id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
58,710,108 | Both of them are the Directors of M/s.Automobilia Italia Private Limited at Mumbai and M/s.Fiorano Motors Private Limited at Delhi and are dealers of Maserati Quattraporte Car and the 1st accused was working as Branch Manager of M/s.Fiorano Motors Limited at Delhi.During March 2004, the 2nd respondent had 2/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 called M/s.Fiorano Motors Limited, Delhi at Janpath and enquired about the availability of new Maserati Quattraporte Car for MRF Limited/2 nd respondent.The 1st accused claiming to be a Branch Manager of M/s.Fiorano Motors Private Limited, Delhi and an authorized dealer of Maserati Quattraporte Car sent an e-mail on 20.03.2014 attaching three photographs of three new Maserati Quattraporte Cars and three proforma invoices to the 2nd respondent.Further, the 1st accused said that he will come to Chennai to discuss about the final price, delivery schedule of the cars and to ensure prompt delivery, further, claimed that he has rich experience of importing luxury cars into India and have a good rapport with Maserati Quattraporte Car.3.The 2nd accused and the petitioner/A3 have instructed him to visit the 2nd respondent to discuss the price and delivery of Maserati Quatraporte Car.The deal for Quotraporte 4.7 Automatic Car was discussed and finalised the price of Rs.1,98,50,592/-.Further, the accused have claimed that the imports have been done through Automobilia Italia Private Limited, a group company of the above partners (A2 and A3) and also authorized importers of Maserati 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 Quatraporte Car.Further, the 1st accused handed over a brochure of the vehicle represented that three new cars have been imported and are available at the customs bonded warehouse in Mumbai, if 100% payment is made in advance he will deliver the vehicle within 25 working days.He requested the payment to be made to the Deutshe Bank AG, RTGS/IFS, Mumbai to the account of M/s.Fiorano Motors LLP.Based on the assurance, the 2nd respondent made full payment of Rs.1,98,50,592/- on 27.03.2014 through RTGS.Thereafter, the car was not delivered as promised within 25 working days, phone calls were made regularly to the 1st accused for delivery of the car, the accused was giving one reason or other.Later, the 1st accused stated that the car has been moved to the warehouse and proposed to deliver within a week time.Then too, the care was not delivered and there were several exchanges of letter and e-mails.4.During May 2014, when a letter was sent to Delhi office of M/s.Fiorano Motors, it was returned as unserved.Thereafter, suspecting the genuineness of the accused, discrete enquiry was made.The 2nd respondent came to know that no car was imported by the Automobilia 4/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 Italia Private Limited/Fiorano Motors LLP in the past two years and they are not an authorized dealer of Maserati SPA, Itali.On enquriy, further, revealed that Janpath Office/Showroom was closed during 1st week of April.Thus all the accused with fraudulent intention, deceived the 2nd respondent, concealed the fact of not being authorized dealers of the Maserati Quatroporte Car.The car was not delivered by the accused as promised, despite receipt of 100% payment.The enquiry made with the customs department was contrary to the representation made by the accused that the price, agreed was a special pre-budget price and thereafter, the customs office increased the price substantially, the accused made a further demand of Rs.47,38,000/-.Finding the accused on receipt of huge money, on deception and by making false claim, case came to be registered for offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC in Crime No.317 of 2014 by the 1st respondent.5.The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent had inadvertently committed a mistake of quoting lesser price of the car without taking into consideration of the customs duty rates applicable at the time of proposed delivery of the car.The car 5/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 was imported in the year 2011 and retained in Customs Warehouse, Mumbai.The car was contemplated for delivery to the 2nd respondent in the year 2014 by the time the customs duty payable to the car escalated.Unknowingly the accused quoted lesser price to the 2nd respondent.The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per terms and conditions of the sales which was mutually agreed between the parties, the price revision was agreed as the contract clearly stated that the price prevailing at the time of delivery shall apply.Taking advantage that the copy of the same is not available with the petitioner, now false allegations are made against her.The petitioner had notified the factum of Rs.47,83,000/- of duty payment, to the 2nd respondent.6.It was further contended that the petitioner/A3 was compelled to hand over a cheque for Rs.65,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent.Suppressing all these facts, the 2nd respondent giving criminal colour to a commercial transaction, exerted undue pressure by filing one petition or other before the lower Court for cancellation of bail, on the pretext that the sureties executed for the bail bond were not genuine.The petitioner/accused firm is registered with Commercial Tax authorities, New Delhi and hence, they are governed by the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and requested the 2nd respondent to bring the car to Delhi NCR so that the registration formalities could be completed at New Delhi.The 2nd respondent, so far not brought the car to Delhi NCR to complete the formalities.Further, the 1st respondent taking dictum from the 2nd respondent without following the procedure to find out the truth, had foisted a case against the petitioner.The delivery of the car is admitted by the 2 nd respondent.From the documents handed over, it is seen that the particulars of the car stated in the documents are same as represented.After taking delivery of the car, nothing survives in this case.The conduct of the petitioner attempting to leave the country coupled with the fact that the 2nd respondent has left the country and absconding himself.The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.317 of 2014 for offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC has filed this quash petition.2.The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner/A3 and two others.The petitioner vide its e-mail dated 31.07.2014 reiterated its commitment to honour its obligation on payment of duty amount.The 2nd respondent had sent a demand draft for Rs.37,55,074/- and also asked for scores of document by mail and the 2 nd respondent admitted the transaction to be treated as loan.Further the petitioner had sent all the documents along with keys of the car including the sales invoice before delivery of the case, which has been acknowledged by the 2nd respondent.6/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 20157.The cheque of Rs.65,00,000/- of the petitioner/A3 is with the 2 nd respondent.No notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., was issued to the petitioner, not following the procedure and rules, the petitioner was taken into custody at Mumbai when she was about to leave India on a travel 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The petitioner was released on the same day on undertaking that she will appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore.On 03.11.2014 she appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore and obtained bail in Crl.Hence, it would go to show that how the 2nd respondent a corporate giant having high connection and influential, has given a criminal case, even after delivery of the car and using the 1st respondent exerted undue pressure.8.The 1st respondent had filed a status report during July 2015 in which it is mentioned that the petitioner after receiving the amount had never delivered the car contra to the facts.The 1st respondent failed to 8/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 look into the fact the car was delivered duly November 2014 and proof has been submitted to the police.Hence, she prayed for quashing the proceedings.9.In order to prove the genuineness of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the typed set of papers containing Bill of Entry issued, EC Certificate of conformity issued, Sale certificate issued by Automobilia Italia Private Limited, Sales letter from Automobilia Italia Private Limited to Central Warehousing Corporation, Mumbai, Model Sales contract of the car, Letter of the petitioner to the 1st respondent forwarding the documents pertaining to car along with proof of service and Tax invoice.10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner/A3 as well as her son/A2 had plethora of cases, which were registered against them on similar nature of offence committed by them in various parts of the country.They have cheated several persons involving several crores.The 2nd accused in this case has 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 left the country and now he is absconding.This petitioner on the alertness of the police could be arrested and secured while she was fleeing the country.Further, it is found that she is actively involved in the business of M/s.Fiorano Motors LLP along with her son/A2 and she had taken active part in the deception of the 2nd respondent.The 2nd respondent had produced all the communication documents and proof for making transfer the funds through RTGS.Further, it is also found that the petitioner was not an authorized dealer of the car Maserati Quattroporte Car.The representation of promise made by the petitioner proved to be false.The petitioner conspired with other accused committed offence of deception, cheating and misappropriation.11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that due to the petitioner obtaining stay from this Court, the investigation of this case could not be progressed.Further, the documents are to be collected, witnesses are to be examined and after completion of 10/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 investigation, the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner have to be found.Further, the petitioner had involved in several other cases of similar in nature.Unless investigation is conducted on collection of documents and examination of the witness, the complicity or otherwise of the accused including the petitioner could be found and criminal case cannot be terminated at the initial stage13.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent reiterated the complaint and submitted that the petitioner and her son/A2 are partners in several firms, the petitioner's contention of she being a lady and sleeping partner is false.Further the petitioner is a partner in many of the firms and companies along with her son and others and they are actively carrying on the business.There have been cases filed against her of similar in nature.The petitioner has been indicted by Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court.14.The 2nd respondent was deceived by believing the representation of the accused as though they were authorized by Masserati SPA to act as a dealer in India.The petitioner's firm M/s.Fiorana Motors LLP was never an authorized dealer.The petitioner and other accused have committed the offence of cheating and misappropriation.Florana Motors LLP along with her son/A2 and she had approached the 2nd respondent claiming to be a dealer of Maserati SPA, Italia.Believing the representation, orders were placed by the 2 nd respondent, 100% price of the car was received and thereafter, car was not delivered as promised.After deliberations, exchange of mails and letters and on coercive steps being taken, the car was delivered much delay after several months and it is found that the car was not as per specification.Further over and above, amount was received by the accused for which the cheque was issued and was not honoured and a separate proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1889 is in progress.Further, the letter from Maserati SPA, Italia 13/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 revealed that M/s.Florana Motors LLP was never an authorized dealer.There are claims and counter claims and the documents have to be verified and collected in this case.The letter for delivery of the car would not absolve her from the case.Only after completion of investigation the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner would be seen.17.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, accordingly.Taking into consideration FIR is of the year 2014 and the case could not be progressed due to pendency of this petition, the 1st respondent is directed to give top priority in completing the investigation in Crime No.317 of 2014 as soon as possible in accordance with law.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed..03.2020 vv2 14/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.3926 of 2015 .03.2020 | ['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. |
58,717,728 | Arguments heard.Perused case diary and material on record.Prosecution allegations are that on 04/10/2014 a 12 years old victim girl had gone to watch Dussehra Tableaux along with his brothers in Bhopal.In the melee she was separated from her brothers.When she was searching her brothers co-accused Fareen Khan @ Menu met her.She has taken the victim to her house.The victim slipped out of her house guessing her wrong intention.On the way, applicant Nawab and co-accused Abdul Basir met her.They forced her to sit in their Auto.When they were taking the victim into the forest with an intention to commit sexual intercourse with her, their Auto met with an accident and they were caught by the police and crowd.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 07/10/2014, the charge- sheet had been filed and co-accused Fareen Khan @ Menu was bailed out by the Court below.He also submits that the applicant is permanent resident of Bhopal City and he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the bail. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,727,113 | These are as under:The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short 'theCSEB') issued an advertisement inviting tender (NIT) bearing No. T-136/2004dated 02.06.2004 for its work at Hasedeo Thermal Power Station (Korba West)towards Designing, Engineering, Testing, Supply, Erection & Commission ofHEA Ignition system.The applications received there under were requiredto be processed in three stages successively namely; Part-I (EMD); Part-II(Techno-Commercial Criteria) and Part III (Price Bid).The respondentherein submitted an application on 26.08.2004 as Chief Executive Officer ofM/s Control Electronics India (CEI) requesting for Tender Document.Theapplication was rejected on the ground that it was accompanied byincomplete documents i.e. non-submission of documentary evidence of pastperformance and experience of the respondent.The respondent made acomplaint dated 06.09.2004 against appellant No. 3 herein alleging that theTender Documents were not issued to the respondent.It was followed byseveral letters requesting for issuance of Tender Documents.He wasinformed that rather than pressurising the appellants here or otherofficials, he should furnish documents as per pre-qualifying condition ofthe Tender.In response thereto, vide his letter dated 05.11.2004, therespondent filed a copy of purchase order dated 28.01.2002 placed byJharkhand State Electricity Board (for short 'the JSEB') and assured tosupply other documentary evidence (performance report) subsequently.Onsuch assurance, the Tender Documents were issued to the respondent.Therespondent vide his letter dated 08.12.2004, mentioned that the PerformanceReport was enclosed in Part-II.However, the said report was not foundenclosed and even after repeated requests from the CSEB to furnishdocuments, respondent did not fulfill the necessary requirement.As therespondent did not submit the necessary documents, the CSEB sought theinformation from the Chief Engineer of JSEB (arrayed in the complaint asaccused No.2) vide letter dated 10.12.2004 about the performance of therespondent.Appellant No.2 herein was also deputed to get the desiredinformation from JSEB.After meeting the officials of JSEB, appellant No.2submitted his report stating that the works carried out by the respondentwere not satisfactory as many defects were found therein.On that basis, tender of the respondent was rejected.He further alleges that for thesaid reasons, the accused No. 2 was demoted from his post.A.K. SIKRI, J.These appeals are filed by four appellants, who werearrayed as accused persons in the complaint case No.183/2007 filed by therespondent herein before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II,Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.The complaint has been filed under Sections120-B, 468, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint andsummoned the appellants.The appellants (who were arrayed as accusedNos.3, 4, 5 and 6) challenged the said summoning orders and soughtquashment of the complaint by filing petition under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) inasmuch as according tothem the allegations in the complaint did not make out any offence underthe aforesaid provisions of the IPC; the complainant had neither any locusstandi nor any legal status to prefer any such complaint; the appellantsbeing public servants and Gazetted officers of the State Government ofChhattisgarh, no such criminal proceedings could be initiated against themwithout prior sanction from the appointing authority as per Section 197 ofthe Cr.P.C.; and the complaint was blatant misuse and abuse of the processof Court which was filed by the complainant after exhausting the civilremedies in which he had failed.The High Court, after examination of thematter, has not found any merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raisedby the appellants and, consequently, dismissed their petitions.Before we advert to the submissions of the appellants, which aremirror image of what was argued before the High Court, it would beappropriate to traverse through the relevant facts and events leading tothe filing of the said complaint by the complainant.Theappellants submit that as an outburst, in not getting the Tender in hisfavour, the respondent made complaints alleging irregularities to variousfora including the State Government, which ordered the CSEB to conduct anenquiry.The CSEB submitted its report on 21.02.2006 stating that therewere no such irregularities and that the respondent had not furnished thenecessary documents despite repeated requests.At this stage, therespondent filed the Civil Suit (26-A/06) before the Civil Judge Class-II,Korba against the CSEB.However, the respondent moved an applicationseeking to withdraw the said suit.The respondent herein then filed a Writ Petition No.2951 of2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court which was dismissed on 25.06.2007.Even costs of Rs.25,000/- was imposed while dismissing the writ petitionwith the observations that it was abuse of the process of Court.After the exhaustion ofthese remedies, albeit unsuccessfully, the respondent filed a complaintbefore K.K. Nagar P.S., Thirucharapalli, Tamil Nadu.The policeauthorities refused to register the same on the ground that it is a civildispute.It is, thereafter, that the respondent filed the said CriminalComplaint under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 & 500 IPC before the trial Court,which was registered as C.C. No. 183/07 and the trial Court issued summonsto the appellants herein and accused No.1 (Successful Bidder) & accusedNo.2 (then Chief Engineer, JSEB).Petitions of the appellants seekingquashing of the said complaint have been dismissed by the order of the HighCourt, which is impugned before us.A reading of the said complaint reveals the following broadallegations levelled by the respondent:Forthis purpose, accused No. 2 was approached so as to tailor the certificatetotally discrediting the CEI (Company of the Complainant) with reference tosupply and service relationship with Patratu Thermal Power Station (forshort 'the PTPS') and JSEB.(d) The respondent/complainant alleges that on suspicion of suchCertificate Cum Report, the complainant visited the CSEB and on verifyingabout the same, he found that the said tender was being given to Company ofthe 1st accused against the Complainant’s Company and so he wrote a letterto the Chief Secretary and Chairman of JSEB for verifying and cancellingsuch certificate.He also wrote to many officials of the CSEB.(e) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said Certificate is persedefamatory as against the complainant’s company and is a crude attempt tofavour accused No.1 by spoiling the image of the Complainants company.Hefurther alleges that this caused a wrongful loss to the complainant’scompany by robbing its due chance to get a contract for the Boiler PlantUnits at Korba.After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate took cognizanceof the complaint which order was challenged in the High Court.In fact, the High Court has dismissed the petitionsfiled by the appellant precisely with these observations namely theallegations pertain to fabricating the false records which cannot betreated as part of the appellants normal official duties.The High Courthas, thus, correctly spelt out the proposition of law. | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
58,733,977 | DATE: AUGUST 1, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRS.BHATKAR, J.):The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment and order dated 28.5.2008 in Sessions Case No.259 of 2006 has convicted the appellant for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and payment of fine.He has also convicted the appellant u/s 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months.The accused was his neighbour.The accused was initially running the business of gambling and also selling illicit liquor.On the night 1 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc of 13th and 14th January, 2006, at around 11.30 pm to 12 am, the accused entered the house of the deceased and started abusing and throwing articles in the house here and there.At that time, the deceased Lawrence, his daughter Miranda and his grand daughter were present.His son Leonard (PW1), came at around 12.30 am and Miranda (PW2) informed him about the incident.So, Miranda (PW2), Leonard (PW1) and the daughter of Leonard went to Charbavdi police station to lodge a complaint.At that time, Lawrence was alone in the house.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::When they returned home from the police station, they found articles in the portion of the kitchen were broken and thrown all over in the house and Lawrence was injured.Lawrence had sustained head injuries.At that time, the deceased told his son Leonard (PW1) and daughter Miranda (PW2) that the accused had entered their house and he gave him blows with some hard stone like object on his head and right eye.Blood was flowing from the injuries of Lawrence.So he was immediately shifted to the Sassoon Hospital.He was admitted in the Sassoon hospital and treated by PW7 Dr.Mahesh Lavate.PW1 Leonard again went to Charbavdi police station and gave complaint against the accused.PW5 Bhosale registered offence at C.R. No.5 of 2006 u/s 325 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.PW5 Bhosale thereafter drew spot panchanama (exhibit 23).2 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc On 14.1.2006, the accused was arrested at around 10.45am.Blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama (exhibit::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::24).PW1 Leonard is the complainant.He has stated that the accused was residing near their house and he used to threaten the people and there was terror about him in the minds of others 3 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc in the vicinity.PW2 Miranda has deposed that on 14.1.2006, her father and she were in the house.At that time, the accused came to their house and started abusing them.He broke their refrigerator and so she called her brother.PW1 Leonard came home and at that time PW2 Miranda narrated this incident to her brother.Both the witnesses have stated that thereafter they went to Charbavdi police station to lodge complaint against the accused and they returned at around 1.15am.When they came back, they found that the articles in the kitchen were scattered all over in broken condition.They found their father was injured.Lavate is very important.Lavate was on duty on 14.1.2006 at Sassoon hospital.He attended the patient first.On 15.1.2006, PW5 Bhosale recorded statement of Lawrence, who was under treatment in the hospital.On 16.1.2006, at the instance of the accused, the blood stained Shahabadi tile (article 4) was recovered under the memorandum and panchanama to that effect was drawn (exhibit 27).After his death, the Investigating Officer had registered offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.The police recorded statements of the witnesses and filed chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pune Cantonment and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.After framing charge against the accused, the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the trial was concluded in conviction of the appellant and hence, this Appeal.PW1 Leonard Christi, son of the deceased, PW2 Miranda, daughter of the deceased and PW4 Dilip Shinde, who is the neighbour of the deceased, are the important witnesses, who have stated all the material circumstances against the accused.There was blood coming from the head and face injuries.When they asked their father as to what happened to him, he told them that the accused had beaten him with some hard stone like object on his face and on various parts of his body.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::Both of them shifted Lawrence to Sassoon hospital.He was admitted in the hospital and treated there.PW1 has further stated that he went to the police station and reported the incident of assault on his father to the Investigating Officer.PW5, PSI Bhosale, has supported the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that on 14.1.2006, at around 5am, Lawrence was admitted in Ward No.7 of the Sassoon Hospital with injuries and his son gave statement.PW4 is an independent witness.4 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::PW4 Dilip Shinde gives the topography of the house of the accused and the house of the deceased.This witness being a neighbour, knew the family of the deceased and also the accused.He stated that the deceased was residing in front of his house and the house of the deceased is situate to the west side of the house of the deceased.He has deposed that the accused used to consume liquor and used to hurl abuses.He has stated that on the night of the incident, he saw the accused hurling abuses to the deceased Lawrence.The refrigerator and other articles were found lying scattered in the house of the deceased.Thereafter, PW1 Leonard and PW2 Miranda told the accused that they would go the police station to lodge the complaint and then went to the police station to lodge the report.He has stated that after some time, he heard noise of violence and he saw the accused inside the house of the deceased.After some time, Leonard and Miranda came home and they took Lawrence in an auto rickshaw to the hospital.Learned defence Counsel while assailing the evidence of this witness has submitted that this witness being a neighbour, is an interested witness and has given admission in cross-examination in respect of improvement.He admitted that he did not see the accused actually assaulting the deceased.He admitted that he did not state the police that he saw the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased after 5 minutes of his entry in the house.He admitted that the fact that he came out of the house after hearing the noise and the violence was not stated by him before the police.The 5 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc learned Counsel on the basis of these improvements developed the argument that the presence of this witness or he witnessing any such incident is doubtful.He further submitted that if at all this witness was present, then he should have prevented the accused from assaulting the deceased and he would have also helped PW1 Leonard and PW2 Miranda to take the deceased to the hospital.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::The submissions of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted as the omissions are not significant and moreover, on perusal of the statement recorded under section 161 of this witness, we find that on the point of seeing the incident of abuse, throwing articles by the accused and the entry of the accused in the house of the deceased in the absence of his children is not an omission or improvement.His evidence discloses that the house of the deceased and the witness were very close.So the things were visible to the witness which had taken place in the room of the deceased.As per the case of this witness, the accused had entered the house of the deceased initially and he abused the family members and threw the articles all over.Thereafter, PW1 and PW2 went to the police station to lodge the complaint and in between the accused entered the house of the deceased.6 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::He has also stated that the articles in the house of the deceased were broken and they were thrown.PW1 and PW2 immediately returned home at around 1.30am.Thus, there was a gap of hardly an hour when PW1 and PW2 were not present in the house during which time they went to the police station to lodge the complaint.On the background of this evidence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW1 and PW2 that the deceased told them that the accused had entered the house.He beat him with stone like object on number of times on his face.