38 is the inquest report.(f) Meanwhile, P.W.6 Selvaraj, the photographer and P.W.12 Soundarrajan, the finger print expert were brought to the scene.After comparing them with the finger prints of the deceased and other inmates, he found that R.1, R.5, R.7 and R.11 are the finger prints of strangers.He sent a report Ex.P.13 to the Inspector of Police.(g) After the inquest was over, the body of the deceased Vibha was sent for post mortem by the Inspector of Police.P.W.8 Dr. Sakunthala, commenced post mortem on 22.11.1997 at about 7.50 a.m. and found 14 injuries all over the body.P.W.8 issued post mortem certificate Ex.P.8 giving opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs, about 10 to 16 hours prior to post mortem.(h) On 01.12.1997, the Inspector of Police arrested A.1 Vellaisamy and obtained his confession.The admissible portion is Ex.Based on his confession, M.O.43 cycle was recovered.A.1 Vellaisamy identified A.4 Manjula and she was arrested.Then, he gave the information about the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai in the incident.(i) On 02.12.1997, A.2 Senthilkumar was arrested and his confession was recorded.The admissible portion is Ex.In pursuance of the same, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.2 gold chain.Then, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police to his house and handed over the other stolen articles.M.O.1, series, the cash was recovered along with M.O.4 and M.O.5 bangles, M.O.6 gold coated silver chain, M.O.7 series imitation bangles, M.O.3 Thirumangalyam, M.O.28 suitcase, M.O.29 green pant, M.O.30 black shirt and M.O.31 plastic bag under Ex.P.28 mahazar.From him, M.O.26 knife was also recovered.(j) Thereafter, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police and identified A.3 Rangadurai on the same day.The Inspector of Police arrested A.3 Rangadurai and recorded his confession statement.From him, M.O.8 model chain dollar, a portion of M.O.1 series, the cash, M.O.32 Wrist watch, M.O.33 Rexene bag, M.O.34 series pants and M.O.35 series T.Shirts were recovered.On his further information that he had given one portion of the cash to P.W.17 Senthilkumar, the Lodge Manager, the Inspector of Police recovered the said cash from him.(k) On 03.12.1997, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.36 ever silver vessel, a portion of the cash M.O.1 series, M.O.37 blood stained shirt and M.O.38 blood stained lungi from A.3 Rangadurai.Accordingly, on 11.12.1997, P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate No. VI, conducted the identification parade, wherein P.W.1 identified A.2 Senthilkumar correctly.P.11 is the identification proceedings.(m) Then, all the material objects were sent for chemical analysis.It was found out from Ex.P.24 serologist's report that the blood group found in M.O.38 Lungi, recovered from A.3 Rangadurai and M.O.26 Knife recovered from A.2 Senthilkumar tallied with the blood group of the deceased Vibha.After finishing the investigation, the Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against all the accused under Sections 120-B, 302, 394, 397 and 449 I.P.C.(n) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined,Exs.P.1 to P.39 were filed and M.Os.1 to 43 were marked.(o) When A.1 Vellaisamy was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he was not involved in the incident and he had no acquaintance with other accused.Further, he stated that he surrendered before the Karur Police Station on 24.11.1997 itself.Mr. A.S. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the first accused would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 implicating A.1 Vellaisamy stating that he was found near the scene of occurrence, would not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences charged, especially when none of the stolen articles had been recovered from him.A.1 Vellaisamy, who is the lover of A.4 Manjula and A.3 Rangadurai, the neighbour of A.4 Manjula came in support of A.4 Manjula and quarrelled with P.W.1, asking him to take her back for continuing as servant-maid in his house.Both P.W.1 and his mother P.W.4 refused to take her back.P.26 is the admissible portion of the confession.From him, M.O.2 gold chain was recovered under Ex.Thereafter, he took the police to his house and handed over a portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs. 1,96,200/-.P.11 is the identification proceedings.P.W.12 Soundararajan sent a report Ex.P.17 stating that the finger print marked as R.11 is identical to the finger prints of A.2 Senthilkumar.When A2 was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he admitted that the finger prints were taken from him in the presence of the Magistrate.He also handed over M.O.8 cutting model chain to the Inspector of Police, who recovered the same under Ex.P.31 in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan and P.W.17 Davood Khan.The Inspector of Police also recovered a portion of M.O.1 series cash Rs. 20,000/- and M.O.32 wrist watch under Ex.Apart from that, he recovered M.O.33 Rexene bag, M.O.34 series pants and M.O.35 series T.shirts from the Lodge where A.3 stayed, under Ex.A.3 had also given an information that a portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs. 10,000/- was given to P.W.17 Senthilkumar, the Lodge Manager.From P.W.17, the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered under Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.This is a case of murder for gain.A.1 to A.4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 449, 394 r/w 34, 397 and 302 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the respective offences.Aggrieved by that, they have filed four separate appeals in C.A. Nos. 323 of 1999, 66 of 2000, 543 of 1999 and 1103 of 1998 respectively.The short facts which led to the conviction are as follows:-(a) A.4 Manjula, the appellant in C.A. No. 1103 of 1998, was working as a servant-maid in the house of P.W.1 Rajesh Ashok Zaveri at Trichy.On being informed that his wife died, P.W.1 went to the Police Station at 8.15 p.m. and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police, Trichy.The Inspector of Police registered a case for the offences under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. Ex.Since A.3 Rangadurai sustained injury on his right finger, he was sent to P.W.9 Doctor Chitra, who treated him and gave wound certificate Ex.(l) After the accused were sent for remand, the Inspector of Police requested Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Trichy to conduct identification parade to identify A.2 Senthilkumar.When A.2 to A.4 were questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime.(p) The trial Court, after analysing the evidence available on record, found all the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted them thereunder.Assailing the same, these four appeals have been filed by A.1 to A.4 separately.According to Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the second accused, the culprits must be P.W.5 Pragadeesh and one Rajesh Kanna, who came to the house at the relevant time for effecting electrical repair work and non-examination of the female child, who was the eye witness to the occurrence, would affect the prosecution case.It is contended by Mr. G. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third accused that mere recovery of some stolen articles would not be sufficient to find A.3 Rangadurai guilty of the offences of murder and robbery.Mr. C.R. Malarvannan, representing Mr. Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the fourth accused would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who speak about the conspiracy hatched by the accused including A.4 Manjula, is so artificial and even assuming that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is true, the same may not be sufficient to connect A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy.Therefore, A.1 to A.4 hatched a conspiracy in the house of A.4 Manjula and in pursuance of the same, A.1 to A.3 committed robbery and murder of the deceased, the wife of P.W.1 in his house.Usually, P.W.1 leaves the house at 9.30 a.m. for jewellery shop and comes back for the lunch at 1.30 p.m. After taking some rest, he will again start at 3.30 p.m. and come back home only at 9.30 p.m. However, on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 sent P.W.5 to do some electrical repair work in his house in the afternoon.Accordingly, P.W.5 came and did the electrical work till 5.30 p.m. At that time, the accused 1 to 3 came there and found that P.W.5 and another were inside the house.After noticing that P.W.5 and another had gone out, they entered into the house of P.W.1 and mercilessly attacked the deceased Vibha, the young wife of P.W.1 with M.O.26 knife before the very eyes of the crying two children, broke the almirahs, took away the cash and jewels and then sped away.Unusually, P.W.1 came to the house at 6.00 p.m. to verify whether the electrical work had been properly done and saw A.1 Vellaisamy with a plastic bag, coming out of his house and running from there accompanied by A.2 Senthilkumar.Therefore, P.W.1 entered inside the house and to his shock, he found that the victim, his wife Vibha was lying down in a pool of blood with injuries all over her body and gasping for life.Immediately, he took her to the hospital, where she was declared dead.Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police.In the complaint, he specifically mentioned that he saw A.1 Vellaisamy, running from the scene of occurrence and that he was accompanied by another person.After registering the complaint, the Inspector of Police took up investigation and arrested A.1 Vellaisamy.On the confession given by A.1 Vellaisamy, the other accused were arrested.Though A.4 Manjula was arrested on the same day, no recovery was made from her.However, from A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai, cash and jewels were recovered.Ultimately, it was found that the blood group of the deceased tallied with the blood group of the blood stain found in M.O.26 knife as well as in M.O.38 lungi.P.W.12 Soundarrajan, finger print expert, who took the finger prints on 21.11.1997 at the scene of occurrence, gave a report stating that the finger prints of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai were found tallied with the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence.So on these materials, the trial Court found all the accused guilty of the offences.Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case.The only eye witness is the child aged about five years, which was not examined.P.W.1 as well as the Inspector of Police gave explanation as to why the child was not examined in Court.According to P.Ws.1 and 4 as well as the Inspector of Police, whenever the child was asked about the occurrence, she immediately began to cry.P.1, specifically mentioned that A.l carrying a plastic bag, was found running away from the house of P.W.1 accompanied by another person.He also clearly stated that A.1 Vellaisamy is the lover of A.4 Manjula, who was his former servant-maid.According to the prosecution, A1 was arrested only on 01.12.1997 and only on his information through Ex.P.12, the admissible portion of the confession statement, they came to know about the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai.But for the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy, who was arrested on 01.12.1997, the involvement of A.2 and A.3 would not have been known to the Inspector of Police.Therefore, the materials available on record as against A.1 Vellaisamy would clinchingly prove that A.1 to A.3 went to the house of P.W.1 and when P.W.1 was not available in the house, attacked the deceased Vibha and after inflicting several injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, broke open the almirahs and took away the cash and jewels.As indicated above, both in the written submission and in the answer given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., A.1 Vellaisamy stated that he surrendered on 24.11.1997 before the Karur Police.Admittedly, his name had been figured as the first accused in Ex.On the other hand, the fact that A.1 himself surrendered before the Police, would indicate his involvement.Let us now come to the case, which relates to A.2 Senthilkumar.As noted above, only on the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy, A.2 Senthilkumar was arrested on 02.12.1997 by the Inspector of Police in the presence of P.W.16 Mohan.A confession was recorded from him.Apart from that, M.O.3 Thirumangalyam, M.O.4 and M.O.5 bangles, M.O.6 gold coated silver chain, M.O.7 series imitation bangles, M.O.28 Old suitcase, M.O.29 pant, M.O.30 T.shirt and M.O.31 plastic bag were recovered under Ex.P.28, attested by P.W.16 Mohan.Then, A.2 Senthilkumar took the police to Kudamurity Bridge and pointed out M.O.26 knife, which was hidden under a bush.Thereafter, he took the police and identified A.3 Rangadurai and subsequently, A.3 Rangadurai was arrested.Accordingly, on 11.12.1997, P.W.10 conducted an identification parade, in which P.W.1 identified A.2 Senthilkumar correctly for three times.P.Ws. 1 and 4 also identified the jewels and cash as that of their own.Let us now discuss the evidence against A.3 Rangadurai.As noticed earlier, on 02.12.1997, he was arrested by the Inspector of Police, on being pointed out by A.2 Senthilkumar.From him, a confession was recorded.The next day, i.e. on 03.12.1997, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.36 and also the other portion of M.O.1 series, cash of Rs. 1,47,500/- from A.3 Rangadurai.Apart from that, he recovered M.O.38 blood stained lungi and M.O.37 blood stained full hand shirt under Ex.The finger prints of A.3 Rangadurai were taken and sent to P.W.12 for opinion.P.W.12, after comparing his finger prints with the finger prints taken from the scene of occurrence, found that R.1, R.5 and R.7 were identical to the finger prints of A.3 Rangadurai.The blood group found in M.O.26 knife and M.O.38 Lungi was analysed and the blood group found in M.O.38 lungi was found to be 'B' group, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased as per the Serologist's report Ex.It is further noticed that at the time of arrest of A.3 Rangadurai, he had an injury on his right finger and the Inspector of Police after making recovery, sent him to P.W.9 Dr. Chitra for giving treatment.P.W.9 examined him and gave a wound certificate finding that there was a fracture on the finger.This would show that the Inspector of Police has done his duty properly and when he noticed the injury on his finger, he sent him to the hospital to give proper treatment for the said injury sustained on 30.11.1997, i.e., the date prior to the date of his arrest.These materials would clearly indicate that A.3 Rangadurai had also involved along with other accused in the incident in question.The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 4 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 and also by the medical testimony of P.W.8, the Doctor.The evidence of P.Ws.16, 17 and 20 clearly indicates that A.1 to A.3, after committing murder, took away the jewels and cash and ran away from the scene with the booty and after their arrest, the properties stolen were recovered.Under those circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to hold that the reasonings for conviction given by the trial Court, would suffer from any infirmity.With regard to A.4 Manjula, it is contended that she might not be one of the conspirators, since the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is artificial and even assuming that their evidence is true, the same may not connect A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy.On going through the materials as against A.4 Manjula, we find some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the fourth accused.A.4 Manjula herself would admit when she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that she was working in the house of P.W.1 for a period of one year.According to P.Ws.1 and 4, A.4 Manjula was dismissed from service, since she committed theft of money.Further, P.Ws.1 and 4 would state that A.1 Vellaisamy and A.3 Rangadurai came to P.W.1 and insisted P.Ws.1 and 4 to take her back.However, P.Ws.1 and 4 did not oblige them.As noticed earlier, there are materials to show that A.1 to A.3 alone came to the scene and directly participated in the occurrence.It is not the case of the prosecution that A.4 Manjula was present at the scene of occurrence and participated in the commission of crime, along with other accused.The only charge against A.4 Manjula is the conspiracy to commit robbery and murder.To establish the same, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined.According to P.Ws.2 and 3, they went to the house of A.4 Manjula on 21.11.1997 at about 1.30 p.m., in order to demand the loan amount of Rs. 300/-, which was lent to A.1 Vellaisamy by P.W.3 Murugan.According to P.W.2, at the request of P.W.3, he also accompanied him.Admittedly, it was about 1.30 p.m. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that when they went to the house of A.4 to meet A.1, they saw A.4 Manjula talking to A.1 to A.3 loudly, stating " nrl;L tPl;oy; fl;Lf; fl;lhf gzk; ,Uf;fpwJ " On noticing that P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming near them, A.4 Manjula stopped it.Then, P.W.3 demanded for the return of the loan amount, for which A.1 Vellaisamy said that he would pay the amount within 2 or 3 days.Then, P.Ws.2 and 3 came out.It is to be stated, in this context, that P.Ws.2 and 3 themselves would admit that next day morning, they saw in the Newspaper that P.W.1's wife was murdered for gain and they suspected the involvement of A.4 Manjula.But however, they did not choose to inform the police.Even according to them, the Police themselves came after ten days and enquired them.Merely because they did not choose to inform the police immediately, we are not inclined to reject the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on that score, since they might have got their own reasons for not informing the police.However, it is to be considered as to whether the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 even if it is true, would be sufficient to hold that A.4 Manjula had hatched a conspiracy along with the other accused to commit the murder and robbery.As noted above, P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that A.4 Manjula was talking to the other accused in a loud voice and A.1 and A.4 were sitting in the door steps.Admittedly, no recovery was made from A.4 Manjula.As a matter of fact, the involvement of A.2 Senthilkumar and A.3 Rangadurai came to be known only on the information given by A.1 Vellaisamy.There is no evidence to show that A.4 was also a beneficiary and that any portion of the booty was given to her.It is now stated by the learned counsel for the 4th accused that A.3 is the cousin brother of A.4 Manjula.Merely because there is some relationship between A.4 and A.3, in the absence of any other material connecting A.4 Manjula with the offence of conspiracy to commit the robbery and murder, we are unable to hold that on 21.11.1997 at about 1.30 p.m., the conspiracy was hatched in the house of A.4 Manjula and that A.4 also participated in the conspiracy. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
116,132,823 | 1 August 10, 2018 77 ARDR (Allowed) CRM No. 5906 of 2018 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08/08/2018 in connection with Memari Police Station Case No. 217/2018 dated 28/05/2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 420/406/465/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And Re: Debi Dhali Mistri, ... Petitioner Md. Ashraf Ali, Mr. Sabnam Laskar ... for the petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Santanu Chatterjee, ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Memari Police Station Case No. 217/2018 dated 28/05/2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 420/406/465/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the Case Diary and refers to the complaint.Considering the materials against this petitioner, it may not be necessary to take her into custody at the moment.In addition, the petitioner will also report to 1 2 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.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
11,614,479 | Petitioners of the above captioned two petitions are the complainants of two criminal complaints i.e. one under Sections 418/420/467/468/471/506/120-B of IPC and the other one under Sections 327/347/380/386/120-B of IPC in which petitioners had sought direction under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of two separate FIRs on the basis of above two complaints.In the above-captioned first petition, trial court vide order of 16th December, 2008 had directed respondent-State to register the FIR on the basis of aforesaid criminal complaint of petitioners which was challenged by respondent-State as well as by respondent-accused by way of two separate revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision Petitions No.145/2008 & 174/2009 and vide common impugned order of 11th May, 2009, the revision petition preferred by respondent-accused (as per amended memo of parties) was held to be maintainable and both the revision petitions were accepted while setting aside trial court's order of 16th December, 2008 and petitioners' criminal complaint was directed to be proceeded with in accordance with the law.M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 Page 2 of 12In the above captioned second petition, trial court vide order of 19th February, 2009 had accepted petitioners' application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR under Sections 327/347/380/386/120- B of IPC against respondents No.2 to 7 (as per amended memo of parties) who were accused No.1 to 6 before trial court and accused No.7 & 8 i.e. respondents No.8 & 9 herein were left out.Petitioners had preferred criminal revision No.175/2009 seeking registration of FIR against respondents No.8 & 9 (accused No.7 & 8) as well and respondent-accused had also preferred criminal revision No.165/2009 against trial court's order directing registration of FIR against them.Upon hearing, it emerges that in the above captioned first petition, criminal complaint of cheating, forgery, etc. was lodged by petitioners against respondent-accused persons including Smt. Urmila Bajaj, who is the first informant of FIR case lodged against petitioners levelling allegations of cheating, etc. in respect of Plot No. D-144 in Freedom Fighters Colony, Neb Sarai, Delhi.In the aforesaid complaint of petitioners, a status report was called by the Trial Court which revealed that Smt. Urmila Bajaj, first informant of FIR No. 624/08 under Sections 420/ 447/ 34 IPC registered at P.S. Mehrauli on 13th December, 2008 as well as third party-Devender Crl.M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 Page 6 of 12 Bansal had claimed to have purchased the subject land from petitioner- Manohar Singh.M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 Page 6 of 12Trial Court vide order of 16th December, 2008 had acted upon aforesaid status report and had directed petitioner-Manohar Singh to give his specimen handwriting to Investigating Officer of FIR case, but had also directed the concerned SHO to register an FIR against himself because the investigation in respect of petitioners' complaint related to the same dispute.The revisional court vide impugned order of 11th May, 2009 had set aside trial court's order of 16th December, 2008 and had directed that complaint of petitioner be tried as a complaint case.Pertinently, in the above captioned second petition, complaint of petitioners is in relation to the offences under Sections 327/347/380/386/120B of IPC against different set of accused persons and relates to another property of petitioners i.e. D-145-B in Freedom Fighters Colony, Neb Sarai, Delhi.Trial court vide order of 19th February, 2009 had entertained application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. moved by petitioners which has been partly allowed with direction to register FIR against respondent-accused except police officials as CFSL Report was required to test the genuineness of the documents produced by both the sides.Petitioners had assailed aforesaid order of Trial Court before the revisional court to seek registration of FIR against two police officials who are accused in the complaint case of petitioners.Respondent-accused Rajbir Singh, etc had assailed aforesaid order of Trial Court being unwarranted.Revisional Crl.M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 Page 7 of 12 court vide impugned order of 11th May, 2009 has directed that criminal complaint of petitioners be tried as a complaint case.M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 Page 7 of 12 | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
113,593,241 | The brief facts before the Tribunal were that the father of the respondent No. 2 herein was working with respondent Department namely Intelligence Bureau (IB).Respondent No's.2 father Shri Roop Singh died in harness on 26.01.1997 leaving behind the widow, 2 sons and one daughter.-:- 2 -:-The Department entered appearance before the Tribunal and urged that as per the policy in vogue the applicant No. 2 therein cannot be considered.Mere pendency of criminal trial is not sufficient to debar the person from his claim.The impugned order therein dated 17.12.97 is not a speaking order.The petitioners have challenged the order of Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal failed to see that respondent was in volved in criminal activities.He was not suitable to be appointed in an organization like Intelligence Bureau.The OA itself was barred by time.We have heard him at length.However, the matter may be viewed from another angle.We find substance in the petition that Tribunal has miserably failed to examine this material aspect regarding 'suitability' of respondent No. 2 for appointment in a sensitive Department.In our considered opinion, the Department was justified in rejecting the claim of respondent No. 2 by order dated 17.12.1997 on the ground of suitability. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
113,595,114 | The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Thilagavathi.She was the second wife of one Mr.Ponnusamy.The accused had a brother by name Mr.Madhavan.Mr.Madhavan and Mr.Ponnusamy became friends and there were also money transaction between the two families.In course of time, the accused also became friendly towards the family of Mr.Ponnusamy.On account of the same, the accused used to speak to the deceased over cell phone frequently.Few days prior to 24.08.2011, when the accused met Mrs.Thilagavathi (deceased), she told the accused that one Doctor by name Kasturi Bai at Killapalavur had received a six sovereign gold dollar chain from her to take it as a model to give order for purchasing a similar gold jewel.The deceased further told that on 24.08.2011, she was going to receive back the said chain from Dr.Kasturai Bai.Accordingly, the deceased went to Killapalavur, met Dr.Kasturai Bai and received the said dollar chain from the doctor at 5.00 p.m. At that time, the accused spoke to the deceased over cell phone and wanted her to come to a particular place at Ariyalur.Wearing the said gold dollar chain on her neck, the deceased came to the said place at Ariyalur.From there, the accused took the deceased to the backyard of Annalakshmi marriage hall on the Jayakondam road.While going, he had taken with him a bottle full of liquor and two packets of birayani.Behind the marriage hall, in an open space, both were sitting and engaged in chatting.The accused served her liquor and also gave her briyani.Having consumed the liquor, she lost her balance.Utilizing the said opportunity, it is alleged that the accused with a view to take away the gold ornaments from the deceased, strangulated her and suffocated her to death.Then he removed the above said gold chain weighing six sovereigns, a gold ring and a pair of ear studs with drops and after abandoning the body of the deceased, left the place of occurrence.The whole occurrence was not witnessed by anybody.On 25.08.2011, at about 08.30 a.m. The village assistant of Ameenabad village informed P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, that a dead body was lying behind the marriage hall.P.W.1 immediately rushed to the said place and found the dead body.But the identity of the dead body was not known.There were no gold ornaments on the body of the deceased.There was a chocolate colour jacket and chocolate colour saree on the body of the deceased.Two gold covering bangles were found on the hands.One nose screw was also found.P.W.15 the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of Ex.The investigation was taken up by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 14.09.2012, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.2.5. P.W.12 Dr.T.Kanmani, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 25.08.2011 at 04.00 p.m. (Ex.P7) is the postmortem certificate.She gave opinion that the deceased could have died due to asphyxia.When the investigation was in progress, the accused was arrested on 27.08.2011 at 03.00 p.m, in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he had given M.Os.1, 3 and 4 to P.W.6 Mr.In pursuance of the said confession, he took the police and witnesses to the house of P.W.6 and identified him.P.W.6, in turn told that as requested by the accused, he received M.Os.1, 3 and 4 from the accused and pledged the same with the Kumbakonam Benefit Fund Limited, Jayakondam branch.P.W.6 also produced the receipt for the same.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and others to the said bank from where M.Os.1, 3 and 4 were recovered.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed appropriate charges.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined, 14 documents and 4 material objects were marked.P.W.2 is the second husband of the deceased.He has stated that on 27.08.2011, he made a complaint to P.W.16 alleging that someone had killed his wife and taken away the jewels.P.W.3 has spoken about the arrest of the accused on 27.08.2011 at 3.00 p.m. and consequential recovery of M.Os.1 to 4. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.6 is a vital witness for the prosecution.According to him, on 25.08.2011, the accused came to him and handed over M.Os.1 to 4 and wanted him to pledge the same and give money.Accordingly, he pledged M.Os.1, 3 and 4 with the bank and retained M.O.2 alone.Out of pledging, he received Rs.98,000/- which he gave to the accused.P6 is the said receipt.He has further stated that on the disclosure statement made by the accused, the Inspector of Police along with the accused came to him and then he handed over M.O.2 chain to the police.The M.Os.1,3 and 4 are redeemed from the bank and given to the police.P.W.7 is the cousin of the appellant, who has stated that the sim card was purchased by him in his name and he handed over the same to the accused and the accused was using the same.He has not stated anything about the number of the sim card.P.W.8 is the manager of Jaykondam branch of Kumbakonam Benefit Fund and he has stated that M.Os.1, 3 and 4 were pledged by P.W.6 under Ex.P6 and later they were returned to the police.P.W.9 is the cashier of the said branch and he has stated the same facts.P.W.10 has spoken about the relationship between the accused and the deceased.P.W.11 Dr.Kasturi Bai has stated that she handed over M.O.2 to the deceased on 24.08.2011 at 05.00 p.m. which belonged to the deceased.P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.13 is the constable who took the F.I.R. to Court and he has spoken about the same.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how, he is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.The first and foremost circumstance is that the deceased was lastly seen on 24.08.2011 at 5.00 p.m. at Killapalavur Village by Dr.Kasturi Bai (P.W.11).According to this witness, earlier, the deceased had handed over M.O.2, which she had received to take it as a model for purchasing a similar gold ornament for herself.She has further stated that on 24.08.2011, at 5.00 p.m. the deceased came to her residence and received back M.O.2 gold chain and went away.We do not find any reason to reject this evidence of P.W.11, who is an independent witness.Thus, P.W.11 has proved that M.O.2 was lastly in the possession of the deceased.The next circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1, who has stated that on 25.08.2011 at 08.30 a.m. he was informed by the Karibad Village Assistant that a dead body was lying behind Annalakshmi Marriage Hall.At the time when he made a complaint to the police, the identity of the dead body was not known.The identity of the dead body came to be known only during investigation.The evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor who conducted postmortem would go to prove that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation and suffocation.The next circumstance is that according to P.W.11, M.O.2 was in the possession of the deceased on 24.08.2011 at 5.00 p.m. According to the evidence of P.W.2, M.Os.1, 3 and 4 were worn by the deceased lastly.On the dead body on 25.08.2011, M.Os.1 to 4 were found missing.Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the homicide and the removal of M.Os.1 to 4 from the body of the deceased had taken place in one and the same occurrence.It was out of this disclosure statement, P.W.6 was discovered and the accused took P.W.16 and P.W.3 and another witness to the house P.W.6 and identified him.8. P.W.6 admitted that the accused gave M.Os.1 to 4 to him on 25.08.2011, with a request to him to pledge the jewels.He retained M.O.2 alone and pledged M.Os.1,3 and 4 with the Jayakondam branch of Kumbakonam Benefit Fund under Ex.Thus, Ex.P6 would go to prove that M.Os.1, 3 and 4 were really pledged on 25.08.2011 and was later on recovered.Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of these three witnesses, from which the prosecution has clearly established that on 25.08.2011, the accused was found in possession of M.Os.1 to 4 and as requested by the accused, P.W.6 had pledged M.Os.1, 3 and 4 and retained M.O.2 alone.These jewels were recovered later on based on the disclosure statement made by the accused.Thus, the said presumption raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act remains unrebutted and out of the said presumption, the prosecution has clearly proved that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased and removed the jewels.At any rate, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