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses.The witnesses being the relatives of the deceased, cannot be the reason to discard the evidence muchless the evidence of the neighbour PW4 Dilip Shinde.Learned defence counsel has submitted that the prosecution could not prove discovery of the stone that the shahabadi tile (article 4).In the evidence of PW6 Sardar Khan, who deposed on the discovery memorandum (exhibits 27) and seizure panchanama (exhibit 30), PW6 has given admission that signature of other panch Altaf Shaikh is not seen.He has further submitted that the shahabadi tile (article 4) was found in the Taboot street in the Camp area which was outside the house of the 7 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc accused.It is a bogus panchanama and if the panchanama is discarded, then the prosecution has not proved the object with which the deceased was assaulted and this is a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt be given to the accused.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::It is true that the Panchanama was drawn two days after the incident and the Shahabadi tile (article 4) stained with blood was found under the heap of clay outside the house of the accused.The Panch in his deposition has admitted that one Altaf Shaikh was present and accompanied him and he admitted that on memorandum (exhibit 27) and seizure panchanama (exhibit 30), no signature of Altaf Shaikh is seen.Thus, on perusal of these exhibits, we hold that in the absence of signature of other panch i.e., Altaf Shaikh which are not found, the panchanama is doubtful and we do not rely on the same.Though we discard this panchanama u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, we are of the opinion that there is enough material on record against the accused to hold him guilty for the commission of the offence.The offence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 is fully credit worthy and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Though there is no eye witness on the point of assault, the things have taken place in such a sequence and the proximity of the incidents which are narrated to by PW1, PW2 and PW4 in respect the movements of the 8 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc accused are also found to be strong circumstances against the accused.The deceased died on 29.1.2006 and so his statement, being a dying declaration was, led in the evidence.In the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that the accused hit him with a stone like blunt object on his face and head.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::Lastly, we deal with the medical evidence which is produced through PW3 Dr.Chanderkar and PW7 Dr.Mahesh Lavate.PW3 has conducted the postmortem examination and produced the notes thereof (exhibit 14).He gave description of external and internal injuries and he stated that there were injuries on the head and the right eye.The evidence of PW7 Dr.There was history of assault.He has deposed that there were many injuries on the body of the patient.Lavate deposed that there were many head injuries and he described the fractures as follows:"There were fractures in lesser wing of sphenoid on right side.There was linear fracture of lesser wing of left sphenoid.There was linear undisplaced fracture of right temporal bone.Fracture was noted in pterygoid plate on left side.There was fracture of right petrous temporal bone.There was fracture of medial wall of right maxilla, potero lateral wall of left maxilla.There was fracture of lamina payracea of let.There was fracture of anterior wall of left frontal sinus."9 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: apeal.206.2010.doc Dr.Lavate opined that the injuries to the eye and head of the patient were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death.The said injuries were "possible by successive blows of hard and blunt object".::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::Thus, the medical evidence discloses that the appellant did not stop after giving a single blow but he continued assaulting the deceased and gave successive blows on the vital part of the deceased.The deceased was 65 years old and sleeping in the interior portion of his house.The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Office to communicate this order to the Appellant and the Superintendent of jail where the appellant is lodged i.e., Yerwada Central Prison.At this stage, we must record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the learned advocate Mr.Apte, who was appointed to represent the appellant in this appeal.W e quantify total legal fees to be paid to him in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at `2,500/-.(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (MRS.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 10 / 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:14:03 ::: | ['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,874,214 | as (Allowed) C.R.M. 11367 of 2017 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.11.2017 in connection with Sankarial P.S. Case No.1028 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/153A/153AA/283/427/436/325/326/307/ 295A/296/506/332/333/353/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 3 of P. D. P. P. Act.In the matter of : Anowar Islam Mandal @ Anowar Hossain Mandal.Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Anowar Islam Mandal @ Anowar Hossain Mandal shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on condition that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sankrail Police Station without express permission of the Court and he shall provide the particulars of his place of residence to the investigating officer as well as the trial court.He shall not intimidate witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.The application, being C.R.M.11367 of 2017, is disposed of.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,877,645 | Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.03.2003 at about 7:00 P.M. Akram son of the informant Shamshuddin had gone to Babboo Pradhan to take money.On the slab, in front of the house of Babboo Pradhan, Raffique, Aslam his son and several persons of the Mohalla were sitting.At that time, Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof came there.Laeeque @ Dharmanga abusing his son Akram by saying that he had pushed him at the time of filling water, all of a sudden he took out a knife and stabbed him on his chest.On the shrieks of his son, the persons sitting on the slab rushed there immediately and all the three accused persons fled away.Hearing shriek, informant also reached the spot and he took his son to the hospital in an injured condition where he succumbed to his injuries.The incident has been witnessed by the persons present on the spot.On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka-1) same day at 20.10 P.M., Chik FIR (Ext.Ka-3) under Section 304, 504 read with 34 I.P.C. was registered and G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka-4) was prepared.Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I., Rampal Singh (P.W.9), who proceeded to the spot along with S.I., S.D. Mahesh Prasad.He recorded the statements of informant Shamshuddin, scribe of written report and prepared spot map (Ext.Ka-10) on the pointing out of the informant.On his instruction S.I. Mahesh Prasad prepared the inquest memo (Ext.Ka-14).Margin of wound are sharp."In internal examination 5th rib deep below the injury no. 1, was found cut.Left lung was punctured.Left chamber of the heart was incised as well, which was through and through its wall.In the cavity of the left chest, around 600 ml blood was found.In opinion of the doctor death of the deceased is possible on 28.03.2003 at 7.00 P.M. due to haemorrhage and shock caused by aforesaid injury with a sharp edged weapon like knife.The death of the deceased is likely to have occurred around 24 hours before the conducting of the post mortem on 29.03.2003 at 3.30 P.M..According to Ext.Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.(Per: Ali Zamin,J.)1. Heard Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2004 passed in S.T. No.373 of 2003 (State vs. Laeeque @ Dharmanga & others) arising out of Case Crime No.140 of 2003, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and S.T. No. 374 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2003, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit has convicted the accused appellant Laeeque @ Dharmanga under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and acquitted Jalaluddin and Mashroof under Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 34 and 504 I.P.C.He also prepared challan lash, photo lash, letter to the Chief Medical Officer, letter to R.I. and Specimen Seal (Ext.Ka-15 to 19) and dispatched the dead body for post mortem.Dr. Vimal Kumar (P.W.3), conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and prepared the post mortem report (Ext.Ka-2).According to post-mortem report following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:Stab wound 2.8 cm x 1.2 cm x chest cavity deep just below and lateral to left nipple.During investigation, on the pointing out of the accused Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Investigating Officer recovered the knife on 28.05.2003 and prepared recovery memo (Ext.Ka-5).Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I., Vivek Malik (P.W.8).After completing investigation, on 30.05.2003 the investigating officer (P.W.9) of the Case Crime No. 140 of 2003 submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-12) under Sections 304, 504 and 34 I.P.C. against the accused Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof.Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 268 of 2003 also completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act (Ex.Ka-9) against the accused Laeeque @ Dharmanga on the same day.The Sessions Judge made over the above cases for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 and 504 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act against appellant.Prosecution, to prove its case, produced 9 (nine) witnesses namely, P.W.1 Shamshuddin, informant of the case, P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are the witnesses of the fact.P.W.3 Dr. Vimal Kumar conducted the autopsy of the deceased, P.W.5 Constable Narpat Singh, scribe of the F.I.R., Case No.140 of 2003, under Sections 304, 504 I.P.C. and P.W.6 Constable Raghunath Singh, witness of the recovery of knife, P.W.7 Constable Har Prasad, scribe of F.I.R. Case Crime No. 268 of 2003, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and G.D., P.W.8 S.I. Vivek Kumar Malik, Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 263 of 2003, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh, Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.140 of 2003, under Sections 304, 504, 34 I.P.C. are the formal witnesses of the case.Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Appellant-accused Laeeque @ Dharmanga in his statement has stated that on account of groupism the case proceeded against him.Mashroof has stated that he does not know why the case proceeded against him and accused Jalaluddin has stated that case proceeded against him due to enmity.Accused persons led no evidence in their defence.Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the argument of the parties and perusal of the record has passed the impugned judgment and order as disclosed in para 2 of the judgment.Hence, the present appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to prosecution version incident took place in front of the house of Babboo Pradhan but P.W.9 Rampal Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that near the place of incident there is no house of Babboo Pradhan and the place of incident is not the house of Babboo Pradhan.He further submits that no independent witness has been examined although according to prosecution, four-five independent witnesses were present at the time of incident.From the prosecution evidence recovery of knife is also doubtful.Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.Learned Trial Judge without proper appreciation of evidence has convicted the appellant, which is not sustainable and it is liable to set aside.Per contra learned A.G.A. submits that P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are the eye witnesses of the incident and they have supported the prosecution version.Learned Trial Judge properly appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution has convicted and sentenced the appellant.In internal examination 5th rib was found cut and left lung was found punctured.Cause of death was excess bleeding and shock due to the ante mortem injury.From the above, it is clear that Akram died due to injury sustained by him.Akram son of informant Shamsuddin had gone to Babboo Pradhan.In front of house of Babboo Pradahn on the slab Mohd. Rafique, Aslam, the son of informant and several persons were sitting, at that time Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Jalaluddin, Mashroof came there.Laeeque @ Dharmanga abusing Akram, all of sudden took out a knife and stabbed him on his chest.On his shriek the persons sitting on the slab rushed there to save him but all the three accused persons fled away.Hearing the shriek informant also rushed to the place of incidence and took him away to the hospital in injured condition where he died.15. P.W.1 Shamshuddin has supported the first information report version through his testimony and stated that knife injury was caused to the left side of the chest.In cross-examination on asking that Jalaluddin and Mashroof were involved in the assault, he has replied that he could not see them causing the incident and has admitted that on the telling of the people he mentioned the wrong name in the first information report.He has further stated that he had seen the dead body at the place of incidence.From the content of Ext.Ka-1 and his deposition, it transpires that he is not an eye witness of the incident and has lodged the report on the telling by others.P.W.2 Aslam has stated that he along with Mohd. Rafique and other persons of the village was sitting on a slab in front of the house of Babboo Pradhan.His brother Akram had come to Babboo Pradhan.Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof also came there.Laeeque @ Dharmanga abusing him, all of sudden took out a knife and stabbed him on the left side of his chest.On his shrieks the witness and other persons sitting on the slab rushed to him, but the accused persons fled away towards north side.In cross-examination he has stated that when he heard shrieks he rushed to the place of incidence.At the time of shrieks he was on the road.He was at a distance of near about 200 yards from the place where the deceased was stabbed.When he reached the spot, the crowd had not assembled, only about four-five persons were present.On hullabaloo his mother and father came there.From his statement in cross-examination, it transpires that at the time of the incident this witness was not sitting on the said slab.Thus, the testimony of P.W.2 Aslam is not supported by Ext.Ka-1, regarding his sitting on the slab at the time of incident.P.W.1 in his cross-examination has also stated that at the time of incident there was less darkness.In that situation being at a place situated at a distance of 200 yards, it would not be possible to see the incident.As such P.W.2 Aslam is also not an eye witness of the incident.17. P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique has been produced by the prosecution as eye witness of the incident, who has stated that he was sitting on the slab on the side of the Pradhan, whose name he does not know; at that time Aslam, he and one more person were sitting, whose name he is not able to remember.Akram had come to take his wage from the Pradhan, Laeeque @ Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof also came there.Laeeque @ Dharmanga started abusing and catching the deceased Akram stabbed him in his right side of the chest.They rushed to rescue him but the accused persons fled away.As per his statement, he was sitting on a slab in front of house of a person situated on the side of the house of Pradhan and the place of incident is not in front of house of Pradhan.He has also stated that the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife on the right side of the chest, whereas according to statement of P.W.1 Shamshuddin and P.W.2 Aslam as well as post mortem report, Ex.Ka-2, the injury to the deceased was caused on the left side of the chest.As per statement of P.W.2 Aslam, apart from him P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique and several persons were sitting on the slab whereas as per P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique, alongwith him only P.W.2 Aslam and one other person were sitting on the slab.Thus, on the point of number of persons sitting on the slab at the time of the incident, evidence of P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique, the alleged eye witnesses is contradictory.On points of sitting place of witnesses, place of incident and seat of injury to the deceased, statement of P.W.1 Shamshuddin, P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are contradictory to each other.All contradictions indicate that this witness is also not an eye witness of the incident that is why the above contradictory statements have been made.As per statement of P.W.1 Shamshuddin and P.W.2 Aslam incident occurred in front of the house of Babboo Pradhan.P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh, I.O., in his cross-examination has stated that at the place of incident there is no house of Babboo Pradhan.In Ext.Ka-10, place of incidence has been shown by mark 'X'.Place of falling of deceased Akram is shown by mark 'B'.Around mark 'X' and mark 'B', no house of Babboo Pradhan has been shown while the spot map has been prepared by the I.O. on the pointing out of the P.W.1, Shamshuddin, the informant.Therefore, from the evidence led by the prosecution the place of incident is not proved.In the case of Syed Ibrahim vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 601, P.W.1 therein had indicated four different places to be the place of occurrence.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the place of occurrence itself has not been established, it would not be proper to accept the prosecution version.In Gautam Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P., 2019 SCC Online All 4307, as per F.I.R. the incident occurred when P.W.1 therein, his nephew P.W.4 Amit Gupta and the deceased were talking amongst themselves standing in the lane outside their house, and the deceased parted company to leave for some place where he had to go.He had reached a point in front of the house of Rajendra, bearing premises no.2/32, when the appellant arrived in an inebriated condition and after a sharp exchange of words between appellant and the deceased, the appellant stabbed him in the presence of witnesses but in his dock evidence, he stated that the appellant arrived at the entrance to the deceased's home, premises no.2/123, where after some exchange of words, the appellant stabbed the deceased.Therefore, it was held that the prosecution has not been able to formally establish the place of occurrence.In the instant case as discussed above, testimony of P.W.1, Shamshuddin, P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are not consistent with regard to sitting on the slab situated in front of house of the Babboo Pradhan, place of incident, seat of injury to the deceased, sitting of persons on the slab.According to the prosecution, apart from appellant two more persons also participated in the offence but prosecution failed to prove their participation.According to P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh, I.O., he recovered the knife used in the incidence on pointing out of the accused-appellant and prepared recovery memo Ext.He has also proved spot of recovery of knife as Ex.In cross examination he has stated that the house from which the recovery was made has three doors.One is in the North side, one is in the East side and one is in the West side.He has also stated that towards door of East there is a court-yard.According to Ex.Ka-8 as well Ex.Ka-13, spot map prepared by P.W. 9 Rampal himself, there is no door and courtyard towards East side of the house.Thus, testimony of P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh, I.O. is contradictory to spot map Ex.Ka-8 and Ex.P.W. 8 S.I. Vivek Malik also has recorded the statement of Zahoor Ahmad and Irfan, who have not supported the recovery of the knife.P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh has also stated in the cross-examination that he prepared the spot map on 15.06.2003 and proved it as Ext.While knife was recovered on 28.05.2003 and investigation was entrusted to P.W.8 S.I. Vivek Malik.In view of the above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, 504, I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act.Therefore, on conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case we find that prosecution evidence of P.W. 1 Shamshuddin and P.W.2 Aslam is inconsistent with P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique regarding place of sitting of the witnesses, place of the incident, seat of injury to the deceased and persons sitting on the slab.The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant.The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge is, therefore, not sustainable and is liable to set aside.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.Dated: 19.02.2020/-MAA/- | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
468,803 | JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.Appellants' conviction is founded on the evidence of injured complainant P.W. 2 Laxman, his wife P.W. 1 Angana Bai which was found corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.11 Dr. R.S. Shrivastava and P.W. 12 Dr. P.K. Shrivastava.Injured complainant P.W. 2 Laxman has categorically deposed that on the fateful night, his real brothers the two accused persons, came to his house and entered into a dialogue with him over partition, between them.It is further in his evidence that during this altercation accused Ganjan assaulted him by means of an 'axe' and accused Lachhi by means of a 'lathi'.He stood firm in his cross-examination and his evidence could not be shaken at all.There is no earthly reason for this witness to implicate his two real brothers falsely in this case.P.W. 1 Angana Bai, deposing in line with the evidence of her husband P.W. 2 Laxman, stated that in.the night of the incident, on hearing the cries of her husband she reached there and found accused Ganjan and Lachhi dealing blows on her husband Laxman by means of axe and lathi respectively.Nothing substantial could be elicited by the defence in her cross-examination which may render her evidence unworthy of credence.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 Angana Bai and P.W. 2 Laxman, this Court is satisfied that they are truthful witnesses and their evidence can safely be acted upon.The ocular evidence of P.W. 1 Angana Bai and P.W. 2 Laxman stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. R.S. Shrivastava and P.W. 12 Dr. P.K. Shrivastava, who on medical examination found three incised wounds, one lacerated wound and an abrasion on the person of injured complainant Laxman.On the above re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of injured complainant P.W. 2 Laxman and his wife P.W. 1 Angana Bai and the medical evidence in holding the accused appellants guilty of causing injuries on injured complainant Laxman by means of an 'axe' and 'lathi'.The appellants' conviction under Sections 307 and 307 read with 34, IPC respectively, therefore, does not call for interference in this appeal.The sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, awarded by the Trial Court, in the fact situation of the present case, also do not call for any interference.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, filed by appellants Ganjan and Lachhi against their conviction and sentences, fails and is hereby dismissed in toto.The conviction of appellants Ganjan and Lachhi under Sections 307 and 307 read with34, IPC respectively and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-each are hereby affirmed. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,881,625 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 67 of 2019 (Smt Rajesh Vs.Ramesh Lodhi), under Sections 354Kha, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1) (D) and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C/ST Act P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Lalitpur.As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 1.3.2018 at about 8.00, when the O.P. No.2 was returning back to her home, the applicant caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty and on alarm being raised, the applicant abused with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her in public view.P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is therefore refused.However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
468,901 | The motive centres round the deceased's young wife Eangaru Ammal P. W. 2, now aged 18 whom he is said to have married when over 40 when she was only about nine years old.This girl came from a poor family of Paravoi.The 2nd accused is her elder brother.She grew into an attractive young woman and like the precious metal after which she was named, she was according to the prosecution case destined to lure men to murder and destruction.She joined her husband, who lived in Vedakkalur about six miles from Paravoi, about 3 or 4 years ago.It was not long before she and the 1st accused aged 30, a married man with two children, who owned a cattle shed near the deceased's house became enamoured of each other.There is plenty of evidence including that of Bangaru Ammal herself as P. W. 2 to show that they were on terms of illicit intimacy in which Sellappa Reddiar ultimately acquiesced and he was at the time of the offence on terms of ostensible friendship with the first accused.The deceased appeared content so long as his wife stayed in his house, but about three months prior to the offence, she went to her mother's house at Paravoi where very soon she struck up illicit intimacy with one Sivalinga Padayachi (P. W. 3) a friend of her brother, the 2nd accused.There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 9 that deceased told him Jie wanted to cancel the settlement deed and asked P. W. 9 for a letter to his advocate at Ariyalur.It was while the deceased was on his way to Ariyalur accompanied by the 1st accused to instruct an advocate that he was, according to the prosecution case, killed.Paravoi is six miles from Vedakkalur and about 11 miles from Ariyalur.The route from Paravoi is by a pathway between 4 and 5 miles long which joins the main Perambalur-Ariyalur road.There is, in the first place, ample evidence to show that deceased locked up his house at Vadakkalur on Thursday the 16th of May, handed over the key to a Muslim woman, P. W. 8 and left the village along with the 1st accused, his wife and two children in a bullock cart.JUDGMENT Mack, J.The two appellants, who incidentally bear the same name, have been found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. of the murder of Sellappa Reddiar, an elderly man in the early hours of the 17th of May 1951 on a pathway leading from Paravoi village to Ariyalur, the nearest centre with a District Munsifs court and regular lawyers.They left Paravoi together in the early hours of the 17th of August when about 11/2 miles from Paravoi, the 2nd accused with implements for murder and burial by prior arrangement with the 1st accused came on the scene.Sellappa Reddiar was killed on the pathway and then buried about half a furlong away.It was not till the 24th of May seven days later that his body was dug up.Though she herself deposed that P. W. 3 was only a friend, P. W. 3 himself admitted intimacy with this young woman.So we have instead of the usual triangle, a quadrangle of a foolish old husband, a very young and attractive wife and two of her paramours.The immediate motive so far as the 2nd accused is concerned relates to property.Sellappa Reddiar had settled on Bangaru Ammal a house and some land.The deed has not been filed.Incensed at her leaving him, he sold 21/2 cents of this land under Ex. P. 1 dated 7-5-51 to P. W. 9, who has also deposed to strained relations between the deceased and his young wife for about two years, and her periodic absence at Paravoi, where the 1st accused used to visit her.P. W. 8 understood that they were both going to Ariyalur.The deceased did not return again and after the corpse was found, she handed over the key to the village Magistrate.P. W. 1 who is married to the deceased's brother's daughter, is the only male relation of this lonely old roan examined as a witness.There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence and also that of another Reddiar, P. W. 18, that the deceased left Vadakkalur in the company of the 1st accused.It was not till the 22nd of August that some persons hunting hare including P. W. 11 saw a human leg protruding from the ground with crows and kites all round it.P. W. 12 took, information to the village Magistrate of Varagannur, P. W. 13, who sent reports Exs.P. 10 and P. 11 to the authorities.When he went to the scene, he saw no sign of any protruding leg bone and at the place pointed out by P. W. 12 there was earth thrown over and stones placed.This evidence suggests that an interested culprit in the vicinity had tried to repair the ravages of birds of prey.Another report Ex. P. 13 by the village Magistrate of Paravoi P. W. 14, who inspected the scene at 9 a.m. on a Vetti's report, was also despatched at 11 a.m. and reached the Valikondapuram police station 10 miles from the scene of offence at 5-15 p.m. A constable there P. W- 16 registered a death report and went that night to the scene of burial and claims to have guarded the spot with village menials.The whole of the face was eaten away.On the right ear, which was present, was a ear-ring set with a red stone, M. O. I. In the pit was found one sandal (M. O. 3).Post-mortem examination by the doctor held on the spot disclosed two lacerated wounds each 11/2" long and 2" deep in the region of the right thigh, fracture of no less than 6 ribs and fracture of the lower and upper jaws.There was also what is described as a transverse cut over the middle of the thyroid cartilage which was hanging down.There can be no doubt that the deceased died in consequence of a violent and murderous attack by both sharp and blunt weapons.The corpse was identified by P. W. 1 and also by Bangaru Animal P. W. 2 herself as that of the deceased Sellappa Reddiar.Although the body was not identifiable and it has been urged that M. Os. 1, 2 and 3 do not conclusively establish its identity we are quite satisfied on the cumulative evidence in the case that this was the body of Sellappa Reddiar.After that he moved with the Panchayatdars to Paravoi village and continued the examination of the witnesses in the chavadi from 3 p.m. until he closed the inquest at midnight.He recorded from the 2nd accused, who was produced before him a confession Ex. P. 6 inter alia to the effect that he had buried two weeding instruments and a sandal in his field.M. O. 7, has a blood stain on it; proved on chemical analysis to be human blood.The learned Sessions Judge held that Exs.P. 5 and P. 6 were admissible in evidence.The Sub Magistrate, Sri R. W. Michael was not empowered under Section 164 Crl.P. C. to record confessions, though he was empowered to hold inquests.The admissibility in evidence of Exs.Quito apart from the confessions Exs.P. 5 and P. 6 there is, therefore, a good deal of evidence both against accused 1 and 2 to prove their participation in this murder.Accused I's total denial of all the evidence against him and his taking refuge in the unproved assertion that he never left Vadakkalur at all in the company of the deceased reinforces the prosecution case, once the evidence of accused 1's own relations P. Ws. 4 and 5 is accepted.We have no hesitation in finding on the abundant evidence in this case that accused 1 and 2 jointly murdered the deceased and disposed of his body.The learned Sessions Judge has seen fit to pass on the two accused the lesser punishment for a rather curious reason which cannot have the seal of our approval viz., that as there were no eye-witnesses to the actual murder, it was not certain from the evidence as to who dealt the fatal blows and played the leading role. | ['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