113,596,509 | This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondentto take the complaint dated 01.12.2014 made by the petitioner intoinvestigation and register the same in accordance with law and file finalreport before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within the time limit thatmay be stipulated by this Court.M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014 has been preferred by the petitioner, prayingto recall the order dated 16.06.2014, passed in Crl.M.P(MD).No.2 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of S.P.Shanmuganathan,Minister of State Tourism, Tamil Nadu, praying to implead the petitioner asone of the respondent in the recalling petition filed by the third respondentin M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in Crl.This Court, by an order dated 08.12.2014, disposed of the CriminalOriginal Petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22281 of 2014, permitting the petitionerto avail alternative remedy available to him in accordance with law as on thecomplaint dated 01.12.2014, the police submitted a closure report dated07.12.2014 before this Court and also handed over the copy to the SeniorAdvocate appearing for the petitioner.The entire narrationof the facts mentioned supra, is only for the disposal of the CriminalOriginal Petition and connected Miscellaneous petitions.This will not havea bearing on the police who is going to conduct a preliminary enquiry orinvestigation at a later date, if cognizable offence is made out afterregistering the F.I.R or the closure of case as 'Mistake of Fact' or in anyother form or mode.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of inthe above terms.In view of the observations, the earlier closure reportstands cancelled and hence it is open to the respondent police to decide thematter afresh in accordance with law.Before parting with the judgment, I amconstrained to express that the approach adopted by the police (in closingthe complaint) is perfunctory.19.12.2014Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NogsrTo1 The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District ThoothukudiThe Inspector of Police, Sathakulam Police Station, Thoothukudi3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.gsrin CRL.O.P.(MD)No.22281 of 2014M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 19.12.2014 | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
113,596,978 | On22.04.1993, there was a wordy quarrel between the sister of P.W.1 and thewife of the first accused herein over taking water from the public tap.Inthat quarrel, one Mr.Pandivel, the sister's son of P.W.1, Mr.This developed into a big quarrel and at the intervention ofsome people, the parties disbursed.Sundaram, was thepanchayat head.P.W.1 alongwith his son P.W.3 had gone to the panchayat, asdirected by the panchayat head.The panchayat held in a place known asmanthai.There were number of people present in the place of occurrence,including the head of the panchayat.The panchayatdars gave the verdict that P.W.1 should apologize.Accordingly, he apologized.At that point of time, P.W.1's son Mr.Balaguru (P.W.2) and hisanother son Muthuraman, had come to the spot.(ii)A stab injury on the right shoulder measuring 4 x 2 cms and theinjury had gone upto the lung.(iii)A scratch measuring 1+ x 3 cms on the left leg.(iv)An abrasion measuring 1 c.m. of diameter on the left ankle?.The second injury found on the right shoulder, was grievous.The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.396 of 2002, on thefile of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.II, Madurai.The third accused, in the case, was one Mr.The firstappellant herein stood charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307and 324 read with 149 I.P.C and the second appellant stood charged for theoffence under Sections 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. The thirdaccused also stood charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 324read with 149 I.P.C. The Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 11.11.2005,acquitted the third accused Mr.Mani, but convicted these appellants underSections 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. For the offence under Section147 I.P.C., they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergosimple imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.,they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and topay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment fortwo months and for the offence under Sections 324 read with 149 I.P.C., theyhave been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to paya fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment forsix months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants arebefore this Court, with this Criminal Appeal.Originally, in this case, there were five accused,including the appellants.The first accused was one Mr.Mahendran and thesecond accused was one Mr.Senthilkumar.The third accused was the firstappellant herein and the fourth accused was the second appellant herein andthe fifth accused was the acquitted accused Mr.When all the five werejointly tried, the said Court framed as many as four charges.The firstcharge was under Section 147 I.P.C. against all the accused; the secondcharge was against all the accused under Section 148 I.P.C.; the third chargewas under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 3 and the fourth chargewas under Sections 324 read with 149 I.P.C. against all the five accused.This case was split up and the case against the first accused Mr.This is stated to be the motive for thepresent occurrence.On 29.04.1993, at about 02.15 p.m., P.W.6, Mr.Sankar, came to thepetty shop run by P.W.1 and informed him that village panchayat had beenconvened in respect of the above stated quarrel and the panchayatdars wantedhim to come and participate in the panchayat.The first accused hereinMr.Sethulingam, the other accused Mr.Senthilkumar, the second accusedMr.Ragunathan and few more persons were also present in the panchayat.Thepanchayatdars heard both parties in respect of the above quarrel and finallysaid that it was not proper for a male to intervene in the quarrel, when twofemales were fighting on a petty matter, namely, to take water from thepublic tap.P.W.2 climbed on the dais.Atthat time, Mr.Mahendran, one of the accused, told that Mr.Balaguru (P.W.2)was solely responsible for the whole problem.This resulted in furtherquarrel.P.W.2 climbed down the dais and proceeded towards his house.Atthat time, the accused Mahendran and the first appellant herein attackedP.W.2, with hands.At that time, the accusedMahendran, took up a knife from his waist and stabbed P.W.2 on the back ofhis chest.Again P.W.2 started running.The accused Mahendran and the firstappellant herein and the accused Senthilkumar chased him with knives.Theappellants herein also suddenly appeared with aruval in their hands.P.W.1 and his son Muthuraman were trying to save P.W.2.At that time, the accused Mahendran stabbed him on the back and alsoMuthuraman.He pushed Balaguru down.The accused Senthilkumar stabbedBalaguru on his neck.The first appellant herein pecked on the left leg ofBalaguru with aruval.The people, who were in the panchayat, arrived and onseeing them, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.After the occurrence, the injured were taken to the GovernmentHospital at Melur.P.W.14, Dr.Veeraraghavan, examined P.W.1 and found thefollowing injury:?A stab injury measuring 2 c.m. x + c.m. x 1 c.m. on the right side ofthe back of the chest?.This injury, according to the doctor, is simple in nature.On the same day, at about 03.30 p.m., P.W.14 examined Mr.Muthuraman,the son of P.W.1 and he found the following injury:?A stab injury measuring 6 x 6 x 2 cms. on the upper part of the backof chest?.The injury was simple in nature.P.8 is the Accident Register.On the same day, at about 03.40 p.m., he examined P.W.2 and foundthe following injuries:?(i)A lacerated injury measuring 4 x 2 x + c.m. on the right shoulder.The otherinjuries were simple.P.9 is the Accident Register.When P.W.1 was in the hospital, on due intimation from the hospital,P.W.16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Keelavalavu PoliceStation, arrived in the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, underEx.On returning to the Police Station, he registered a case in CrimeNo.107 of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.11 is theFirst Information Report.He forwarded the First Information Report and thecomplaint to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to P.W.14, the thenInspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station.At 08.35 p.m., P.W.15, proceeded to the place of occurrence,prepared Observation Mahazar and also Rough Sketch, showing the place ofoccurrence.Then, he examined P.W.2 and his brother Mr.Muthuraman andrecorded their statements.He recovered the bloodstained clothes worn by theinjured.Then, he examined the witnesses Gandhi, Palanivel, Pachaimuthu andothers and recorded their statements.On 02.05.1993, he examined few morewitnesses and recorded their statements.Onsuch arrest, he made a voluntary confession, which was reduced into writing.In the said confession, he disclosed that he had hidden the aruval behind hishouse.In pursuance of the same, he took the witnesses and the police to thesaid place and produced the said weapon and the same was recovered under amahazar.Hecollected the medical records, examined few more witnesses and finally laidcharge sheet.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges as detailed in the first and second paragraphs of this Judgment.When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they denied thecharges.So far as the present case is concerned, in order to prove its case,the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked 11 documents.NoMaterial Object was marked.When the Trial Court examined the accused underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminatingevidences available against them, they denied the same as false.However,they did not choose to examine any witnesses nor to exhibit any documents.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court foundthat the case against the third accused Mr.Mani, had not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted him.The appellants herein alonehave been convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. Thatis how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor and I have also perused the recordscarefully.In my considered opinion, this argument of the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor deserves a simple rejection, because, the charges framedagainst the accused are so definite that there were only five accused in theunlawful assembly having the common object.Out of these five accused, oneperson has been acquitted, as it had not been proved that he was involved inthe crime and that he was the member of the unlawful assembly.Thatacquittal had become final.Now, turning to the individual overt-act of the first appellant,Sethulingam.The allegation is that with an aruval, he stabbed P.W.2 on hisleft leg as well as on his shoulder.But, no witness has stated that hestabbed with aruval on the shoulder, instead, the only evidence available, isthat he pecked P.W.2 with aruval tip, on the left leg.But, there is nocorresponding stab injury on the left leg.There was only one scratch foundon the leg.2.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
113,599,016 | Even as this suffle was going on, the second accused joined the fray in support of the first accused.The second accused is none other than the father of the first accused.Hearing the noise, Chokkar, who was a resident of the locality rushed into to separate the two.The ire and anger of the appellants now turned towards Chokkar.The appellants are said to have hit Chokkar with wooden logs.Chookar suffered injuries on his head.He was rushed to Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital.He was subsequently referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for better treatment but Chokkar succumbed to the injuries in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.In this regard, P.W.1/Nagu lodged Ex.P.1/complaint before Sayaerpuram Police Station.Based on the same, Ex.P.20/FIR was registered.I, Tuticorin.charges were framed against the accused as follows:-The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli as follows:-304(ii) I.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for seven years R.I with fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default, to undergo six months R.I.A2 304(ii) I.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for seven years R.I with fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default, to undergo six months R.I.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2005 at about 10.00 a.m., there was a quarrel between the first accused/suyambilingam and P.W.1/Nagu.The first accused is said to have teased P.W.1's niece/Muruga Valli.Therefore, P.W.1 had taken his niece to the native place.This was objected by the first accused.According to P.W.1, the first accused tried to attack with knife.While warding it up, a minor injury was caused on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.Initially it was registered for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. but following the death of Chokkar, alteration report Ex.P.26 was submitted and the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was also included.Investigation was taken up and after recording of the statements of witnesses and after completing all the usual formalities, final report came to be laid against the appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and alsohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.268 of 2010 under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.“Charges framed against the accused : U/s.294(b), 307, 302 and also 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against A1 : U/s.294(b), 307, 302 and also 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against A2” The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.3.The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and marked Exs.M.O.1 to M.O.7 were also marked.On side of the accused no evidence was adduced.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.268 of 20104.The learned Trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record by the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2010, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above.Challenging this criminal appeal came to be filed.5.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants on instructions submitted the he is not challenging the conviction imposed on the appellants and that he is only pleading for modification and reduction of sentence.6.The prosecution rests on the ocular evidence of P.W.1/Nagu, P.W.2/Selvaraj and P.W.3/Archunan.Their testimony remained unshaken in the cross examination.At least P.W.1 can have some motive against the accused but then P.W.3/Archunan is an independent witness.He had clearly stated that there was a fight between the accused on the one hand and Nagu and Raja Desingu on the other hand.Chokkar only intervened to separate the two.Thereupon, the accused are said to have hit Chokkar on his head. P.W.3 had stated that both the father and the son namely., the first accused and the second accused assaultedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.268 of 2010 Chokkar with wooden logs.The prosecution had thus established the involvement of the appellants in the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.That is why, having regard to the evidence, the appellants are confining their request only for reduction of sentence.This Court made it clear that it would not reduce the sentence of imprisonment below four years rigorous imprisonment.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that he would be satisfied if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced accordingly.Therefore, even while confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment.The period of incarceration undergone by the appellants will be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants will run concurrently.With this modification in the matter of sentence, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.1.The II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.2.The Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam Sub-Division, Sayaerpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.A.(MD)No.268 of 2010 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.ias Crl.A.(MD)No.268 of 2010 26.08.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,136,007 | JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The Main Challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the Central Government in not laying before the House of the People the reports submitted by Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar, who had been appointed as a Commission under Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into certain definite matters of public importance.(7) The Commission was originally required to submit its report within six months of its constitution.This time was however extended.(2) On 31st October, 1984 Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated at her residence 1, Safdarjang Road-1, Akbar Road, New Delhi.120-B and 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.The said Commission was to be presided over by Mr. Justice M. P.Thakkar, a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India.The Commission was required to inquire into the following matter :-"(A)The sequence of events leading to, and ail the facts relating to, the assassination of the late Prime Minister;(5) After the trial of the petitioner had started he moved an application dated 4th April, 1985 before the Commission.In the said application it was stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was a person who overtly and/or covertly was also under inquiry by the Commission.The Commission was accordingly requested to allow the petitioner's counsel to participate in the proceedings.The order passed by the Commission was in the following terms:-What is more, the application contains insinuations and allegations of scandalous character against the Commission as also wide-ranging, unnecessary and scandalous allegations against several persons.2.The application deserves to be 'filed' in as much as :(I)Insinuations and scandalous allegations arc made against the Commission.He was, inter alia, sentenced to death for the offences stated to have been committed under Section 302 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code .Thereafter, the Addl.It is an admitted fact that during the course of his trial the petitioner had requested the trial court for the summoning of the statements of witnesses recorded by the Commission.This application was rejected by the trial court.There after, the trial proceeded and the petitioner has been convicted. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,136,127 | The prosecution story is somewhat peculiar.Appellant-Mangalia was an outsider and unknown to the victims.The place was called "Ballapur Ka Bagicha".At a distance of one furlong from his field P.W. 3-Surajbai, her husband Mawasiya (P.W. 16), resided.It is stated that on 1-7-1990 in the afternoon accused Mangalia passed by the side of the house of P.W 3-Surajbai and just casually told them that he was moving here and there in search of his cattle which are missing.He wanted to know if Surajbai and her husband have seen his cattle who are 8 to 10 in number.Accused introduced himself to Surajbai and her husband and told that he was a resident of Village Atari Khejra.From the place of P.W. 3-Surajbai accused Mangalia went to the house of deceased Prabhulal and introduced himself in the same way as he had done earlier to Surajbai.Deceased Prabhulal told him that he had not seen any cattle.The accused expressed that he was hungry and demanded food and thereupon he was given food by P.W. 2-Khuslobai and after having his meals, the accused left towards Village Magrana.The two front teeth of the accused were missing.In the evening, at about 6 or 7 accused returned to the house of deceased and sat near the deceased.In the evening Khuslobai sent meals to her husband who was sitting outside.Deceased Prabhulal showing human courtsey enquired from the accused if he would also share meals and when the latter expressed his desire to have meals, he too was supplied meals.The accused expressed his desire to Prabhulal to have night-stay in his house because it had turned dark and was also raining.Again as a gesture of human courtesy deceased Prabhulal offered his cot to accused and allowed him to sleep in "Chhapari" (Barandah) and the deceased himself slept on ground on a Chatai.His wife Khuslobai, with his sons Bhagwansingh, Brijesh and one other in the lap slept inside.However, while being to sleep she had closed the doors without chaining them.It is at about 9.00 p.m. when her husband had already gone asleep, she inside her house was feeding her child in the lap in the light of Chimani.She narrated the incident to Nandram and in turn Nandram went to Shankarlal (P.W. 10), Kashiram (P.W. 1), Rambharosa (P.W 11) and Ghasiram (P.W. 13) and told them about the incident that some unknown person has come to the house of Prabhulal and has attacked him.Learning about this, these people rushed to the house of Prabhulal and found that Prabhulal had injuries on his head, cheek and other parts of the body and he was bleeding from the injuries and was wriggling from pain and died very soon thereafter.In the night itself Nandram, Shankarlal etc. went to Chowkidar of Village Ballapur but Chowkidar was out of station, therefore, they took his son with them and informed Khemchand (P.W. 12), the maternal uncle of Prabhulal, about the incident.JUDGMENT N.G. Karambelkar, J.Learned Sessions Judge, Guna vide judgment dated 6-12-1991 convicted appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.However, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.Appellant-Mangalia has in his appeal challenged his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, whereas the State on its part in appeal has challenged accused Mangalia's acquittal for charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.The accused/appellant-Mangalia was tried on two charges-- firstly, for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having committed murder of Prabhulal son of Tulsiram, resident of Semra Ka Har, in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd July, 1990 in the house of the deceased; and secondly, at about same time, date and place he had committed sexual intercourse with Khuslobai, w/o deceased Prabhulal against her wishes and without her consent and committed offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.He was going just to gave an axe blow to Khuslobai when the deceased in the Chhapari had an attack of cough [kklh- Probably apprehending some risk from Prabhulal, the accused rushed towards him and started attacking him with axe.Lady Khuslobai found this opportunity to slip away from the house and she rushed to the house of Ganpat where she met Nandram (P. W. 9), who happens to be the son of Ganpat.On 2-7-90, Kashiram (P.W. 1) at 12.00 hours lodged First Information Report with Kashiram Sijoriya (P.W. 18), who recorded it (Ex. P-1).After recording First Information Report, the Station House Officer went to the spot and after calling the witnesses prepared inquest memo (Ex. P-8) at about 14.00 hours.In the presence of these witnesses he seized blood-stained axe, Chatai and blood-stained earth and plain earth.He sent dead-body of Prabhulal for post-mortem.Autopsy was done on the dead-body of Prabhulal by Dr. Rajendra Kumar Jain (P.W. 17) and Dr. Hariom Sharma (P.W. 19).They found number of incised wounds located at right cheek, above right eye-brow, right side ear and occipital bone.They also noted that there was fracture of right mandible and right maxilla, right parietal, right temporal and frontal bone and ribs at Nos. 3 to 7 were also fractured.Right lung was also ruptured and they were of the opinion that the deceased died of these injuries which were anti-mortem and were sufficient in the ordinary course for death.According to them, deceased Prabhulal's death was homicidal.The accused was arrested in some other crime and was admitted in District Hospital, Guna and therefore, he was subjected to identification on 16-7-1990 by Executive Magistrate (P.W. 4), R.K. Jain.He was identified by Khuslobai (P.W. 2), Surajbai (P.W. 3).Devilal Patwari (P.W. 6) had prepared the spot-map.After completing formalities of investigation, charge-sheet was presented.At the trial, accused abjured his guilt and claimed that he was falsely implicated.The appellant in this appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of IPC, on the ground that appreciation of evidence was not proper and Khuslobai (P.W. 2) and her son as well as Surajbai (P.W. 3) ought not to have been believed as regards identification of the accused particularly looking to the discrepancies in their version.It was also contended that Khuslobai (P.W. 2) has not been believed by the learned Trial Court as regards offence under Section 376 of IPC and therefore her oral testimony was not worth credibility.He has also challenged finding of the learned Trial Court awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- against him, as he has no means to pay.The State of Madhya Pradesh in its appeal has challenged finding of the learned Trial Court acquitting accused of the charge under Section 376 of IPC.The State has also challenged order of the learned Trial Court directing State to pay the amount of compensation awarded against the appellant/accused, and thereafter its recovery from the accused.It has also challenged other findings which are in the form of directions to give job to the sons of the deceased, free education, and also suitable compensation to the wife of the accused in case he is married.First we take up the appeal of the appellant/accused challenging his conviction under Section 302 and awarding of compensation by the Trial Court.We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides at length and also perused the record.The learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the oral testimony of Khuslobai (P.W. 2), Surajbai (P.W. 3) and Bhagoo (P.W. 15), who happens to be son of the deceased as regards occurrence.Having gone through their statements we too are not inclined to take a different view in the matter.From their statements it is well established beyond any doubt that it was appellant alone, who injured deceased Prabhudayal and caused his death.Surajbai (P.W. 3) had the opportunity to see the appellant in the broad-day-light, when he visited her place and she had seen him going towards the house of the deceased, which is at a short space.The appellant had come to the house of the deceased after visiting Surajbai's house and was there for a sufficiently long time during which he was also given food by Khuslobai (P.W. 2), in the presence of her husband.The accused again visited the house of the deceased in the evening and was also supplied food alongwith deceased and it is Bhagoo (P.W. 15), who had actually served the meals.Therefore, all these witnesses had ample opportunity to have well identified the accused.Khuslobai (P.W. 2) has seen the accused rushing towards her husband with an axe and attacking him and therefore out of fear, she had run away and when other witnesses after information from Khuslobai had reached the spot and they had seen the deceased badly injured and gasping and breathing his last and at that time, the accused had already disappeared.This strong circumstance coupled with the fact that Khuslobai had seen him leaves no doubt that it is appellant/accused, who had injured and caused the death of deceased Prabhudayal.The injuries on the person of the deceased further corroborate that an axe was used by the appellant.Bhagoo (P.W. 15) is not so a small boy that he will not be able to identify the appellant, who had an occasion to see firstly in the afternoon and secondly in the evening and also because he had served the meals.Therefore, the learned Trial Court had very properly scrutinized the evidence of these three witnesses and has come to the correct conclusion that it is appellant alone, who is responsible for causing the death of deceased Prabhudayal.As per medical evidence, it was homicidal death as a result of injuries sustained by deceased Prabhudayal, which were anti-mortem. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
114,055,778 | Heard Sri Satendra Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.The viscera has been preserved.He lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 22.02.2020, is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
114,069,478 | M.Cr.C. No.3349/2017 4Being aggrieved with order dated 16/03/2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Sessions Trial No.624/2016, the petitioners above named have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code").The petitioners were facing trial Court with regard to offences under Sections 326/34 and 506-II of IPC.The allegation against them is that on 12/04/2016, at @ 8.10 pm, they caught hold of the complainant/respondent No.2-Shekar and in the meantime, one Aman (Juvenile delinquent, facing enquiry before Juvenile Justice Board) caused injuries to him on his cheeks and neck by sharp edged blade.The further allegation is that complainant/respondent No.2 - Shekar was also threatened of being killed.C. No.3349/2017 5 between the parties, who have agreed to maintain cordial relationship as the same will serve the ends of justice.M.Cr.C. No.3349/2017 5 | ['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. |