468,926 | The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows.The deceased Prabha Kumari, aged 20 years, at the time of her death on 21-3-1987, is a native of Rajasthan.Her parents had moved over to Hassan in Karnataka State and were doing business there.She was their eldest daughter.She was married to the 5th respondent herein on 14-12-1985 at Rajasthan.Respondents3 to 5 reside in Kancheepuram, wherein the deceased also took up her residence.Even prior to the marriage, there had been demand for dowry, jewels, silver vessels, and in addition articles like Fridge, Television etc. An agreement had been arrived at regarding the above demands and finally the marriage had been celebrated.After the marriage, respondents 3 to 5 persisted in demanding additional cash and other items of jewellery.The parents of the deceased satisfied the demands to the extent to which it was possible for them.On that score, the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by respondents 3 to 5, and had been forced to deliver her first child in the house of respondents 3 to 5, quite contrary to the custom of their community to have the delivery in the house of the parents.Harassment had continued and finally on 21-3-1987, she died.According to the petitioner, who was in Bangalore, news about the death was conveyed by their distant relatives to the parents of the deceased and in turn to the petitioner.They were told that the death was due to massive heart attack.On reaching Kancheepuram they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.The petitioner and the parents of the deceased were not satisfied with the explanation, since the mother of the deceased found injuries on the body of the deceased.However, their attempts to have the body subjected to post-mortem failed and since they were handicapped in not knowing the regional language 'Tamil' and since they felt helpless being in an alien state, they could not prevent the body from being cremated.On 25-3-1987, the father of the deceased gave two telegrams, one to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and another to the Home Secretary of India, New Delhi alleging that the death of her daughter was not due to suicide, but it was a suspected dowry death and the police were in connivance with the in-laws and had avoided post mortem and that immediate action was prayed for.Finding that no action was taken, on 28-3-1987 the father of the deceased sent petitions to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu at Madras, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu Dist.the Chief Minister of Karnataka, the Collector of Chengalpattu Dist., the Home Minister of India, New Delhi and the Minister of State for Home, New Delhi.The petitions to all the above authorities have been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the photostat copies of the acknowledgments have been produced in court.In the petition, the father of the deceased had stated that even the news of the death had not been initially conveyed to them by respondents 3 and 4 and that the police were also present in the house at the time when they went there, that there were injuries on the body of the deceased which was cremated abruptly.It was further alleged that the deceased had died due to homicidal violence and necessary action was requested.Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court on 3-4-1987 with the present petition.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Thiru V. Gopinathan, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 were heard.It is seen that even though in the telegram sent on 25-3-1987, it is mentioned that it was not suicide but was suspected dowry death and in the petitions sent on 28-3-1987, it had been specifically mentioned that the deceased had been done to death due to dowry harassment and that the police were in active connivance with respondents 3 to 5, yet, we find that no action had been taken either on the telegram or on the petitions.Postal acknowledgments show that the petitions have been received by the respective addressees.The present petition has been filed in court on 3-4-1987 and notice had been ordered to be sent to respondents 3 to 5 and to the learned Public Prosecutor on 3-4-1987 itself.The case, viz,, Cr.No. 294/84 has been registered on a complaint from the father of the deceased only on 20-4-1987, for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. Investigation so far done would show that initially it was made to appear as if the death was due to heart attack.In fact, one Dr. K.V. Subramanian, who is running a Private Dispensary, has stated that about four days after the death of the deceased, the brother of the third respondent came and told him that the deceased had died due to heart attack and a certificate to the above effect was necessary in order to make an entry in the Register of Deaths in the Municipal office at Kancheepuram, that he had never treated the deceased and that he did not see her at any time, either during her lifetime or after the death.Neighbours examined during investigation also say that on the day of the occurrence, they heard a big hue and cry inside the house of the deceased and on rushing inside they found that the deceased was found hanging from the pole of a ceiling fan and the body was brought down and she was found dead.Investigation reveals, that the deceased did not die of heart attack, as alleged initially.Though the present case has been registered for an offence under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. and the present investigation indicates that it could be a case of suicide, the statements of the petitioner and the parents of the deceased to the Investigating Officer, are to the effect that at the time when the body was bathed before cremation, the mother of the deceased saw certain contusions and blood clots on the chest, right arm shoulder, near the ear, chin and on the throat.The relatives of the deceased are positive that whatever the harassment might have done, the deceased, who had recently delivered a child, and had the suckling child, would never have decided to end her life.These would be matters which would require further probe.It is quite obvious that the local police have been in the picture right from the beginning.Even in the telegram given on 25-3-1987, it is stated that with police connivance post mortem was avoided, and in the petitions sent on 28-3-1987, it is mentioned that the police were in the scene house when the parents of the deceased went.In fact, all the neighbours examined during the present investigation have stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Police came to the scene house that evening itself.There is also the evidence that Constables were posted at the scene house that night to provide bundobust.One witness, Mohanlal, hasstated that on the next morning at 7.30 a.m. they met the Sub-Inspector in his residence and instructions were given that the body could be buried if the parents of the deceased did not object to the same.A case, therefore, under Section 174, Cr.P.C. ought to have been registered even on 21-3-1987, the inquest held and the body sent for post-mortem.The above requirements are mandatory and have to be carried out without reference to the wishes of the parties concerned.The failure to register a case immediately, at least under Section 174, Cr.P.C. initially the failure to hold inquest, the failure to have the body subjected to post-mortem to find out the real cause of death and the failure to register a case at least later, when several petitions had been sent to different authorities, are all lapses which any amount of investigation hereafter done, even by the best of investigation agencies, would not adequately compensate. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
468,943 | M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 1 of 8The facts necessary to decide this petition are that the office of DGCEI had received information about large scale evasion of excise duty by M/s. Vinay Wires and Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., Unit-I & II at Rania, Kanpur Dehat and other related establishments.The officers of DGCEI, R.K. Puram conducted search of the residential premises of Directors and business/factory premises of the company in June, 2009 and found that company was involved in manufacturing of Poly film, CPP film and Flexible printed laminated rolls and pouches and found that Company, in order to evade payment of excise duty, was using parallel invoices on which finished goods were cleared clandestinely and these invoices were not reflected in their business accounts ultimately.The officers also found various incriminating documents, pen drive and found that the raw material and finished goods did not match with the stock reflected in the books.The two active Directors of the aforesaid Company were Brijesh Kanodia and Vinay Kanodia.Search of premises of one Siddharth Dixit, their marketing agent resulted into seizure of pen drive showing incriminating data reflecting that the finished goods had been sold without payment of excise duty of approximately ` 5.00 crore.After collection of entire evidence from the premises, summons were sent to the Directors and the employees of the Company for recording their statements and seeking information.Despite service of summons, Directors and employees did not appear.Second summons were sent to the Directors and employees by post as well as by fax, still no one appeared.By the time third summons were sent by post, the Company disconnected its fax, so no summons could be sent through fax.The summons sent by post were received by the Accountant, who later on sent back the summons stating that she could not contact the Directors.However, in October, 2009, Brijesh Kanodia, one of the Directors and C.N. Malviya, Manager filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Crl.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.Accused/respondent Vinay Kanodia filed a complaint before learned ACMM on 20th November, 2009 wherein he alleged commission of offences under Section 341/348/308/324/326/191/192/193/196/ 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners.This complaint was filed by him through his father Hanuman Prasad Kanodia.During this illegal detention he was put to physical and mental torture.He made allegations of recording his statement under coercion.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 3 of 8 concerned S.P./S.S.P. It has alleged that due to this complaint, the officers of DGCEI illegally picked him up on 10th November, 2009 from Balaji Delux Hotel, Paharganj, New Delhi and he was forcibly taken to the office of DGCEI and wrongly confined there from 12.00 midnight on 10th November, 2009 till 1.30 pm on 11th November, 2009 and thereafter his arrest was shown.The purpose of wrongly confining the complainant was to harass and torture the complainant because of the complaint filed by him with National Human Rights Commission.Their medical examination was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital.It is submitted that from the MLC it was clear that they had been beaten.P.C. as he considered that the act of forcibly taking the petitioners from Hotel to R.K. Puram office and using force and confinement in R.K. Puram, without showing arrest, and causing injuries were not covered within the duties of the DGCEI officers.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 4 of 8According to complainant the incident of forcibly taking the accused from his Hotel had taken place at Paharganj and the offence of wrongful confinement had allegedly taken place at R.K. Puram.The complaint was not filed either before the MM of Paharganj Police Station or before R.K. Puram Police Station.In the complaint, P.S. DGCEI is shown.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 8 of 8By this petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 1st December, 2009 of learned ACMM taking cognizance of the offence under Section 323/348/365/368/506 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC on a complaint made by the respondent and summoning the petitioner and other officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (henceforth referred to as "DGCEI" for short) to face prosecution and trial of the said offences.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 1 of 8M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 2 of 8 Court for quashing of summons and stay of arrest making allegations of torture, illegal confinement, beatings and forcible recording of statements etc. The Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 12th October, 2009 dismissed the writ petitions holding that it was well within the scope of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act to issue summons to the Directors and other employees and ask them to make statements concerning the inquiry.Despite the dismissal of the writ petitions, none of the Directors thought it proper to appear before the officers of DGCEI and they absconded.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.Writ Petitions before the Allahabad High Court were dismissed.Thereafter, it was incumbent upon the respondent/complainant to comply with the summons.Section 13 of the Central Excise Act gives power to Central Excise officers to arrest any person.The provisions of Central Excise Act also give sufficient power to Central Excise Officer to make inquiries and record submissions.If a person was evading summons and instead of staying at home was hiding himself in a hotel, the Central Excise Officers had a ground to presume that the man may resist arrest and in order to arrest him if he had taken a team of officers, he is not acting beyond the scope of his duties.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 6 of 8The evidence led before the ACMM by the hotel staff and the complainant himself shows that the respondent was taken from lobby to his room and then along with his belongings from room to outside the hotel.Even if it is presumed that a slap Crl.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 7 of 8 was given, that cannot be considered use of excess force for arresting a person or for detaining a person.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl.M.C. 4232 of 2009 Page 7 of 8I also consider that the action of the officers in taking the respondent from hotel to the office for inquiry and thereafter arresting him after the inquiry were within the scope of duties and the officers enjoyed protection of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and it cannot be said that their act was not done in good faith merely on the complaint of the complainant and at the most they could be charged under Section 20 of Central Excise Act, by the Court where trial of excise case was going on.It is observed that learned ACMM had acted illegally in entertaining complaint under provisions of IPC and instead he should have been taken action only under Section 20 of Central Excise Act in view of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and in any case, if he had to take cognizance of the offences under IPC, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was must.The petition is allowed.The order dated 1st December 2009 is hereby set aside.M.C. 4308 of 2009 and Crl. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
468,984 | JUDGMENT Shiv Dayal, J.This is an appeal on special leave under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code.The appellant is Karta of a joint Hindu family which carries on business of manufacturing and selling bidis in bundles.Every bidi bundle is wrapped in tissue paper called 'Jhilli'.Over the above Jhilli a label is pasted which bears the figure of a flower and the name "Taza Phool".The accused also is a manufacturer and dealer of bidis.He trades in the name and style of "Shafi Bidi Co." His bidis are also wrapped in tissue paper (Jhilli) with a label pasted over it.The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent under Sections 482, 483 and 486 of the Penal Code.He alleged that his bidis are very popular and are in great demand by the smokers of all classes.Looking to the great demand of Taza Phool bidis manufactured by the complainant-firm the accused of late started using a label "Tai Phool", counterfeiting the trade-mark of the complainant-firm with the intention to practice deception upon the purchasers.The figure of flower on the label used by the accused fully resembles the one appearing on the label used by the complainantThe accused admits that he is using that label but denies that it resembles the label used by the complainant.The learned trial magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused had intentionally used the label "Tai Phool" which is imitation of the trade mark of the complainant and it was used in such a manner as to be mistaken for the trade mark of the complainant "Taza Phool" Accordingly, he held the accused guilty under Section 482, Penal Code, but while awarding sentence, he took into account the fact that some other persons were also using similar labels and the complainant had been sleeping over his rights for several years.Accordingly, he sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default, to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.He further awarded Rs. 200/- as compensation to the complainant cut of the fine, if recoveredThe respondent appealed against his conviction.The learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, set aside the conviction on the more ground that in consequence of the enactment of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the consequent amendment of Section 482, Penal Code, using a false trade mark is no more an offence punishable under Section 482, Penal Code; and, it was not the complainant's case that the accused used a false property mark.Distinction between trade mark and property mark was emphasized.The learned Sessions Judge also laid stress on the fact that the accused produced several bidi labels and he was further of the view that the label used by the accused is quite distinguishable from that used by the complainant.He pointed out two points of distinction (1) The complainant's label bears his name on upper part of it in English as "Har Prashad Shiv Prashad Bhopal", and on the lower part of it as "Bhopal Har Prashad Shiv Prashad" in Hindi On the label used by the accused, the words written are "Laxmi Talkies Road, Bhopal" (in English) at the top, and "Shafi Bidi Company" (in English) at the bottom. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,409 | Madhav Charchari P. W. 1 was the conductor of that bus, Gunadhar Khamroy P. W. 3 was the helper of that bus, Gojri Hari Bera P. W. 2 was the chacker of the bus, and Niranjan Pramanik was the driver.The bus "Pus-paratha" left Ghatal at 7.30 P. M. with several passengers in it besides the driver, conductor, helper and checker above named.In course of the journey the bus reached a midway point in village Goura at about 8-30 P. M. to drop some passengers of the bus and also to pick up some passengers at that station.The bus-stand at Goura is in front of a shop of which the accused Nalini Manna is the proprietor.While taking down some luggages from the top of the bus a bundle of Shal leaves accidentally fell in the conductor Madhav.Madhav expressed his annoyance by uttering some abuses against the helper Gunadhar who, Madhav thought, was responsible for dropping the Shal leaves although it was the passenger to whom the Shal leaves belonged who had in fact been responsible for dropping the load of Shal leaves.That passenger thought that the abuses uttered by Madhav were directed to him and a quarrel ensued.In that quarrel accused Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi and several other persons intervened and assaulted the conductor and the helper of the bus after restraining the bus with its passengers from proceeding towards its destination.Besides the accused persons some members of the public intervened at that stage and the bus started to move.When the bus had gone only a few yards the accused persons chased the bus in a motor-car and made the bus to stop by obstructing its way by putting that motor-car in front of the bus and prevented, it from proceeding on the way with the several passengers that were in it.Prosecution alleges that at this stage also the conducor was again assaulted and some damages was done to the bus itself by the accused persons.ORDER Amaresh Roy, J.This Rule is directed against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge' of Midnapore acquitting the two opposite parties who had been convicted by the trial Magistrate of offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under that section.In the trial Court there were five accused persons Including the present opposite parties.The common charge against all of them was one under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.In addition to that charge, the opposite parties Nalini Manna and Kallpada Kulavi and another person named Sudhangsu Das had also been charged for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and another accused Monoranjan Kulavi was charged under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code.The teamed Magistrate acquitted all the accused persona of the charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.He also acquitted Sudhangsu Das, Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Monoranjan Kulavi of the charge under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code, but he convicted Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi of the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.On appeal that conviction passed against Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi has been set aside.Against that appellate order the de facto complainant Madhav Chandra Charehari moved this Court and the present Rule issued.Prosecution case briefly is that on 21st of May, 1962 a motor-bus No. W G B 1414 that has been given a name "Pusparath" was on its journey on Ghatal-Panskura route in the district of Midnapore with several passengers in it.Only when the passengers in the bus showed their resentment at being Wrongfully restrained that way from proceeding in the way they had a right to proceed, that the bus was allowed to continue its journey.The bus reached its destination at Ghatal that night and on the next day, that is, the 22nd of May, 1962 at 11 A.M. an information was lodged in the Daspur Police Station which is 7 miles south from the place of occurrence alleging therein all the details of the alleged incident and naming the, accused persons by mention of the particular acts alleged against each of them.On these allegations the five accused persons were charged by the learned Magistrate as mentioned above.The charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code was framed in these terms:"That you on or about same day at Goura P. S. Daspur wrongfully restrained bus No. bus No. 1414 (Pusparath) from proceeding from Goura towards its destination and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec, 341 of the Indian Penal Code........"it may be mentioned that in the charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code the common object was also mentioned as "restraining bus No. WGB 1414 (Pusparath)".All the accused persons including the two opposite parties pleaded not guilty to all the charges.They did not deny that there was an incident at the time and place alleged by prosecution when this particular motor-bus was plying along Ghatal -- Panskura route with several passengers in it.Defence contended that over the incident of Shal leaves being dropped on the conductor, the passenger, who himself was taking down the Shal leaves, was abusad in filthy terms that led to an altercation between the conductor on one side and the passengers of the bus on the other.Nalini Manna who is a rich businessman of some position and influence in that village Goura intervened to settle the matter.He asked the conductor to apologise to the passenger which the conductor did.When the bus started from Goura the conductor who had felt insulted at being compelled to apologise was uttering invectives against Nalini Manna. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,411,506 | Heard on bail application.Case has been perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.As per prosecution case, initially the incident has occurred on 22-07-2014 when Lal Singh was abused, assaulted and threatened by present applicant, Foolan, Rinku and other co- accused persons.Quarrel took place on the issue of construction of partition wall.Thereafter, another round of quarrel take place on 24-07-2014 and because of that Lal Singh has committed suicide by hanging himself.Prayer for anticipatory bail was made on the ground that in absence of any ingredients in regard to offence punishable under 306 of IPC, applicant deserves to enlarged on anticipatory bail.2 M.Cr.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,415,492 | Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record has been received.Also heard on IA No.256/2020 which is second application under Section 389 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Shankarlal S/o Nagu who has been convicted by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 in Session Trial No.2400120/2011 and sentenced him as under:-In the aforesaid sale deed, the witnesses present were appellant-Shankarlal and Girendra Dave.Girendra Dave very well knew that Bhagwati Prasad had expired and knowing so, he had induced one Nandlal as Bhagwati Prasad and got the registered sale deed executed in favour of Ramkanyabai who is the wife of present appellant-Shankarlal.After the death of Ramkanyabai, the appellant-Shankarlal had sold the same land to one Anita.After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as described above.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-Shankarlal did not know Bhagwati Prasad and it was infact the witness namely; Girendra Dave who knew Bhagwati Prasad as per complainant's own statement.On these ground, suspension has been sought.Learned public prosecutor for the State has pointed out that identification of Bhagwati Prasad was made not only by Girendra Dave but also by appellant-Shankarlal as the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8762 OF 2019 (Shankarlal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) signatures of appellant identifying Bhagwati Prasad are from 'g to g' part on the backside of stamp-paper which contains the averments made regarding the execution of sale deed.It has further been stated that appellant-Shankarlal was instrumental in getting the registered sale deed in favour of his own wife-Ramkanyabai and a conspiracy is evident from the aforesaid.Submissions were heard.Original record was perused.Accordingly, application-IA No.256/2020 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail stands rejected.Be listed for final hearing in due course.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2020.02.18 09:44:27 +05'30' | ['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