114,074,094 | The trial court record would show that the prosecutrix (PW-7) was a student of 10th standard in a government girl school during the relevant period.The school records (Ex.There is no evidence gathered or adduced to the contrary, such school records having been proved by the vice principal of the school (PW-8) at the trial.In these circumstances, the prosecution does not refute the fact that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years old on the crucial date, her age having been indicated even by her mother (PW-2) in the initial input vide DD no. 46/B (Ex.PW-3/A) and by the FIR (Ex.PW-4/A) to be 18 - 19 years.The evidence of the prosecution would show that on 29.02.2000, PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, had made a report vide DD no. 46/B (Ex.PW-3/A) indicating that her daughter had left home at about 11.am.for school but had not returned.It is the prosecution's case that during the course of investigation, the prosecutrix (PW-7) had returned home and her statement (Ex.PW-7/DX) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, this followed by her statement (Ex/.PW-7/A) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. According to the version of the prosecutrix, forming part of these statements, the appellant being the younger brother of her Phoopha (husband of the father's sister) had accosted her on 28.02.2000 when she was going to the school and had taken her away in a three wheelor scooter (TSR) to Gurgaon on the pretext of paying a visit to her Bua (father's sister) promising to bring her back home soon.She alleged that, on 29.02.2000, the appellant had taken her to the court premises in Ghaziabad where, after getting her signatures, he had told her that they had got married and then he brought her to Gurgaon where he introduced her to others as his wife.She also stated that, in Gurgaon, the appellant committed sexual intercourse against her will several times.She stated that she had been seduced by the appellant, without her consent, and that finding opportunity, she had escaped and returned home.During the course of trial, appearing as a witness (PW-7), the prosecutrix narrated the above-mentioned version adding certain facts which are material improvements, there being no basis or foundation in such regard in her original version.She testified that when she was going to school, the appellant had met her with the TSR which was driven by his elder brother Rakesh.She stated that she was offered a lift in the TSR which she had boarded.The TSR had, however, started moving in a direction other than that of her house.She alleged Crl.Appeal No.22/2002 Page 3 of 5 that when she objected to this, she was told that the appellant, and his brother, had some work and that after finishing the same they would return.By judgment dated 13.11.2001 he was held guilty and convicted, as charged, and by order passed on the same date he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on the first count and for seven years on the second count with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.Appeal No.22/2002 Page 1 of 5Feeling aggrieved, the convict came to this court with the present appeal challenging the above-said judgment of conviction and order on sentence.The report was logged at 12.15 a.m., the mother stated that the girl was not traceable that she had no suspicion about involvement of any specific individual.The girl remained untraceable and, against this background, on 02.03.2000 i.e. two days after she having gone missing, the FIR (Ex.PW-4/A) was lodged for investigation into offence under Section 366 IPC, suspicion having been expressed about involvement of the appellant.Appeal No.22/2002 Page 2 of 5She stated that she was taken to an unknown place which she later learnt to be the city of Gurgaon.She also spoke about her signatures, and photographs, having been taken and upon her refusal, she having been given threats that she and her father would be killed.Appeal No.22/2002 Page 3 of 5Noticeably, all the above facts concerning presence of the brother of the appellant as the driver of the TSR, the pretext of going to Gurgaon for some work, the threats extended for her signatures and her photographs to be taken had not been mentioned by her during the course of investigation.These are material improvements which raise question marks as to the credibility of her testimony, particularly when seen against the fact that she was admittedly signatory to a document (mark PW-7/DX) and the manner in which she is shown to have posed with the appellant for at least two photographs (mark D-1 & 2).The defence of the appellant during the trial was that the prosecutrix was involved in a love affair with him and that she had accompanied him of her own free will, both intending to get married.Her mother (PW-2) has admitted that the appellant used to visit her household frequently.The prosecution case that the prosecutrix had escaped from the control and custody of the appellant to return home on 15.03.2000 leading to her statement being recorded first by the police, and then by the Metropolitan Magistrate, before arrest of the accused at her instance from a public place, is rendered false by the statement of PW-Appeal No.22/2002 Page 4 of 52 (mother of the prosecutrix) who testified that she was present in the police station when both the appellant and the prosecutrix had come there on their own.If that were the correct version, the story of the prosecutrix having availed of an opportunity to escape from wrongful confinement is rendered untrue.There is no explanation worth the name given by the prosecutrix as to why she had meekly gone in the TSR from Delhi all the way to Gurgaon without lodging a protest.There is no explanation offered as to why the prosecutrix could not lodge a protest, or raise alarm, at the place where she was kept in Gurgaon or at the time of visit to Ghaziabad Court Complex or on the way to Ghaziabad and return from there to Gurgaon.The defence plea that the prosecutrix had gone with the appellant out of her own free will and volition cannot be trashed it being highly probable.The version of the prosecutrix, against this backdrop, does not inspire confidence.For the foregoing reasons, and in the circumstances, the judgment of conviction returned by the trial court cannot be upheld.The said judgment and consequent order on sentence are, thus, set aside.The appellant is acquitted.The bail bonds stand discharged.R.K.GAUBA, J.OCTOBER 30, 2018/nk Crl.Appeal No.22/2002 Page 5 of 5Appeal No.22/2002 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
114,076,515 | The Private Medical Practitioners Association of India certified that the petitioner is a member of the Private Medical Practitioner Association (Registered).The guidelines of the Private Medical Practitioners Association have disclosed as follows:Eventually the petition committee of the both the houses agreed unanimously that the members of this association should be given recognition with some restrictions.For the useful purpose those to provisions are set out here under:ubCrl.O.P.No.23102 of 201011.08.20172.The case of the petitioner is that the Defacto Complainant is the Medical Officer of Government Primary Health Centre, Soolagiri.She gave a complaint that some persons in her area is practicing with modern medicine and treating patients without proper educational qualifications in and around Soolagiri Area.However the case of the petitioner is that he is practicing in the Allopathic system of medicine and he is a registered member of the Private Medical Practitioner Association and the said association is registered under the Societies Registration Act. Further, the case of the petitioner is that there are nearly about 2000 members in the association in Tamil Nadu only.The members of the association are possessing basic qualifications in Homeopathy, Unani or Siddha and some of them are qualified Pharmacists.3.The further case of the petitioner is that the Government of India in order to regularize the service of the unqualified medical practitioners take effective steps.Further though the petitioner has been practicing modern medicine for a period of not less than 10 years immediately before an appointed day.so, the persons, like the petitioners may be allowed to continue their practice modern medicine with same restrictions and the same was accepted in the Rajaya Sabha.Apart from that by the notification of the Ministry of Health Department, Government of India dated 04.03.1978 and 15.01.1971 directed all the State Government and Union Territories to legislate State Acts for the enlistment of all the unqualified medical practitioners in the state.Accordingly the State of Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala have regularized the service of the unqualified medical practitioner.In view of the same even in 1965, the Government of Tamil Nadu published a proposed bill.The statement of objects and reason given in the bill were to regularize the unqualified medical practitioners who have been in practice for a period of not less than 10 years, so as to allow them to continue the field altogether.This bill referred to select a committee, but which was subsequently not pursued as it was under the consideration of the India government to bring in a uniform law for his purpose.4.Further, the petitioners association filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.7402 of 1998 for the regularization of the practice.Apart from that the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court about the contents of the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R the allegations is that some persons have given medical treatment as that of a doctor without having any prescribed medical qualifications.So, the petitioner submits that as per the F.I.R no allegation is made out against the petitioner.Hence, he sought for the quahsment of the First Information Report.5.Per contra, the Inspector of Police attached with respondent police station namely Mr.Sambath filed his counter statement and denied the averments of the quash petition.Further, followed by the registration of F.I.R. the Sub-Inspector of Police examined the Defacto Complainant and one Mr.Govindaraj and one Mr.Therefore, the case is under F.I.R. stage and only the investigation will reveal truthness of the F.I.R. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.6.I heard Mr.Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled.Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled.Subject to, the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register.Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both;Section 420. of I.P.C Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.Of fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property9.From the close reading of the F.I.R, no offence is made out prima facie to register a case against the petitioner.More over the counter statement of the 1st respondent dated 10.02.2016 would show that in addition to the Defacto-Complainant two other witnesses alone are examined and even after the lapse of more than six years no attempt is made by the 1st respondent/complainant to file final report in the case.Therefore, it is made clear that there is a huge delay in completing the investigation and filing charge sheet.All the records are perused, but in the considered opinion of this Court, no offence is made out as per the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. At the same time, the 1st respondent also failed to take up the investigation to reach out the finality, all these reasons would show keeping the F.I.R in pending, no useful purpose would be served.Moreover, as the F.I.R., does not disclosed any offence to attract the offence under section 490 of IPC and sec 15 of Indian Medical Council Act 1956, then the First Information Report will not be proceed further and the petitioner is entitle the relief.11.Therefore, it is imperative on the part of this Court to quash the F.I.R. No.217 of 2010, on the file of the Soolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.Accordingly, the same is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.4.Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections and issue fresh order copy.Registry is also directed to mark a copy of this order to the 420 of IPC.11.08.2017Note to office : Issue order copy on 17.08.2017ubM.V.MURALIDARAN, J. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,917,455 | ORDER M.K. Chawla, J.On 9-3-1974, SHO of Police Station, Kingsway Camp recommended the name of the petitioner for opening of the history sheet and an entry into the Surveillance Register on the averments that after leaving the school, the petitioner became vagabond and came in association with Rajpal and Joginder residents of village Sahipur and Dhani Ram resident of village Haiderpur.He has so far been arrested in four cases of Police Station, Alipur and Kingsway Camp.He further observed that the petitioner was sentenced to three months R.I. in case F.I.R. No. 22 dt. 23-1-1970 under Section 392, I.P.C. Police Station, Alipur.His paternal uncle Ram Kishan is B.C. of Bundle 'A' of Police Station Kingsway Camp.The nefarious activities of Ram Kishan also attribute to the criminal career of this B.C. to a great extent.of Police, Cri.The above said rule fairly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case and on this short ground, I have no hesitation to quash the order of the respondents whereby the name of the petitioner was entered in bundle 'A' and on the police surveillance register. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,755,276 | The jointcompromise memo filed on 21.06.2018 shall form part of this order.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FirstInformation Report registered in Crime No.70 of 2018 for the offence underSections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC dated 12.03.2018 on the file ofthe first respondent.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2018 for theoffence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC against thepetitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 and in order to quash the same, the petitionersare before this Court by filing the present petition, on the ground that boththe parties have arrived at a compromise.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.E.Periyasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District, is present.The defacto complainant and thepetitioners are present and their identifications were also verified by thisCourt, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.E.Periyasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, KanyakumariDistrict.Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed theidentify of their respective parties.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed thisquash petition along with a joint memo of compromise filed on 21.06.2018,wherein, it is stated as follows:"8.That now both the defacto complainant and the petitioners of theinstant quash petition have settled the issue outside the court amicably inthe presence of elderly persons and solved the dispute in unequivocal terms.It is pertinent to note that presently the petitioners and the defactocomplainant having good relationship with each others and now there is noproblem between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.L.Ganesh Naidu (Deceased) and 2 others].A report in this regard shall be sent by the District Legal ServicesAuthority, Ramanathapuram District to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, mentioning clearly the amounts spenttowards the purposes mentioned in the above order and the balance amount leftetc.,To1.The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,768,032 | passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, in Case No. C-380 of 2012 wherein the said Court was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner no.2, the Managing Director, petitioner no. 3, the Director, petitioner no.4, another Director and petitioner no. 5, the General Manager, of the Company.The relationship between the Company and the complainant-party came at its low eve due to various reasons including the non-supply of goods even though the payment was made by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 6,95,375/- and such payment was made in the year 2007, but unfortunately, the materials like LLP-IP Oil was not supplied to the complainant. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,772,145 | Record of the trial Court be called for.Appeal is admitted for hearing.Heard on I.A. No.5170/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 506-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.List the revision for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn.Certified copy as per rules today.(H.P. Singh) Judge Vin* | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
191,773,538 | Believing his words, PW-1 went with him and when they reached near ITI, Virdhachalam Road, the messenger shouted at PW-1 'to stop'.PW-1 got down from his cycle, saw accused standing there, who instructed the messenger to attack PW-1 and he attacked PW-1 with a stick on his left eye, owing to which PW-1 lost his eye sight.On the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No.208 of 1993 on the file of Station House Officer, Veppur, for offence u/s.326 IPC.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offence u/s.326 IPC and the case was tried in C.C.No.644 of 1994 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Vriddhachalam.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits.None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked.Against such finding, accused preferred C.A.No.118 of 2001 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Cuddalroe, Vridhachalam.Appellate Court, under judgment dated 11.10.2002, acquitted the accused and directed the victim/PW-1 to collect the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the State of Tamil Nadu.There against, State has preferred the present appeal.Heard learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for appellant and learned counsel for first respondent.In rendering a finding of acquittal, appellate Court has found as follows:(i)In Ex.P1, complaint, PW-1 informed that on the instructions of accused, an unknown person assaulted him with a stick on his eye.Having failed to do so, it was not open to trial Court to find fault with PW-7, Investigation Officer.In one statement, PW-1 has spoken to assault by accused and in the other, he has spoken to assault by an unknown person.When both statements were recorded at different points of time, both statements could not bear the Court seal of even date.According to PW-7, Investigation Officer, the principal offender and the abetter were one and the same, which totally wipe out the prosecution case.The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2006 | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,931,838 | This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.21/2014 registered at Police Station Pahadgarh, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-B of IPC and sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant obstructed the complainant Vasudev Prasad Jatav on 10.2.2014 when he was going to Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Prakikshan at Gwalior and the applicant has also uttered certain words to the complainant which are abusive and caste related.On behalf of the applicant, it is claimed that he has earlier filed a public interest litigation before this Court and also filed certain applications before the public information officer and before the appellate authority to provide documents in which notices were issued to the complainant for submission of the document.The applicant claimed that because of this the complainant was annoyed and impleaded the M.Cr.C.No.3983/2014 (Narendra Singh Yadav Vs.State of M.P.) 2 applicant in this false case.However, it is directed that if applicant surrenders before the Trial Court within ten days from today and is taken into custody and submits an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered on the same date in accordance with law. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,933,574 | pk CRM No. 3414 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.4.15 in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No. 103/15 dated 3.4.15 under Sections 447/448/323/325/354/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Kazi Md. Sabrullah & Ors.447/448/323/325/354/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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. |
1,939,392 | On 27.6.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Raufkhan was assaulted.It is the case of the prosecution that one Sultan Sheikh had a tyre puncture repairing shop on Khaparkheda Road.Sultan Sheikh was at the hotel of one Gupta and at that time he noticed that there was a quarrel between two persons in front of his shop and they were abusing each other in filthy language.Sultan Sheikh immediately rushed to the liquor shop and informed Madankishor who was serving as a Manager, about the said quarrel, and also informed him that one person was assaulting Raufkhan by knife.Thereafter, on getting this information, Madankishor, Prakash, Vilas, Manohar, Bhim, Sahadeo, Gani and Kailash who were present in the liquor shop at that time, rushed towards the shop of Sultan Sheikh.They found that a person wearing black clothes was running towards the road.Sultan Sheikh immediately reported that the said person was an assailant and, therefore, he was arrested by those persons.The said person had knives with him which he dropped after seeing the crowd.It is the case of the prosecution that they found Raufkhan lying in a pool of blood in front of the puncture repairing shop of Sultan Sheikh and that he had received bleeding injuries on his neck, back and on other parts of the body.In the mean time, an autorickshaw driven by one Changdeo arrived there and injured Raufkhan and accused were taken to the Police Out Post, Walni, The accused was handed over to the Police Out Post, Walni where Police Head Constable Ramdas was on duty.Raufkhan was immediately rushed to the Hospital at Walni.However, thereafter he-was shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur, since his condition was found to be very serious.Thereafter, on 28.6.1995, Sultan Sheikh gave oral report at 0.20 p.m. at Police Out Post, Walni and on the basis of the said report the Police investigated the said matter and the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared panchanama and seized the clothes of the accused and also two knives which were used in the said assault by the accused.JUDGMENT V.M. Kanade.The appellant/accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Raufkhan and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 446/95 by Judgment and order dtd.26th February, 1997 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month.The appellant/accused is challenging this Judgment and order in the present appeal.2. Facts :The spot panchanama was prepared on 28.6.1995 at 6.00 p.m. and articles were seized.The clothes of the accused and other articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser.It was found that the blood of Raulkhan and the accused was of 'B' group and that the blood which was found on the knives and on the clothes of the accused, was also of 'B' group.The police being prima facie satisfied that the accused had committed the offence, filed the charge-sheet and the charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge.In the Trial Court, the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses for proving its case.P. W. 6 Shankar, P. W. 7 Kailash, P. W. 11 Vilas, P. W. 12 Prakash and P. W. 14 Mohd. Suntan were examined as eye witnesses.P. W. 1 Manohar, P. W. 2 Gopalsingh, P. W. 3 Rambihari and P. W. 5 Bharatlal were examined as panch witnesses.Similarly, the Investigating Officer was examined as P. W. 16 and P. W. 17 Dr. Vinod Waghmare was examined to prove injury certificate in respect of the injuries found on the person of the accused.The accused admitted inquest panchanama dtd.28.6.95 (Exh. 9), Police Report forwarded to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination (Exh. 11); requisition to the Chemical Analyser for examination of blood and viscera (Exh. 15) and the seizure memo of clothes of deceased (Exh. 18) dtd.The defence of the accused was that of denial.However, in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. the accused stated that the Police had arrested him on the next day while he was sleeping in the Truck and that he was falsely implicated.All the eye witnesses of the prosecution turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution in respect of having actually seen the accused assaulting the deceased with knife.The prosecution, however, was in a position to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of offence since he was arrested at the very place where the incident took place and the seizure of the knives and his clothes were also proved by the prosecution.The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and gave findings that since the accused was arrested at the spot and was having blood stains on his person and clothes and further he was in possession of the knives which were also having blood stains, the Trial Court, relying on the statement of the witnesses which established that the incident had taken place and that they rushed to the spot, came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.We have gone through the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused and the learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State.He submitted that though it is an admitted position that the witnesses have stated that there was a quarrel between two persons and that subsequently Raufkhan was found in the pool of blood, yet the exact background in respect of the beginning of the said incident, has not been established by the prosecution.He submitted that this assumes importance particularly when it is an admitted position that the accused also had sustained incised injuries on his person and that neither the Head Constable nor the Investigating Officer has been in a position to explain the cause of these injuries.He further submitted that therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not explaining the cause of these injuries on the person of the accused.In fact, the accused was caught red handed by the witnesses who had seen the commission of the said offence and though there was no eye witness to the said incident, but the fact remains that the accused was apprehended at the spot and that the knives used by him, were seized and further that the said knives were having blood stains and so also his clothes, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the deceased.The learned A.P.P. submitted that though the prosecution had not explained the injuries on the person of the accused, that by itself could not be a ground for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution case.She submitted that the blood which was found on the clothes of the accused and on the knives, was the blood group 'B' and the blood group of deceased was also 'B'.She submitted that though the blood group of the accused was also 'B', the accused had not given any explanation as to how the said blood stains were found on his clothes and on the knives which were in his possession.In our view after having perused the entire evidence on record, it will have to be held that the prosecution had established the presence of the accused at the scene of offence.Similarly, the prosecution also had proved that the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and on the knives which were recovered and seized from the scene of offence clearly established that the accused had assaulted the deceased with said knives.However, the prosecution has not been in a position to give any explanation in respect of the injuries which were found on the person of the accused and as a result, the possibility of the deceased having initially started fight and having injured the accused, cannot be ruled out.Similarly, it is probable that there was a sudden fight on account of minor quarrel which resulted in both the accused and deceased assaulting each other.From the evidence which is adduced by the prosecution, it has been established that the deceased Raufkhan used to visit the liquor shop every day in the night and that all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution also used to visit the liquor shop.There is no evidence to suggest that there was any prior enmity between the deceased and the accused and that there is a definite absence of motive seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution which gives credence to the possibility that there could have been a sudden fight in which the accused and deceased had assaulted each other.P. W. 1 Manohar who has been examined to prove the spot panchanama (Exh. 28) and the seizure of the various articles lying on the ground at the scene of offence viz. glass pieces of bottle, chappal, one cycle, gamcha i.e., handkerchief and blood stained earth.P. W. 2 Gopalsingh is also examined as a panch witness to the spot panchanama (Exh. 28) and seizure memo (Exh. 29).P. W. 2 Gopalsingh has identified the deceased and also the accused.P. W. 2 Gopalsingh has stated that he knew the deceased Raufkhan as he was serving as a loader in Coal Mines and the accused Nazar was serving as a conductor on a truck.P. W. 3 Rambihari has been examined as a panch witness in respect of the seizure of two knives (Articles 9 and 10) and the seizure memo (Exh. 33) has been proved, so also the arrest panchanama (Exh. 32) has been proved by him.The said witness has proved that the knives were recovered from the spot from the site where the offence has taken place and also the arrest panchanama showing that the accused was arrested at the very site where the offence has been taken place.The defence was not successfully shacking the testimony of this witness and, therefore, it will have to be held that the prosecution has clearly proved the seizure of the knives and the arrest of the accused at the very site where the offence has taken place.The only suggestion made by the defence that the panchanama was prepared at the Police Station, has been denied by the said witness.P. W. 4 Madankishor has been examined as an eye witness.However, this witness has turned hostile and in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he was informed that the person who was arrested at the scene of offence, had assaulted Raufkhan by a knife.Though this witness has turned hostile, this particular testimony of the witness clearly establishes the presence of the accused.This witness also has stated that various other witnesses were also present and he has mentioned the names of Prakash, Bhim Babulal.Manohar and as also Vilas and Kailash.Though this witness has not stated that he has seen the accused assaulting the deceased with knife, he resiled the statement made before the Police in respect of the identification of the accused, yet the other testimony given by him in the examination-in-chief clearly establishes the presence of the accused.P. W. 5 Bharatlal has been examined as a panch witness in respect of the seizure of the clothes of the accused (Exh. 37).These clothes were having blood stains and the Chemical Analyser Report clearly establishes the blood stains which were found on the clothes of the accused, were of blood group 'B' which was the blood group of the deceased.P. W. 6 Bhimkumar though was examined as an eye witness, he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.This testimony, therefore, will have to be discarded.However, P. W. 7 Kailash has deposed that they, had caught the accused at the scene of the offence while he was running away and that he was taken to the Police Station and handed over to the Police.He also identified the knives which were found at the scene of offence.Thus, though P. W. 7 Kailash has not supported the prosecution case in respect of witnessing the said incident of the accused actually assaulting the deceased, yet his testimony in respect of the presence of the accused will have to be accepted.This evidence, therefore, clearly establishes that the accused was arrested by them while he was running away from the scene of offence and that he was caught and apprehended by him, Bhimkumar and others and he was handed over to the Police.He has also identified the Articles 10 and 11 i.e. knives which were shown to him.Thus, from all these evidence, it is apparent that the accused was arrested at the scene of offence.That he had also received incised injuries, which fact is proved by P. W. 15 Dr. Ramdas.P. W. 17 Dr. Vinod Waghmare who has deposed that the following injuries were found on the person of the accused.Incised wound on dorsal of left hand at the junction of meta-carpal phalangeal joints 1 cm.skin deep, 1 cm.long, skin deep, margins of the injury were sharp.Incised wound on the palmer aspect of left thumb 1 cm.long skin deep with sharp margin.Incised wound on left elbow, 1 & 1/2 cm.long, skin deep with sharp margins.Abrasion on the palmer aspect of right little finger 1 & 1/2 cm.Abrasion on left thigh on posterior aspect 2 cm.x 1 cm.Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused had assaulted the deceased with a knife on the said date and that his presence had been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution and the findings of the Sessions Judge on this point, will have to be confirmed.Though there are some minor contradictions in respect of the statement made by the eye witnesses who have turned hostile.The Investigating Officer Surendra Pal (P.W. 16) who was examined also does not state as to how those injuries were caused to the accused.Similarly, P. W. 15 Ramdas Nanhe also was not in a position to offer any explanation in respect of the injuries which were found on the person of Nazar Mohammad. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,939,427 | J U D G M E N TB.N. AGRAWAL,J.The sole appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [`IPC' for short] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.He was further convicted under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years on each count.The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.On appeal being preferred, High Court upheld the conviction.Hence this appeal by special leave.Prosecution case, in short, was that on 10.6.1983 at about 7.45 p.m. when Joginder Singh [PW 9) came back to his house, he found his brother Bhola Singh sitting at the outer verandah of the house chatting with one Shobha Rai [DW 3].At about 8.10 p.m. Joginder Singh heard sound of explosion and found that a bomb was thrown upon his brother Bhola Singh.Thereafter he saw the appellant Rajan Rai, accused Kameshwar Rai, Tileshwar Rai [since deceased], Sipahi Rai, Bankim Rai and Dasrath Rai having bags in their hands and throwing bombs on his brother as a result of which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries.PW 9 caught the appellant from his waist whereupon accused Kameshwar Rai threw a bomb upon him.Ram Ayodhya Rai [DW 1] Ram Gobind Sau [DW.2] and DW 3 also sustained splinter injuries on their hands and legs during the course of the occurrence.The occurrence was also witnessed by some other persons who were present there.Thereafter, the accused persons fled away.Motive for the occurrence disclosed is old grudge and animosity.The Parsa Police Station was at a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the place of occurrence, as such Baban Prasad Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, [PW 17], who was in-charge of the said Police Station on that day, upon hearing sound of bomb explosion along with other police officials came to the place of occurrence and recorded fard-beyan of PW 9 at 8.25 p.m. in which the aforenoted facts were stated on the basis of which formal First Information Report [FIR] was registered at 9.30 p.m. on the same day in which names of all the six accused persons, including the appellant, were disclosed.Police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted chargesheet against all the six accused on receipt whereof cognizance was taken and all of them were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial.Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent, no occurrence much less the occurrence alleged had taken place and that they had no complicity with the crime, but were falsely roped in to feed fat the old grudge.In the aforesaid Sessions Trial Nos. 245/1983 and 20/1984, which proceeded against the aforesaid four accused persons, as stated above, both the parties adduced evidence and upon conclusion thereof all the four accused persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.They were further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on each count.The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.Against the said judgment, appeals were preferred by the aforesaid four convicted accused persons.During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant could be apprehended and was put on trial giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 181 of 1985, during the course of which both the parties examined witnesses and upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted the appellant, as stated above, against which judgment also an appeal was preferred before the High Court.The appeals preferred by the four convicted accused persons challenging their conviction recorded in Sessions Trial No. 245/1983 and 20/1984 were decided by the High Court on 4th October, 1996 and the same were allowed and their convictions and sentences set aside, which attained finality as the matter was not carried further to this Court.The appeal filed by the appellant was taken up later on and by the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld his convictions and sentences.Hence this appeal by special leave.Shri P.S. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, attacked the impugned judgment on three counts.Lastly, it has been submitted that there being only six accused persons out of whom four acquitted and prosecution of one Tileshwar Rai dropped, he having died before the commencement of trial, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not justified as he could not have shared the common intention either with the four acquitted accused persons or even with Tileshwar Rai, whose prosecution was dropped.On the other hand, Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, submitted that judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court in appeals arising out of convictions of other four accused persons in their trial was inadmissible and irrelevant in the present trial.Further, the evidence of PWs 2,3,5 and 9 has been rightly relied upon by the trial court as well as the High Court.The said order attained finality.Thereafter, another accused, who was facing trial arising out of the same very occurrence and whose trial was separated, was convicted for the charge of murder by the same High Court, ignoring the judgment of acquittal of the principal accused of the charge of murder, holding that the same was inadmissible.Against his conviction, Karan Singh preferred an appeal before the High Court.PW 9 is the informant himself and, being brother of the deceased, most competent person to have witnessed the occurrence that had taken place in the outer verandah of the house.PW 9 himself was injured in the said occurrence and was examined by Dr. B.P. Tribedi [PW 12] who found four injuries on his person caused by explosive substance, such as bomb.The Investigating Officer [PW 17] heard the sound of bomb explosion at the police station which was at a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the place of occurrence and arrived there at 8.25 p.m. ,i.e., only after 15 minutes of the occurrence which had taken place at 8.10 p.m. - and recorded fard-beyan of PW 9 on the basis of which formal FIR was registered at the police station.In their statements made before the police, they have categorically supported the prosecution case disclosed in the FIR.They have also specifically stated that all the accused persons threw bomb upon the deceased as a result of which he received injuries and succumbed to the same.Presence of three injured witnesses, namely, DWs 1, 2 and 3 at the place of occurrence has been accepted by them and their injuries have been proved by the two doctors PWs 15 andIn their evidence, DWs 1, 2 and 3 have simply stated that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence.It appears that these three injured witnesses were not ready to depose on behalf of the prosecution out of fear of the accused persons, as such, merely because they could not be examined by the prosecution, the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 cannot be discarded especially when their statements were recorded by the police immediately after recording of the fard-beyan.As such, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the three injured witnesses.In our view, the trial court and the High Court were quite justified in placing reliance upon their evidence.In the present case, all the four eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 2,3,5 and 9, upon whom reliance has been placed by the two courts below, have candidly and consistently stated that the appellant and accused Tileshwar Rai along with other accused persons came to the house of the deceased and threw bomb upon him as a result of which he received injuries and succumbed to the same. | ['Section 34 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. |
193,952,139 | A sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in cash, a motorcycle and other house hold items were settled between the parties as dowry.Pursuant to aforesaid settlement, Rs. 1,40,000/- in cash were given at the time of marriage.Out of aforesaid amount Rs. 40,000/- was for purchasing motor cycle.Other house hold items were also given at the time of marriage.10 days later, Sapna's brother Jitendra had gone to matrimonial home of Sapna at Sagar to bring her back.At that time, accused Rajesh and Sapna's father-in-law Premnarayan, mother-in-law, Prabha and brother-in-law, Yogesh had reminded him that Rs.14,000/- in cash and a sofa-set had not been given; whereon, Jitendra promised to make arrangement for the same.Sapna stayed at her maternal home at Chachoda till Rakshabandhan.It is an admitted fact that deceased Sapna had lost her father before her marriage.In these circumstances, her brother Jitendra Sharma (PW-5) and mother Saroj (PW-7) are the most important witnesses.They have stated that at the time of her marriage on 24.06.2002 with appellant Rajesh, they had given television, fridge, cooler, dressing table, double bed, Almirah, gold chain, gold ring, utensils, clothes and other articles in dowry.They had also given Rs.1,11,000/- in cash and in (6) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 addition thereto Rs.40,000/- for purchasing a vehicle.Ten days after the marriage, when Jitendra (PW-15) had gone along with his cousin Amit to bring his sister back, Rajesh's father accused Prem Narayan had reminded him that Rs.14000/- out of amount of dowry settled, remained to be given and a sum of Rs.16000/- for buying sofa set was also due.(31-01-2018)This criminal appeal against conviction under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellant accused Rajesh is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Court of 4 th ASJ, Sagar in Session Trial No.242/2005, whereby the accused appellant Rajesh was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine, (2) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.The prosecution case before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder.Thereafter, relatives of Rajesh had gone to bring her back to her matrimonial home again reminding her brother regarding remaining dowry.Sapna stayed at her matrimonial home for about 3-4 months.Thereafter, when Jitendra had gone to her matrimonial home to bring her back, aforesaid accused persons told him that Sapna would be sent back to her maternal home only if remaining dowry was paid; whereon, Jitendra arranged for Rs.30,000/- and went back to Sagar and paid remaining amount.Only then he was allowed to take his sister home.Sapna complained that her in-laws harassed her excessively.Her father-in-law abused her, brother-in-law fought with her and husband beat her on number of occasions.Her husband had consumed liquor and (3) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 had poured kerosene upon her; therefore, Jitendra had kept his sister with him.When Rajesh had gone to bring her back, Jitendra refused to sent her.The relatives tried to make Rajesh see reason; whereon, he promised that henceforth, they would not harass her.Consequently, Sapna was sent to her matrimonial home with Rajesh.However, her matrimonial relatives lapsed back into old ways and started to persecute the deceased again.They would not allow Sapna to speak to her relatives on telephone.Sapna used to privately complain to her relatives about the behaviour of her in-laws.She used to tell her relatives that if she were not taken back to her maternal home, her in-laws would kill her.After investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed and a charge under Section 304-B of the IPC was framed against father-in-law Premnarayan, mother-in-law Prabha, brother-in-law Yogesh and husband Rajesh.After the trial, the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the prosecution had failed to prove any offence against Premnarayan, Prabha and Yogesh.The prosecution had also failed to prove the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC against accused/appellant Rajesh because it was not proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives in connection with any demand for dowry made soon before her death.Therefore, offence under Section 304-B of the IPC was not made out against appellant Rajesh.Consequently, all four accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC; however, it was held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that after marriage, appellant Rajesh had persecuted the (4) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 deceased by beating her and had inflicted cruelty upon her by pouring kerosene upon her.Likewise, it was also proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rajesh had demanded Rs.30,000/- in cash and he had inflicted physical cruelty upon her.Consequently, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.Learned counsel for appellant Rajesh has challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence.As such, the conviction of appellant Rajesh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was principally based upon inadmissible hearsay evidence.It has also been contended that the trial Court has recorded the finding in paragraph no.30 of the judgment that the prosecution witnesses had resorted to exaggerations in respect of travails of the deceased in her matrimonial home; therefore, their evidence was not reliable.(5) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 It has not been disputed that deceased was suffering from tuberculosis of both lungs, since before her marriage and she was treated for the same.In these circumstances, it appears that the deceased had committed suicide not because she had been subjected to any demand for dowry or cruelty but because she was suffering from tuberculosis.It has also been urged that after conviction of appellant Rajesh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the parties had entered into a compromise outside the Court and an application in this regard, was filed in the High Court; however, since, Section 498-A is non-compoundable, the application was dismissed on 01.08.2011 and it was observed that the factum of compromise shall be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing of the case.In aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed, conviction be set aside and appellant Rajesh be acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.On perusal of record and due consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this appeal against conviction must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated:On that occasion, Jitendra (PW-15) had promised to pay the amount after making arrangement and had gone back taking his sister with him.On that occasion, Sapna stayed in her maternal home till Raksha Bandhan.After that, relatives of Rajesh had taken Sapna back to her matrimonial home, where she stayed for a period of about 3-4 months.When Jitendra again went to Sapna's matrimonial home to bring her back, accused persons had told him that unless he paid remaining Rs.30,000/- they would not send Sapna with him.Therefore, he had returned and went back after making arrangement of Rs.30,000/-.He had given that amount to appellant Rajesh.Jitendra (PW-15) has further stated that his sister had told him that her father-in-law used to abuse her and brother- in-law used to fight with her.Her husband used to beat her and once had poured kerosene upon her after consuming liquor.Therefore, his sister had stayed with them at Chanchoda.After that, at the time of house warming ceremony of Jitendra's uncle Ramesh, appellant Rajesh had gone.All relatives of Sapna had tried to make him see reason; whereon, he had assured that henceforth, there would be no complaint.After that, he had taken Sapna to Sagar but Sapna had complained to her brother that her in-laws did not allow her to speak on telephone.She also implored her relatives to take her back.She warned that otherwise, her in-laws would kill her.(7) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 Thereafter on 3-4 occasions, Jitendra had gone to Sapna's matrimonial home to bring her back but the accused persons declined to send her on one pretext or the other.Jitendra had further stated that on 24.01.2004, they had learnt that Sapna had died.9. Saroj (PW-7), mother of the deceased, has stated that Sapna suffered from tuberculosis and they had got her treated at Rajgarh and Guna.She further stated that if they had known before her marriage that Sapna was suffering from tuberculosis, they would not have married her.She admits that the marriage was performed in good atmosphere and at that time there was no dispute.Thus, the statement of Jitendra (PW-5) to the effect that his sister had told him that her father- in-law used to abuse her, brother-in-law used to fight with her and husband used to beat her and on one occasion, had poured kerosene upon her after consuming liquor, would not amount (9) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 to oral dying declaration but would fall under the category of hearsay evidence.Likewise, the allegation that his sister had told him that appellant and her in-laws did not allow her to speak on telephone and they would kill her if she was not taken to her maternal home, would also not be admissible and these allegations cannot be considered for the purpose of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.In aforesaid circumstances, only admissible evidence against appellant Rajesh is that television, cooler, fridge, dressing table, double bed, Almirah, gold chain, gold ring, clothes and Rs.1,51,000/- were given in cash in dowry and Prem Narayan demanded remaining amount of Rs.30,000/-.There is an omnibus allegation that the accused persons had demanded Rs.30,000/- and had told Jitendra that unless that amount was paid they would not let Jitendra take his sister to her maternal home.Therefore, he had given Rs.30,000/- to Rajesh.It may be noted that there is no allegation that any cruelty was inflicted upon the deceased for extracting Rs.30,000/- from her brother.Moreover, aforesaid allegation cannot be taken at its face value in view of categorical admission of Saroj (PW-7), mother of deceased, to the effect that if the accused persons had returned the articles given in dowry there would have been no dispute and in fact the present case was instituted for the sole object of recovering the articles given in dowry.The theory that the present case has been instituted for the sole purpose of recovering articles given in dowry, is fortified by the fact that no sooner the articles were returned, the case instituted for recovering the (10) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 articles given in dowry was withdrawn by the complainants and a compromise was entered into in the present case.In aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, bulk of evidence on which the trial Court had based the conviction was inadmissible for the purpose of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and remaining evidence does not appear to be reliable.As such, the trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the evidence of Jitendra (PW-5) and Saroj (PW-7) and convicting appellant Rajesh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Rajesh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside.Consequently, this appeal against conviction succeeds.The conviction of appellant Rajesh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside.He is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh/b Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2018.01.31 18:07:14 +05'30' (11) Cr.A.No.2262/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Cr.JUDGMENT Post for:- 31/01/2018 {C.V. Sirpurkar} Judge | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,959,636 | The earlier (first) application was dismissed as withdrawn due to the wrong mention of the crime number.The facts of the case are as under.That on 23.10.2019 Anil Kumar Soni lodged an FIR in the Police Station Nahar Darwaja, Dewas that he is an employee of Mahip Shah R/o Satna since last 10 years.He works in his shop as well as in the house.On 18.10.2019, at 4.00 p.m., Shri Mahip Shah instructed him to go to Indore by Bus and deliver the cash amount in Sarafa bazar.At 6.15 p.m., he reached to the Bus Stand and there Mr. Shah handed over a brown-black coloured bag and ticket of bus with instruction to hand over this bag to Shri Rajesh Bhai, Sarafa bazar, Indore.He was made aware there is cash of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs) inside the bag.Manoharlal Rathore.-: 2 :-morning in Dewas near Bhopal bypass crossing two persons came inside the Bus pretending as Policemen and started enquiring about the bag.He was forced to get down from the Bus with the bag.They threatened that if he would not go along with them, they would register a false case under the NDPS Act against him.He sat along with them in the car and they took him towards Ujjain and snatched the bag containing currency and left him in-between in the jungle.Thereafter he came to Indore and gave information to Mr. Shah on the telephone.Mr. Shah came to Indore and lodged the FIR .After the aforesaid report, the Police started the investigation and arrested 9 persons and recovered much more than the looted amount.Mandeep Rathore,Sarabjot @ Sonu,-: 3 :-introduced with Naresh Tomar and Sarabjot @ Sonu.On 17.10.2019 Vilas Mane along with Bhavram came to Dewas by car and stayed in Meghddot Hotel.On 19.10.2019 they all met with Mandeep and Nilesh and prepared the plan of robbery.According to the plan, Mandeep and Nilesh would robe a person who going to travel Indore from Satna with cash of Rs. 55 lakhs.Mandeep called his cousin brother Yogesh who works in Municipal Corporation Dewas and demanded his Walkie- Talkie set for one day.On 19.10.2019 Mandeep collected Walkie- Talkie set from him and returned on the same day.According to Mandeep and Nilesh, they reached Bhopal bypass at 8 am and stopped the bus by showing Walkie- Talkie set and entered inside the bus.Mandeep and Nilesh pretended as policemen and boarded down a person traveling with a bag.They took him to the jungle in Artiga car (MH 12PZ 4765) and snatched a bag from him.They found 55 lakhs cash inside the bag but told Sabarjot @ Sonu and Vilas that they found on 12 lakhs inside the bag.Mandeep and Nilesh gave 12 lakhs to Sabarjot and kept the remaining amount with them.Sabarjot gave them 1-1 lakh as a reward for their contribution in the commission of crime.Out of 45 lakhs, Mandeep kept 25 lakhs and gave 20 lakhs to Nilesh.C.C. as per rules.( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2020.09.11 18:27:09 +05'30'This is a repeat (2nd) application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Yogesh S/o.Bharatsingh Rathore, who has been arrested by Police on 6.11.2019 in Crime No.374/2020, Police Station Nahar Darwaja, District Dewas under 419, 365, 392, 120-B, 395/34 of the IPC.On the next day i.e. 19.10.2019, near about 8.00 to 8.15 in the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21706/2020 Mandeep S/o.Mahendra Singh RajpootAfter completing the investigation police have filed the Challan against all the 9 accused under Sections 392, 365, 419, 34, 120-B and 395 of the IPC.In the Final Report, the police narrated the story that Vilas Mane a resident of Pune came to know from Mahendra who is a driver in Satna that one person from Satna is going to Indore with cash of Rs. 1 Crore.Thereafter he gave a call to Harish Verma who got him THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21706/2020 Mandeep S/o.Sabarjot @ Sonu has also distributed looted money amongst 7 other as per their active role in the loot.As per memorandum under section 27 police have recovered 21.50 lakhs out of 25 lakhs from Mandeep Rathore, 15 lakhs out of 20 lakhs from Nilesh s/o Harilal 90,000/- out of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21706/2020 Mandeep S/o.Manoharlal Rathore.V/s.-: 4 :-2, lakhs from Naresh Tomar, 4.50 lakhs from Sarabjot @ Sonu, Walkie- Talkie set from Yogesh Rathore 1.25 lakhs out of 1.75lakhs from Vilas Mane, 75,000/- out of 1 lakhs from Bhavram Chouhan, 5,000/- out of 25,000/- from Harish VermaLearned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been made accused only on the basis of statement of the co-accused recorded u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act. The co-accused viz. Naresh Pal Singh and Sarbjot Singh have been granted bail by this Court and two other co-accused viz. Bhawaram and Vilas Mane have been granted bail by the trial Court.During custody, he was admitted to the District Hospital, Dewas due to severe pain in the abdomen, and the investigation it has been found that there is a 8 mm.Stone in the right side of the stomach which requires surgery.No further custodial interrogation is required.He, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State by submitting that amount of Rs.21,50,000/- have been recovered from the present applicant.The co-accused persons from whom a small amount was recovered have been granted bail.Therefore, the present application is not entitled to bail.Case-diary perused.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21706/2020 Mandeep S/o.Manoharlal Rathore.V/s.State of M.P.-: 5 :-That the main allegation of robbery, abduction dacoity is against this applicant along with Nilesh .He arranged the Walkie- Talkie set and committed the crime by projecting himself as Policeman.Hence he is not entitled to the bail, hence 2nd repeat application is dismissed. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,960,187 | CRM No.11146 of 2014 In re : Abdul Selim Molla ........ Petitioner.Re : An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26th August, 2014 in connection with Basirhat Police Station Case No.93 of 2014 dated 29-01-2014 under Sections 498A/406/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Hasan Salahauddin Ahmed ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. S. A. Ahmed ..... For the State.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of 2 Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Sahidullah Munshi, J. ) | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,962,868 | She is aged about 40 years.Counsel for the State produces the Case Diary and takes us to pages 39 and 40 being the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.The injury report at page-19 be also looked into.The petitioner no.3 is a domestic help who at the instigation of the maternal uncle hurls filthy and bad language at the de facto complainant and her husband.The nature of such abusive language will be found from the F.I.R. 3Allowed md.CRM No. 2062 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 10.03.2016 in connection with Bidhannagar Police Station (North) Case No.And In the matter of:- Basudha Chakraborty and others Petitioners Mr. Sudipto Maitra, Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Miss Susmita Sen ... for the petitioners Mr. Pratick Bose ... for the State Ms. Rituparna De Ghose ... for the de facto complainant The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bidhannagar Police Station (North) Case No.BDN(P)289/15 dated 14.11.2015 under Sections 341/325/354/307/506/34 IPC, arising out of G.R. Case No.1010/15, have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that the petitioner no.1 is the second daughter-in-law and wife of the younger son.They have been falsely implicated.In their absence the maternal uncle of the petitioner no.2 looks after their ailing parents.No allegation could have been alleged against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and if alleged, is frivolous and false.The petitioner no.3 is the domestic help who looks after the ailing parents of the petitioner no.2 and is also in no way involved in the offence alleged.The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed and disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey J.) 4 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,965,553 | Mr. R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for appellant Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent- State ............................................................................................................................::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Sr.Adv.with Mr. C.H.Jaltare, Adv for appellant Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent- State ............................................................................................................................APEAL.521.14+ 5The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, PW 1-Rajesh Ghongade, is serving in Police Department as a Constable.On 10.8.2011 between 10.30 and 10.45 a.m., Rajesh Ghongade(PW 1) and his brother Ganesh @Pinku Ghongade (deceased)were proceeding towards Jadumahal Chowk from Rajkamal Chowk on their respective motorcycles.Sumit Chintalwar (appellant/accd.no.1) and his associates who were 17 to 18 in numbers, were standing in Jadumahal Chowk armed with deadly weapons.When Rajesh (PW 1) and his brother-Pinku (deceased) reached Jadumahal Chowk, the appellant/accd.no.1 Sumit called the deceased by saying "Ye Pinku rook".On hearing this, Pinku (deceased) stopped his motorcycle.Rajesh (PW 1) also stopped his motorcycle at some distance.As soon as Pinku halted his motorcycle, Sumit and Nayan Chintalwar (absconding accused) and their associates apprehended and cordoned him.Pinku, therefore, tried to run away from that spot by leaving his motorcycle.However, the accused persons chased and caught hold of him and started assaulting him by means of small sword, knives, chopper, blade of spear and weapons like Farsha, due to which the deceased fell down in a pool of blood.Amar Lohkare (accused no.2) and Pravin Murarkar (accused no.11) assaulted Pinku by means of stones on his head.It is the case of the prosecution that by seeing such incident, Rajesh (PW 1) got frightened and fled away from ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 6 the spot.The accused persons also left the said place on assaulting Pinku.At the relevant time, Police Inspector Prakash Bada (PW 11) was attached to Ajni Police Station.On receipt of the said information, an offence came to be registered.Police Inspector, Prakash Bada (PW 11) then proceeded to the place of the incident along with PSI Paradkar and other police staff.They noticed the deceased lying in a pool of blood and, at some distance, one Bullet motorcycle was also found lying on the ground.P.I. Bada (PW 11) seized two mobiles and big stones and bracelet of white metal as well as Bullet Motorcycle.Samples of plain earth, blood mixed earth and plain earth from the place of the incident were taken in the presence of two panchas.P.I. Bada recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.124).PSI Paradkar sealed all those articles.PI Bada thereafter sent the dead body of Pinku to Government Medical College and Hospital for post-mortem examination.He conducted the inquest panchnama in the mortuary in the presence of two panchas (Exh.193).P.I. Bada (PW 11) tried to get the information from the people about the incident.However, since the people were terrorised to the hilt, he could not get any information from them.PW 1-Rajesh had ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 7 given the names of appellants as assailants of his brother, in the FIR.Accordingly, those persons were brought to the Police Station on the same day.They were, (1)Girish Wasnik, (2) Sachin Wasnik , (3) Vikas Gedam, (4) Vijay Kamble, (5) Sonu Thaware and (6) Sanjay Waghare.PI Bada along with ACP and DCP interrogated those persons.However on interrogation, they were allowed to go as they were not found to be involved in the alleged offence.P.I. Prakash Bada (PW 11) took charge of the clothes of the deceased vide Exh.127 in the presence of two panchas.On 12.08.2011 PI Bada received secret information that seven accused persons had gathered at Vanjarinagar Durgah.Therefore, he along with his staff went there and caught hold of them.They were brought to the Police Station and were arrested by the Police vide arrest panchnamas - Exhs.According to PW 1-Rajesh at the relevant time, he was serving as a Police Constable at Nagpur.He was required to attend his duty at 9.00 pm.His brother Pinku was at home.He told him that he had to attend the Court case and also to see their younger sister who is residing at Chandramani nagar.Therefore, he himself along with his brother Pinku (deceased) proceeded towards the house of their sister.They both were on their respective CBZ motorcycles.When they were proceeding towards the Jadumahal chowk from Rajkamal chowk at about 10.45 am., the accused/appellant no.1 Sumit Chintalwar called Pinku by saying "Ye Pinku rook".The appellant-Sumit was beside the road near ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 14 Shraddha Apartment along with 22 to 25 associates.At that time, PW 1-Rajesh was riding his motorcycle side by side.On hearing the call of accused no.1, Pinku stopped his motorcycle.PW 1 had gone little ahead and stopped his motorcycle.As soon as Pinku stopped the motorcycle, appellant/accd.No.1- Sumit, Nayan Chintalwar (absconding accused) and their associates cordoned Pinku.Pinku tried to run away with his vehicle.However, Sumit, Nayan and their associates chased Pinku and caught hold of him.Then Sachin Wasnik dealt a sword blow, Girish Wasnik dealt a blow of Gupti, Sebastian (accused no.7) dealt a blow of chopper, Akshay Waghmare gave of blow of sword and Vikas Gedam also gave a sword blow to Pinku, Yogesh Bhagat, Vijay Kamble, Titya, Michal and Khuntya @ Wakadtondya had given blows to Pinku by means of spear stab and the weapon like Farsha, Nishant @ Gabbar (accused No.9) had also assaulted Pinku.Pinku fell down.Pravin Murarkar, Amar Lohkare (appellant/ accd.No.2) and one Sanjay Waghade assaulted Pinku by means of stones.According to PW 1-Rajesh, on seeing this, he got frightened and thought that the accused persons would also assault him, hence he fled away.After some time, he returned to the place of the incident.Police had reached at that place.The shop owners had closed their shops at the time of the incident.Ritesh Selokar (accused no.8) had also assaulted Pinku by means of fists and kicks.When PW 1 came to the spot he saw his brother was lying in the middle of the road in a pool of blood and was dead.His bracelet was lying beside him.His motorcycle was lying ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 15 near Shraddha Apartment.PW 1 identified accused nos.1 to 4, 7, 9 to 11 before the Court.According to PW 1 his brother Pinku was looking after the business of running taxis of his maternal uncle.Bablu Sahare and Raju Kamble were also doing the same business.Due to the business rivalry, murders took place of Bablu Sahare and Raju Kamble and Pinku was one of the accused in the murders of Bablu and Raju.According to PW 1, Vikas Gedam is the cousin of Bablu Sahare and the accused persons are his friends therefore in order to take revenge of Bablu and Raju, the accused persons had committed the murder of his brother.PW 2 testified that he was knowing Pinku Ghongade (deceased) as well as Vicky Ghongade, as they used to visit his locality.He was also knowing Sumit Chintalwar (app/accd.According to PW 2, he was confused while identifying the app/accd.According to PW 2, on 10.8.2011 between 10.30 a.m. and 10.45 a.m, he was present at Jadumahal chowk.He had gone there to purchase kharra from panstall of one Guddu.At that time, Sumit(app/accd.No.1); Amar Lohkare (app/acc no.2); Nayan Chintalwar (absconding accused) and their associates were standing at Jadumahal Chowk.He saw Vicky Ghongade coming to Jadumahal from the side of Rajkamal Chowk on his CBZ Extreme.He was followed by his brother Pinku (deceased) on his bullet motorcycle.117).The accused Shrikant Ingole confessed that he had handed over the Pachpan Chaku to Sumit (app/acc.no.1).Likewise, the app/acc.no.2 Amar Lohkare made a voluntary statement that he had handed over Hattimar knife to Sumit Chintalwar (app/acc.no.1).Then the app/acc.no.1 Sumit showed his willingness to show the place where he had kept the bag containing one small sword, two Pachpan chaku and one Hattimar knife given by accused Shubham Fulzele, Shrikant Ingole and Amar Lohkare.The memorandum panchanama was drawn at Exh.So far as the alleged recovery of clothes of the app/acc.no.1 and app/acc.no.2 is concerned, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW 7 Inosh Pande.According to PW 7, on 13.8.2011 the police called him to the Police Station.The bloodstained clothes of the app/acc.no.1 Sumit from his person were seized in his presence.The clothes were black shirt (P-11) and black jeans pant (P-12).CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521/2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558/2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.133/2015 (1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521/2014 Amar s/o Ramesh Lohkare Aged 25 years, occu: student R/o Shesh Nagar Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for appellant Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent no.1- State Mr.C.R. Thakur, Adv.for Res.Nos.2,3,5,7,9,10 Mr.R.K.Tiwari, Adv.for Res.No.4 Mr. C.H.Jaltare, Adv.for Res.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6 Nagpur in S.T. No.612/2011 thereby convicting the appellant (ori.No.1-Sumit s/o Ramesh Chintalwar and appellant Amar @ Chhotu Ramesh Lohkare (ori. accd.No.2), under sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 4/25 of Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo (i) R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s. 302 r/ws. 149 of IPC; (ii) R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 4 default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s 147 of IPC and; (iii) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and, in default, to suffer R.I.for two months, under section 148 of IPC and (iv) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months, u/s.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Similarly, the appellant/mother of deceased-Smt.Shantabai w/o Maroti Ghongade has preferred an Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.133/2015, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in S.T. No.612/2011 and in Sessions Trial No.147/2012 between the State of Maharashtra and respondent no.5 and in Sessions Trial No.148/2012 between the State of Maharashtra and respondent no.6 and in Sessions Trial No.580/2012 between State of Maharashtra and respondent no.7 and in Sessions Trial No.75/2012 between State of Maharashtra and respondent nos.8 and 9, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents and convicted the ori/accd.nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 612/2011 dated 24.9.2014 thereby acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/ws. 149, 147, 148, 120-B r/ws. 4/25 of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::PW 1-Rajesh then proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the complaint against the accused persons (Exh. 112).::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::One of the accused out of seven persons, namely, Chetan Meshram was a juvenile and, as such, he was not kept in the police lock up.PI Bada then produced before the Court six accused (1) Sumit Chintalwar (2) Amar Lohkare (3) Amar Dharmare (4) Shrikant Ingole (5) Pravin Kalindi and (6) Shubham Fulzele.On 15.08.2011, accused-Shubham Fulzele made a voluntary statement that he had handed over the pachpan knives to ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 8 Sumit Chintalwar and, accordingly, P.I. Bada prepared the memoradum panchnama (Exh.117).On the same day, the appellant/accd.no.2-Amar Lohkare made a confessional statement and stated that he had handed over the Hattimar knife allegedly used in the offence to app/accd.-::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Sumeet Chintalwar.The memorandum panchnama was accordingly prepared (Exh.114).On the same day, the app/accd.Sumit Chintalwar made a voluntary statement and showed his willingness to point out the place where he had kept one sword (art.P-3), 2 Pachpan knives ( art.P-5 and P-6 respectively) and one big Hattimar knife (art. P-4), in a bag which was kept in Bamboo bushes in the premises of Medical College and Hospital compound.During the course of investigation, P.I. Bada (PW11) recorded the statements of various persons.On 16.8.2011 P.I.LMJ Medical College examined those weapons and issued its report (Exh.192).Those sealed ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 9 weapons were deposited in Malkhana.On 20.10.2011 P.I. Bada sent all those weapons to R.F.S.L. vide requisition letter No. 219 for chemical analysis (C.A. Report-Exh.89 to 102).::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::After completion of investigation, P.I. Bada submitted the charge-sheet against six accused persons before the learned JMFC; three accused Lalit, Nitin and Yogesh were shown as absconding.After filing the charge-sheet against six accused (1) Lalit Thakre, (2) Pravin Murarkar (3) Nishant Sahare (4) Ritesh Selokar (5) Sebastian Anthony were arrested subsequently and a separate charge sheet has been filed against them.In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The charge was framed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge Nagpur.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.The defence was of total denial and false implication.After going through the evidence adduced, the learned Addl.Hence, these Appeals preferred by the appellants against the conviction and sentence.At the same time as the other appellants were acquitted by the learned Addl.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::APEAL.521.14+ 10Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, learned senior counsel with C.H.Jaltare in Criminal Appeal No.558/2014 for the appellant vehemently argued that the case set up by the prosecution is false and fabricated and the facts put forth by the prosecution clearly lead to the inference that there was no involvement of the appellant/accused whatsoever.According to him, the alleged eyewitness, who is the brother of the appellant PW 1-Rajesh is a brought up witness, for the simple reason that although he served in Police Department, he did not take pains to report the matter to the police immediately and allegedly fled away from the place of incident, leaving behind his victim brother to be assaulted by the accused, which is the most unnatural conduct on his part.half hours in lodging of the FIR.Similarly, the alleged eye witness PW 1-Rajesh also appears to be a got up witness as his statement is recorded by the police five days after the incident.Moreover, the recovery of weapons allegedly at the instance of the appellant/accd is not at all reliable as it is from the open space in the compound of the Medical College and Hospital.Mr. R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 521/2014 adopted the arguments of Mr. S.P.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::APEAL.521.14+ 11 Dharmadhikari.On the point of naming the six persons in the FIR, learned APP contended that PW1-Rajesh must have named them being associates of appellant /accd.However, this fact itself would not falsify his entire evidence and his version cannot be disbelieved.Mr. Y.B.Mandpe, learned counsel for the appellant -Smt.Shantabai Ghongade in Criminal Appeal No.133/2015 has adopted the arguments of learned A.P.P.It is well-settled by now that the First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence but it can be only used to corroborate and contradict the version of the first informant.Being a vital piece of evidence, it is expected from the informant to lodge the report immediately after the commission of an offence without any delay.The delay no doubt can be explained.However, the inordinate delay without any satisfactory explanation is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.It is also well-settled that reliance can be placed on the solitary testimony of the eye witness, ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 12 provided it stands test of rigorous cross-examination and found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Thus, in the light of these guiding principles, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence before the court.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::APEAL.521.14+ 13We have carefully examined the contentions advanced by both the sides.After hearing them and giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment delivered by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and considering the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant/ori.acc.nos.1 and 2 are not the perpetrators of the alleged crime.It is not seriously disputed by the defence that the deceased Pinku died an homicidal death.P.M. report (Exh.182) reveals as many as 42 injuries on the dead body of deceased-Pinku.The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to multiple chop wounds and stab wounds.The prosecution case mainly rests on direct evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PW 1-Rajesh Ghongade and PW 2-Vivek Masarkar.The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW 1-Rajesh.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::PW 1-Rajesh proceeded to Ajni Police Station and lodged his complaint (Exh.11).He also identified the weapon (P-3) sword used by appellant/accused no.1 Sumit Chintalwar and the other weapons.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::On careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW 1- Rajesh and the FIR Exh.112, it is noticed that the alleged incident had taken place in the broad daylight at about 10.45 am, whereas the incident was reported to the police at at 1.30 p.m. It is noticed that the Ajni Police Station was at a distance of about 1 km. from the place of the incident.However, the complainant PW 1-Rajesh did not rush to the Police Station and lodge his complaint.On the contrary, he fled away from the spot leaving his brother at the hands of assailants.Similarly, PW 1 Rajesh did not even try to give a phone call to the Police Station in respect of the alleged incident, although he ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 16 was serving in the Police Station as a police constable.PW1-Rajesh also failed to contact his sister serving in Police Department and staying just ½ k.m.from the place of the incident.PW 1-Rajesh even failed to seek help from the police, immediately after the incident, till he again reached to the spot.This conduct of PW-1 Rajesh appears to be most unnatural one and creates serious doubt about his presence at the place of the incident.Under normal circumstances, if at all PW 1 had witnessed the incident, he being a person from the Police Department, he would have immediately tried to rescue his brother or even if frightened, he would have sought assistance from the police or his sister or from the public, to save his brother.However PW 1-Rajesh failed to do so.The lodging of the FIR after the gap of about two-and-a-half hours is certainly fatal to the prosecution case and creates a serious doubt about the presence of PW 1-Rajesh at the place of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Thus,PW 1-Rajesh is not found to be a trustworthy and reliable witness and, as such, his testimony cannot be relied upon.The prosecution further placed reliance upon the testimony of Vivek Masarkar (PW 2).No.1) and Amar Lohkare (app/accd.No.2).Although PW 2 said that he was knowing app/accd.No.1 Sumit, however,he pointed out his finger towards accused Lalit Thakre.He however rectified his mistake and thereafter identified the app/acc.no.1 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 17 Sumit before the Court.Sumit called Vicky Ghongade, therefore he stopped on the road.Pinku also stopped his motorcycle on the road.Sumit Chintalwar and his associates were taking with Vicky.Suddenly, Sumit Chintalwar took out a small sword and assaulted Pinku.Therefore Pinku left his motorcycle and started running away.Sumit, Amar, Nayan and their associates who were 10 to 15 in numbers chased Pinku.They caught hold of him in front of Anjali Medical Stores and started assaulting Pinku with knives of different size, stones and other weapons.Due to the said assault, the shop owners closed their shops and went away.Pinku fell down on the spot.Thereafter the accused persons also fled away.According to PW 2, he was frightened due to the incident and therefore he went to his home and narrated the incident to his mother, who warned him not to venture outside the house and disclose the incident to anybody.On 15.8.2011 the police came to his house made enquiry with him about the incident and recorded ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 18 his statement.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::The testimony of PW 2 is indicative of the fact that he had not taken any pains to disclose the incident either to the police or any one in the vicinity.According to him, he disclosed the incident to his mother, however, his mother advised him not to tell the incident to anybody and therefore PW 2 kept mum for five days.When the police visited his house, at that time only, he disclosed the incident to the police and his statement came to be recorded.The entire version of PW 2 is undigestable and unbelievable.Interestingly, the mother of PW 2 has not been examined by the prosecution.Therefore it is difficult to accept that PW 2 narrated the episode of assault to his mother.Even the prosecution failed to examine Guddu who was allegedly at the pan kiosk at the time of the incident.PW 2 fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he had not stated before the Police that he had narrated the incident to his mother who had warned him not to go out of the house and not to tell the incident to anybody.The said version of PW 2 goes to the root of the case and makes his entire testimony doubtful.As such, PW 2 is not found to be a trustworthy and reliable witness.As regards the recovery of weapons, it is well-settled that under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the part of information which is exculpatory in nature, is not to be considered.However only such part of the information which is distinctly related to the discovery of the place where the weapons are allegedly concealed would be admissible.In this regard, ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 19 the prosecution has examined panch witness PW 3-Rahul Tamgadge.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::According to PW 3, Shubham Fulzele made a voluntary statement 15.8.2011 that he had handed over the knives (Pachpan chaku) to Sumit (app/accd.No.1).Accordingly, memorandum panchnama was drawn (Exh.According to PW 3, the app/accd.No.1-Sumit took out an ash colour bag from the bushes which was containing four weapons.Those weapons were sword (art.P-3) Hattimar knife(art. P-4), Pachpan knives (art.P-5 ad P6) respectively.Pertinently, the alleged seizure was from behind the bushes which were in the Medical College and Hospital compound.The said place was accessible to the patients and public at large.We do not find any ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 20 concealment of such weapons.The said open space must be one cleaned by the sweepers of the Medical College and Hospital, so also said hospital is under the control of the Security Guards.In these circumstances, it is difficult to digest that for five days after the alleged incident, the weapons were lying in the open space without anybody's attention.The alleged concealment of the weapons does not appear to be within the distinct exclusive knowledge of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::The police prepared the seizure Panchnama (Exh. 157).According to PW 7 on the same day, the police took charge of the clothes of app/acc.no.2 Amar Lohkare.PW 7 however failed to recollect those clothes.The police prepared the seizure panchnama (Exh.158).On careful scrutiny of the testimony fo PW 7 and the panchnamas, it did not appeal to our mind that the bloodstained clothes were taken charge three days after the incident from the person of app/acc.nos.1 and 2 and the accused persons were wandering in the town with those alleged bloodstained clothes.The alleged recovery of the clothes ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 21 does not appear to be convincing and appears to be doubtful.Thus, no reliance can be placed on the recovery of clothes of app/accd.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::P.I. Bada has conducted the investigation as discussed above in the prosecution case.Coming to the First Information Report, according to PW 11, Ajni Police Station has received information about the incident at about 11.05 am.It was given by one person.The said information was received by the Duty Officer.PW 11 admitted that such a serious information was required to be entered into the Station Diary.However according to him, the name of the informant of such information was not entered anywhere.He further stated that he has not verified the Station Diary and there is no document to show as to what was the nature of the said information.The said version of PW 11 clearly indicates that PW 11 has failed to verify whether any such entry in respect of the cognizable offence was taken in the Station Diary.At the same time, the concerned Duty Officer failed to make any such entry in the Station diary about the alleged cognizable offence and the name of the assailants.Even the name of the informant has not been entered anywhere in the Station Diary, which is supposed to be maintained by the Police Station.In this context, it may be recollected that according to the complainant, the alleged incident had taken place at about 11.45 a.m; whereas he has reported the said incident to the Police at 1.35 p.m, nearly two and a half hours after the alleged incident.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::APEAL.521.14+ 22 PW 11 prepared the Spot panchnama.However he specifically stated that the brother of the deceased namely Rajesh Ghongade (PW 1) did not meet him at the place of the incident.According to him, there was tense atmosphere at the place of the incident and, therefore, people were not coming forward to give any information about the incident.PW 11 however admitted that he had not taken entry in the Station Diary regarding the said fact.PW 11 also admitted that the seized articles are to be deposited in the Malkhana immediately.PW 11 even failed to file document on record to show as to where the seized properties were kept till the date of their deposit in the Malkhana.PW 11 admitted that the Rajesh (PW 1) had specifically named (1) Sachin Wasnik (2) Girish Wasnik (3) Akshay Waghmare (4) Yogesh Bhagat (5) Vijay Kamble (6) Sonu Thavare (7) Sanjay Waghade (8) Vikas Gedam, in his report.However, according to PW 11 they could not have been possibly present at the place of the incident, at the time of its occurrence.The said version of PW 11 indicates that PW 11 has not conducted fair investigation.The investigation appears to be shoddy in nature.As far as the C.A. Report (Exh.90) is concerned, it indicates the blood of deceased as of 'B' Group on the clothes of the app/accd.No.1 as well as appellant no.2, however, in view of the fact that the recovery of the clothes of appellant/accd.No.1 and 2 is doubtful, the C.A. report which is a ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: APEAL.521.14+ 23 corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive one, is of no assistance to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::Furthermore, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which is not explained satisfactorily, although the first informant is in the service of Police Department.Pertinently, the investigating agency failed to take the Station Diary entry in respect of the incident although, according to PW 11, the duty Officer at Ajni police Station had received the information about the incident at 11.0.5 a.m. given by one person.The said information was not entered into the register and PW 11 even failed to verify the Station Diary.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 :::APEAL.521.14+ 24Thus, there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The alleged eye witnesses are not found to be trustworthy.The recovery of articles is doubtful.On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record against all the accused persons, it is noticed that there is no iota of convincing evidence on record against any one of the accused.The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against them.Hence the following order :-ORDER Criminal Appeal Nos. 521 of 2014 and 558 of 2014 filed by accused/appellants-Amar s/o Ramesh Lohkare and Sumit Ramesh Chintalwar respectively are allowed.Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2015 filed by Smt.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:37 ::: | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
19,396,823 | Sufficient time will be required for the disposal of the case.The applicant cannot be kept in the custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L. opposes the application.It is directed that the applicant namely Ajay Chandel be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,969,261 | In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04/04/2019 in connection with Jangipara P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 dated 06/02/2019 under Section 147 /148 /149 /447 /435 /427 /341 /323 /324 /325 /326 /354B /307 /506 /504/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sultana Begum @ Mossammet Sultana Begum & Anr.....petitioners.Mr. M. A. Sardar ...for the petitioners.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,973,993 | He is ready to co- operate in the investigation as well as trial of the case.In such circumstances, prayer is made to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.Certified copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 06/05/2019 02:28:52 | ['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,974,942 | <font size="4"> <div style="width: 600px; background-color: white; height: 500px; margin: 0px auto; word-wrap: break-word;" id="ggg" onkeypress="return nb(event)" onmouseup="checkStat()" contenteditable="true"> <p style="margin-left: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: always" align="CENTER"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="4"><u><b>M.Cr.C. No.20832/2014</b></u></font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="LEFT"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 15pt" size="4"><b><font size="4"><u>09</u></font><font size="4"><u>.01.2015</u></font></b></font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 16pt" size="4"> <font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3">Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants.</font></font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Heard arguments.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Perused case diary and material on record.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> This is first application by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.196/2014, registered at Police Station-Harrai, District Chhindwara against them under sections 364-A read with 34 of the IPC and section 25/27 of the Arms Act.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Police Harrai, District Chhindwara, registered a case against unknown offender(s) for the abduction of Chandrakant Sthaapak on 23/08/2014 at the aforesaid crime number.In the course of investigation, the police recovered Chandrakant Sthaapak from the possession of the applicants.The police also found that the applicants had abducted Chandrakant Sthaapak to get ransom from his family members.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in custody since 26/08/2014 and the charge sheet had already been filed.Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the bail application vehemently.He submits that Chandrakant Sthaapak was recovered by the police party from the possession of the applicants.As such there is no need of identification parade.It is also submitted by him that in search operation of Chandrakant Sthaapak, the applicants fired upon the police party, for their said act, the police have also registered a case at Crime No.197/2014 against the applicants under section 307/34 of the IPC.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.Hence, the application is dismissed.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> Certified copy as per rules.