5,441,673 | Record of the Court below has been received.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.Appellant No.1 stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulation in each.The ward boy of Medical Hospital Jabalpur registered the written tehrir regarding the death of deceased Parwati Choudhary due to burn injuries and during the course of treatment she died, Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 24/04/2019 10:46:09 2 CRA-560-2019 the concern police registered the case and arrested the appellant No.1 and other co-accused person and sent them to judicial custody, after completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court.Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the appellant No.1 is in jail since 21.03.2018 till now.There are fair chances to succeed in the case.Final hearing of this appeal will take time.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant No.1 may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the a ppe lla nt No.1-Kamlesh Choudhary s h a ll remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 16.09.2019 Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 24/04/2019 10:46:09 3 CRA-560-2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List this matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 24/04/2019 10:46:09 | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,420,774 | The few facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows :At the time of marriage the accused was employed in defence and misunderstanding arose between the parties within few days from the date of marriage and Panchayat was admittedly held on more than one occasion and on both the occasions the wife having condoned the acts of the husband, agreed to join her husband and lived with the husband in the matrimonial house.The first panchayat was held during 2005 and the spouses started living together for some time, thereafter, she was driven to her parents house.In pursuance of the same, she was taken back to her matrimonial house.But her husband and in-laws did not talk to her and did not provide her food and they used to shout at and harass her cruelly and the husband with an intention to kill her, pulled her hair and pushed her against the wall at 5.30am on 29.03.2006 and he repeatedly fisted her against her chest and her face and kicked her on her stomach and when she started shouting, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law came and closed her mouth with cloth to prevent her from shouting and her mother-in-law and brother-in-law held her hands and the husband assaulted her and caused her burn injuries and she was threatened not to disclose it failing which to do away with her.The complainant further proceeds as if her brother/Selvakumar came to her house and she informed him and went along with him to his parents house and the parents were informed about the same and she was brought to the police station along with her parents on 02.04.2006 and the complaint, was registered as FIR in Polur, All Women Police Station Cr.The husband is the petitioner herein.The petitioner herein, who is one of the accused in C.C.No.880 of 2006 and who is the sole appellant in Crl.A.No.12 of 2009, is the petitioner herein.No.3 of 2006 for the offences under Section 498(A), 406, 342, 506(ii) r/w.109 IPC against the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and the same was investigated into and culminated as CC.No.880 of 2006 for the offences under Section 498(A), 406, 342, 324, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC.The prosecution in order to prove the guilty of the accused for the offences referred to above examined the petitioner and his family members, wife and her parents, brother and other witnesses and panchayatars and other witnesses and the Doctor who treated her for the injuries and the police officials as PW1 to PW13 and produced complaint, marriage invitation, observation mahazar and wound certificate as Ex.P1 and Ex.P7, besides MO1/Kinfe.On the defence side, three documents were marked as Exs.The Trial Court on the basis of the available evidence acquitted A2 and A3/in-laws and convicted the husband only for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and acquitted the husband in respect of other charges.The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court against the husband.Hence, this criminal revision by the husband before this Court.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.Whereas the particulars mentioned in Ex.The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would, by relying on the particulars mentioned in the FIR and the accident register seriously argue that had the wife been taken to the hospital by police memo on 01.04.2006 for the injuries caused to her at 5.00am on 26.03.2006 by known person, the allegation raised herein as if the date of the occurrence was on 29.03.2006 and the complaint was given on 02.04.2006 could not be true.If that is so, neither the husband nor his family members could not be responsible for the injuries sustained by her at 5.00am on 26.03.2006 on the previous day (26.03.2006) at her residence.In that event, Ex.P1/statement dated 02.04.2006 which is received much after the investigation or in the course of investigation, losses its character, as the FIR and it only assumes the character of Section 161 Cr.PC statement and the entire prosecution case based on such statement is bad in law and the same vitiates the entire proceedings as well as the findings rendered based on the same.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the discussion held by the trial Court wherein the trial Court rejected the prosecution case regarding the occurrence on 29.03.2006 to be highly doubtful.The Trial Court having proceeded in the right direction up to one stage, mis-directed itself which led to erroneous judgment of conviction against the husband for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and the same was simply confirmed by the lower appellate Court.The lower appellate Court being the fact finding authority and the appeal being continuation of the trial ought to have analysed the entire evidence and ought to have decided the correctness of the findings rendered by the trial Court in the light of evidence available.The dismissal of the appeal filed by the husband by the lower appellate Court would only compel this Court to draw an adverse remark that the lower appellate Court has simply confirmed the findings of the trial Court without even looking at the evidence and such course adopted by the lower appellate Court is seriously viewed and deprecated.The petitioner/accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.1.The Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Polur.3.The Sub Inspector Police, All Women Police Station, Polur. | ['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
544,221 | The facts are as follows: The Appallant Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharjee is an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Government of India.In other cases, it can be made and can operate only as respects that portion of the period which commences at its own date and lies after it.In my reading of Rule 2, its framers took the same view.According to the Rule, in regard to the pay and allowances of an employee suspended under its provisions, the provisions of Rule 1 (called 'Para. 1') shall apply.Rule 1 debars a suspended employee from drawing, during the period of his suspension, any pay and allowances other than a subsistence allowance permissible under the Civil Service Regulations.Under Articles.JUDGMENT Chakravartti, C.J.The only question debated in this appeal is whether the Central Government has power to suspend one of its employees, belonging to a subordinate service, with effect from a prior date.By the judgment appealed from, Bose, J. answered that question in the affirmative.In September, 1950, he was holding the post of Sub-Post-Master of the Mission Row Post Office, situated at p-13, Mission Bow in the town of Calcutta.Following his arrest, he was placed under suspension by a letter, dated 5-9-1950, with effect from the 2nd September preceding when he had been arrested.His suspension, however, continued.On 16-1-1951, he was re-summoned by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the same charges as previously laid and therealter by a Notification of the West Bengal Government, dated 1-2-1951, the case against him was allotted to the Court of a Special Judge.The Appellant then moved this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India against the continuance of his suspension under the order of 5-9-1950 and by an order, dated 13-3-1952, Bose, J. directed the respondents in that case to "forbear from giving effect to the order of suspension, dated 5-9-1950 or keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of that order." The respondents were the Union of India and the Superintendent of Post Offices, South Calcutta Division.The order was made on the basis that as scon as the Appellant was discharged on 13-10-1950, the order of suspension, passed on 5-9-1950, had spent its force.The Appellant was not, however, re-instated forthwith, nor was any fresh order of suspension then passed.On 4-4-1952, a Special Bench, of this Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the Appellant before the Special Judge and directed him to be re-tried in accordance with law.That order was made on the ground that the Act under which the case was being tried by the Special Judge was, as regards its material provisions, void.Thereafter, on 29-4-1952, two separate Memoranda, bearing the same number, were issued to the Appellant over the signature of the Respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, South Calcutta Division.By the second order, he was placed under suspension with effect from 16-1-1951, pending investigation into his conduct.The present appeal is concerned with the validity of the latter order, so far as it covers the period between 16-1-1951 and 28-4-1952, both inclusive.Two of them were subsequently corrected by two memoranda, dated 9-5-1952, but the third, a curious one, remains.If he was to be suspended again with effect from any subsequent date, he could be suspended only in the capacity and under the description of such clerk.Yet, the second order of 29-4-1952, purported to suspend him with effect from 16-1-1951, as "Sub Post Master, Mission Row P. O., Calcutta.Bose, J. who issued the Rule, heard it himself and after hearing the parties, discharged it.On the other two points, the learned Judge held against the Appellant and discharged the Rule, as already stated.Thereupon, the present appeal was preferred.The original order of 5-9-1950 was made with effect from the 2nd September on the basis that, on that date, the Appellant had been placed under arrest on charges of criminal offences and the case was still pending.On 13-10-1950, the ca'e terminated in an order of discharge.In dealing with the previous application of the Appellant, Bose, J., held on 13-3-1952, that after 13-10-1950, the first order of suspension could have no further effect, but he added that it was open to the respondents before him to place the Appellant again under suspension by a fresh order, if necessary.During that period, the Appellant was on duty and entitled to the usual salary and allowances and such status and rights could not be affected by the order passed on 29-4-1952 with retrospective effect.Certified for two Counsel.Lahiri, J. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,423,528 | Heard through Video Conferencing.(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGEJAI PRAKASH Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, SOLANKI 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce 14fcbb05b9522a, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2020.11.26 10:18:27 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,427,808 | At the time of occurrence, she was a woman aged 28 years.She was a spinster.She was working as a Home Guard in the City Armed Reserve Police.The accused was working as a police constable in the City Armed Reserve Police section.The accused was a Writer in the Station.It was his duty to allot duties for the Home Guards.Similarly, the salaries were to be disbursed only by the accused.In such a way, P.W.1 got introduced to the accused.In due course, it developed into a friendship.Later on, the accused proposed that he liked her very much and had a love for her.He further told that he would marry her provided she was agreeable for the same.He further told her that he would approach her parents in this regard and soon make arrangement to marry her.P.W.1 believed these words and she also positively responded to the said love.It is further alleged that during the year 2007, on one day, the accused wanted her to come to his house.Accordingly, she went to the house of the accused.She found that there was nobody else in the house except the accused.Thereafter, P.W.1 on one occasion had gone to Pudupalayam village and stayed at her aunt's house.From Pudupalayam, P.W.1 spoke to the accused in connection with her office work.The accused came there.At the house of her aunt, she was alone as others had gone to the temple.Soon thereafter, her aunt returned home.She enquired as to why the accused had come there to her house.P.W.1 told that he had come there in a friendly manner as the accused was a co-worker.In the year 2008, on several occasions, at her office itself, the accused and P.W.1 had sexual intercourse.On few occasions, the accused and P.W.1 went to Coimbatore, Cinnasalem, Kalakurichi and Palani were also the accused had sexual intercourse with her.P.W.1 used to visit the house of her friend by name Rani.Thereafter, the accused was assuring to marry her.Thus, P.W.1 and the accused had free sex for about four years.On 29.06.2011 the accused informed P.W.1 that he was going to marry some other girl.On hearing this, P.W.1 decided to commit suicide.She collected arali seeds and made a paste of it to consume.She informed the accused that she would consume the same.The accused did not bother.Then she consumed the paste of arali seeds, she was taken to the hospital, where she was admitted as in-patient.P.W.14 took up the case for investigation.She examined P.W.1 and few more witnesses.On 01.07.2011, she arrested the accused.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.124 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.The trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376(1) I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.The accused, using the loneliness of P.W.1, had sexual intercourse with her.Subsequently, on many occasions at her office itself, the accused and P.W.1 had sexual intercourse.In the year 2008, during Deepavali festival, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and spoke to her parents requesting them to give P.W.1 in marriage to him.But her parents rejected the said proposal because P.W.1 is a Hindu whereas the accused is a Christian by religion.On few occasions, the accused came to the house of Rani when P.W.1 alone was there and had sexual intercourse with her.On one occasion, the accused told her that if the different religion to which they belong could be a hindrance for their marriage, she could convert herself as a Christian and thereafter they could marry.P.W.1 agreed for the same.Accordingly, she along with the accused went to a Church and converted herself as a Christian.After such conversion also on two or three occasions, they had sexual intercourse.After conversion on 09.09.2008, P.W.1 changed her name as Christina, thereby indicating that she is a Christian.Due intimation was given to the police.On returning to the police station, she registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2011 under Sections 417 and 376 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.The accused as well as P.W.1 were sent for medical examination.The reports revealed that the accused was capable of performing penile sexual intercourse with a woman and P.W.1 was not a virgin and she had been subjected to sexual intercourse.The investigation was continued by P.W.15 who laid the chargesheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked.P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, she has stated that during Deepavali festival in the year 2008 the accused came and proposed to marry P.W.1, but she and her husband refused.She has further stated that P.W.1 had consumed arali seeds in an attempt to commit suicide.2.11. P.W.4 is the friend of P.W.1, she has stated that four years prior to her giving evidence, once the accused and P.W.1 came in the morning, stayed in their house and returned in the evening.P.W.5 is the aunt of P.W.1 and she has stated that in the year 2008 once when P.W.1 was at her house, the accused came to her house and when she enquired P.W.1, she told that she is going to marry the accused.2.12. P.W.6 has stated that he examined the accused and gave opinion that he was capable of performing penile sexual intercourse with a woman.P.W.7 has stated that she examined P.W.1 and gave opinion that she would have had sexual intercourse frequently.P.W.8 has stated that on examination he found that the accused must be around 34 years of age.P.W.9 has stated that on 29.06.2011, when she was on duty at the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital at Salem, P.W.1 was brought for treatment for having consumed the paste of arali seeds.P.W.10 has spoken about the complaint made by P.W.1 and the case registered on the same by her.P.W.11 has spoken about the X-ray taken on P.W.1 and the accused to ascertain their age.P.W.12 a police constable has stated that she took P.W.1 to the Doctor for medical examination.P.W.13 the Special Sub Inspector of Police has stated that he went to the hospital were P.W.1 was taking treatment.P.Ws.14 and 15 have spoken about the investigation done.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.On his side, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 was working in the Home Guard along with the accused.He has stated that P.W.1 used to bring her boyfriends to the office.She was reprimanded for the said action.He has further stated that P.W.1 used to make false complaints of sexual harassment against her superior officers.In the year 2004, she made one such complaint against one Mr.Ramesh, who was the area commander.D.W.2 is the accused himself.He denied all the allegations made against him.He has stated that P.W.1 was irregular in duty and he reprimanded her on many occasions.He has further stated that he never proposed to marry her and that he never had sexual intercourse with her.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully.6. P.W.1 has given a long narration of the sexual relationship between her and the accused, which went on for about four years.She has stated that the accused had fallen in love with her and he also went to the extent of proposing to marry her.P.W.1 was not in her tender age at that time.She was aged about 28 years.She was working as a Home Guard in a Government Department.Such a matured woman, who had allegedly free sex with the accused, cannot claim at this length of time that she was raped by the accused.The conduct of P.W.1 as narrated by herself in visiting many places, staying with the accused together at many places and having free sexual intercourse with him would all go to only prove that she was a fully consenting party for the said affair.Thus, we hold that even assuming that the evidence of P.W.1 speaks only the truth, the act of the accused would not constitute either an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. or an offence under Section 417 I.P.C.His evidence also deserves to be treated like that of the evidence of anybody else.Though, he has been cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve him.At the same time, between the evidences of P.W.1 and D.W.2, the evidence of P.W.1 needs preference because she is the prosecutrix.But, going by the evidence of D.W.1, he has stated that P.W.1 was in the habit of making such false complaint of sexual harassment against her superiors and one such complaint has been made against one Mr.Ramesh.But, unfortunately neither the said complaint nor the consequential proceedings have been summoned and proved in evidence.Therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix namely P.W.1 needs preference.As we have already pointed out, even if we accept the evidence of P.W.1, as we have already concluded, the act of the accused would not make out either an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. or Section 417 I.P.C. Though it is stated by P.W.1 that the accused had sexual intercourse with her by making a false promise of marriage, absolutely there is no acceptable evidence to this fact.The narration of facts made by P.W.1 would all go to show that she willingly had sexual intercourse with the accused on several occasions at several places.Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove either the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. or under Section 417 I.P.C. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.In the result, | ['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
54,433,847 | She further alleged that accused - Pankaj Mittal had clicked her pictures from the mobile phone and made physical relations with her under the threat of showing the same in the locality.After she became pregnant, accused deceptively got her abortion done without her consent.Initially, in her deposition before the court, she did not supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of carrying out the abortion of prosecutrix, but during her cross examination by Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, she admitted that on 30.09.2008, the couple i.e. prosecutrix and the accused - Pankaj Mittal, whom she identified in the court, had come to her nursing home and the girl informed her that she was pregnant and that she wanted to get the abortion done and thereafter abortion was conducted.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 17, 2015/rd Crl.P.124/2011 & Crl.MC 926/2011 Page 13 of 13P.124/2011 & Crl.MC 926/2011 Page 13 of 13: SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions being Crl.MC No.926/2011 and Crl.Rev. Petition No.124/2011 as both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner.First of all I shall take up Crl.MC No.926/2011 as the fate of Crl.Rev. Petition No.124/2011 depends on the finding of this petition.By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which on the application under Section Crl.P.124/2011 & Crl.MC 926/2011 Page 1 of 13 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the petitioner - Nisha Jain was arrayed as an accused.P.124/2011 & Crl.MC 926/2011 Page 1 of 13On the basis of these allegations, investigation was conducted and thereafter accused - Pankaj Mittal was charge-sheeted.Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State praying for arraying the name of the petitioner - Dr. Nisha Jain as an accused in the instant case as it was pleaded that she was head of Saroj Hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi and was also running a surgical maternity and child care centre in the name of Sunisha's Panchwati Clinic, Rohini, Delhi.Vide the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and directed the petitioner to be arrayed as an accused.This order is primarily assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds:The impugned order does not show that the petitioner had committed any crime alongwith the main accused.The petitioner only stated that she was head of Saroj Hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi and was also running a surgical maternity and child care centre in the name of Sunisha's Panchwati Clinic, Rohini, Delhi.Initially, in her deposition before the court, she did not support the case of the prosecution on the aspect of carrying out the abortion of prosecutrix, but during her cross examination by Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, she admitted that on 30.09.2008, the couple i.e. prosecutrix and the accused - Pankaj Mittal, whom she identified in the court, had come to her nursing home and the girl informed her she was pregnant and that she wanted to get the abortion done and thereafter abortion was conducted.By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which charge under Section 313/34 IPC was framed against her after she was summoned as an accused in case FIR No.65/2010 under Sections 313/385/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahendra Park, Delhi pursuant to an application under Section 319 Cr.PC moved by Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.P.124/2011 & Crl.MC 926/2011 Page 12 of 13Keeping in view the fact that order of summoning the petitioner as an accused has been set aside, consequently, the proceedings of framing of charge vide order dated 01.03.2011 cannot survive.Resultantly, this petition is also allowed and the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge charging the petitioner - Dr. Nisha Jain is set aside.Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. | ['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,624,966 | During the investigation, this court granted stay andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 therefore, the first respondent could not continue further investigation.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 3rd petitioner took place on 31.08.2007 in India.Soon after the marriage, they went to U.S.A. Prior to the marriage, 2nd respondent was working in U.S.A and was having H1B visa.The 3rd petitioner was also working in U.S.A. After the marriage and during the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child born on 16.09.2008 and due to change of circumstances, the 2nd respondent lost job and the 3rd petitioner demanded her to get a job in U.S.A or get money of 4000 US $ from her father, otherwise, he will not take her to U.S.A. and they also taken custody of the child from the mother.The defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police.The first respondent registered thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/13 Crl.During the investigation, taking note of the allegations in the complaint, FIR was registered.Aggrieved by the registration of the case in FIR in Crime No.390 of 2011 against all the accused/petitioners herein, they have filed the present Crl.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that FIR itself does not speak about the nature of commission of offence the petitioners committed and that there are no particulars given.The 2nd respondent, with the help of Police wanted to take away the child from the petitioners and that is why the complaint is filed against the petitioners.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3rd petitioner herein viz., P.K.Srikumar, husband of the 2nd respondent, subsequently filed Custody O.P., in Original Petition No.285 of 2015 before the Original side of this court, which petition along with C.S.No.129 of 2013 filed by the 3rd petitioner herein for the relief of declaration that order/Judgment passed by the superior court of California, is conclusive and binding and for consequentialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/13 Crl.A Division Bench of this court, by Common Judgment dated 25.07.2006, allowed the Original Side Appeals and custody of the minor child was handed over to the 3 rd petitioner/appellant therein.It is observed in the said judgment that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, virtually snatched the child from the 3rd petitioner herein/appellant with the help of police and further stated that the child, being citizen of USA, the Superior Court of California is having most intimating contact.The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions:_(i) PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS.STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [(2010) 7 SCC 667](ii) SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA VS.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [CDJ 2005 SC 530](iii) CHANDRALEKHA AND OTHERS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [CDJ 2012 SC 880](iv) GEETA MEHROTRA AND ANOTHER VS.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [CDJ 2012 SC 730].http://www.judis.nic.in 3/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the complaint was registered on 08.09.2011, the 1st respondent police sent the FIR to the court only on 15.05.2012, i.e., after eight (8) months, which itself shows that the police-1st respondent and 2nd respondent are hand in glove, in order to take custody of the child and they foisted a false case.Therefore, the petitioners filed the present Crl.O.P., seeking to quash the FIR in crime No.390 of 2011 registered against them.At that time, the age of the child was 13 months.Further leaving the natural guardian of the child in India, the 3rd petitioner went to USA with the child and demanded 4000 US$ from the father of the 2nd respondent or job of the 2nd respondent in U.S.A.. Since she could not get job in U.S.A, she was harassed and the petitioners took away the child and they never shown the child to the 2 nd respondent and the petitioners harassed the 2nd respondenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 mentally and physically and taken custody of the child and she having no other option except to file complaint, filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police and the police have not taken action.Therefore, the 2nd respondent herein, filed a complaint before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.5507 of 2012 against the said police officials, viz., the police who has not taken action in respect of her complaint and the said complaint is also pending.In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondents submits that the case has to be investigated and after finding out the truth, accused has to be punished and therefore, this petition for quash is liable to be rejected.