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> </font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <br> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><font size="4">(Rajendra Mahajan)</font></font></font></p> <p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="4"> Judge</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.03in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"><span style="background: transparent"><font style="font-size: 6pt" size="1">tarun/</font><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="3"> </font></span></font></font> </p> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font> | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,980,370 | Pursuant to the above order, the Chief Justice nominated a Bench presided over by one of us (Manoj Misra, J) to monitor the investigation.It may be noticed that the Apex Court, after noticing the apprehension expressed by the father of Miss "A" with regard to the safety of the family of Miss"A, had also directed the Chief Secretary, State of U. P. to direct the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, namely, Shahjahanpur, to afford protection to the parents and family members of Miss"A" on assessing the threat perception and the High Court was requested to review the protection so accorded and pass appropriate orders, if required.It has been stated that there was no physical torture and no medical examination was undergone to support such an allegation.It has also been stated that no hindrance was put on the family of Miss "A".It is stated that she was sexually exploited under threat that her family would have to face dire consequences as also that her bathing and rape videos would be made viral.It is stated that after several months, the victim mustered courage to expose the highly positioned accused and for that end she bought a device to prepare videos of incidents when she was forced to massage the accused.In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, it is stated that investigation revealed that there was sexual relationship between the applicant (Miss "A") and the accused and the accused used to get massage from Miss "A".It is stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that few recordings of nude massages were made available by Miss "A" but the device allegedly used to make video could not be recovered.It was a lengthy statement covering events spread over a year.It has been stated in paragraph 23 that the room of the victim was unsealed in the presence of victim, with her own key, and in the presence of her family members and a Magistrate.Investigation revealed that she had already removed many of her articles and belongings from the said room in the second week of August and had kept them in the house of a relative of her friend.In paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is stated that the entire scene of crime was secured on 13.09.2019 by a team of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Lucknow and physical evidence was collected and sent for examination and analysis.In the affidavit, it has been stated that investigation was conducted in a fair manner and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted in both the cases.On 04.12.2019, we had required the learned A.G.A., representing the Special Investigation Team, to file supplementary affidavit stating specifically whether the allegations that Miss "A" made in her complaint/ application dated 05th September 2019 were investigated or not and, if so, in what manner.Pursuant to the said order, a supplementary-affidavit of the Additional Superintendent of Police, S.I.T., dated 10.12.2019, was filed.In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the complaint, dated 05.09.2019, given by Miss "A" at the Lodhi Road Police Station was duly incorporated in the investigation of FIR No. 445 of 2019 on the direction of the State Government and the same is entered in CD Parcha No. 12 of the Case Diary.In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that the accused Chinmayanand was called to the office of the S.I.T. on 12.09.2019 in connection with investigation related to the allegations leveled by Miss "A" in the complaint.Two mobile phones of Chinmayanand were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.It is stated that in the investigation, on 13.09.2019, the site located at Divya Dham, Mumuksho Ashram was secured in the presence of Miss "A".The S.I.T. and field unit made a detailed inspection of the site and collected relevant material, which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.It is stated that on 16.09.2019, the statement of Miss "A" was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.In paragraph 9 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that to verify the authenticity of the allegations in the application regarding her admission in L.L.M., her appointment in E-library and allotment of room in the hostel, the S.I.T. continued with the investigation by recording the statement of Sanjay Barnwal (Principal), S.S. Law College; Avnish Chandra Mishra (Secretary), S.S. Law College; and Smt. Jharna Rastogi (Warden, O.B.C. Hostel).It is stated that statements of Miss "A", her mother, brother, constable Monu Yadav, constable Gaurav Arya, student of OBC hostel, her friends including doctors, who conducted her medical examination, were recorded.It is stated that friend of Miss "A" gave a pen-drive to S.I.T. on 09.09.2019 and Miss "A" gave a pen-drive to the S.I.T. on 13.09.2019 with a claim that they contain objectionable content of Chinmayanand with Miss "A".Those pen drives were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.It is stated that mirror images of the contents were provided by the Forensic Science Laboratory to the S.I.T.In paragraph 13 it is stated that examination of the mirror images of videos showed exchange of vulgar conversations between Miss "A" and Chinmayanand.In paragraph 20, it is stated that in respect of her allegation in her application that Chinmayanand had sent her for medical treatment, the investigation revealed that Miss "A" had gone to one homeopathic doctor who used to treat the staff of Mumuksho Ashram without charging money.The statement of said doctor revealed that once Chinmayanand had sent a girl with his staff.The girl had skin allergy and he gave her medicine for the same.In paragraph 21 it is stated that in respect of the allegation of Miss "A" that she had ordered from Flipkart a spy camera, which was concealed in a pair of spectacles, in spite of relentless efforts the same could not be traced out.In paragraph 22 in respect of the allegation that Miss "A" asked for help from her friends to help her to escape from the clutches of Chinmayanand, it is stated that investigation revealed that in fact the friends of Miss "A" alongwith her had demanded through Whatsapp message an extortion amount of Rs. 5 crores from Chinmayanand.It is significant that on an average Miss "A" was in contact by calling and SMS on an average 4-5 times everyday with her family members, but never mentioned about her exploitation, victimization or rape to any of them.This establishes the close relationship between Miss "A" and ******* (read it as co-accused).(iv) The CDR examination regarding location revealed that between September 2018 and August 2019, Miss "A" was at her home for 103 days and out of Shahjahanpur for 19 days.This clearly establishes that Miss "A" had ample freedom of movement and opportunity to complain about her exploitation and plight to her parents, friends or the police, but she chose not to do so.He further submitted that although the victim has made a statement that mobile phones provided by Chinmayanand alone were sent for forensic examination and no effort was made to recover any other mobile phone but the victim has not provided description of any other mobile phone or mobile number on the basis of which such effort could be made.Otherwise, the CDR of the relevant mobile numbers used by the accused and others to interact with each other was obtained during the course of investigation and was examined to form an opinion.Sri Verma further submitted that although it is alleged that S.I.T. had tortured the victim and her family but there is no medical examination report reflecting any such torture.Moreover, Miss A's family had been free to make disclosure to news reporters had there been any such torture.Otherwise also, such torture was not possible as security was provided to Miss A and her family.He submitted that false allegations have been leveled with an oblique intention just to damage the credibility of the investigation more so because Miss"A" herself had been an accused.ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION On consideration of the rival contentions and the affidavits exchanged between the applicant and the state-respondents, noticed above, we are of the view that following issues arise for our consideration:-(a) Whether the complaint dated 05.09.2019 ought to have been registered as a separate FIR and investigated as such.If so, its effect.The allegations in FIR No.445 of 2019, dated 27.08.2019, which was registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, are to the effect that informant's daughter (referred to as Miss "A"-victim) is an L.L.M. Student in S.S. Law College, Shahjahanpur and is boarding in the hostel of that College; that since 23.08.2019, her mobile is switched off; that when her facebook video was seen, it was found that she has leveled allegations against Manager of that College, Chinmayanand and few other persons in respect of her sexual exploitation; and that threats have been extended not only to her but to all her family members.By alleging as above, apprehension has been expressed that some untoward harm might be caused to informant's daughter and that she might have been kidnapped/abducted."Miss "A" passed B.A. L.L.B. from S.S. Law College, Shahjahanpur by undertaking course from 2013-2018 as a day scholar.In June, 2018, she contacted the Principal of the College for taking admission in L.L.M. The Principal told her that she may contact Chinmayanand at Divya Dham.She met Chinmayanand who requested the Principal of the College to reserve a seat for her.On that very day, Chinmayanand saved her mobile number and told her that if she has any work relating to the College, she could directly contact him.It is stated that in June, 2018, Chinmayanand called her on phone and asked her to come over to Divya Dham.When she visited Divya Dham, she was requested by Chinmayanand to take up job at E-Library at S.S. Law College.When she told him that she held no qualification relating to computers, she was informed that the job is supervisory in nature for which no special qualification is required.However, she did not immediately accept the offer and on return informed her parents about the job offer, who told her that it is time for her to study and not to work.It is alleged that few days later, in the first week of July, 2018, several phone calls from Chinmayanad came but they were not received by her.But, thereafter, he made a call from a new number.When that call was received, Chinmaynand called her over to Divya Dham in connection with some college work.She responded by saying that she was out of station and can not come, upon which, he told her to come on the next day.Next day, when she went to meet him, he told her that she can join her job from 19th July as it is a matter of prestige for the College.As a result, she took the job in the E-library of the College.The month of August passed off peacefully.In September, the Principal of the College gave her extra administrative work than what the job required.As a result, she had to stay overtime.When she asked the Principal for her salary, the Principal advised her to meet Chinmayanand.When she spoke to Chinmayanand, he told her that she should not bother about the salary as the same would get credited to her bank account.Few days later, his accountant took her bank documents and from 10th September onwards, salary of Rs. 5,000/- used to get credited in her Allahabad Bank account.It is alleged that on account of excess work, she used to return home late therefore she complained to the Principal about it, who requested her to contact Chinmayanand.When she apprised Chinmayanad about it, he told her that she may take a room in the hostel where she can easily stay and do her studies as well as her job.Initially, she refused to take the hostel room but upon pressure exerted by Chinmayanad, after Dussehra, on or about 19-20th October, she took a room in the OBC hostel.The bathroom however was separate.It is stated that when she asked as to how hostel meant for OBC was allotted to her, Chinmayanad told her that she should not worry as the hostel belongs to him.It is stated by her that one day in the morning she went to the bathroom to take her bath.On return, she received a phone from Chinmayanand asking her to come over.Soon, thereafter, he sent 4-5 men to take her to Divya Dham.Out of them, 2 had guns.They took her to the room of Chinmayanand.Chinmayanand locked the room.When she asked as to why the room has been locked, he informed her that he has a video of her taking bath.He showed the video to her on his mobile.She was shocked and started crying.Chinmayanad thereafter requested her to remove her clothes and massage his body.It is stated by her that when she refused, he forcibly got her to massage his body and thereafter his men dropped her back to the hostel.Thereafter, again, men of Chinmayanand came and told her that Chinmayanand is calling her over.When she refused by saying that she is not well, she was forcibly taken to the room of Chinmayanand where she found him naked.He thereafter forcibly got her clothes removed and raped her.It is alleged that she had also bled for which she was referred to a doctor.It is alleged that after that incident, she had not attended classes for next few days.Men of Chinamayanad, however, again came to take her for his massage.It is stated that she feigned illness but his men returned back and forcibly took her to Chinmayanand.There Chinmayanand showed her the video of her rape and threatened her of dire consequences if she resisted or made complaint.He also told her to shift to the hostel completely and since thereafter her sexual exploitation became regular.Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.(Delivered By Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J) This matter has been placed before us as a duly numbered writ petition on nomination by the Chief Justice pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ (Crl.) No. 2 of 2019 requesting the Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a Bench to monitor the investigation of the two FIRs, namely, FIR No. 0445, dated 27.08.2019, and FIR No. 0442, dated 25.08.2019, both at P.S. Kotwali, District Shajahanpur, and to pass appropriate orders, if required, with reference to protection to the parents and family members of the victim-girl (herein after referred to as 'Miss A') on assessment of the threat perception.BACKGROUND FACTS GIVING RISE TO THESE PROCEEDINGS:A brief narration of the facts giving rise to these proceedings would be apposite.The Apex Court, on the basis of newspaper reports and online news portal stating that an LLM student (Miss "A") of an institution, namely, Swami Shukdevanand Law College (S.S. Law College), Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, has been missing from 24.08.2019 and that she had leveled certain allegations against persons running the institution, took cognizance of the matter, called for reports and directed the authorities to produce the girl.By the same order the Apex Court also requested the Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a Bench to monitor the investigation.Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2019, the Bench nominated to monitor the investigation and pass appropriate orders in respect of protection of Miss "A" and her family members was apprised, from time to time, through affidavits as well as reports about the ongoing investigation in the two FIRs.Finally, Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Bulandshahar /Additional Superintendent of Police (S.I.T.), Shahjahanpur, through his affidavit, reported that in both the cases investigation has been completed and police report under section 173(2) CrPC has been submitted in the appropriate court.No dispute has been raised, either on behalf of Miss "A" or for that matter any body else, with regard to filing of police reports, under section 173 (2) CrPC, in the above-mentioned two FIRs.There are, however, two applications filed on behalf of Miss"A" and her family which we have to address.APPLICATIONS THAT ARISE FOR ADJUDICATION:Application No. 1 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019, and Application No.3 of 2019, dated 4.11.2019, arise for our consideration.In Application No. 1 of 2019 prayer is as under:-(a) Pass appropriate order directing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to register with immediate effect FIR under appropriate sections of IPC on the police complaint made by the applicant on 05.09.2019 at Lodhi Road Police Station, New Delhi, and/or;(b) Pass appropriate order directing the SIT to investigate the complaint of the applicant in free, fair and effective manner, and/or;(c) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the present case.In Application No. 3 of 2019 prayer is as under:-(b) Pass an appropriate order or direction taking stern action against the S.I.T. Officials who have harassed, assaulted, beaten and threatened the family of the victim-Miss-A of dire consequences and to implicate them in criminal cases, as disclosed in the accompanying affidavit.For a better understanding of the issues raised in the two applications, we shall be noticing in brief the contents of the two applications as also their supporting affidavit including the response submitted on behalf of the State to those applications.As some of the averments made in the affidavits filed in relation to the two applications are overlapping, for convenience, the contents of Application No.3 of 2019 and the reply thereto is being noticed first.In Re: Application No. 3 of 2019 Application No.3 of 2019 has been supported by an affidavit of the brother of Miss "A".The salient features of the affidavit filed in support of the application are being noticed below.In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that an armed gunner and a lady constable has been provided to the victim; two armed gunners have been provided to the mother, father and family members of the victim; and three armed gunners have been provided for the security of the residence of the victim and her family.In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, it is alleged that the investigation team has been biased because the prime accused Chinmayanand was offered special treatment not only by the S.I.T. but by the Jail Authorities.The biased approach of the S.I.T. was visible as it had been holding press conferences to demonstrate that the victim (Miss "A") was involved in extortion of which it had scientific evidence.It is alleged in the affidavit that such an approach of the investigating agency not only infringes upon the right to privacy of the victim (Miss "A") but also maligns her image in public so as to break her spirit.In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit, it is stated that filing of application no.1 of 2019 by the victim on 14.10.2019 had annoyed the members of the S.I.T. Not only that, the S.I.T. was also annoyed with the family of the victim for opposing the bail application of Chinmayanand.In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit, it is stated that the family members of the victim (Miss "A") were called for interrogation and were made to sit for one and a half hour before they were interrogated.In paragraph 15 of the affidavit, it is stated that during the course of interrogation, the I.G. (S.I.T.) Naveen Arora called the mother of the victim as dramatist.Further, the police officer Bharti Singh was asked to beat her with belts, which she refused.Thereafter, another police officer, Sharmila Sharma, banged her head on the table, slapped her and beat her with fists and toes.She also exhorted the entire family to confess that they were involved in extortion.It is stated in paragraphs 16 and 17 that Miss A's family was threatened of false implication.In paragraph 18 it is stated that S.I.T. officials had called upon the members of the family of Miss A to explain as to how they could afford to engage so many counsels in the High Court and the Supreme Court.In paragraph 19 of the affidavit, it is stated that death threats were also extended to the family of the victim.In paragraph 20, it is stated that the family of the victim could not muster courage to get their medical examination conducted anywhere as they were under constant vigil of the S.I.T. In paragraph 21, it is stated that photographs of victim's mother was taken through mobile phone camera to demonstrate that she suffered injuries on her face.Print-out of her photographs, showing her face, have been filed as Annexure 6 to the affidavit.In paragraph 23 of the affidavit, it is stated that in the garb of providing protection to the family of the victim, the S.I.T. officials are harassing, assaulting, beating and threatening them and making situation from bad to worse.In paragraph 24 it is stated that the entire investigation by the S.I.T. team has been conducted under the influence of prime accused Chinmayanand who enjoys political clout in the ruling party.In paragraph 27, it has been stated that the S.I.T. is hell bent to falsely implicate the entire family of the victim so as to lend credence to the story set up by them.By narrating all that has been mentioned above, prayer made is for constitution of fresh Investigation Team to investigate the case.In reply to the said application and the affidavit, Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, a member of the S.I.T., has filed his affidavit, dated 3rd December 2019, refuting the allegations.The relevant averments made in the response affidavit are being noticed below.In paragraph 9 of the reply affidavit it has been stated that the accused Chinmayanand was arrested by the S.I.T. on 20.09.2019 and was incarcerated in District Jail under the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.It is stated that the S.I.T. strongly opposed the bail application of the said accused, as a result, the bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur.It has been specifically denied that the S.I.T. gave preferential treatment to the above named accused.The reason to hold the press conference was to place the correct facts before the public and to prevent spreading of false rumours.In paragraph 10 it is stated that the complicity of Miss "A", as an accused in case crime no. 442 of 2019, was established on the basis of CDR examination, location chart, CCTV footage, toll tax, barrier records, mirror image of mobile phones and pen-drives, voice-sampling test, physical verification of material evidence and the reports of the cyber experts and FSL/CFSL.It is stated that miscellaneous verbal statements, documents and digital evidence was carefully examined before arriving at the conclusion that Miss "A" was involved in the crime in question.It is stated that consequently she was arrested on 25.09.2019 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and from there she was sent to Jail.In respect of application given by Miss "A" at Lodhi Road Police Station, it is stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that it was duly incorporated in the investigation of FIR No. 445 of 2019 on the direction of the State Government.The allegations of custodial torture and extension of threats have been specifically denied.They were even free to give statement to the media.It is stated that the photographs of the face of the mother of Miss A, allegedly taken by the mobile phone, are not indicative of any injury and if they do, it may be self inflicted and of some other time.It is also stated that since the S.I.T. had found a prima facie case against Miss "A" with regard to extortion, Miss "A" and her family were trying to malign the reputation of the S.I.T.In Re: Application No. 1 of 2019 Application No.1 of 2019 has been supported by an affidavit of the father of Miss "A".It is stated in the affidavit that in August, 2018, Miss "A" after finishing her 5 years LLB course in SS Law College, Shahjahanpur, desired to take admission in LLM and in that connection she met the Principal of SS Law College, Shahjahanpur.The Principal took Miss "A" to the accused Chinmayanand who was the President of the Managing Committee of the College.It is alleged that in the first meeting itself, the accused took Miss A's mobile from her and saved his number in that mobile.It is alleged that the accused gave admission to Miss A in LLM course and persuaded her to take job in the computer lab.It is stated that the father of Miss A had serious reservation in acceptance of job offer but Miss "A" had to say 'yes' because of constant pressure from the accused.It is stated that as she was burdened with administrative job, she used to get late.Consequently, she had to take a hostel room though she did not shift there immediately.It is stated that in the month of October, 2018, she got late due to work and as no Auto was available, the victim had to stay back in the hostel room.Next morning, when she was taking her bath, the accused got it video recorded and thereafter her sexual exploitation began.She was not only raped but sexually exploited for over a year till she managed to escape.It is also stated that the victim was forced to massage the accused in a nude condition on a daily basis.It is stated that the victim took help of one college mate, who was her family friend, and with his help she could manage to escape from the clutches of the accused with an idea of making a police complaint.Along with the affidavit, Miss A's complaint, dated 05.09.2019, made at P.S. Lodhi Colony, South District, Delhi has been brought on record as Annexure 7 in which what has been summarized above is mentioned in detail.It is also stated therein that while the victim was on the run, her video complaining about a highly placed person of Sant Samaj destroying her life and life of several girls was posted in her facebook account.This complaint was registered vide Invoice No. P25081907392 but nothing was done by the police.It is alleged that on 25.08.2019, the father of the victim had gone to the police station Kotwali, Shahjahanpur to lodge complaint wherein he specifically named Chinmayanand but his complaint was not taken.It is stated that the District Magistrate had also warned him that he should be mindful of making complaint against a person of the stature of Chinmayanand.It is stated that, thereafter, when the news became viral, the Hon'ble Apex Court took suo-motu cognizance of the matter.It is stated that when the facebook video of the victim went viral, the complaint made by her father on 25.08.2019 was registered as FIR No. 445 of 2019, with a delay of two days, on 27.08.2019 for offences of abduction and sexual harassment.It has been stated that after the order of the apex court, when the victim was discharged from Bapnu Ghar (women shelter home) on 04.09.2019, on 05.09.2019 she made a written complaint against the accused at P.S. Lodhi Colony, South District Delhi giving vivid description of her ordeal.In the affidavit supporting the application, the approach of the S.I.T. has been criticized by alleging that S.I.T. was interested more in highlighting the manner in which the victim and others had indulged in extortion rather than demonstrating as to how the victim was exploited by the accused Chinamayanand.In paragraph 9 of the affidavit it has been stated that hostel room of the victim was de-sealed in the presence of S.I.T. members on 10.09.2019 and was searched.The victim was shocked to see that the room was tampered and was not in the same shape as she left.It is alleged that her equipment, which she purchased from Flipkart, to make the video was missing and several other items were also missing from the room and some incriminating things was planted.In paragraph 11 of the affidavit, it is stated that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.09.2019 wherein she narrated in detail what all Chinmayanand had done to her and the hell she had been through.In paragraph 19 it has been stated that she was literally prevented from seeking anticipatory bail and was arrested on 25.09.2019 before the date fixed for consideration of her anticipatory bail application just to render the same infructuous.It has been alleged that she was brutally dragged on the floor up to the SIT vehicle to send her to jail.It has also been alleged that the offence with which she has been charged is not so serious that may warrant her arrest which is fortified from the fact that no remand for her custodial interrogation was sought by the SIT.In paragraph 25 onwards of the affidavit, it has been stated that SIT was there to look into the grievances expressed by Miss "A" in her complaint dated 05.09.2019 but the said complaint was not registered as a separate FIR even though as per decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.Govt. of Uttar Pradesh : 2014 (2) SCC 1 registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence.Thus, the applicant (Miss "A") has prayed for registration of her complaint, dated 05.09.2019, as a separate FIR.In response to the above application/affidavit, a counter-affidavit, dated 3rd December 2019, has been filed by Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, member of the SIT.The salient features of the reply affidavit are noticed below.In paragraph 4 it has been stated that the complaint /application, dated 05.09.2019, made by Miss A at Lodhi Road Police Station, Delhi was entered in the General Diary and was sent to Shahjahanpur where the SIT was already investigating FIR 445 of 2019 lodged by Miss A's father.These videos were sent for forensic examination along with voice sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory for matching.In paragraph 14 it is stated that in the presence of Miss "A" her room in the O.B.C. Hostel was unsealed and the field unit of the Forensic Science Laboratory carefully examined the room and the bathroom and collected physical evidence.But, in spite of diligent efforts by the S.I.T., the hidden camera allegedly concealed in her spectacles, and used to record the objectionable videos, could not be found.It is stated that the CDR of Miss "A", accused Chinmayanand, the relatives of Miss "A" and co-accused in FIR No. 442 of 2019 and the messages exchanged between them were collected and examined along with their respective locations.In paragraph 15, it is stated that in spite of repeated queries put to Miss "A" about the names, surname and physical description of the armed persons, who, initially, brought her to Chinmayanand and were used for threatening her, no information was provided.Further, inquiries from people in the locality, near the O.B.C. Hostel and Divya Dham, yielded no result in respect of identity of those armed persons.In paragraph 16 it is stated that in respect of the allegations of rape of Miss "A" by the accused Chinmayanand, the statement of her father, mother and brother recorded during the investigation revealed that they had no knowledge of any such exploitation of Miss "A" prior to 01.09.2019, when, for the first time, they became aware of this allegation when they went to Delhi.They told that Miss "A" had never earlier disclosed anything about the aforesaid allegation to any of them.It is also stated that the mirror image of the pen drive given by Miss "A" and her friend to the S.I.T. was examined and it revealed that although there is video evidence of full naked body massage and the voice sample of Miss "A" and Chinmayanand had matched with the video record, but there is no footage of full sexual intercourse between them.It is stated that the investigation of the case was done meticulously and impartially and, after collecting digital, oral, documentary and scientific data, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 385, 506, 507, 201, 34 I.P.C. and section 67-A of I.T. Act in the concerned court against Miss "A" and her friends, three in number, for demanding Rs. 5 crores, by way of extortion, by sending Whatsapp messages to Chinmayanand containing his obscene pictures.It is stated that two other persons were charge sheeted under Sections 385, 506 and 201 I.P.C.(v) Between 1st October 2018 and 18th August 2019, the location of Miss "A" revealed that on 136 days she was at Mumuksho Ashram as was the presence of Chinmayanand at the same place.This lends credibility veracity of the allegation of sexual exploitation of Miss "A" by Chinmayanand since there was ample opportunity for him to do so.The pen-drives given to the S.I.T. by Miss A and ******* (read it as co-accused) also establish the fact of full naked body massage of Chinmayanand by Miss A.That the investigation has also revealed the following relevant facts:i. A scooty was purchased for Miss A by Chinmayanand through a person named *******.Chinmayanand used to pay the EMI of the payment of the Scooty through a person, named ******.The CDR analysis of Miss A, her father, brother and ******* (read it as person who paid EMI) verified this fact.On the request of ******* (read it as name of the mother of Miss A), the mother of Miss A, Chinmayanand got Miss A's mother appointed as a teacher in S.S.M.V. College run under him on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-.It is clear that the aforesaid appointment was arranged for Chinmayanand to retain his hold over Miss A. The statements of Principal and Secretary of S.S.M.V. College also confirm the aforesaid facts.In case crime no. 445 of 2019, the case was registered under Section 364 and 506 I.P.C. By ******** ((read it as the name of father of Miss A) (father of Miss A).However, no evidence of her abduction was forthcoming; hence section 364 of I.P.C. was deleted.It was only on 05.09.2019 that by means of the application given at the Lodhi Road Police Station, New Delhi that Miss A made allegations about her sexual exploitation.(Note: ****** has been used to mask the name of the person concerned.ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:He submitted that the FIR No. 445 of 2019 was lodged by her father expressing apprehension that his daughter has been abducted and had been sexually abused.The said FIR did not contain the gory details of the ordeal the victim had to undergo therefore, when the victim made a complaint at P.S. Lodhi Road, pursuant to the liberty given to her by the Apex Court to ventilate her grievances, the said complaint ought to have been registered as a separate first information report and investigated as a separate case.More so, when the same disclosed commission of cognizable offence.It has been submitted that such an approach on the part of the investigating agency has vitiated the entire investigation and therefore fresh investigation team should be constituted and investigation should be carried out afresh.He submitted that the police made no effort to recover the mobile phones of Chinmayanand through which video recording of the victim, while she was taking her bath, was made.It has been submitted that only those mobile phones were taken from Chinmayanand which he tendered for examination.It has further been contended by him that the investigating agency had literally tortured the victim and her family members for extracting a confession that Miss A had done all that for extortion.Per contra, Sri Neeraj Kant Verma, learned A.G.A., who had appeared for the S.I.T., submitted that there was no legal requirement to register the complaint/ application dated 05.09.2019 as a separate case because what all had been stated in that application was incorporated in the case diary and all points raised therein have been investigated and after dealing with all aspects report under section 173(2) CrPC was submitted.He further added that there was no specific direction of the Apex Court that any further complaint of Miss "A" be separately registered and investigated as a first information report.He also submitted that since the FIR No.445 of 2019 lodged by the father of the victim had alleged about her possible abduction and sexual exploitation by the accused Chinamayanand and his men as alleged by her in her facebook post, the broad canvass of the offences calling for investigation was already put in place on which the investigation had to fill in the details.After suffering for so long, she, to create her own defense, made video clips.It is alleged that in the starting of August 2019, Chinmayanand called her over to Divya Dham and told her that what she had been doing for him should also be done for others.It is stated that as she had already prepared a video clip for defense, she mustered courage to get out of the clutches of Chinamayanand.Where after she took help from college friends by telling them she has some proof regarding his misdeeds.However, Chimayanand came to know about the same and became thirsty for her blood, as a result, she took help of her friends to run away and escape to Delhi -- Shimla and kept changing places.In furtherance of all that a facebook post was also posted for help."When we take notice of the allegations made in the written complaint, dated 05.09.2019, made by Miss "A", we find that what her father had suspected while lodging the first information report, which was registered as FIR No. 445 of 2019, the complaint of Miss "A" describes in detail.Any person having information of the offence can report.It is equally well settled that an FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and allegations describing an offence.The report which was registered as FIR No. 445 of 2019 discloses sexual exploitation of Miss "A" and refers to her facebook video post.Interestingly, the complaint, dated 05.09.2019, apart from Chinmayanand does not specifically name any other accused. | ['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
193,984,833 | The facts in short are as follows:-"(a) The deceased Johnson is the elder brother of P.W.1 Ravi Kumar.The first accused Rasalaiyan and the second accused Vijaya Kumar are cousin brothers.P.W.3 Vanaja is residing in a house situate very near to the place of occurrence.(c) On 10.8.1990 at about 8.30 A.M., P.W.1 Ravi Kumar, his friend P.W.2 Suresh Kumar and his brother Raj Kumar along with the deceased Johnson were proceeding towards a river situate at the corner of the village for taking bath.At that time, both the accused appeared in the scene and waylaid them.Rasalaiyan, the first accused was carrying a sword ( ) in his hand.Vijaya Kumar, the second accused was having a big knife ( )with him.Both of them restrained Johnson from proceeding and exclaimed "You are always disturbing us.Therefore, you should not be allowed to live any more" and so saying, A1 Rasalaiyan with the sword M.O.1 attacked him.When the same was warded off, the cut fell on the left hand.Again A1 Rasalaiyan attacked on the back of the head and forehead.A2 Vijaya Kumar with the big knife M.O.2 gave a cut on the buttocks of the deceased.On receipt of the injuries, Johnson sat down.Then, again A2 Vijaya Kumar with M.O.2 gave cuts on the left arm, right hand and face.A1 Rasalaiyan with the sword M.O.1 attacked again by inflicting injury on his back.At that time, accidentally, one of the cuts fell on the second accused.When P.W.1 rushed and went near Johnson and tried to intervene, A1 attacked him also and caused injury on the left parietal region.The witnesses who were present there raised a hue and cry.Both the accused ran away from the scene with the weapons.(d) Within a few minutes, a car was arranged and the victim was taken to the hospital.P.W.4 Doctor examined him and declared that he was already dead.P.W.4 also gave treatment to P.W.1 for his injuries.Then, he sent intimation Exs.P4 and P5 to the Police Station at Kuzhithurai.(e) P.W.11 Head Constable, on receipt of these intimation, went to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at about 9.30 A.M. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 I.P.C. against both the accused.He sent Ex.P19 F.I.R. to the Magistrate and sent one copy to Kaliyakkavilai Police Station, the jurisdiction police.(f) P.W.13, the Head Constable at Kaliyakkavilai Police Station received the copy of the F.I.R. and re-registered the same in the said Police Station for the above offences and sent F.I.R. Copy Ex.P20 to the Court.(e) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message took up investigation in this case and came to the hospital and conducted inquest and prepared inquest report Ex.He sent requisition Ex.P.W.4 after treating P.W.1 for the injury found on his left temporal region, issued Ex.P6, the accident register.(h) On 12.8.1990 at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.14, the Inspector of Police arrested both the accused.In pursuance of the confession of A1, M.O.1 sword was recovered from him under Ex.P12 and from A2, M.O.2 big knife was recovered under Ex.When the occurrence took place on 10.8.1990, P.W.1 was a school-going student.When he deposed evidence in 1993, he was studying in the college.Immediately, a car was brought.At that time, the victim was alive.Therefore, in order to give immediate treatment to him, the car was brought and rushed to the hospital.Then, P.W.4 informed them that the victim already died.Without any delay, at 8.45 A.M., P.W.4 sent intimation to the Kuzhithurai Police.In the meantime, P.W.4 gave treatment to P.W.1 and found a cut injury on the left temporal region and issued accident register Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.On 10.8.1990 at about 8.30 A.M., while the deceased Johnson, his brother Ravi Kumar (P.W.1) and his friend Suresh Kumar (P.W.2) were proceeding towards the river at Mulamoottuvilai village, Rasalaiyan (A1) with a sword( ) and Vijaya Kumar (A2) with a big knife ( ) waylaid them and attacked Johnson inflicting injuries on various parts of his body and while Ravi Kumar (P.W.1) intervened, Rasalaiyan (A1) attacked him also and caused injuries.The deceased Johnson fell down and was gasping for life lying in a pool of blood.The accused ran away from the scene.The deceased then was taken to the Kuzhithurai Hospital, where he was declared dead.On this accusation, both A1 and A2 were tried for the offences under Sections 341, 302, 307 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. After trial, they were acquitted.Hence, the State as well as P.W.1, the first informant have filed the Appeal and Revision respectively challenging the same.Since both these matters would relate to the same case, both the appeal and revision are being disposed of through this common judgment.All these people belong to same village.(b) Three years prior to the date of occurrence, Vincent, the elder brother of the accused was selling illicit arrack in the village.On being questioned the same by Johnson, the deceased, enmity developed between them.Consequently, the said Vincent assaulted Jhonson with reference to which a police case was registered.P2 to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem.(f) Thereafter, P.W.14 came to the scene, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P8 and rough sketch Ex.P22 and recovered blood stained earth M.O.8 and sample earth M.O.9 under mahazar Ex.P.W.6 Gopalakrishnan and another attested Exs.(g) On the same day at 3.15 P.M., P.W.4 Doctor, on receipt of Ex.P2, commenced post-mortem on the body of the deceased.He found the following injuries:- (1) 6 cm long, curved incised injury cutting the muscles and lst Metacarpel bone over left therar of left palm.The tip of left middle finger is sliced off.(2) 9 cm long, slightly curved, incised injury over left parietal scalp close to the midline - exposing the bone and cutting it - depth 4 cms and the brain is seen through that.(4) 3 cm long incised injury 2 1/2 cm deep over left buttocks over lower gridral - vertically placed.(5) 5 cm long superficial linear abrasion like injury over left shoulder.(6) 2 cm long, 2 cm deep incised injury right elbow posteriar aspect exposing the bone.(7) 3 cm long superficial incised injury horizontally placed over nose.(8) 12 cm long obliquely placed superficial slightly curved, linear abrasion over right scapular region.He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P3 giving opinion that the injuries found on the deceased are fatal.P12 and P13 were attested by P.W.7 and another.Since A2 Vijaya Kumar was found with an injury on his eye, he was sent to the Doctor for treatment.(i) On 12.8.1990 at about 8.40 P.M., P.W.5 Doctor examined A2 Vijaya Kumar and treated for the injury and issued Ex.P7 accident register giving opinion that the injury is simple.(j) P.W.14 sent material objects for chemical analysis through the Court.Ultimately, both the Chemical Analyst's report Ex.P16 and Serologist's report Ex.P17 were obtained by the Court.(h) After finishing the investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet against both the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 302 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C."While the first accused was questioned, he said that he was never involved in the incident and he was falsely implicated.According to him, when he came to know that his brother Vijaya Kumar on sustaining injuries in the attack, went to the Kaliyakkavilai Police Station for giving a complaint, he also went to the Police Station in search of him.But, he was detained there itself and due to enmity between P.W.1 and P.W.3's family and his family, over his refusal to marry P.W.3's sister, both of them had been falsely implicated.A2 stated that he was attacked at 6.30 A.M. on 10.8.1990 by the deceased Jhonson and others near the river and therefore, he went to the Police Station to give a complaint against them, but he was detained and without receiving the complaint, he was treated for the injuries by procuring a Doctor at the Police Station and only after two days, he was sent to the Government Hospital.The contention of both the accused is that they are innocent.On considering the materials available on record, the trial Court acquitted both the accused by giving various reasonings.On behalf of both the sides, various authorities have been cited.We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records.(1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction.(2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse.According to the prosecution, injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 were caused by A1 by a sword ( ).But, injury No.1 was found on the left hand finger.Injury No.2, a curved injury would not have been caused by M.O.1 sword which is a straight weapon.These injuries are superficial injuries and the same would not have been caused by M.O.2 big knife ( ).Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is against the medical evidence.There is a doubt about the time of arrest of A1 and A2 and recovery of weapons on the confession of A1 and A2 from the open place.According to P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, A1 and A2 were arrested on 12.8.1990 at 11.30 A.M. But, P.W.9, the Doctor would state that he went to the Police Station at 9.00 P.M. On 11.8.1990 and gave treatment to A2 at the request of police.P.W.14 would state that M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from the open place in pursuance of the confession of A1 and A2 and they were packed with polythene paper while the same were seized.But, P.W.7 recovery witness would state that they were not packed with polythene paper.P.W.8 Court Clerk did not state that M.Os.1 and 2 were found packed with the polythene paper, when the same were received.Therefore, arrest and recovery are doubtful.V. There is also a doubt about the genuineness of the recovery of M.O.8 blood stained earth and M.O.9 sample earth from the place of occurrence.His presence at the place would be doubtful, since he used to come back from the office only at 6.00 P.M. Therefore, the recovery of M.Os.8 and 9 cannot be believed.So, there is a delay of three days in sending the material objects to the Court and the same has not been explained.On scrutinising the above reasonings for acquittal, it is clear that the same shall be considered to be totally erroneous and fallacious, based upon full of conjectures and surmises.The first reasoning would relate to the doubt about time of occurrence and weapons used.Regarding the time of occurrence, P.Ws.1 to 3 would give approximate time of 8.30 by stating " ". P.W.3 would state that within few minutes, William came with a car and immediately, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and others took the victim in the car and rushed to the hospital in order to save the life of the victim.P4 and P5, the intimation given by P.W.4 Doctor, the time at which the victim reached the hospital is 8.40 exactly.In regard to weapons, in Exs.P4 and P5, the weapon is mentioned as aruval.In Ex.P1 complaint, it is mentioned that A1 used sword ( ) and A2 used big knife( ).This was recorded at 9.20 A.M. by P.W.11 Head Constable.P.W.1 was able to give details about the nature of weapons while giving the statement to P.W.11 Head Constable.P4 and P5 were recorded by P.W.4 on the basis of the information given by P.W.1 who also sustained injuries.Admittedly, at the time when he was questioned by Docor, he must be under shock on hearing the death of his brother.Therefore, we cannot expect that P.W.1 would be able to give the minute details of the nature of weapons by referring about different names used by the villagers.21 The next point is with reference to discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence.In Ex.P1, it is stated that the occurrence took place when they were proceeding towards the river to take bath.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence.As a matter of fact, there is no challenge with reference to the place of occurrence while P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-examined.It is the case of the second accused that he was attacked by Jhonson and others in the said place.It is observed by the trial Court that P.W.3 deposed that the occurrence had taken place on the East of Panchayat Road.P.W.3 has never stated like that.On the other hand, P.W.3 would state that she came out from her house at about 8.30 A.M. on 10.8.1990 for fetching water.At that time, within 4 or 5 feet while proceeding towards South, she was able to see the occurrence.P22 rough sketch also would show that the occurrence took place 40 feet away to the South of the house of P.W.3, which is on the Western side to the Panchayat Road.With regard to the reasoning that ocular testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence, it could be said that it is a clear misreading of evidence.P.W.4 Doctor would specifically state that these injuries would have been caused by the weapons M.Os.1 and 2 both on P.W.1 and the deceased.The Doctor P.W.4 who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased found as many as eight injuries.He would state that the first injury is found to be curved.P.Ws.1 to 3 would state that A1 inflicted cut injury by M.O.1 and the same was warded off by the left hand.It cannot be debated that the shape of the injury that is caused on the hand while it is warded off would depend upon the position of the assailant's hand and victim's hand.The second injury also is curved injury.Regarding the third injury, it is stated that A1 inflicted a cut injury on the right forehead with M.O.1 in a slanting position.It is true that P.W.4 found the third injury in a vertical position.The shape of injury as stated above would depend upon the position of the victim while resisting the said attack.Similarly, while referring the 8th injury also, P.W.4 would state that a portion of the sword M.O.1 would cause such an injury.It is true that the 5th injury is a superficial injury which was inflicted on the left shoulder of the deceased.Thus, all these things would depend on the way in which weapons were used and the manner in which the attack had been resisted by the victim.It is the clear evidence of P.W.14 and P.W.7 that A1 and A2 were arrested on 12.8.1990 and recovery of weapons M.Os.1 and 2 was made on the basis of confession from an enclosed land covered by bushes.It is true that P.W.9, a private doctor would state that he came and gave treatment on 11.8.1990 to A2 at the Police Station.However, Ex.P18 which is a certificate given by P.W.9 does not show that he gave treatment at the request of the police in the Police Station.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.9 is against his own document Ex.P18, the medical certificate.However, the learned Public Prosecutor should have treated P.W.9 as hostile, since his statement is not in consonance with his certificate and prosecution case.Therefore, it has to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 7 has to be believed or not.The evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.14 is supported by the recovery mahazar, confession and other documents, namely Exs.P2, P3, P10, P11, P12, P13 etc., whereas the evidence of P.W.9 is not supported by any document.On the other hand, his evidence is against his own document, namely Ex.Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.9 is true, at the most, it would affect the arrest and recovery of A2 alone.Furthermore, Exs.P12 and P13 would show that both the weapons M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from a bush near the house of one Meenakshi.Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court that the weapons were recovered from open place is against the evidence.The trial Court disbelieved the recovery of M.O.8 blood stained earth and M.O.9 sample earth from the place of occurrence, since P.W.6, the mahazar witness would not have been there.This finding is without any basis.It is the specific evidence of P.W.6 that he was present at the place of occurrence at 3.30 P.M. on 10.8.1990 and M.Os.8 and 9 were recovered in his presence.P.W.14 also would state that when M.Os.8 and 9 were recovered, P.W.6 was present and P.W.6 attested the mahazars Exs.Merely because P.W.3 would give a statement that P.W.6, her husband normally used to go out of their house in the morning and come back in the evening, the trial Court could not come to the conclusion that P.W.6 would not have been there at 3.30.P.M. As a matter of fact, Ex.P9, the mahazar was signed by him at about 4.30 P.M. So, this finding also is not on the basis of the evidence available on record.The next ground is in regard to the delay in sending the material objects to the Court.The trial Court observed that though M.Os.8 and 9 were seized on 10.8.1990, the same were sent on 13.8.1990 with three days delay.This finding also is against the evidence available on record.The important guidelines while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, that too involving a murder, are given below:(A) While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.Whenever accused meet him, they both would use to threaten "Are you going to reform the village? We will kill you one day or the other." With regard to the earlier occurrence, a case was registered by the police against Vincent.Recently, the deceased Jhonson arranged for a Mike set for a function in Bathrakaliamman temple.With reference to this also, there was a quarrel between the said Jhonson and Vincent, the brother of the accused.P.W.1 gave information to the Doctor P.W.4 that he was attacked by two known persons on 10.8.1990 at about 8.30 A.M. in his village.P4 and P5, the intimation sent to the police by Doctor and Ex.P6, the accident register issued to P.W.1 would show that the Doctor was informed that two known persons attacked the deceased and P.W.1 at about 8.30 A.M. in Mulamootuvilai village with weapons.On receipt of the information, P.W.11 Head Constable attached to the Kuzhithurai Police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 9.20 A.M. on the same day.Since the jurisdiction police is at Kaliyakkavilai, the F.I.R. was sent to the said police.P.W.12, the Kuzhithurai Constable got the F.I.R. copy and handed over the same to P.W.13, the Head Constable of Kaliyakkavilai Police Station at about 11.00 A.M. There also, a case was registered by registering separate F.I.R. P.W.13 at about 11.30 A.M. sent the F.I.R. copy to the Court.P.W.12 handed over the F.I.R. copy relating to the Kuzhithurai Police Station at 12.00 Noon to the Court.Therefore, there is no delay either in taking the victim to the hospital and informing the Doctor about the occurrence and on the immediate information given by the Doctor, P.W.11 came and got a complaint, registered F.I.R. and observed other formalities by sending the F.I.R. to the Court without any further delay.This evidence of P.W.1 relating to the attack on the deceased and P.W.1 and the taking of the deceased to the hospital has been well corroborated by documentary evidence Exs.Admittedly, there are two types of injuries on the body of the deceased.P.W.4 Doctor would specifically state that some injuries are curved injuries and some injuries are cut injuries.Merely because P.W.1 happens to the brother of the deceased, we cannot reject his evidence, especially when he had no reason to speak falsehood against both the accused.It is settled law that the relative witness would not allow the real culprit to escape and implicate the person who is innocent.But however, the evidence of relations has to be cautiously analysed.In this case, the evidence of P.W.1 has not only been corroborated by the other materials referred to above but also the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are independent and unrelated witnesses.P.W.2 Suresh Kumar at the time of occurrence was studying in the school.According to him, on the date of occurrence, P.W.2 and his friend Raj Kumar accompanied P.W.1 and the deceased to go to river for taking bath.On the way, the occurrence had taken place.He would state about the occurrence only.At the time of deposition, he was studying B.A. in Nesamani Christian College.He would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to the overt acts attributed to each of the accused.Nothing has been elicited from P.W.2 that he had anything to speak falsehood against the accused.As a matter of fact, when the victim was taken in a car to hospital, he also accompanied.When Ex.P1 complaint was given to P.W.11 Head Constable, P.W.2 attested the said complaint.In Ex.P1 also the name of P.W.2 is mentioned.The most important witness in this case is P.W.3 Vanaja, whose house is situate very near to the place of occurrence.According to her, on 10.8.1990 at about 8.30 A.M., she came out of the house and when she was proceeding towards Southern side for taking water, she saw that the accused came and attacked Jhonson and while P.W.1 intervened, he was also attacked.Admittedly, she is not related to the deceased family.There is nothing to indicate that P.W.3 was having any animosity to speak falsehood against the accused.The reading of her deposition would make it clear that she is very natural and reliable witness.P22 rough sketch and Ex.P8 observation mahazar also would make it clear that the occurrence had taken place just opposite to her house and from that place, the blood stained earth was seized under Ex.P9 mahazar attested by her husband P.W.6 Gopalakrishnan on the very same day.She also stated that she had finished her S.S.L.C. and after her marriage, she was living with her husband Gopalakrishnan near the place of occurrence.On coming to know that the victim who was taken to hospital died, she went to the hospital to see the dead body.She gave the reason as to why she went to hospital immediately by stating that :The reading of her evidence as a whole would clearly show that she is a trust-worthy witness and her evidence can be relied upon to the core.Furthermore, according to P.W.14, the inquest was conducted by him at the hospital and during the course of inquest, P.W.3 also was examined.The entire inquest report was received by the Court on the same day as per the evidence of P.W.8, the Court Clerk.It may be true that P.W.9 Doctor examined A2 on 11.8.1990 at about 9.00 A.M. at the hospital.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District is directed to arrest both the respondents (A1 and A2) and produce them before this Court within two weeks.I heard the learned counsel for A2 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
299,631 | Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report lodged by Hasruddin, is that about 20 days prior lo the occurrence a Marpeet took place between Musheer and Bhura and Isthkhar.A Panchayat was held which was attended by his brother Shamsuddin Pehalwan who told Bhura and Isthkhar that they have wrongly beaten Musheer.Bhura and Isthkhar had threatened him.On 9.6.1999 the informant, his brother Shamsuddin, Mainuddin, father Nasiruddin were sitting in their grove outside the village.At about 6.30 p.m. Zarif alias Bhura, Shamshad, Iqbal, Ehtasham, Isthkhar and Aiaz Hussain reached there carrying guns and country made pistols and started abusing them and told them that they are doing Netagir and they will not left them alive and started abusing.They stopped them and told not to abuse.Thereafter, Zarif and Shamshad fired from country made, pistols which hit, Shamsuddin on his chest and leg.Shamsuddin died on the spot.He, his brother Mainuddin, father Nasiruddin were also assaulted by butts of a country made pistols and they sustained various injuries.On their alarm being raised Sattar Ali and Ishtiyaq Ali and several other persons reached there and witnessed the occurrence and saved them.The accused persons abusing and threatening went towards the village and terror was created in the village.The dead body of Shamsuddin was lying on the, spot.He brought his brother Mainuddin arid father Nasiruddin to the police station and lodged the report.The report was registered on.9.6.1999 at 8.45 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 4 km.After registration of the case S.I. Asharam Tripathi commenced investigation.He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Ashok Kumar, informant Hasruddin, injured Mainuddin and Nasiruddin.The injured were referred to the Hospital for medical examination and he reached at the place of occurrence, village Ahmadpur Rauni.Oh 10.6.1999 the inquest on the dead body of the deceased was prepared by Bhau Singh on his dictation.He also collected blood smeared and plain earth and two empty cartridges of 12 bore from the place of occurrence and recovery memo was prepared, which is Ext. Ka-14 and 15 and are in the handwriting of S.I. Bhau Singh.P.W. 1 Hasruddin is the informant of the case and he is brother of the deceased.He deposed that occurrence is of 9.6.1999 at 6.30 p.m. He was present at his field along with his brother Shamsuddin, Mainuddin and father Nasiruddin.The other shot was fired by Bhura.Both the shots hit the deceased and he died on account of these injuries.Ehtasham, Isthkhar, lqbal and Aiaz assaulted him, Mainuddin and Nasiruddin with the butts of their country made pistols and all the three persons sustained injuries.JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Kannauj in S.T. No. 286 of 1999 convicting the appellants under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for one year.On 15.6.1999 he recorded the statements of Sattar Ali and Ishtiyaq Ali and witnesses of recoveries, namely, Kamruddin, Nurul, Zahid Khan, Kalim Khan and Raja Miya.The investigation was concluded by Nalneet Mishra and he submitted charge sheet against' the accused persons.The post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Shamsuddin was conducted by Dr. Ram Kumar on 10.6.1999 at 4.20 p.m. and he noted following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:Fire arm wound of entry 4.5 cm.x 4 cm.x chest cavity deep portion front of chest middle part mid sternum region, heart covering out from the wound, margin lacerated, minted, ecchymosed.On dissection pericardium, heard, left pleura and lung lacerated.Wading one ticklee 18 small pellets recovered in the chest cavity and organs.Direction front to back towards left side.Fire arm gutter shaped wound 3 cm.x 0.4 cm.x scalp deep from top right side head 11 cm.above right ear.Multiple abrasions on back both side in the area of 28 cm.x 23 cm.measuring 12 cm.x 0.5 cm.to 3 cm.x 0.2 cmIn the opinion of the doctor cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.Dr. Amit Kumar Kanauja had medically examined Mainuddin on 9.6.199 at 11 p.m. and noted the following injuries:Lacerated wound 0.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.x superficial to scalp 10 cm.above to upper lobe of left ear present on left parietal region.Lacerated wound 2 cm.x 0.5 cm.x superficial to scalp present on left parietal region 3 cm.Lacerated wound 2 cm.x 0.2 cm.x superficial to scalp on top of skull.Lacerated wound 3.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.x skin deep present on left side forehead just above to lateral side of left,.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.x muscle deep present on left side cheek.Abrasion 3 cm.x 0.5 cm present on back of neck.Contusion 5 cm.x 0.5 cm.present on post surface of left forearm 3 cm.above to wrist joint.Contusion 4 cm.x 2 cm.present on post surface of right forearm in middle point.In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt object.Dr. Amit Kumar Kanaujia had medically examined Hasruddin on 9.6.199 at 1 1.25 p.m. and noted following injuring:Lacerated wound 4 cm.x 0.5 cm.x scalp deep present on left parietal region 8 cm.above to left ear.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm.x 0.3 cm.3. Abrasion 2 cm.x 0.5 cm.present ort left side chest 4 cm.medial to left nipple.Abrasion 4.5 cm.x 3 cm.present on later aspect of right arm 6 cm.above to elbow.Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm.present on right side back 8cm below to inferior angle of right scapula.In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt object.Dr. Amit Kumar Kanaujia had medically examined Nasiruddin on 9.0.199 at 11.15 p.m. and noted following injuries:Abraded contusion 1.5 cm.x 1 cm.present on top of skull.Lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 cm.x scalp deep present on right parietal region 7 cm.above to right ear.