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.Admittedly, 3rd petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant are the husband and wife.Their marriage took place on 31.08.2007 in India.After marriage, they left to U.S.A. and they were both working in U.S.A. During the wedlock, they were blessed with one male child.Subsequently, 2nd respondent lost job and all the petitioners came to India.According to the 2nd respondent,http://www.judis.nic.in 6/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 since she lost job, the 3rd petitioner demanded money or to get a job and unless she gets job, she cannot come to U.S.A and live with him and if she wants to stay with 3rd petitioner, she has to get 4000 US$ from her father.But the 2nd respondent’s father is not in a position to arrange for money and the 2nd respondent’s father is also an aged person.Further, the 3rdpetitioner herein had taken the child from the mother/2nd respondent and having custody of the child.According to the petitioners, they have not committed any offence and they did not harass the 2nd respondent.Only the 2nd respondent does not want to come to U.S.A and wanted to remain in India and that is the reason why she has not chosen to come to U.S.A. Since the 3rd petitioner is working in U.S.A, he wanted to take the child.He even approached U.S.A court and got custody of the child.The said order was not challenged before this court.Further, this court, vide order dated 25 July 2016 in O.S.A.Nos.249 and 250 of 2015, granted custody in favour of the 3 rd petitioner.The 3rd petitioner with the help of police, taken the child and the child is in his custody, by following the due process of law.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013Since FIR dated 08.09.2011 itself was sent to the court only after 8 1/2 months, i.e., on 15.05.2012, the same itself shows that the duty of the police to investigate and file charge sheet has not been duly followed by them, but the 1st respondent police kept the FIR itself as pending.Once a complaint is filed, it is the duty of the police to register the FIR and send the same to Court.But in this case, it is seen that the FIR has been kept pending in the police station itself and not sent to the court and thus, it is an harassment to the 2nd respondent who lodged a complaint.Even in the FIR , no details are given and it does not speak about what offence the petitioners committed.The 1st respondent police simply mentioned the names of the accused.The main reason stated in the complaint is that the accused persons taken away the child from the 2 nd respondent and there was dowry harassment.No other reason was stated in the complaint.It is for the 1st respondent to investigate the matter.The 1st respondent is the Investigating Agency and they have to investigate the matter and find out as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or not and other particulars have to be investigated and find out the truth.The settled proposition of law is that FIR is not an encyclopedia and further the complaint given by the 2nd respondent as against the petitioners herein shows that the allegations are demand of dowry and seeking to hand over the child which was taken forcibly from the natural guardian.In the considered opinion of this court, the veracity of all the above said allegations will come to light only after investigation and not at this stage.Only after due process of investigation, who has committed the offence and what sort of offence committed in the matter, will be revealed.Therefore, as to whether the petitioners herein had really demanded money and jewellery or not, whether they have really taken the child forcibly from the 2nd respondent or not, would come out only duringhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/13 Crl.Mere lack of sufficient details in the FIR, is not the reason for invoking Section 482 Cr.PC.No doubt, the complaint/FIR was registered on 08.09.2011 but the same was sent to the court only on 15.05.2012 that is they sent the FIR only after 8 ½ months.The delay in sending the FIR to the court is not a ground to quash the complaint.After investigation, the prosecution has to explain the reason for the delay and that whether the delay is explained properly or not, will be decided only during trial and not at this stage, as the case is pending for investigation.In the mean while, disputes also arisen.Now the Investigating Agency has to find out whether any harassment of dowry was in existence at the time of filing the complaint.In any event, the observations made by this court in O.S.A.Nos.249 and 250 of 2015 dated 25 July 2016, may not be a ground to quash the FIR, as the said proceedings was for the custody of the child, which has been filed as Original Petition beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 this court.P.C to quash the complaint.Therefore, this Crl.O.P.is dismissed.Therefore, by order dated 18.12.2019, this court called for FIR from the concerned court.Today, the original FIR is produced before this court.The FIR in Crime No.390 of 2011 is registered on 08.09.2011 itself by V.Shanthi Devi, Sub Inspector of Police, Anti dowry cell, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai City Police, Chennai.Registry is directed to call for the action taken report as narrated above and post the matter on 17.02.2020 for compliance.19.12.2019 Index:Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 26/12/2019 nvsrihttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/13 Crl.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 P.VELMURUGAN,J.The Section Officer, Criminal section, High Court, Madras.3.The Public Prosecutor Office, High court,MADRAS.O.P.No.3913 of 2013 19.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 13/13 | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,627,962 | Shri Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for the objector.T h e appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "SC/ST Act" ) being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Panna in Special Case No.63/2019 whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The appellant No.1 is in jail since 05.09.2019 in connection with crime No.144/2018 registered at Police Station Pawai, District-Panna for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 344, 506, 376 (2) (N), 120-B and 109 of IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 r/w Section 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST Act, whereas appellant No.2 is in jail since 05.09.2019 in connection with crime No.144/2018 registered at Police Station Pawai, District-Panna for the offences punishable under Sections 344 and 376 (2) (N) of IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST Act.The case of the prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that the appellants allured a minor girl and abducted her.Appellant Brijesh committed repeatedly rape with the prosecutrix.Father of the prosecutrix was having some inimical relations with the appellants and lodged a false report Signature Not SAN Verified against them.Statements of prosecutrix and her father have been recorded Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.08.11 13:56:41 IST 2 CRA-2097-2020 during trial, copiers of which are filed along with this petition.It is further submitted that none of the witnesses stated anything against the appellants and the trial will take considerable time for its disposal.In such circumstances, it is prayed that the appellants may be enlarged on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposes the application and submits that prosecutrix has clearly stated the act of the appellants in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements of the prosecutrix as well as her father.On perusal of whole statements of the prosecutrix, it is reflected that prosecutrix did not say anything against the appellants.She denied the leading facts.Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during trial and in the opinion of this Court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellants on bail.Certified copy as per rules.Signature Not SAN Verified (VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.08.11 13:56:41 IST 3 CRA-2097-2020 JUDGE pnm Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.08.11 13:56:41 IST | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
536,313 | This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal of the respondentspassed by Judicial Magistrate,Kangeyam.The offence alleged against theaccused is punishable under Sections 494 r/w 109, 506(i), 3 44 and 385 I.P.C.2.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: A.3,Eswari gave a complaint to the Vellakoil Police Station stating that shedeveloped relationship with P.W.3, which resulted her becoming pregnant.A.4 , Sub Inspector of Police at that time compelled P.W.3 to marry A.3and their marriage took place in the Police Station.Thereafter , themarriage was registered at the Sub Registrar office also.A private complaint was also registered and taken on file.Chargeswere framed against the four accused for the offence punishable under Sections344,385, 494 r/w 109 I.P.C.To prove the charges, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 wereexamined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked.On behalf of the accused, Subregistrar was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 was marked.The trial Court after going through the evidence found that allthe accused are not guilty of the offence alleged and acquitted them.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, P.W.1 has preferred this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatcomplainant was married to P.W.3 in the year 1986 itself and to prove that,ration card was marked and petitions seeking anticipatory bail were alsofiled.The trial Court found that P.W.1 was not married to P.W.3and there was no second marriage between P.W.3 and A.3 and hence no offenceunder Section 494 has been committed.Holding so, the trial Court acquittedall the accused.Counsel for the respondent also heard on that point.There is no challenge at all in the cross examination aboutthe status of P.W.1 and P.W.3 as the husband and wife.This finding of the trial Court iserroneous for the reason that it was not the case of either by A.3 or A.4 orA.1 or A.2 or P.W.s 1 and P.W.3 that there was no marriage and however, P.W.1and P.3 were specifically stated in their chief examination that they arehusband and wife.The next question for consideration is as towhether any offence punishable under Section 494 has been made out.D.1,Marriage invitation shows that there was marriage between P.W.3 and A.3.Inasmuch as the first marriage is held valid, this appears to be invalidmarriage.But at the same time,P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that he wascompelled to marry A.3 in the Police Station and he was also compelled to gofor the Registration Office to get the marriage registered.Further, theoffence under Section 494 cannot stand unless, co-respondents are also made asa party.Co-respondents has been examined as P.W.3 A.3 cannot be alone beconvicted for the offence under Section 494 when the main offence is notproved.The charge against A.4 under Section 494 r/w 109 cannot stand.Forthese reasons, the charges levelled against A.4 cannot stand.In thesecircumstance, the acquittal of A.4 is justified.There is no illegality inthe order passed by the lower Court.Hence, the conclusion of the trial Courtis confirmed in favour of A.1 and A.2 are concerned.There is absolutely noevidence to prove any of the charges levelled against them.Therefore, theacquittal of A.1 and A.2 of both charges cannot be said to be illegal and thesame is confirmed.In the result, the appeal against the acquittal isdismissed except for the modification in the finding that there was nomarriage between P.W.1 and P.W.3 and in other aspects the order of the trialCourt is confirmed.24.02.2004Index:yesInternet:Yes/NopalTo1.The Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras. | ['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,632,156 | 4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by this Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 for the offences u/s. 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC in Crime No.301/2009 on the file of R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.10992/2011 for the offence under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1640/2011 on the file of V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station.This order is made only towards setting aside the order of detention passed against the detenu herein. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,635,015 | With consent heard finally.The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 06-10-2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been treated ineligible for the services of Police Department on the basis of concealment of fact regarding registration of criminal case against the petitioner.Even otherwise, the petitioner got acquittal order in his favour from the trial Court vide judgment dated 01-10-2014 passed in the Criminal Case No.2410/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena.The judgment of acquittal is placed as Annexure P/6 with the writ petition.He submits that the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him as well as the fact that at the time of selection he was not facing any criminal case, therefore, impugned order is arbitrary and illegal.She prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.From perusal of documents, it appears that the the petitioner has been selected in the year 2013 through the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,641,975 | By this order, I shall dispose of both these applications.The present applications have been filed by the petitioners for cancellation of bail granted to the Kanhaiya Kumar, respondent no.2 in Crl.1094-1095/2016 Page 2 of 9 on different basis.Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted.The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."1094-1095/2016 Page 2 of 9Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") envisages the right to move the application for cancellation of bail with the investigating agency against the person as per the circumstances mentioned in the judgment in the case of Dolat Ram (supra).As per the Code of Criminal Procedure set up, the criminal proceedings are between the State and Crl.1094-1095/2016 Page 3 of 9 the accused or between the complainant and the accused.A stranger does not have any access to the proceedings particularly when the investigation is already in progress to prepare the report to submit the same before the Court.The investigation cannot be interfered with or intervened in any manner by any stranger and the Investigating Officer is to take decisions regarding the conduct of the investigation and the accused as provided by the Cr.P.C.1094-1095/2016 Page 3 of 9Apart from the judgment referred above, this Court is of the considered opinion that investigation is the prerogative and domain of the Investigating Officer and that no other person is allowed to intervene in the same.The Investigating Officer is to ensure that his investigation is moving smoothly without any interference or obstruction caused by the accused.So, as per the principle laid down in the case of Dolat Ram (supra), the Investigating Officer is the only appropriate person to move the application for cancellation of bail through the State, if need arises.The present applications have been moved by the petitioners in their individual capacity claiming themselves to be citizens of India and on the basis of judgments in the cases of Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others (1987) 1 SCC 288 and A.R. Antulay1094-1095/2016 Page 4 of 9In pursuance of the notice, State/Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi was asked to file reply to clear its status and to know the stand of the prosecution as to whether they wished for the cancellation of the bail to be granted to the respondent/accused or not.On 28.04.2016, in the interest of justice, the State/Govt.Again on 19.07.2016, the State/Govt.During the course of arguments, counsels for the petitioners submitted that there are more than 50 accused persons involved in the present case and that the information regarding alleged statements Crl.1094-1095/2016 Page 5 of 9 made by the respondent/accused is on the basis of Television and that they have no personal knowledge.Any application moved by a stranger should be on the basis of a substantial set of facts and on sound basis of law and without the same, the application should not be entertained by the Court.In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have failed to bring forth any case which leads to the issuance of notice to the respondent/accused.of NCT of Delhi and the matters were adjourned to 09.08.2016 to enable the State to file the reply within one week. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
53,658,715 | The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a first information report was lodged on information of informant Shabir PW-1 on 9.8.1997 at 1:30 AM at Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur as Case Crime No. 139 of 1999 under Sections 304, 324 IPC.As per the first information report, the house of informant Shabir was parallel to the houses of accused/appellants Nanha @ Rais Ahmed, Basheer Ahmed and Suleman in the same lane.Accused/appellants used to tie their bulls and park their bullock cart on the way of the houses.For this issue, usually verbal spat was going on between informant and accused/appellants.In the night of 8.8.1997 informant Shabir, his nephew Shakirnoor and his brother Mohd. Noor were irrigating their paddy field near the village Dokpuri where a lantern was burning.At about 11:00 PM in the night, while informant's nephew Shakirnoor was sleeping, appellants Nanha @ Rais Ahmed, Basheer Ahmed and Suleman reached there and started abusing the informant.When the informant objected the appellants not to abuse, appellant Nanha @ Rais Ahmed made fire upon the informant's nephew Shakirnoor, who was sleeping on the cot.The said fire hit on left side of his head.On hearing hue and cry of informant as well as sound of fire, Maksood and Mohd. Noor of Village Dokpuri, who were irrigating their field, came on the spot alongwith torch.On seeing them, accused/appellants fled in the west direction by making fire.Informant's brother sustained injuries of pellets in the right hand as well as on other several parts of the body.Shakirnoor died at once.Informant took his injured brother to the police station by vehicle and informed the police about the incident.Injured Mohd. Noor was examined by PW-4 Dr Satish Chandra on 9.8.1997 at 2:10 AM at District Hospital, Rampur, who prepared injury report Ex. Ka-2 and noted the following injuries on his person:-"(i) Fire arm wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the top of skull.A bullet was found inside the wound and some part of the bullet was outside the skull.No blackening and scorching.(ii) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 6 cm x bone deep on dorsal side of right hand.Bleeding oozing from wound present.No blackening was present around the wound.PW-1 Shabir further admitted that he had gone with Mohd. Noor at 8:00 PM for irrigating the field.The tube well was operated from 4:00 AM.PW-2 Mohd. Noor admitted in his cross-examination that he had gone at tubewell at 4:00 PM with his brother Shabir.Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.(Delivered by Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J)Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad alongwith Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, counsels for the appellants and Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for the State of U.P.These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 8.6.2006 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Rampur in S.T. No. 488 of 1999 (State Vs.Nanha @ Rais and others) arising out of case crime no. 139 of 1997 whereby the accused-appellants Nanha @ Rais, Basheer Ahmed and Suleman were convicted and sentenced as follows: (a) Life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and (b) Ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 307/34 IPC.In case of default in payment of fine, all the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for further six months.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.X-ray advised for skull.X-ray advised for right hand."In the opinion of doctor, both the injuries were fresh and caused by fire-arm.In supervision of PW-5 Akhilesh Kumar, X-ray of head and of right hand of injured Mohd. Noor was conducted and X-ray plate material Ex-1, material Ex-2 and report Ex-K-3 were prepared.Accordingly, second meta carpal bone of right hand of injured was fractured.In skull no radio opaque shadow was detected.The post mortem of dead body of Shakirnoor was conducted by (PW-6) Dr Ved Prakash on 9.8.1997 at 12:30 PM, who prepared post mortem report Ex.As per post mortem report and statement of (PW-6) Dr Ved Prakash, following ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased Shakirnoor:-"A firearm wound of entry 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x brain cavity deep on left side of head 3 cm above from left ear.Margins inverted, blackening scorching and tattooing present around the wound.Left parietal bone was found fractured in multiple pieces."Brain was congested and lacerated.One wadding cork, two tiklies and thirty five pellets were recovered from the brain.In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was coma as a result of ante-mortem injury of head.Duration of death was about 1 ½ day.After investigation chargesheet has been submitted against appellants Nanha @ Rais Ahmed, Basheer Ahmed and Suleman under Sections 304, 324 IPC.Learned Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against accused-appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed and under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC against accused-appellants Basheer Ahmed and Suleman and explained charges to them.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To substantiate charge against accused persons, prosecution has examined PW-1 Informant Shabir, PW-2 Mohd. Noor and PW-3 Maksood as witnesses of facts and PW-4 Dr Satish Chandra, PW-5 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, PW-6 Dr. Ved Prakash and PW-7 Inspector Rahman Khan as formal witnesses.Except as above, no other witness was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as Cr.P.C."), wherein, they claimed their innocence and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.They further stated that witnesses are deposing falsely against them due to enmity.In defence, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents/accused.Upon detailed consideration of evidence on record, learned Trial Court found that the guilt of the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt and passed aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.Aggrieved by the order of learned trial Judge, the accused-appellants have preferred these two separate criminal appeals.It had not been lodged on 9.8.1997 at 1:30 AM, but lodged later on showing date and time of lodging as mentioned above.Witnesses of facts were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and they are not reliable witnesses.There are material contradiction in their statements.Injuries of injured Mohd. Noor was manufactured, fabricated and concocted.There was no motive for accused-appellants to commit the offence.PW-3 Maksood admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen any person causing death of deceased Shakirnoor.Learned trial court has erroneously held that this statement, is not admissible in evidence as the same is not on oath.Learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record, has passed the impugned order of conviction, which is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside and as such, appeals deserve to be allowed.Learned A.G.A., has contended that there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and as such the appeals are liable to be dismissed.PW-2 Mohd. Noor is injured witness and as such, his presence on the spot cannot be doubted.PW-1 Shabir and PW-2 Mohd. Noor have stated before the Court that in the night of incident, they were irrigating their paddy field.Deceased Shakirnoor was sleeping on the cot.At about 11:00 PM, appellants-accused reached there and started abusing them.They asked the accused, not to abuse, then appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed fired on Shakirnoor due to which, he sustained injury and died on the spot.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that trial court has discarded the statement of PW-3 Maksood in his cross-examination on the ground that it is not on oath, whereas relied on his statement of examination-in-chief which is against law.Its main object is to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution.It is true a subsidiary object is to bring home to the witness the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, but in view of section 118 these matters only touch credibility and not admissibility.Therefore, it was not possible for PW-3 Maksood to see the person who cause fire arm injury to deceased Shakirnoor.Cartridge having bullet and cartridge having pellet may be fired from the same weapon, even in the same cartridge, bullet and pellet may be found together.The fact that Mohd. Noor sustained fire arm injury on his head, is not mentioned in the first information report and in the entry of GD at the time of lodging of the FIR.In X-ray of head of injured Mohd. Noor, there was no any radio opaque shadow.The injury on the head of Mohd. Noor is on the top of the skull and of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.Although, bullet was present inside the wound but some part of bullet was present outside the skull.This injury was of trifling in nature and any one may ignore to take notice of such injury.As some part of bullet was outside the wound, the bullet may easily eject from the wound.In such circumstances, in X-ray report of skull, no any radio opaque shadow will be found.Accordingly, it cannot be said that head injury of injured Mohd. Noor is fabricated.Second injury of the injured Mohd. Noor was on dorsal side of his right hand of size 6 cm x 6 cm x bone deep and head of second meta carpal bone was fractured.As such, this injury was of grievous in nature and may be caused by spread of pellets of cartridge of fire arm.Mohd. Noor has admitted in his cross-examination that a single fire was made due to which Shakirnoor sustained injury on left side of his head and died.At the same time, he further stated that accused fled in west direction by making fire.In the first information report, it is also mentioned that after incident, appellants fled away from the spot by making fire.PW-1 Shabir has specifically stated that appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed has made second fire, due to which, Mohd. Noor sustained injuries.All the witnesses of facts have put their thumb impressions on statements before the court.They are illiterate villagers.Deceased Shakirnoor was the son of injured Mohd. Noor as such Mohd. Noor was in shock and horror at the time of occurrence.It was not possible for him to observed each and every moment of incident.Due to mistake in observation, he might have stated in his cross-examination that single fire has occurred.25. PW-1 Shabir has admitted in his cross-examination that at about 1:30 AM or 2:00 AM, Mohd. Noor was present on the spot.He further admitted that police had came on the spot at about 1:30 AM-2:00 AM in the night.Till then, he was present on the spot.It will be not possible, even for a literate person, to narrate the actual time of each and every event of occurrence.No one is expected to make vivid and video-graphic presentation of scene after about 6 years of the occurrence.In the present case, occurrence has taken place in the night where family members of the deceased were irrigating their paddy crop.PW-1 Shabir and PW-2 Mohd. Noor admitted in their statements that accused were used to tie their bulls and park their bullock carts on the way, due to which verbal spats have taken place for several times.PW-2 Mohd. Noor has narrated in his cross-examination that appellants were parking their bullock carts in the way before 4-5 years of the incident.Altercation took place between them before 5 years.On the basis of this statement of PW-2 Mohd. Noor, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no motive for appellants to commit offence for altercation, which took place before 4-5 years of the incident.The evidence shall not be read in piecemeal.Whole statement of witnesses shall be taken into consideration to come at a fruitful conclusion.PW-2 Mohd. Noor also stated that altercation had taken place before murder.From the statement of PW-1 Shabir and PW-2 Mohd. Noor, it is evident that altercation was going on at regular intervals between parties due to parking of bullock carts by the appellants in the way.Although prosecution witnesses have not specifically stated the date and time of altercation which has taken place just before the occurrence but only because of not specific narration of this fact, it cannot be said that there was no motive for the appellants to commit murder.37. PW-1 Shabir admitted in his cross-examination that he had seen the accused persons coming from the west side at distance of 20-25 steps.PW-2 Mohd. Noor has also admitted this fact that at the time of occurrence, he was at distance of 20-25 steps from place, where his son Shakirnoor was sleeping.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that first of all, altercation had taken place between Shabir and Mohd. Noor from one side and appellants from other side.Deceased Shakirnoor was sleeping at that time.Accordingly, appellants should have murdered Shabir and Mohd. Noor.There was no reason for them to cause death of Shakirnoor, who was sleeping.From perusal of the record, it is evident that deceased Shakirnoor and accused-appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed were of same age group.Being a young member of family, deceased Shakirnoor might have strongly opposed the appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed for parking the bullock carts in the way.As regards the motive for the crime, the High Court on an analysis of the evidence found that it could either be a frustrated attempt to commit robbery or it could be for taking revenge against the master and his family.It is in evidence of PW-1 that the decision to dispense with his services was conveyed to the accused on the previous day because the accused incurred the displeasure of the family on account of his misbehaviour viz., suspected theft and his killing or harming the pet birds.That apart, as stated by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he was asked to quit the job for having illicit intimacy with the sister of the co-accused and he was scolded on that account.The accused would have been aggrieved for one or all of these reasons.There is no any contradiction in their statements on this point, due to which, their testimony may be discarded.From their statements supported by medical evidence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 8.8.1997 at about 11:00 PM accused-appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed fired on Shakirnoor due to which he sustained injuries and died at once.40. PW-1 Shabir has stated in his examination in chief that appellants/accused Basheer Ahmed and Suleman were armed with 'patal' but in his cross-examination, he specifically stated that they were not armed with any weapon.No active role is attributed to appellants/accused Basheer Ahmed and Suleman.Appellants-accused Nanha @ Raes Ahmed and Basheer Ahmed are real brother and appellant Suleman is cousin brother of Nanha @ Raes Ahmed. PW-2 Mohd. Noor has admitted in his cross-examination that Suleman does not park Bullock cart in the way.In such a circumstance, due to murder of Shakirnoor by appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed, possibility of falsely implicating appellants/accused Basheer Ahmed and Suleman, who are related to the accused Nanha @ Raes Ahmed, in the offence cannot be ruled out.Accordingly, appellants/accused Basheer Ahmed and Suleman deserve to be given benefit of doubt.In this case charge for offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC has been framed against appellant Nanha @ Raes Ahmed but due to clerical mistake, trial court has convicted him under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC which is liable to be modified.In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 3676 of 2006 (Nanha @ Raes and Another Vs.In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further six months.He shall serve out his remaining part of sentence.Furthermore, conviction and sentence of appellant Basheer Ahmed are set-aside and he is acquitted.He is on bail, he need not surrender.His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.The Criminal Appeal No. 3745 of 2006 (Suleman Vs.44. Let a certified copy of this judgment and order along with Lower Court record be sent back to the trial court for its intimation and necessary compliance.Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Jaswant (U.C. Tripathi,J.) (R.S.R. (Maurya), J) | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
52,868,151 | Ajai Verma, Mr.Gaurav Bhattacharya, Mr.S.K.Dwivedi and Ms.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS."On 10.3.2010, on receipt of DD No.20A, SI Sudesh Pal along with Const.Sunil reached the spot of incident i.e. Goyala Mor, near Crl.A.937/2013 Page 1 of 30 Liquor Vend where they met the complainant Kumari Sonia.She made a statement that she along with her sister Monika are studying in XII Class and had come to Sarvodya Co-Ed School, Paprawat Village for appearing in an examination.At about 1.30 p.m. when they came out of the school after finishing the paper, their mother Bimla Kumari was waiting for them in vehicle towards home.Bimla was at the wheel, Monika sat on the front passenger seat, whereas Sonia sat on the rear seat.At about 1.45 p.m. when they reached the main road near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, a white colour Maruti car overtook their vehicle and stopped in front of their vehicle.Two/three persons came down from the Maruti car, one of them opened the driver's side window of their vehicle and pushed their mother towards left side, another pulled out Monika from the front passenger seat and the third one opened rear door of their vehicle and pushed Sonia out of the car from the left side.The person, who had pushed their mother towards her left side and had put a revolver on her temple.They kidnapped the mother of the two girls in her own car.The Maruti car, in which the assailants had come, was being driven in front of their car.The car of the assailants had dark tinted glassed but some persons were present in the car.Sonia had made call at telephone no.100 from mobile phone no.9278284822 of her mother.Further investigation of the case was handed over to SI Sudesh Pal.She prepared the site plan of the spot from where Bimla was kidnapped.On receipt of an information that Crl.A.937/2013 Page 2 of 30 vehicle no.DL-6C-6137 in which Bimla had been kidnapped is lying parked at Jharoda Bus Stand, he proceeded to that spot and on search of the vehicle, he found a countrymade revolver near the rear seat.The husband of Bimla, namely Karambir, in his statement stated that his wife may have been kidnapped by accused Narender @ Balle of Village Gorar, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, as there was enmity between the two on account of some transactions.A raid was conducted by SI Sudesh Pal along with SHO and other staff in the village of Narender @ Balle but they could not find or trace the accused Narender or the prosecutrix Bimla.P.C by the concerned Magistrate, wherein besides confirming what was stated to the police by her daughter Sonia, as noted hereinabove, she further stated as under:-"After kidnapping me, the assailants proceeded towards Najafgarh.The vehicle of the assailants was following her vehicle.After traversing some distance, her vehicle broke down.She was transferred to the vehicle of the assailants, which was coming from behind.At that time, she shouted and some people gathered at the spot but the assailants told them that she is their mother and being ill, she is being taken for treatment.Narender @ Balle took me to a room upstairs in his house and raped me there.After sometime, Narender put me in a vehicle and took me to the house of his sister Billo in Rohtak.There Narender beat me and obtained my signature by force on a blank paper.He also took my thumb impression by force on a paper, on which something was written and also had a revenue stamp affixed on it.In the morning on 11.3.2010 at about 5.30 am, Billo and her sister-in-law (Jethani) and a boy took me to bus stand Rohtak, bought me a ticket for Nangloi and made me to sit in a bus.I got down from the bus at Bahadurgarh and boarded another bus for Gurgaon from which I got down at Deenpur.After getting down from the bus at Deenpur, I made a call to my husband from an STD Booth and thereafter I along with my husband came to the police station."A.937/2013 Page 3 of 30The victim Bimla was also medically examined in RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur.It is further the case of the prosecution, the real brother of accused Narender @ Balle brought him to the police station on 17.4.2010 to surrender.In the meanwhile, victim Bimla also came to the police station for enquiry about the progress of her complaint and she immediately identified Narender @ Balle to be the person who had got her kidnapped and who had raped her in his house.Accused Narender @ Balle was accordingly arrested in this case.He was produced before the concerned Magistrate and taken on four days police remand.Counsel also submits that statement of the prosecutrix is unbelievable that the mother and wife of Narender @ Balle were present in the house when she was raped, and further medical evidence also does not support the theory of rape.Counsel also contends that as per prosecutrix, when she was being raped, she had bitten the fingers of the assailants which in fact was not stated in either of the two statements nor supported by medical evidence.It is also contended that the conduct of her husband also shows that on hearing the kidnapping of his wife, he did not go to the spot of the incident, but stayed at his home, which is highly unusual.A.937/2013 Page 6 of 30Counsel for the respondents state that the respondents have been falsely implicated in the case.It is also contended that prosecutrix had taken money from respondents (Kapil and Narender @ Balle) on the pretext of Crl.A.937/2013 Page 7 of 30 providing employment to them and their relatives in Delhi Metro, and to avoid repayment of that money, prosecutrix implicated them in a false case.Neelu Mishra, has testified that on 11th March, 2010, when she Crl.A.937/2013 Page 8 of 30 was posted as a Senior Resident Obst.Gynae, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi, one Bimla was referred to her for gynae examination.As per her observation:-No injury marks on the external or internal genitalia were present.Report about Hymen was not relevant as the patient was a married lady having six children.I had sealed the nail clippings, pubic hair, vulval and vaginal swabs of the patient with the seal of the hospital and handed over the same to the police official who was accompanying the patient.During cross-examination, she has stated:-It is correct that as per first and second column appearing on page 3 of ExPW 1/A, the patient had stated that it was a case of attempted penetration and not completed penetration.The star witness in this case is PW-2, prosecutrix.She testified that on 10th March, 2010, her daughters Monika and Sonia were appearing in the examination of 12th class in Village Paprawat.She had gone to the school in her Maruti car.At about 1.45 pm after the examination was over, children boarded her car and they proceeded towards their house.Her elder daughter Monika was sitting on the front seat and Sonia was sitting on the rear seat.After five minutes, they reached near Swami Satsang Bhawan, Deenpur.When she crossed the lane of Satsang Bhawan, one small car came from behind and five persons were sitting in that car and they parked their car in front of her car.Three boys got down from the car and two boys had revolvers in their hands.One boy pushed her Crl.A.937/2013 Page 9 of 30 towards left and two boys pulled her daughters out.One boy by the name Kapil, whose name she came to know afterwards sat on the driving seat of the car and another sat besides her on the front seat on her left.The other two boys also sat in her car and she can identify them by face but did not know their names.She then testified that accused persons proceeded towards Najafgarh in her car.Accused Anil @ Chaman pushed her towards back side while accused Niranjan covered her face with a towel.Accused Kapil hit her with the revolver on her head.After travelling some distance, her car broke down.The car of the accused persons was coming behind her car.One of the boys got down and covered her face with a blanket and made her sit in their car.The accused persons were shouting that she was their mother and they were taking her to the hospital.Thereafter accused persons took her to a village.The car of the accused persons also broke down.Accused Kapil, Niranjan and one other boy took her in a wheat field and other two accused persons remained present near the car to keep a watch.Thereafter Kapil, Niranjan and the third boy committed rape.Thereafter, they telephoned Balle and said that they had brought her and that their car had broken down.Balle was asked to bring a car.After 1 -2 hours, accused Balle came in a big car alongwith two persons.They made her sit in that big car and kept roaming in the car on the roads, and in the evening, they took her to the house of accused Balle in Village Guard.In the house of accused Balle, his mother, his wife Poonam, his sister Billo, her sister-in-law Neelam and two other boys were present.Accused Balle took her in his room on the first floor and the wife and sister of Balle helped him in taking her in the room.When his mother asked him not to take her upstairs, he kicked her.Thereafter at about 8- 8.30 pm, accused persons took her to Rohtak.The accused persons had Crl.A.937/2013 Page 10 of 30 gone in a separate vehicle while she was taken in another car in which the wife and sister of accused Balle, two other boys and Neelam, sister-in-law of Billo were also present.Accused Balle, his wife and sister had beaten her.In the said house, accused Balle forced her to sign some papers.As she is illiterate and did not know how to write her name, Balle asked her to see her name written on her forearm and to write it in the same manner.He had also put one red colour ticket on the said paper.On receiving a call, accused Balle ran away from there.Only ladies remained in the house with her.In the morning while they slept, she came out of the house and went to a tea stall near the bus stand.She borrowed Rs.50/- from an old man and boarded a bus from Delhi for Rohtak.She got down at Bahadurgarh and took another bus for Gurgaon.About 7.30 am, she reached Deenpur Village bus stand and telephoned her husband from there.Her nephew came and picked her.Four police officers were present at his home at that time.She showed them the wound inflicted by accused Kapil on her temple with his revolver.On the next day, she was taken to the hospital for medical examination.Thereafter, her statement was recorded in the court.I did not know his family members before the incident.I came to know about the names of the family members as the accused kept on calling each other by names during the night when I was with them.I had narrated the incident to the doctor who had medically examined me but I did not tell her the names of the assailants as I did not know the names by that time.I had given the name of accused Balle to the Doctor.I had stated the place of incident to the doctor."20. PW-3, Constable Nagender, has testified that on 17.4.2010, at about 7.00 a.m., the brother of the accused Narender @ Balle, had brought him to the Police Station.In the meanwhile, the prosecutrix also came to the Police Station and identified him as the person, who had raped her in her village.21. PW-5, Ms.Sonia, is the daughter of the prosecutrix, who was 15 years of age at the time of her making the testimony.PW-5 has testified that on 10.3.2010, she along with her elder sister, Monika, had gone to the school Crl.A.937/2013 Page 15 of 30 where she and her sister had appeared for the Class XII examination.After both the sisters came out from the school, their mother was waiting in her car.PW-5 sat on the rear seat of the car while her sister sat on the front seat of the car.On the way, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, a white coloured Maruti car overtook their car and blocked their way.Three persons, whom she identified in the Court as Kapil, Anil @ Chaman and Niranjan, got down from the car.Kapil pushed her mother inside the car from the driving seat and sat on the driving seat of their car.Anil @ Chaman pulled out her sister, Monika, from the car and Niranjan threw her out of the car after opening the door.Anil @ Chaman and Kapil had pistols in their hands.Her mother had two mobile phones made of Nokia and Virgin.Her mother threw the Virgin mobile phone from the car.The accused persons took away her mother in the car of the mother.She and her sister got up and informed Police on No.100 from the mobile.She also telephoned her father.After 10-15 minutes, 3-4 PCR vans came there.Police enquired from PW-5 and she told the Police about the incident.PW-5 was taken to the Police Station.She had met her father on the way to the Police Station.A.937/2013 Page 15 of 30During cross-examination, PW-5 has testified that she was pulled out from the Maruti car.It was a kahcha road where she was thrown on the road but she did not sustain any injury.She fell with her face towards the road on the left side of the car.Dust accumulated on her face and entered her eyes, nostrils and mouth.Monika, is another material witness, being the second daughter of the victim.PW-8 has testified that on 10.3.2010, she along with her sister had gone to the examination centre.Their exam was over by 1.30 Crl.A.937/2013 Page 16 of 30 p.m. Her mother had come in her Maruti car to pick her and her sister.She was sitting on the front seat while her younger sister was sitting on the rear seat.When they reached Radha Swami Satsang Street at about 1.45 p.m. one White coloured maruti car overtook their car and blocked their way.Three boys, Niranjan, Kapil and Anil @ Chaman (who were pointed out by this witness) had got down from the car.Firstly, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecutrix has stated that she escaped from the house where she was kept after kidnapping, which is in Rohtak (house of Niranjan's sister), took Rs.50/- from an old man and boarded a bus to Delhi, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she has deposed before the Magistrate that the accused Narender's sister Billo and her sister-in-law took her to Bahadurgarh bus stand, they purchased a ticket for her to Nangloi and Billo had given her a sum of Rs.100/-.Both these versions are entirely different.The prosecutrix was confronted with her own statement dated 11.3.2010, which was given to the Police.It may also be noticed that the prosecutrix has also not handed over bus tickets to the Police during investigation.Secondly, in her testimony before the Court, the prosecutrix was Crl.Billo had given her a sum of Rs.100/- also.However, she has given a totally different story in her testimony before the court, wherein she deposed that only ladies were in that house for the night.In the morning when they were sleeping, she came out of the house, went to a tea stall near the bus stand, borrowed Rs.50/- from an old man and boarded a bus for Delhi from Rohtak.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI, JPresent appeal has been filed under section 372 read with section 482 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 16th July, 2012 passed by the ld.Additional Sessions Judge in FIR registered under section 365/376(2)(g)/120B IPC on a complaint filed by the victim who was kidnapped and gang raped.The ld.Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the five accused persons.The present appeal has been filed by the victim.The case of the prosecution as noticed by the ld.trial court is as under:-She further stated that she can identify the assailants, if shown to her."A.937/2013 Page 1 of 30On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Sonia, SI Sudesh Pal prepared rukka and got the FIR registered u/s 365 IPC.He prepared the sketch of the revolver.He called the Crime Team and got the vehicle inspected by the Crime Team.No chance fingerprints could be found on the car.SI Sudesh Kumar seized the car as well as the revolver.He also recorded the statement of other witnesses.A.937/2013 Page 2 of 30It is further the case of the prosecution that on 11.3.2010, prosecutrix Bimla reached police station alongwith her husband Karambir and her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by SI Sudesh.Her statement was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.Thereafter, the assailants proceeded in their own car.After traversing some distance, when they reached near a drain, their vehicle also broke down.Two of the assailants took me to the wheat field near the road, look off my trouser and took turn in raping me.After a Crl.A.937/2013 Page 3 of 30 long time, another vehicle was brought, I was put in that vehicle and they took me to village Gour where Narender @ Balle resides.During the course of investigation of the case, another accused Satish @ Jassa was brought to the police station by his sister and brother-in-law (Jija) for surrender.At the same time, one Rajender, brother-in-law (Jija) of BIMLA came to the police station alongwith BIMLA for making enquiries about the progress of her complaint and she identified accused Satish @ Jassa to be the same Crl.Accused Satish @ Jassa was arrested in this case and his disclosure statement was recorded.On the basis of his disclosure statement, section 120B IPC was added in the FIR.Accused Satish @ Jassa was produced before the concerned Magistrate and he was taken to two days police remand to facilitate the arrest of the other co-accused persons but they could not be traced.A.937/2013 Page 4 of 30Prosecution further alleges that during the course of further investigation, accused Kapil was arrested on 04.6.2010 pursuant to a secret information.He also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the kidnapping and rape of Bimla.He was taken on two days police remand.At his instance, another accused Niranjan @ Engine @ Amit was arrested in this case.Accused Niranjan also made a disclosure statement and he was remanded to one day's police custody.Accused Kapil is stated to have refused to participate in the TIP proceeding.On the basis of his disclosure statement, section 25 of Arms Act was added to the FIR.Accused Rajesh, Anil @ Chaman, Jaidev @ Jaideep could not be arrested despite efforts and NBWs were obtained against him.On the basis of statement made by the victim, FIR was registered.The statement of victim and her husband was recorded.Her husband has stated that his wife had been kidnapped by Narender @ Balle of Village Gorar, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, as there was enmity between the two on account of some transactions.P.C was also recorded.P.C in English before the ld.The appellant being illiterate, was unable to get her statement recorded properly and her version of the case Crl.A.937/2013 Page 5 of 30 was not recorded completely by the ld.It is also submitted that the questions asked by the Medical Officer during the appellant's medical examination were found to be confusing by the appellant.Thus, she could not answer properly before the Medical Officer.It is also submitted that the trial court has incorrectly held that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the daughters of the appellant who were eye witnesses to the kidnapping of the appellant.It is contended that contradictions in the testimonies of both the minor daughters do not go to the root of the matter and their testimonies are reliable and trustworthy.Counsel further submits that the trial court has erred in relying on the medical evidence as per which no injury marks, external or internal were found on the body of the appellant.A.937/2013 Page 5 of 30Counsel for the appellant also submits that the Session court has ignored material and vital evidences and the statement of complainant under Sections 161/164 of the Cr.P.C.. The investigation and prosecution of the present case was poor and weak at all time as it was filled with loop-holes and gaps, benefit of which resulted in total acquittal of the case.The relatives of the respondent no.2 (Narender @ Balle) i.e. the mother, sister and wife were never arrested and interrogated which if done could have guided the investigation as against the accused.The trial court has failed to consider that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the respondents and the appellant should not be made to suffer on account of poor investigation.Counsel for the respondents state that the trial court has carefully analysed the testimonies of the material witnesses including the prosecutrix and has rightly reached the conclusion that the testimonies of two eye witnesses are contradictory.There are contradictions in the statements made by the Crl.A.937/2013 Page 6 of 30 prosecutrix under section 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement before Court.There are material contradictions in the statements of PW- 8, daughter of the prosecutrix and PW-5, second daughter of the prosecutrix.Counsel also contends that none of the accused persons were arrested from the spot of the incident nor they were put to any test identification parade.Hence, there is doubt as to on what basis, police arrested the remaining accused persons.Counsel also submits that there are material improvements in the statements made by the prosecutrix and contradictions between her statements made under sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and before the court.It is also contended that the prosecutrix testified that she was hit on the head by Kapil with a revolver and received injury, but no such injury was found during MLC.A.937/2013 Page 7 of 30Counsel for Narender @ Balle has further stated that a FIR stands registered against the prosecutrix and her husband at Police Station City Rohtak, Urban Estate, bearing FIR no.89/10, under section 409/420 /465/ 467/468/506/120B and 34 IPC, on a complaint filed by one Rakesh Kumar also from whom the prosecutrix had received money for providing employment.Counsel further stated that another FIR no.123/09 had been registered against the prosecutrix at Police Station Aman Vihar under section 420/468/471/34 IPC on a complaint filed by Mr. Bhupinder.He also stated that prosecutrix had issued threats to him asking him to withdraw the complaint or else face dire consequences.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/victim as also counsel for respondent/State and counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 in detail, who have taken us through the trial court record including the testimonies of the material witnesses.The prosecution has examined 25 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused persons.The accused persons i.e., respondents 2 to 6 herein were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case.Respondents Kapil and Narender @ Balle had further stated that prosecutrix had taken money from them on the pretext of providing employment to them and their relatives in Delhi Metro, and to avoid repayment of that money, prosecutrix implicated them in a false case.We deem it appropriate to examine testimonies of some of the material witnesses in this case.PW-1, Dr.A.937/2013 Page 8 of 30"There were two minor scratch marks on the right shoulder of the patient.The two scratch marks observed on the shoulder of the patient can be caused by rubbing of the shoulder with any object.On 11.3.2010, I had prepared only one MLC i.e., Ex.PW 1/A. I have conducted gynae examination of many patients like this.She identified her signature on the statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C.A.937/2013 Page 10 of 30She was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.examination by the Public Prosecutor she deposed that it was correct that accused Balle had put a revenue stamp on the documents before taking her signatures.She also stated that it was correct that she did not tell the police that at about 5.30 am, Billo, sister of accused Balle, Neelam, sister- in-law of Billo and one boy brought her to the Rohtak bus stand and purchased a ticket and made her sit in the bus.She was confronted with portion A to A of her statement Ex.PW 2/B under section 161 Cr.P.C where it was so recorded.She had signed the arrest memo and search memo of accused Narender @ Balle.She also deposed that it was correct that on 11th June, 2010 she had again gone to the police station Najafgarh to know about the progress of her case and saw accused Kapil sitting in the police station and identified him as the person who had kidnapped and raped her.She also deposed that it was correct that on 17th June, 2010, she again went to the police station to know about the progress of the case when she identified accused Niranjan as the person who had kidnapped her on 10th March, 2010 along with his associates.On 31st July, 2010, she again went to Police Station Najafgarh where she had identified accused Anil @ Chaman as the person who had kidnapped her and hit her on the temple with a revolver during kidnapping.She admitted as correct that she knew Narender @ Balle prior to the incident and that accused Narender @ Balle had got her kidnapped.She did not tell the police that she had some money transaction with accused Narender @ Balle.She was confronted with portion A to A of her statement Ex.PW 2/E u/s 161 Cr.During cross-examination by the counsel for the accused Narender @ Balle, she deposed that accused Kapil had hit her with a revolver on her right temple due to which she had sustained an internal injury, only and she told the doctor about the said injury during her medical examination.She admitted that two criminal cases have been registered against her but they had been falsely registered by accused Narender @ Balle.Rakesh Kumar is the brother-in-law of Balle and Upender Kumar is also a relative of Balle.She further deposed that her husband was not an income tax payee.A.937/2013 Page 11 of 30A.937/2013 Page 12 of 30Her husband earns Rs.60000/-70000/- per year.They have five children who study in a Government school.They live in a rented accommodation.She admitted that they were maintaining a car.She also stated that when accused Balle had thrown her on the bed, she had sustained a scratch on her back.She also stated that it was correct that her husband did not come to take her from Deenpur Bus Stand.During cross- examination, she has also stated that she did not cause any injury to the accused persons, rather they had caused injury to her.She further deposed that she tried to oppose the accused persons by hitting with her limb but they did not sustain any injury.She also identified two persons in court who raped her.The other accused persons were standing near the vehicle when the rape was committed.She had sustained injury on her foot during rape.Her foot was bleeding slightly.During her cross-examination on behalf of accused Narender, she was confronted on the following issues:-I had stated to the police as well as to the Magistrate that thereafter, accused telephoned accused Balle saying him that they have brought me.I had stated to the police as well as the Ld.A.937/2013 Page 14 of 30 in the morning when the accused and other persons were sleeping, I came out of the house, went to a tea stall near Bus Stand, borrowed Rs.50/- from an old man and boarded a bus for Delhi.A.937/2013 Page 14 of 30I had also stated to the police as well as the Ld.First, her sister was thrown out of the car and thereafter she herself was thrown out of the car.Her sister did not sustain any injury but her face was full of dust.PW-8, Ms.Two boys had pistols in their hands.Thereafter PW-8 became unconscious and she did not know what had happened henceforth.A.937/2013 Page 16 of 30At the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor, this witness was examined.In her cross-examination, PW-8 has deposed as under:I did not tell the police that one accused pushed my mother from the driver seat inside the car and other accused pulled me out from the car and third accused after opening the rear door of the car, pushed my sister Sonia, out of the car and one of them put the revolver on the head of my mother.(Confronted with portion A to A of her statement Mark PW-8/1 where it is so recorded).(Confronted with portion B to B of her statement Mark PW-8/1 where it is so recorded).It is wrong to suggest that one accused had pushed my mother inside the car or that one accused pulled me out of the car or that third accused pushed my sister Sonia out of the car.It is further wrong to suggest that accused persons had abducted my mother in our car.It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely in respect of the confronted portion for the reasons best known to me."During cross-examination carried out by learned counsel for the Anil @ Chaman, PW-8, inter alia, has stated that she became unconscious after the accused persons came to their car with pistols, threw her on the ground and out of the car.A.937/2013 Page 17 of 30During cross-examination carried out on behalf of the accused, Kapil, Niranjan, Satish @ Jassa and Narender @ Balle, PW-8 has testified that she did not know what happened while she was unconscious.She has also testified that it takes 10 minutes by car to reach her house from the spot of the incident.This witness has also testified during cross-examination that her father took her to the hospital when she reached home as her father was present at home at that time.A careful examination of the testimonies of these three most material witnesses, being victim/prosecutrix PW-2; and her two daughters, PW-5, Sonia, and PW-8, Monika, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly reached the conclusion of acquittal.The statements of the two daughters of the prosecutrix, PW-5 and PW-8, who are the eye-witnesses, are contradictory and are unreliable.While PW-8, Monika, has testified that she became unconscious after the accused persons came to her mother's car and threw her on the ground and out of the car.This material fact has not been stated by PW-5, Sonia, in her testimony that her sister, PW-8, had became unconscious when she was thrown on the ground.In fact PW-5 has testified that both of them took 10-20 seconds in getting up from the kachcha road.PW-5 has also testified that their faces were full of dust and she telephoned the Police only after 4-5 minutes.We have also noticed another material contradiction.In her testimony, PW-5 has stated that when she was being taken to the Police Station, her father met them on the way, while PW-8, Monika, has testified that her father took her to the hospital when she reached home from the Police Station as her father was at home at that time.It may also be noticed that PW-5, Sonia, in her statement to the Police had stated that her mother's mobile phone was with her, while in Court she has testified that her mother threw the mobile phone out of the car.Surprisingly PW-8, Monika, has not stated anything about the mobile phone more particularly, as to whether her sister had the mobile or her mother had the presence of mind to throw the mobile out of the car.A.937/2013 Page 18 of 30It is a settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault without corroboration from any other evidence.On careful examination of the evidence placed on record it would reveal that Kapil and Anil @ Chaman surrendered in the Police Station on their own and were then arrested.We may also notice that except for Narender @ Balle, the prosecutrix was not known to any of the remaining accused persons, yet no test Crl.A.937/2013 Page 20 of 30 identification parade was carried out.All the accused persons were present in the Police Station with their faces uncovered, and on those days the prosecutrix had come to the Police Station to enquire about her case, which is also a strange coincidence.The cross-examination of PW-2, victim, with regard to identifying the accused persons reads as under:"... It is correct that on 11.06.2010 I again went to PS Najafgarh to know about the progress of my case and I saw accused Kapil sitting in the PS and I identified accused Kapil who had kidnapped me and had raped me.It is correct that on 17.06.2010 when I again went to PS Najafgarh to know about the progress of the case, I identified accused Niranjan as a person who had kidnapped me on 10.03.2010 along with his associates.It is correct that on 31.07.2010 I again went to PS Najafgarh where I had identified accused Anil @ Chaman as the person who had kidnapped me and hit me on my temple with a revolver during kidnapping........"Without the identity of the accused, Satish, Kapil, Niranjan, Anil @ Chaman and Rajesh @ Anil having been established, the prosecution cannot claim that Satish, Kapil, Niranjan, Anil @ Chaman and Rajesh @ Anil are the persons who kidnapped and raped the prosecutrix.In our view the trial court has rightly reached the conclusion that evidence of identifying of accused persons at the trial court for the first time is inherently of a weak character and inadmissible.It is also relevant to point out here that as per the prosecution case, the disclosure statements made by accused Narender and Crl.A.937/2013 Page 21 of 30 accused Satish @ Jassa, who were the first to have surrendered and to be arrested, led to the arrest of other accused persons in this case.I have minutely perused the disclosure statement Ex. PW3/A of accused Narender and Ex.PW25/E of accused Satish @ Jassa.Accused Narender in his aforesaid disclosure statement has not mentioned the description or residential address of any of the accused.Accused Satish has neither admitted his own involvement in the incident of kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix nor has disclosed the involvement of any other accused in the same.He has not given the description or residential address of any other accused.Hence, I fail to understand that on what basis did the police arrest the accused in this case and implicated them in this case.A.937/2013 Page 21 of 30In our view, the manner in which the prosecutrix escaped from the accused persons, is a very material factor and there are serious contradictions in her testimony in this regard, which cannot be ignored.It may be noticed that the prosecutrix was declared hostile on certain aspects.A.937/2013 Page 22 of 30 confronted with her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she has not stated that two boys were sitting in the car, were armed with revolvers.Thirdly, the conduct of the prosecutrix is doubtful as she nowhere has stated as to how she came to know that the house, in which she was allegedly raped, was the house of Narender and other house, where from she escaped, was the house of Narender's sister.We also find it unusual that the manner in which the prosecutrix has identified the house of Narender @ Balle, the manner in which she has been able to identify the family members of Narender @ Balle and the precise relationship.Simply to say that since they were being referred to by their names as by itself is not a plausible explanation as this would not establish their relationship.A.937/2013 Page 22 of 30The testimony of the prosecutrix is also unreliable as PW-2 in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that the accused Narender after raping her in his house, put her in a vehicle and took her to the house of her sister Billo in Rohtak, where she was kept for the night.In the morning of the next date at about 5.30 a.m., Billo and her sister-in-law (Jethani) and a boy took her to a bus stand at Rohtak, bought a ticket for Nangloi and made her to sit in a bus.She got down from the bus at Bahadurgarh, boarded another bus for Gurgaon and finally got down at Deenpur.It may also be noticed that the prosecutrix had also testified that she had bitten the fingers of the assailants but no such injury marks were found on Crl.A.937/2013 Page 23 of 30 the fingers of the accused persons during their medical examination.As far as the clothes of the prosecutrix, which were sent for forensic examination are concerned no semen was detected on them.In all cases of rape and even of gang rape there may not be any injury mark on the body of the victim as a helpless victim may not be in a position to resist the barbaric act.However, in this case where the case of the prosecutrix is that she was raped by three person (Kapil, Niranjan and one more boy) in open field, and thereafter by Narender @ Balle.There would be strong possibility of injury on the body of the victim on account be being raped by three persons in the open field.This gains importance on account of the totality of the evidence on record.Respondent, Narender @ Balle, was known to the victim prior to the incident.As per the testimony of the prosecutrix, at first she was raped by the accused Kapil, Niranjan and one other boy in the open field, while the other two accused kept a watch.Thereafter it has been alleged that Narender @ Balle, had taken the prosecutrix to his house when his mother, wife, sister, sister-in-law and two other boys were present in the house.The prosecutrix has also testified that the wife and sister of Narender @ Balle did not object and in fact helped Narender in taking the prosecutrix to the room upstairs so that he could rape her.The testimony of the victim, in our view, cannot be relied upon, as it is unbelievable and beyond any imagination that Narender would have raped her in the presence and in the knowledge of his mother, wife, sister and sister-in-law.The case of the prosecution is not even supported by the medical evidence.We have extracted the evidence of Dr.Neelu Mishra.Her evidence is to be examined and analyzed having regard to the fact that the Crl.A.937/2013 Page 24 of 30 prosecutirx has alleged rape by three persons.A.937/2013 Page 24 of 30As per the observations made by PW-1, Dr.Neelu Mishra, in her report, Exhibit PW-1/A, there were two minor scratch marks on the right shoulder of the prosecutrix.No injury marks on the external or internal genital were present.It may also be noticed that in the first and second column appearing on her report, Exhibit PW-1/A, the prosecutrix had stated that it was a case of attempt penetration and not complete penetration.Also during cross-examination, PW-1 has testified that two scratch marks, observed on the shoulder of the patient (prosecutrix), can be caused by rubbing of the shoulder by any object.Also during cross- examination, PW-1 has testified that she had conducted gynae examination on many patients like the prosecutrix but she could not come to a definite opinion on the basis of clinical examination whether rape was committed or not.She has also testified that she did not see any sign of forced rape in the present case.The medical examination also does not show any injury on the temple region alleged to be caused by the revolver of Kapil.We have also examined the report of the CFSL, Ex.PW-25/H, Ex.25/J and Ex.PW-25/K, as per which no semen was found on the clothes.The trial court has also rightly taken into account that in case a mobile phone was thrown on a kachcha road, which was full of dust, the phone would also have either been lost in dust considering the fact that the faces of PW-5 and PW-8 were covered by dust and it had entered into their eyes, nostrils and mouth or that dust would have gone into the small crevices in the key board of the phone and would have become difficult to operate.In paras 40, 42 and 43 the trial court has observed as under:A.937/2013 Page 25 of 30As per the aforesaid report Ex.PW1/A, the prosecutrix had told PW1 during medical examination that she had bitten the fingers of both the assailants.She has not stated so in her testimony before this court as PW2 or in her statement u/s.161 Cr.PC and u/s.164 Cr.PC.No such bite mark has been seen on the fingers of any of the accused during their medical examination.Further, the prosecutrix has deposed that accused Anil @ Chaman had hit her on the head with the pistol, as a result of which she had received injury on her temple, which she had shown to the police as well as to the doctor.However, as noted herein-above, no such injury was found on her body during her medical examination.The statements given by the prosecutrix to the doctor (PW1) and the result of her medical examination contained in report Ex.PW1/A undoubtedly knock out the prosecution case in totality.It is manifest that the prosecutrix had not been raped at all on the day of incident.She has fabricated a totally false story about her kidnap and rape and has framed the accused falsely in this case.The prosecutrix has clearly lied to the court by deposing that she was raped by three of the accused, when she had herself told the doctor, during her medical examination that it was a case of only attempted rape and that too by two unknown assailants.Even the allegation of attempted rape has not been proved.As per the medical report Ex.PW1/A, the assailants had ejaculated outside the body orifice of prosecutrix.At the same time, she has also stated that neither she nor the assailants themselves performed masturbation.Thus, when there was neither penetration nor masturbation, how did the assailants ejaculate.There has to be some stimulus for ejaculation.If it is taken to be true that the assailants had ejaculated, it cannot be ruled out that some semen drops would have fallen on the clothes of prosecutrix.It appears from the evidence of prosecutrix that she had not changed her clothes after the sexual assault till her medical examination and her clothes were seized by the police.It also appears from the evidence on record that clothes of the prosecutrix were sent to FSL, Rohini, for forensic examination.However, the FSL result has not been produced or proved on record.Hence, the allegations about the attempted rape also must fail."Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.A prosecutrix Crl.In view thereof, we have carefully examined the testimonies of the two daughters, the evidence of the doctor and the FSL report, let us see whether any other evidence has been adduced by the prosecution on record to support the version of the prosecutrix.A.937/2013 Page 26 of 30 | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,868,305 | Whether reportable Yes/No (Passed on 17/11/2015)In this petition inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are invoked for issuance of direction for conduction of Medical Board for examination of injuries sustained by respondents no. 4 and 5 who are alleged to be the injured persons in Crime No.104/2015 registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 427, 506 and 326/34 of IPC.2. Facts in nutshell are that Crime No.103/2015 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 324, 506 and 194/34 of IPC was registered on 09.04.2015 against 05 named persons including respondents 4 and 5 Kamal Kishore and Hariom on a report lodged by petitioner Munendra Singh Bhadoria.Arising out of the same incident, it is alleged that cross- case bearing Crime No.104/2015 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 324, 294, 427, 506 and 326/34 of IPC was registered against four named persons Jagish, Shailendra 2 M.Cr.C. No.5225/2015 Singh, Mirchi alias Munendra Singh and Brajesh Singh and two unknown persons on a complaint lodged by Jai Prakash Dubey, who happens to be the father of respondent no.4 Kamal Kishore. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,869,463 | PW1 prosecutrix in her chief examination did not testify at all that both the accused persons were arrested in her presence and it is only during her cross examination by learned APP, she admitted suggestion that on 2.10.09 accused Vicky and Raj Kumar were arrested and she had also signed the documents of their arrest.Besides, PW1 did not testify at all in her chief examination or cross examination by learned APP as to from where these two accused persons were arrested nor any question was put to her in this regard.It is only during her cross examination dated 15.04.2010 by ld.Counsel of accused Raj Kumar that she stated respondent/accused Raj Kumar was arrested at 4 pm while he was roaming and accused Vicky was arrested from his house at about 5 a.m.1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner/State has assailed the judgment dated 24.12.2010 whereby the learned trial judge has acquitted all the three accused persons/respondents.PW1 was also used to sexual intercourse.Learned trial judge has recorded in its impugned judgment that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the respondent/accused Vicky and Raj Kumar who were arrested on 2.10.2009 itself on the alleged date of Crl.Whereas, as per prosecution case both these respondent/accused persons were arrested together near the taxi stand while they were talking to each other.Therefore, it appears that accused persons were not arrested in Crl.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 7 of 12 her presence as at 5 a.m. on 02.10.09, even the police had not reached at the spot as the first DD vide which the information was received in the PS i.e. DD No. 7A was recorded at 5:25 a.m. Due to these reasons, it is not possible that respondent Vicky was arrested before even the police was informed about the incident.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 7 of 12It is further seen that PW5 Shamsher Singh in his cross examination submitted that he went to PS at 4/5 pm, as when he reached his house from his native village, he did not find his wife there.He also stated that he remained at the PS for 20/25 minutes and thereafter returned along with his wife to his house at 4:30 p.m.This witness was also declared hostile by learned APP as he was partially resiling from his earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC.During the cross examination by the learned APP, he admitted that police had recorded statement and therein he had stated that they had gone in search of accused persons in the village with the police.If this testimony is believed to be correct, then he must have gone in search of respondent after 4:30/5 p.m. when he returned from the police station and therefore, the accused persons must have been arrested later on.It is also seen from testimony of PW1, that respondent Raj Kumar was arrested at about 4 p.m. and respondent/accused Vicky arrested at about 5 p.m., whereas the PW14 ASI Saroj Bala testified in her cross examination that accused Vicky and Raj Kumar were apprehended at about 6:30/7 p, which is contrary to the time mentioned in the arrest memo Ex. PW12/B and the time deposed by other witnesses.The case of the prosecution is that the statement of PW5 Ex. PW5/PA recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC, wherein stated he along with his Crl.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 8 of 12 wife i.e. PW1 had accompanied the police in search of accused persons and they found accused persons/respondent Vicky and Raj Kumar standing opposite the taxi stand.They were pointed out by his wife.The respondents were standing on the taxi stand Balmiki Mandir and they were apprehended.However, neither PW1 nor PW2 so stated in their testimonies.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 8 of 12PW5 during cross examination by learned APP also denied the suggestion that he made any such statement to the police.He was confronted with statement Ex.PW5/PA wherein this fact was found recorded, but voluntarily stated that respondent/accused persons were apprehended in front of the temple.The other relevant witness with regard to the arrest of accused persons/ respondents is PW12 Constable Sunder Singh, who during his chief examination testified that after registration of the case he returned to the spot along with the copy of FIR and original Ruka, where ASI Bhoop Singh and ASI Saroj Bala were present.He testified that in front of the house of the prosecutrix, respondents/accused Vicky and Raj Kumar were passing and they were pointed out by the prosecutrix, and were arrested by ASI Bhoop Singh with his help and with the help of Ct.As per the testimony of this witness, respondent seems to have been arrested immediately after he returned to the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original rukka and they were arrested from outside the house of the prosecutrix which in fact is not the case of the prosecution.His said statement is contrary to the testimony of PW5 who stated that these two respondent/accused were arrested from near the temple as he along with his wife and police had gone in search of them and they were seen talking to each other near the taxi stand and were pointed out by the prosecutrix.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 9 of 12Settled Law is that the nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy.If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.Evidence has to be weighed and not counted.Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.On perusal of the impugned Judgment, I note, the learned trial judge has recorded reasons in its impugned judgment that since there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by the prosecution who have created strong doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.I have also perused the FSL report and found that report do not connect the accused with the alleged rape.Therefore, on this aspect, the opinion recorded by the trial Crl.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 10 of 12 court is correct.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 10 of 12The exhibits which were allegedly lifted from the spot i.e. the pieces of broken bangles, pearl string and even the clothes worn by the prosecutrix which were allegedly torn by accused Mahender were not show to the prosecutrix during her testimony for identification, as their plantation cannot be ruled out.Learned trial judge has also recorded that the absence of husband of the prosecutrix on the night of the incident and her sleeping alone in the jhuggi has also not been proved beyond doubt.There are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix and her sister Rekha and her son Naveen.Even the recording of statement of prosecutrix at the spot by ASI Bhoop Singh, has not been proved in view of the contradictory statement of the prosecutrix.It is further recorded that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with regard to arrest of respondents on 2.10.2009 itself.In view of the quality of the evidence produced by prosecution, it has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.Defence taken by the accused persons that since the husband and the brother in law of the prosecutrix were facing trial under Sec. 308 Indian Penal Code, 1860, in a case wherein respondent / accused Mahender was the injured, Balji Singh, the father of accused Raj Kumar was the complainant and Surjan Singh, the father of respondent / accused Vicky had stood surety for the husband of the prosecutrix, but later on had withdrawn the surety and for this reason the prosecutrix had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case, seems more plausible.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 11 of 12The learned trial judge has also held that the contention of learned APP that no lady would put her character at stake by alleging falsely that she was raped, though sounds plausible but is not a universal truth.The defence of the accused persons has been admitted by the prosecutrix and other witnesses that her husband and brother in law were facing trial under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, 1860 as recorded above.At the same time it is noticed that the prosecutrix concealed this material fact in her complaint Ex. PW1/B and statement Ex. PW1/A under Sec. 164 CrPC and even in her chief examination.She concealed that there was any enmity between her family and the accused persons.More so, she concealed this fact that the respondent/accused Vicky was the son of her sister in law.In view of the above discussion, I find no discrepancy in the order passed by the learned trial judge.Therefore, I confirm the same.Accordingly, Crl.L.P. 367/2011 is dismissed with no order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 13, 2012 'raj'/jg Crl.L.P.No.367/2011 Page 12 of 12L.P.No.367/2011 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
528,715 | Ex-consequence, he was appointed as an Assistant Draughtsman in the Department of Water Resources (formerly known as the 'Irrigation Department') on 1-8-1980 as a daily wager.JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The petitioner, a Graduate and holder of a certificate in Draughtsman Trade from Industrial Training Institute, Rewa, appeared in the examination for appointment on the post of Draughtsman and was declared to have qualified.It is also the case of the petitioner that when juniors were retained andthe petitioner was asked to leave, the basic principle of first come, last go wasnot kept in mind.It is averred that the authorities could not have taken suchan action as it violates the M.P. Civil Service (Temporary & Quasi Permanent)Rules.As pleaded, a representation was submitted to the authority but thesame was not paid heed to and sphinx like silence was maintained by theauthorities.With this assertion, prayer has been made for quashment of theorder of termination and for issue of a writ of mandamus for his reinstatement.A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents, contending inter alia, that on the basis of circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, the Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for the purpose of the same, he was provided a form contained in Annexure R-1 to be filled in by him.In the column 12 (ka), the petitioner was required to give correct information regarding pendency of the criminal case or any criminal case lodged against him at any point of time.While filling up the said verification clause, the petitioner replied in the bald negative.Though Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner initially submitted with regard to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, eventually abandoned the same as he could realise the facts are tell tale and this Court can afford an opportunity of being heard and determine the matter.After abandoning the aforesaid submission, which was really feebly put, the learned Counsel propounded that the petitioner was under an erroneous impression and conceived a notion that as he was acquitted prior to his engagement as a daily wager on 18-5-1979, as per Annexure A-7, he could put forth the information in the negative.Developing the said submission, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that had the answer been in the positive, there would not have been any effect or impact as there could not have been any change in the scenario inasmuch as the acquittal in the criminal case had washed all the dirty linen against the petitioner and he could not have been punished for an act that had not been proved to be committed as the judgment on the criminal case clearly records.In the case at hand, the petitioner had been acquitted even before he was appointed as a daily wager.H continued as a daily wager for 10 years and at that juncture, he was asked to fill up the form."A dog starv'd at his master's gate, Predict the ruin of the State ......"I am conscious the aforesaid has been told in extremes but in essence it has a message to convey. | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,872,346 | The appeal and the reference both are being decided simultaneously as both relate to the same impugned judgment.Briefly, the prosecution case is that accused Mouni himself lodged an oral report on 24/25.11.2017 at about 02:30 AM in the mid night with the allegation that on 24.11.2017, he and his daughter (victim) aged about 7 years, Jeete aged about 9 years were sleeping on the cot in his hut.At about 02:30 AM in the mid night, he got awakened and found that the victim was not on the cot and she was missing.He tried to search her in the surroundings but he could not trace her.The victim was wearing a red trouser and red sweater.Having failed to trace out her, he went to the police station and orally reported the matter and on that basis, the offence against unknown person was registered under Section 363 IPC.SSI Suneel Kumar started the investigation, the police tried to search out the missing child and in the night at about 03:00 AM, she was found in the naked condition in the courtyard of the building of Government Model School.She was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.Thereafter a written report was given by the accused Mouni to the Police Station Etmadpur stating that he was living in a hut near the Government Modal School.On 24.11.2019, when he, his daughter and his son were sleeping in the night on cot, at about 2:30 AM in the night he got awakened and found that his daughter is not there on the cot and was missing.He tried to search her and thereafter, he informed about the incident in the police station in the night itself.He and police of the local police station were searching his daughter in the Government Model School building and there in the courtyard, they found the victim in naked condition and her inner-wear (Baniyan)was lying closer to her.There were mark of injuries on her body and bleeding was present in her private part.She was taken to the emergency of the S.N. Hospital, where she was declared dead.He suspects that some unknown person killed her after committing rape.Besides his hut there is hut of Rajendra.About ten months ago in the mid night at about 03:30 AM, the police team came and awakened him.Mouni was accompanying the police team who told that his daughter is missing.The police along with Mouni started searching the deceased in the building of Government Model School.Sarvesh was also accompanying.After some times, the appellant came with the deceased who was unconscious.She was taken to the Government Hospital.PW-2 Sarvesh has stated that his hut is in front of the hut of Mouni, wherein he lives with his family.Ten months before at about 03:30 AM in the mid night, the police jeep came and he was awakened.The police was accompanied by Mouni who told that his daughter is missing.They all started searching his daughter.The police went to search the victim in the garden of the school and in the left side of the building, Mouni went and he told that his daughter is lying in the courtyard.The witness has stated that he saw that the victim was lying naked in the school's courtyard.He has also stated about the incident as narrated to him by the accused.PW-4 Dr. Udit Kumar, Medical Officer, CHC, Kheragarh, Agra has stated that on 25.11.2017, Constable Harendra Singh of Police Station Etmadpur had brought the sealed dead body of the daughter of Mouni for postmortem.The dead body was unsealed.The height of the deceased was 3 feet and 10 inches and her weight was about 15 Kg.In the external examination, it was found that her mouth and eyes were closed and the white portion of the eyes were congested.In the internal examination, nothing was found in the head.Half digested food was present in the stomach.Fecal matter and gas was present in the large intestine.In the small intestine digested food and gas was present.Liver was congested and gall bladder was half full.Kidney was congested.Urinary bladder was empty.Hymen was torn.Bleeding was present in the vagina.Uterus was non gravid.Larynx and Vocqal cords were congested.17. PW-5 Lajja Ram has stated that about one year before he was passing with Shailendra Yadav through the Government Model School, Etmadpur, where many persons were gathered.On inquiry, he came to know that accused Mouni has committed sexual assault with his 6-7 years old daughter and at that time, he was in a drunk condition.The people of the locality were scolding him.Accused Mouni sought apology and promised not to repeat such thing.He was in the habit of drinking and he committed the offence on her daughter.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he knew the accused.18. PW-6 Shailendra Yadav has stated the same thing what was stated by PW-5 Lajja Ram.PW-7 Shammi Kapoor has stated that he was living near the Government Model School, Etmadpur in a hut where accused Mouni was also living in a hut with his family.On 24/25.11.2017 at about 03:30 AM in the mid night, police came on jeep with Mouni for searching the victim.Thereafter, the victim was found in the school and he saw that she was in unconscious state.Mouni was carrying his daughter on his shoulder.She was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.Mouni was in the habit of taking drugs and wine.Prior to this incident, there was a complaint that he committed sexual assault with his daughter about 5-6 months before.People of the locality scolded him and he sought apology for the same and promised not to repeat such kind of act.PW-8 Rahul has stated that he used to live near the Government Model School, Etmadpur with his family near the hut of Mouni.One year before, at about 03:30 AM in the mid night, police jeep came and got the nearby people awakened.Mouni was also accompanying the police who said that his daughter was missing.On search, the naked body of the daughter of Mouni was found and taken to the hospital where she was declared dead.Mouni was in the habit of taking wine and drugs and used to sexually assault his daughter.PW-9 Ram Chandra has stated that on the next day of the death of deceased, he reached on the spot and inquest report was prepared by the police and he signed on the inquest report.22. PW-10 Constable Sandeep Singh has stated that on 25.11.2017, he was on night duty in the police station.At about 03:05 AM, Mouni came and informed that on 24.11.2017 in the mid night, his daughter aged about 7 years and his son aged about 9 years were sleeping with him on a cot and at 02:30 AM in the night, when he got awakened, he found that his daughter is missing.He searched but could not trace her.PW-12 Sonu aged about 12 years is son of accused Mouni who has stated that his sister was killed about one year before by his father Mouni, who used to commit sexual assault and rape with her.He had drinking habit and used to take drugs.He could do anything with anyone.He has however accepted that he did not see the accused committing the offence.PW-13 Jeete aged about 8 years is also son of Mouni.He has stated that his sister was killed by his father in the fateful night when she was sleeping with him and his father.In the night she was weeping and she said that she is feeling pain.His father took her out saying that he is going to get medicine for her.PW-14 Constable Harendra Singh had taken the dead body of the deceased for postmortem and he submitted the postmortem report in the police station.From perusal of the first information report, it appears that the accused appellant orally informed the police of Police Station Etmadpur regarding his 7 years old daughter got missing in the mid night of 24.11.2017 when he, his son and the victim were sleeping on a cot in his hut.He got awakened at 02:30 AM in the mid night and found the victim missing.He searched her in the surrounding but could not get her.The victim was sleeping with him and his father.He got awakened in the night as the victim was weeping and she told that she is in pain.Whereupon his father took her out of the hut saying that he is going to take medicine for her and thereafter, she was not seen alive and her dead body was recovered.Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, Senior Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Ajit Ray, learned AGA for the respondents.This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mouni against the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2019, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 624 of 2018, by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Agra, arising out of Case Crime No. 605 of 2017, under Sections 363, 302, 201, 376(f) IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra by which the learned trial court had convicted the appellant Mouni for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded death sentence along with fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and in default of fine one year additional imprisonment, under Section 376(f) IPC for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment, under Section 363 IPC for seven years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of fine three months additional imprisonment, under Section 201 IPC for three years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine two months additional imprisonment and for the offences under Section 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act for 14 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine six months additional imprisonment.On the basis of this written report an addition of Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were made and the investigation was started.The inquest report of the dead body was prepared, dead body was sealed and after preparing the necessary papers, the dead body was sent for postmortem.The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site map of the place of occurrence, took in possession the wearings of the deceased and took swab etc. from the private part of the deceased.During investigation, prima-facie the offence was made out against the accused Mouni, the informant himself.Charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offence and charges were framed against the accused person.The prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses in support.They are PW-1 Kartal, PW-2 Servesh, PW-3 Johny, PW-4 Dr. Udit Kumar, PW-5 Lajja Ram, PW-6 Shailendra Yadav, PW-7 Shammi Kapoor, PW-8 Rahul, PW-9 Ramchandra, PW-10 Constable Sandeep Singh, PW-11 SI Vinod Kumar, PW-12 Sonu, PW-13 Jeete, PW-14 Constable Harendra Singh, PW-15 SO Fateh Bahadur Singh Bhadauria and PW-16 SI Suneel Kumar.The witnesses have proved the incident and the documents such as written report Ext. Ka-1, postmortem report Ext. Ka-2, chik FIR Ext. Ka-3, GD reports Exts.Ka-4 & Ka-5, panchnama Ext. KA-6, 12 & 13, photo nash Exts, Ka-7 &14, charge sheet Ext. Ka-8, site plan Ext. Ka-9, letter to RI Ext. Ka-10, sample seal Ext. Ka-11, form-13 Ext. Ka-15, report of forensic science laboratory Ext. Ka-16, spot investigation/DNA report Exts.Ka-17/1 & 17/2, letter to CMO Ext. Ka-18, application for video-graphy Ext. Ka-19, recovery memo of clothes of deceased Ext. Ka-20, recovery memo of clothes of the accused Ext. K-21 and envelope, swab of the private part of the deceased, hair of the deceased and the accused, clothes etc. material Exts.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he has denied the prosecution version and has stated the evidence of the witnesses to be false and given due to enmity.He has been falsely implicated in the present case.However, the accused did not produce any evidence in his defence.After perusing the evidence available on record, the learned trial court has passed the aforesaid impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant by awarding death sentence and other punishments.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal from jail has been filed challenging the impugned judgment on the ground that the impugned judgment is against the facts, evidence and law.The sentence awarded is excessive and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him.Thereafter, he came to know that Mouni committed rape and killed her.His statement was taken by the police.The victim was taken to the S.N. Medical College.Subsequently, he came to know that Mouni has committed murder of his daughter after committing rape on her.The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased-(I) Teeth bite 4 cm.X 3 cm.on the on face.(ii) Teeth bite 4 cm.X 3 cm.on chest at nipple.(iii) Teeth bite 4 cm.X 3 cm.near the umbilical area.(iv) Abrasion and contusion was present on the left side of the forehead.(v) Abrasion 2 cm.X 2 cm.on the front of the nose.(vi) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm.X 0.5 cm.on the lower lips.(vii) Abrasion and contusion 9 cm.X 2 cm.on the left side of the neck.The brain and its membranes were congested.Lungs were found congested.Heart was empty.Trachea was also congested and the hyoid bone was intact.The reason of death was asphyxia.In the cross examination, the doctor has stated that no clear opinion can be given with regard to commission of rape.He gave an oral information in the police station.On the basis of which Crime No. 605 of 2017, under Section 363 IPC was registered.Thereafter, on 25.11.2017, at about 06:10 AM, he gave the written report about the rape and murder of his daughter and on that basis the offence was modified by adding Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC and section ¾ POCSO Act. The entry was made in the corresponding GD.PW-11 SI Vinod Kumar has prepared the inquest report.PW-15 Fateh Bahadur Singh Bhadauria, incharge police station and IO of the case has stated that during the course of investigation he also recorded the statement of some witnesses and on the basis of collected evidence, the name of Mouni came into light as accused.He also submitted charge sheet against him.PW-16 SI Suneel Kumar traced out the deceased in the Government Model School with the accused and has stated that when they were searching the deceased in the school, the accused went to the left side and came carrying the deceased on his shoulder and said that he has traced his daughter and he found her in the courtyard of the school.He went there and found that there was blood on the place.The deceased was taken to the district hospital where she was declared dead.Accordingly the addition of other offences were made.During investigation, this fact was brought into the knowledge that 5-6 months before also, he committed the same kind of act with the deceased under the influence of wine and drugs.The local people got him scolded.He has also stated that during investigation, Jeete told him about the incident and said that in the night the deceased was weeping and she said that she was feeling pain in her thigh and chest.Mouni got her drink water and took her out for medicine.He has further stated that his father can do anything as he used to take wine and drugs.During investigation Sonu who is also son of the accused has also stated the similar facts.After being arrested, the accused confessed and at his instance, certain incriminatory things such as black Jarkin, jeans and school coat of deceased from the hedges of school which according to accused the victim was wearing at the time of incident, were recovered of which memo Ext. Ka-20 was prepared and the recovered articles were sealed.Similarly, keeping in view the possibility of availability of blood and semen on the clothes of accused he was wearing at the time of accident, the clothes of accused, underwear, shirt, lower and a round neck T-shirt was taken into possession, sealed and memo Ext. Ka-21 was prepared.He also prepared the papers prepared for postmortem.He also sent the aforesaid articles and blood samples of the accused and victim to FSL with other items taken from spot during investigation such as one cigarette, half burnt matchstick, one button, black thread and red thread, blood swab, blood/sperm swab from the spot, hair of deceased found on dead body and bed sheet, piece of bed sheet for comparison, swab and hair from the private part of the accused, Hair recovered from the clothes of victim found in hedges and from spot, hair of the accused for comparison.FSL report is on record and sent items have been produced and proved by the witness.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence of rape being committed by the appellant.The first information report was lodged by the appellant himself and he was falsely implicated and made accused in the case.The further submission is that the age of the victim at the time of incident was 6-7 years and the medical evidence shows that she died out of asphyxia and definite opinion with regards to commission of rape has not been given by the doctor conducting postmortem.The information has been given at 03:05 AM in the mid night and the case was registered for the offence under Section 363 IPC against unknown person.On his oral report, the police went with him to his residence and made a search and in Government Model School building, in the courtyard, the victim was found in naked condition with her inner-wear close to her body.She was taken to the hospital and she was found to have died.Thereafter, the accused himself gave a written application to the SO stating this version and making allegations that some unknown person has committed rape and murder.Theefore, Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC and 5(n) read with Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act were added.On the basis of statements recorded by the investigating officer, under Section 161 CrPC of witnesses, the name of the accused appellant came in light and he was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.The case of the accused-appellant as disclosed from his statement under Section 313 CrPC and in the manner the defence has conducted cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is of complete denial and he has alleged that he has been wrongly and falsely framed in the case and the whole case is based on false incident.The accused, however, did not give any evidence in his defence.PW-1 Kartal lives near the hut of accused and close to the Government Model School.He has stated that in the fateful night, the victim was found in the government Model School building.She was unconscious and subsequently found dead by the doctor.This witness has stated during cross-examination that he does not know who committed rape and murder of the victim.He was sleeping when he was awakened.He did not see the victim nor he entered in the exercise of her search.He has also stated that he cannot say when she was found in the late mid night.Similar is the statement of the PW-2 Sarvesh with the difference that with police the accused also searched the victim and he saw that victim was lying in the courtyard of Government Model School in the naked condition.He was told by the accused himself that the victim is lying in the courtyard, then he saw her.The accused did not call the police and said that the victim has been traced.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say who committed rape and killed the victim.PW-3 Johny is only scriber of the written report and he did not see the incident nor he has any knowledge about it.PW-5 has stated that he cannot say how the victim died and whether the rape was committed on her or not.He has stated that a year before, he had seen the accused committing sexual assault on the victim who was 6-7 years old.Similar is the statement of PW-6 Shailendra Yadav and both these witnesses have stated that because of this incident, the crowd collected in front of the house of the accused and all scolded him.PW-7 Shammi Kapoor has also stated in similar manner but he has stated that he did not see the accused doing sexual assault on his daughter and he was told by others.PW-8 Rahul has stated that the accused was edict of wine and drugs and under that affect, he used to commit sexual assault with the victim.Thus, all these witnesses have either stated about the recovery of dead body or about the fact that the accused was in the habit of committing sexual assault on victim and when seen and scolded by people of the locality, he apologized before them.This fact got further affirmed by the statement of PW-12 Sonu who is son of the accused and has also stated that his sister was killed by the accused who used to sexually assault her.He was edict of wine and drugs and he can do anything with anyone.We find that all the fact witnesses except PW-13 Jeete have stated about earlier conduct of the accused who was in the habit of taking wine and also in the habit of committing sexual assault with the victim and he was seen by the persons of that locality.Thus, all these witnesses have stated the background leading to the commission of offence and the sexual perversion of the accused which is one circumstance indicating towards guilt.The statement of PW-13 Jeete has to be seen in the backdrop of the statement given by other witnesses.PW-13 has stated that he was with his father and victim in the fateful night.It is also clear from the postmortem that on her face there was teeth bite.Abrasion and contusion was also there on her forehead and there was abrasion on breast and nose and her lips were lacerated.As many as 17 items were picked either from spot or taken from the accused for chemical examination and DNA test.According to the report, on item 3 jacket, item- 4 coat and item-5 blood/swab and items-8 piece of bed sheet, item-9 swab, item-10 hair, item-11 hair and item-12 hair, partial DNA profile was generated.The DNA profile of material item-15 lower, item-16 underwear and item-17 sample blood were found same.On that basis, the learned trial court has rightly concluded that on comparison of the said items of the victim and accused, the DNA of the accused Mouni was found matched. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,873,750 | 5. 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 18 - Mani Vs.State by the Inspector of Police, ChennaiO.P.(MD).No.19293 of 2014 dated 28.09.2018 - P.Rajamohan Vs.Inspector of Police, Gudalur South Police Station, Theni District.O.P(MD).No.12462 of 2014 dated 12.10.2018 - Santhosh Vs.Inspector of Police Kovilpatty West Police Station, Tuticorin District.O.P.(MD).No.5069 of 2015 dated 30.10.2018 - Loganathan Vs.Inspector of Police, Pappanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District."This is the information giving to my reason for my death is my company all funds used in my account is only for company use only but they saying its misuse of funds and they thriten me and collected my chain and four cheque leaves and signature in letters so take this as evidence for myhttp://www.judis.nic.in death and take action on them and get back the 6 chain and cheque leaves to my parents its the duty of police."There is no evidence to show that the message has been sent from the phone which belonging to the deceased.There is no evidence to show that the message was sent by the deceased and the said message sent to whom.This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur.There are absolutely no avernments as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC.The prosecution filed charge sheet as against the petitioners that on 22.11.2011, a dead body was found in a well of a agricultural land.On the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer, initially the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter altered into for the offences under Section 306 of IPC.The petitioners are the Directors of M/s. Corporate Solutions Marketing Service India Pvt. Ltd., in which the deceased was working as accountant.The petitioners forcibly obtained signature in cheque leaves and took 2½ sovereign of gold chain from the deceased for misusing of company's funds by the deceased.Therefore, the deceased feared for the complaint of misappropriation and as such the deceased committed suicide.Further submitted that there was no allegation as against the petitioners and only after thought they were implicated in the alleged offence.After the occurrence the relative of the victim created message in the victims mobile phone as if "the account of the victim was used for company's funds, a chain was collected and four cheque leaves with signature were also collected" and falsely implicated inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 this crime.Further submitted that even according to the prosecution, before the occurrence, there was no allegation of abetment or instigation by the petitioners to commit suicide.Therefore, the charge itself is not made out as against the petitioners.He further submitted that there are catena of judgments have held that even though there is a word uttered by the person by saying to the victim to die, it will not amount to abetment of committing suicide.In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-1. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 - Swamy Prahaladdas Vs.State of M.P & another2. 2002 (5) SCC 371 - Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.State of M.P.3. 2009 (1) SCC 554 - Sonti Rama Krishna Vs.Sonti Shanti Sree & another.4. 2010 (1) SCC 750 - Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh.Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.Initially the case has been registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 thereafter altered into Section 306 of IPC and it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur.He further submitted that there is a message sent by the victim that the reason for the death of the deceased is that "his company all funds used in his account is only for company use but they saying its misuse of funds and they threatened him and collected his chain and four cheque leaves and signature in letters".So take this as evidence for his death and action on them and get back the chain and cheque leaves to his parents." Therefore there is prima facie made out as against the petitioners to charge under Section 306 of IPC and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the deceased body was found in well on agricultural land and after information by the Village Administrative Officer, the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After production of evidence to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the offence has been altered into Section 306 of IPC as against the petitioners.The petitioners are none other than the Directors of M/s. Corporate Solutions Marketing Service India Pvt. Ltd., in which, the deceased was working as an Accountant.They foisted false complaint as against the deceased as if he misappropriate the company's money, through his account and as such the petitioners threatened the deceased.To establish the charge of misappropriation they also obtained signature and four cheque leaves and goldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 chain from the deceased and also threatened him.Therefore they instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and he vehemently opposed and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.Shanmuga sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.Munirathna Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.They are the Directors of M/s. Corporate Solutions Marketing Service India Private Limited, in which the deceased was working as an Accountant.While he was working as Accountant, there was a complaint against him in respect of the misappropriation of company's fund.Thereafter he committed suicide by jumped into the well.Initially the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., subsequently alter into Section 306 of IPC.The defacto complainant produced a cell phone as evidence and it contains message as follows :-Further whether the said message received by any other phone for which also no evidence.It seems that simply typed the message and gave it to the first respondent to alter the offence under Section 306 of IPC.While he was working there, was a misappropriation of company's fund.There is no evidence to show that the petitioners instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide at any point of time.It is also seen that the occurrence took place on 21.11.2011 and on the date of complaint, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 cell phone of the deceased was not produced before the first respondent.Only on 26.11.2011, the complainant produced the cell phone of the deceased before the first respondent and thereafter the offence has been altered into 306 of IPC.There is no explanation for the delay in presenting the cell phone containing the message as stated supra.Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence for instigation or abetment by the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide.In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The Inspector of Police, Sevaipet Police Station, Thiruvallur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rts CRL.O.P.No.25440 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 14.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
52,878,895 | 6 The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.02.1996, the prosecutrix (PW 1) a member of Scheduled Caste, had gone to collect medicine.On her way back she missed the bus, therefore, was walking down to her village.On the way suddenly someone caught her hand.She was surprised and when she saw it was the accused- Harinarayan.The accused fell her on the ground because of which she sustained injuries.Her bangles were broken.She pushed him away and shouted.Hearing her shout Ramcharan Choudhary and his grand son came to the scene of crime.The accused while leaving the place of incident, threatened her to see her calling Khangaran ( her caste name).He said if she lodges any report, she would not be spared.The prosecutrix went to the village Hathora and informed the Sarpanch Hakam Singh (PW 3) and Chaukidar about the incident.When her brother Lakhu (PW 2) came, she also informed the same to him.She went to Chauki Jethari (PW 4) and then to Police Station Jaithari to lodge the report (Ex. P/1).The Station House Officer Pankaj Dixit (PW 6) lodged the F.I.R Ex. P/7 after receiving the copy of report.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.Spot map Ex. P/2 was prepared at the instance of the prosecutrix Lakhu (PW 2) and Hakam Singh (PW 3).The caste certificate (Ex. P/5) issued by Sarpanch of the village Hathora.It is stated that the prosecutrix (PW 1) narrated the incident to the Sarpanch Hakam Singh (PW 3) and Lakhu, her brother (PW 2) after she reached the village.13 The prosecutrix (PW 1) has narrated the prosecution story in the following manner:- She was coming back to her village Deori from village Silwani via village Hathora.After she crossed the village Hathora, the accused/appellant followed her.After a distance she was caught by the accused.She also says that the accused fell her on the ground and assaulted her.She was molestated by the accused.She sustained injuries in this altercation.Her bangles were broken.(17.08.2017) Law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment but by cross-checking the reasoning of the evidence on record.It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place, when the appeal is posted for hearing.In the case of Bani Singh and Others Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 386 of Cr.P.C held that when appellant and his lawyer are absent on appointed for hearing, the Court is not bound to adjourn the case, but should dispose of appeal on merits.The dismissal of appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution is not contemplated.3 In a similar case of K.S. Panduranga Vs.State of Karnataka, 2013 Cr.L.J 1665 the Apex Court has held that it cannot be said that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the counsel for the accused, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing.4 This criminal appeal is pending since 1998, but none appeared on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the appeal is being decided.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed.Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of I.P.C.7 The accused abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.The learned trial Court after adducing evidence held the appellant guilty for offence under Section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act, 1989 and acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.8 The impugned judgment has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix (PW 1).The F.I.R was lodged belatedly.The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