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm.x 0.3 cm.x scalp deep present on 2 cm.Abraded contusion 1.5 cm.x 1 cm.present occipital region 1 cm.above to occipital notch.Contusion 10 cm.x 4 cm.present on lateral surface of left shoulder.Abrasion 1.5 cm.x 1 cm.present on right side: chest 7 cm.lateral to right nipple.Lacerated wound 0.5 cm.x 0.5 cm x superficial present on post surface of upper forearm right near elbow.In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were simple and caused by Lard and blunt object.After submission of the charge sheet case was committed to the court of Session and the Session Judge framed charge under Section 14K, 302/149 and 307/149 I.P.C. The case of the defence was of denial and false implication and they did not examine any witness in their defence.It was suggested that it was a case of dacoity and appellants have been falsely implicated in this case on account of previous enmity.Jafri and Begum Sabeeha Kamal and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the trial court on various grounds.It was sumbmitted that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case on account of previous enmity.It was a case of dacoity in the dark hours and the place of occurrence Had been shifted from the house of the complainant to a grove outside abadi.The prosecution did not examine independent witnesses Sattar Ali, Ishtiyaq Ali and Musheer who were present at the time of occurrence.The injuries of the injured were also disputed as they had sustained only simple injuries, which could easily be manufactured.On the contrary, learned A.G.A. submits that the occurrence took place in the month of June at 6.30 p.m. and there was sufficient light.There was no doubt about the identity of the accused as all the accused were previously known to the witnesses.The report was also promptly lodged.The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 9.6.1999 and the report had been lodged at 8.45 p.m. The distance of the police station was only 4 km. from the place of occurrence.The presence of witnesses cannot be doubted because the injured were examined after registration of the first information report.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsels it is necessary to examine the evidence on record.They were sitting.On the cot Shamshad, Bhura, Isthkhar, Ehtasham, Iqbal, and Aiaz reached there.Bhura and Shamshad were armed with Guns and rest of the accused were carrying country made pistols.They started abusing and told them that they are doing Netagiri and they will not be left alive.Shamsuddin, Pehalwan stopped them from abusing.Shamshad fired a shot at Shamsuddin.They raised alarm.Ishtiyaq Ali and Sattar Ali also reached there.The investigating officer had recorded his statement at the police station.He, his brother and father were sent to Hospital for medical examination.In the morning inquest on the dead body was prepared and dispatched for the post mortem examination.About 20 days prior to this occurrence Isthkhar and Bhuray assaulted Musheer and a Panchayat was held regarding this Marpeet and his brother Shamsuddin also attended this Panchayat.He told Bhura and isthkhar that they had wrongly beaten Musheer.At that time they had threatened him.The place of occurrence is about a furlong from the village.2 Mainuddin deposed that occurrence had taken place at 6.30 p.m. He was present in his field near the grove.He, his brother Shamsuddin, father Nasiruddin and Hasraddin were sitting on the cot.Bhura alias Zarif, Shamshad, Ehtasham, Isthkhar, Iqbal and Aiaz reached there.Bhura and Shahshad were carrying Guns and rest of the accused were armed with country made pistols.They started abusing and Shamsuddin stopped them and told them not to abuse.They told that he does Netagiri and he will hot be left, alive.Shamshad had fired at Shamsuddin which hit him on his chest and the shot tired by Bhura hit Shamsuddin on his head.Shamsuddin fell in the Held and died.Isthkhar, Iqbal, Ehtasham and Aiaz assaulted them with the butt of country made pistols and they also sustained injuries, Ishtiyaq Ali and Sattar Ali also reached there and accused persons ran away.He was also medically examined in the Hospital.P.W. 3 Dr. Ram Kumar conducted the post mortem of the deceased and he deposed that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.P.W. 4 constable Ashok Kumar deposed that he was posted as a Mead Moharrir and on 9.6.1999 at 8.45 p.m. a report was lodged by Hasruddin.He prepared the chik F.I.R. which is Ext. Ka-3 and G.I).P.W. 5 Dr. Amir Kumar Kanaujia had medically examined the injured and prepared the injury reports which are Ext. Ka-5,6 and 7 He deposed that the injuries of the injured could be caused on 9.6.1999 at 6.30 p.m.P.W. 6 Nulnit Misra had concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.P.W. 7 Asha RamTripathi investigated the case.Their injuries are proof of their presence at the time of occurrence.It is settled by a catena of cases by the Apex Court that the evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related.In the case of Appabhai v. State of Gujrat reported in 1988 (Supp.) SCC 241 the Apex Court has observed as under:Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence.They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante.The court therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused.The court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner.Nor do they react uniformly.The horror-stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently.It was pointed out that in the first information report it was mentioned that the deceased and the witnesses were assaulted when they were sitting in their grove, P.W. 1 Hasruddin stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in his field.In 161 Cr.P.C. statement he stated that he informed the Inspector that they were sitting in their field outside the gi we.lie could not tell the reason as to why the investigating officer mentioned in his statement that they were sitting in the grove.P.W. 2 Mainuddin deposed that lie was present in his field near the grove.In our opinion there is no such contradiction to doubt the place of occurrence because the witnesses deposed that their field is of 4 Bighas and there is a grove also in that field, In the site plan the investigating officer mentioned that the grove and field are part of the same plot and there is not much difference in the description of the place of occurrence in the first information report if it was mentioned that they were present in the grove.The place of occurrence is also proved by the recovery of blood smeared earth and recovery of two empty cartridges of 12 bore from the place of occurrence.In the first information report n was specifically mentioned that the deceased had sustained injuries on his chest and leg but in the post mortem report no injury was found on the leg of the deceased and the witnesses have changed their version and stated that the shot fired by Bhura hit deceased on his head.Moreover, the present of the informant cannot be doubted because he also sustained injuries in the occurrence.Lastly, it was submitted that the Sessions Judge wrongly convicted all the appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. According to the prosecution role of firing was assigned to Zaril and Shamshad and it was submitted that Iqbal, Ehtesham andlstikhar and Ayaz did not assault the deceased and they could not have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. We do not find any substance in this submission.I.P.C with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. Section 149 of they Penal Code provides for vicarious liability.If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or such as the members of that assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing that of fence was member would be guilty of the offence committed.In the case of Rabindra Mahto v. State of Jharkhand the Apex Court has held that the basis of constructive guilt under Section 149 I.P.C. is mere membership of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 I.P.C., if the accused is a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which is to commit a certain crime and such a crime is committed by one or ore of the members of that assembly, every person who happens to be a member of that assembly would be liable for the commission of the crime being a member of it irrespective of the fact whether he has actually committed the criminal act or not.We have carefully examined the testimonies of PW. 1 Hasrutddin, P.W. 2 Moinuddin who have fully supported the prosecution case and their testimony inspires full confidence.The presence of both the witnesses cannot be doubted because P.W. 1 Hasrutddin had sustained 5 injuries and P.W. 2 Mainuddin has sustained 8 injuries.They have described the prosecution version in a most natural manner.Both were subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony.There was previous enmity about an incident occurred about 20 days prior to the occurrence.All the: accused persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with Gun.Country made Pistols and came to the grove of the deceased and Zarif and Shamshad fired from their weapons and the witnesses were also assaulted.The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. in the mouth of June when there was sufficient light and there could be no doubt about the identity of the assailants who were enmical and previously known to the witnesses.The Sessions Judge had rightly recorded the findings of conviction against the appellants and we also concur with the same.For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.The conviction and sentences of the appellants awarded by the trial court is affirmed.The appellants Zarif Alias Bhura, Shamshad arc in jail.They shall be kept there to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us.The appellants Iqbal, Ehtasham, Isihkhar, and Aiaz Husain are on bail.The C.J.M., Kannauj is directed to take the appellants into custody forthwith on receipt of a copy of this judgment and send them to jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us.Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within fifteen days for compliance. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
299,653 | According to case, on 27.07.1993, when at about 8 PM, deceased (Basant Tiwari) and victim (Arvind Tiwari-PW-5) were returning after attending nature's call then on the way, appellant/accused met them and asked for cigarette on which deceased stated that he has no money then accused assaulted him with knife on left side of lower abdomen saying that he would kill him.Thereafter, when victim Arvind Tiwari caught hold the accused/appellant, he also assaulted him also on his right forearm with knife.Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot.Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 Thereafter, at about 8:45 pm, the deceased lodged the FIR against the appellant, and they were sent for medical examination to the District Hospital Shahdol.The injuries found on the body of deceased and victim, were simple in nature but the deceased had been admitted in Male Surgical Ward for further treatment.On 29.07.1993, dying declaration had also been recorded by the Naib Tehsildar/P.D. Shrivastava (PW-4) in the presence of Dr. Pradeep Khare (PW-11).Dr. A.K.Shrivastava (PW-12) opined that the injuries sustained by deceased were dangerous to life.He further stated that the deceased was admitted on male surgical ward and on 28.07.1993 due to critical condition of him, he informed the police for recording his dying declaration.Further, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava (PW-12) stated in his deposition that on 27.07.1993 at about 8 pm, the deceased was admitted by Dr. A.P. Pathak (PW-8) and subsequently, on 28.07.1993, in the morning at about 8:30 O'clock, the deceased was examined by Dr. S.C. Tripathi, who found the general condition of deceased was normal, but some swelling was present on his abdomen.He further stated that in the evening the deceased was examined by Dr. P. Tharwani and at that time deceased was vomiting and tenderness and hardness were present on his abdomen.X-ray was also performed.On 28.07.1993, Dr. A.K. Shrivastava (PW-12) has examined the deceased and found the health condition of deceased was low.He advised to operate the deceased.(29.07.2020) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.09.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Session trial No. 51/93 whereby the learned judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-II as well as Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to him for R.I. for 5 years and 2 years respectively with fine of Rs. 500/- each and default stipulation.Thereafter, the deceased had been shifted to Victoria Hospital Jabalpur where on 09.09.1993 at about 10:30 pm, he died.Post mortem has also been conducted and Dr. D.K. Saklle (PW-10) prepared the post mortem report (Ex. P-14-A) and opined that the cause of death is cardiorespiratory failure due to pyogenic peritonitis.Thereafter, the trial Court has framed the charges of the offence of Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.The accused/appellant abjured his guilt and asked for trial.After examining all the prosecution witnesses and evaluating the material available on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but the Court found sufficient evidence to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-II and Section 324 of IPC.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant whereas no 3 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 offence is made out against him.The trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that allegedly the incident took place in dark and no independent witness who saw the appellant-accused in spot has been examined.the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the death of Basant Tiwari (deceased) occurred due to injuries sustained by him on the day of incident but there is no iota of evidence to connect the death of deceased with the injuries inflicted to him.Further, Doctor who had given treatment to the deceased at Shahdol and Jabalpur have not been examined by the prosecution.Original bed head ticket was also not produced in the Court which clearly indicate that the appellant is not guilty for the aforesaid offences.He further submits that so far as conviction under offence of Section 324 of IPC is concerned, same has been passed in respect of victim Arvind Tiwari (PW-5) who has entered into compromise with the appellant and on 11.10.2017 the statement of victim has also been recorded by the registrar J-II of this registry.The learned trial Court itself found that the fact that the weapon which was seized from the possession of appellant/accused was same which was used in crime has not been found proved.Hence, the prosecution case is doubtful and benefit of said doubt should be given to the appellant/accused.The statement of medical examiners itself shows that the injury sustained by the deceased was not enough in ordinary course to cause his death.In support of his contention he has relied the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 4 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 Sukhar Vs.State of U.P. reported in 2000 Cri.L. J. 29 and Moti Singh and another Vs.On the other hand learned G.A. for the respondent opposes the appeal submitting that there is sufficient evidence available on the record to convict the appellant for the aforesaid offences.It is duly proved that the dispute arose from demanding cigarette by the accused/appellant and no refusal by the deceased, the appellant assaulted the deceased and victim with knife which was seized from his possession.The witnesses are stable with their version and they have duly supported the prosecution case.5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.On perusal of record, it is found that the FIR has been registered by deceased Basant Tiwari on 27.07.1993 soon after the incident.It was alleged by the deceased that when he and Arvind Tiwari (PW-5) were returning after attending the nature's call, on the way due to dispute arose from demanding cigarette by the appellant/accused, the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased with knife (kattar) which caused injury on his lower abdomen.It was also alleged that the appellant/accused inflicted injury to victim-Arvind Tiwari too.Although, the learned trial Court has also framed the 5 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 charge of Section 302 of IPC but due to lack of evidence, the appellant hs been convicted in lesser offence i.e. 304-II of IPC for causing death of deceased.Regarding Finding of conviction under Section 324 of IPCThe learned trial Court found that the appellant/accused also inflicted injury to victim-Arvind Tiwari (PW-5), therefore, the Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence of Section 324 of IPC.On perusal of case file, it is found that on 11.10.2017, the Victim-Arvind Tiwari and appellant were present before the Court and they were directed to remain present before Registrar J-II for recording their compromise.On perusal of verification report dated 11.10.2017, it is found that the compromise took place between the Victim-Arvind Tiwari and appellant without any force, fear, compulsion, threat or any influence.The leearned counsel for the State opposes the said compromise saying that the offence of Section 324 of IPC is not compoundable and at this appellate stage it can not be done by the parties.The offence was committed on 27.07.1993 and at that time offence under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable.In this issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and others Vs.State of Assam reported in 2008(9) SCC 333, it is held that offence committed prior to date of incident when such offence became non-compoundable, the said offence allowed to be compounded by the parties.Therefore, compromise which is taken place between the Victim-Arvind Tiwari and appellant is hereby allowed.Consequently, the appellant is 6 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 acquitted from the offence of Section 324 of IPC in relation to victim- Arvind Tiwari.First considerable question is whether the death of deceased occurred due to the injury sustained by him on dated 27.07.1993 ? Dr. A.P. Pathak (PW-8) stated in his deposition that on 27.07.1993, the deceased and victim were brought before him and he found injury of size 1.5x1/2x1/2 inch on left inguinal of deceased.At 11:30 pm, the operation was performed by Dr. S.C. Tripathi.He further stated that on 29.07.1993 while operating the deceased, one incised wound found on his left iliac.On coughing by the deceased, omentum was getting out from the said wound.Further, on 7 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 inspection, health condition of deceased was deteriorating but during the period from 31.07.1993 to 05.08.1993, his health condition was improving.On 06.08.1993 and 07.08.1993, his health condition was going worst hence he has been referred to Medical College, Jabalpur.The witnesses (Dr. A.K. Shrivastava) opined that the injury of deceased was dangerous to life on lack of proper medical care.Further, on 09.09.1993 at about 10:00 pm, the deceased died and his post mortem was performed by Dr. D.K. Sakalle (PW-10) who opined that the cause of death is cardiorespiratory failure due to pyogenic peritonitis.He found a wound on the abdomen of deceased.Further he opined that due to pus collected on abdomen, the deceased died due to cardiorespiratory failure.He was operated on 29.07.1993 but due to his ill health condition, on 07.08.1993, he was referred to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur and on 09.09.1993 he died and on 10.09.1993 his post-mortem was conducted in which the cause of death is found cardiorespiratory failure due to pyogenic peritonitis.Hence, there is no hesitation to say that the death of deceased was occurred due to injury sustained to him on the day of incident.Now the considerable question is whether the appellant/accused inflicted injury to deceased by sharp edged weapon.As per FIR, on the dispute arose from demanding ciggrate, the appellant assaulted the deceased and when the victim- Arvind intervened, he assaulted him too.Arvind Tiwari (PW-5) is a 8 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 star witness of case and on perusal of statement of Arvind Tiwari (PW-5), he stated that a scuffle took place between the deceased and appellant/accused and at that time the accused assaulted the deceased on his abdomen with knife and when he intervened to save him, the appellant assaulted him on his left arm and chin with knife.The learned counsel for the appellants suggested that the witness Arvind Tiwari did not identify the accused due to dark night but the suggestion has denied by the Arvind Tiwari.No material contradiction and omissions are found in the statement of Arvind Tiwari.His evidence is wholly reliable and duly corroborated with the medical evidence as on perusal of MLC as well as statement of Dr. A.P. Pathak (PW-8), it appears that the injuries found on the persons of deceased as well as victim were same as the victim Arvind Tiwari disclosed in his statement.The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the 9 Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
29,975,133 | Police is harassing the applicants for the bailable offences whereas nothing is to be recovered from the applicants.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore they are being decided by this common order.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to crime No.08/2016 registered at Police Station Bhitarwar District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 34, 341 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Special Act').Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are youth of age group of 21 to 27 years who have no criminal past alleged against them.By perusal of FIR, it would be apparent that the quarrel took place due to victory in a cricket match and it was not connected on the basis of caste of complainant.However, the applicants assure that they will cooperative in the investigation.Consequently, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application.Certified copy as per rules (N.K. Gupta) Judge Anil | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
29,975,815 | This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.463 of 2008, on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the First Information Report against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the 1st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.463 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2008, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.463 of 2008 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kashttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.24360 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.Inspector of Police B-10, Selvapuram Police Station Coimbatore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 Crl.O.P.No.24360 of 2017 04.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
299,778 | 387 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. of D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.The allegations in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 27.4.2000 at 10.00 p.m. at D.N. Nagar Police Station by Sayyed Asif Ziauddin Sayyed in brief are as under : -Since the last four years, the informant was affiliated to the Samajwadi Party as a party worker and did social work with Mohsin Haidar (the petitioner) a Municipal Corporator.Since the informant from the last two months was getting messages that he had been called to the petitioners office at Andheri at about 10.00 a.m. on 30.3.2000, he visited the petitioner's office.At that time, the petitioner and one Iftekar were present."Turn bahot paisa kama rahe ho, Tera hisab karna hai".In the meantime, some other people came to the office and the informant escaped.Thereafter, he was called to the petitioner's office many times but, did not go, inspite of the fact that the petitioner's worker Salim Gandhi had gone to his shop and threatened his brother Minaz in terms that he should be sent to the office otherwise he would be taken from there.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai.On 25.4.2000, at 7,30 p.m. while the informant was having tea in the house of Mrs. Tahir, the petitioner's workers Salim Gandhi, Afzal and Suresh came there; called him out from the house; started assaulting him with fists and kicks and forcibly abducted him in an autorickshaw which was standing there and took him to the petitioner's office.On the way.they assaulted him.Salim Gandhi and Suresh in the petitioner's office in the presence of the petitioner assaulted him with two sticks which were lying there, and Afzal inflicted blows with his hands.Salim Gandhi told him that he should pay Rs. 15,00,000/- within one week or else they would cut him into pieces and kill him.Thereafter, they lied his hands and confined him in a latrine.Two hours later.Salim Gandhi and Suresh opened the door and threatened him to construct 15 houses for the petitioner within eight days in Patekar compound or pay them Rs. 15,00,000/ within the said time, otherwise he would be cut into pieces.They again locked him in the latrine and went away.At about 1.00 a.m. when he was in the latrine, his brother Wahid came; opened the door of the latrine; took him to the Cooper Hospital where he was medically examined and then look him home.The informant has alleged in the F.I.R. that on account of the petitioner's threats, he did not complain about the incident to anyone and when the day earlier (on 26.4.2000) at about 4.00 p.m. Salim Gandhi and Suresh came and threatened him saying that he had seven days time left, he along with his brother came and lodged the F.I.R..Going backwards, the injuries of the informant - Sayyed Asif Ziauddin Sayyed were medically examined on 26.4.2000 at 2.20 a.m. at Cooper Hospital by the Medical Officer on duly, who found swelling and bruises on his nose maxilla, supra scapula and scapula which were fresh simple in nature and attributable to a hard and blunt object.In the case history, all the injuries mentioned in, the Injury report are said to have been caused by stick and fist blows.I have heard Mr. Majeed Memon for the petitioner at a considerable length.He has strenuously urged that although the incident took place between 7.30 p.m. on 25.4.2000 and 1.00 a.m. on 26,4.2000 the F.I.R. was lodged very belatedly on 27.4.2000 at 10.00 p.m. Mr. Memon urged that no plausible reasons explaining the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. have been furnished in the F.I.R. and the said delay shows that the prosecution allegations levelled Against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are cooked-up.Firstly, because, the medical examination of the informant-victim which was conducted on 26.4.2000 at 2.20 a.m. at Cooper Hospital i.e. within seven hours of his abduction and one hour and twenty minutes of his being rescued by his brother (he was abducted on 25.4.2000 at 7.30 p.m. and rescued on 26.4.2000 at 1.00 a.m.) corroborates the recitals in the F.I.R. in-as-much as the allegation in the F.I.R. is that he was beaten by sticks and given kick and fist blows and his injury report shows swelling and bruises on nose, maxilla supra scapula and scapula, which as per the injury report were attributable to a hard and blunt object and were fresh and simple in nature.Secondly, because, in the F.I.R. itself the informant has alleged that initially on account of the petitioner's fear, he did not complain about the incident to anyone and it was only when yesterday i.e. 26.4.2000 at 4.00 p.m. when Salim Gandhi and Suresh came and threatened him that he bad seven days left with him, he came and lodged the F.I.R..At any rate, the question whether the F.I.R. is belated or not is a question which can only be determined with finality after the informant has been examined in the Trial Court.At this stage, prima facie I find explanation for delay in the lodging of the F.I.R..I would be failing in my fairness.If I do not mention that although Mr. Memon made some other submissions but, since he did not press them and desired that, they be not incorporated, in this order, I am not referring to them.Mr. R.Y. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent strenuously opposed this anticipatory bail application and urged that the high-handed manner in which the informant was abducted and assaulted by the henchmen or the petitioner, at the behest of the petitioner, disentitles him to anticipatory bail. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
299,927 | This Criminal Original Petition has been brought forth seeking to passan order withdrawing the S.C.No.7 of 2004 from the file of Additional SessionsCourt for exclusive trial of Bomb Blasts Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee and totransfer the same to the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,Chennai or any other Additional Sessions Judge in the City Civil and SessionsCourt at Chennai for enquiry and trial according to law.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.The case which has been taken on trial should be conducted only by any one of the Courts withthe competent jurisdiction within the city of Madras.The respondentregistered a case in Crime No.1139 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 448,307, 332, 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) of the Indian Explosive Substance Act on7.6.2001 on the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Policeattached to E-1, Mylapore Police Station against one Jagadeesan and threeothers.The petitioner was added as an accused along with others.No. 700, Home(Court II), dated 3.7.2000 and further notification dated 19.7.2000, it wouldbe clear that the case should not have been taken on file by the SessionsCourt for exclusive trial of Bomb Blasts Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee andhence, it has to be transferred to the Principal Judge, City Civil andSessions Court, Chennai or any other Additional Sessions Judge in the CityCivil and Sessions Court at Chennai.6. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for theState on the above contentions.The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for thepetitioner herein is that three Government Orders came to be passed by theTamil Nadu Government and they were meant only for the purpose of conduct oftrial in which the fundamentalist organisation was involved.Three Government Orders, which were placed in the hands of theCourt were perused. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
29,998,128 | The 1st respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st accused in the case.The 1st respondent has filed the private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 494 read with 107 of IPC.Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.I have also perused the records carefully.In this case, according to the petitioner, no such sanction has been obtained and thus, the order of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai taking cognizance of the offence committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of India is illegal and on that ground, the entire proceedings have to be quashed.The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that seeking sanction, the petitioner has already made an application to the Central Government and the same is pending.The learned Counsel would further submit that even in paragraph 32 of the complaint, it is stated that a reply has been received by the complainant from the Department stating that the complainant has to approach the Home Ministry for sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter only, the court below has taken cognizance for an offence under Section 499 read with 107 of IPC, he contended. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,707,507 | It is further submitted that as per medical, her age comes around 18+ years.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.Thereafter they went to Nepal where they resides as husband and wife and now she is mother of a kid.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Ram Ashish Nishad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits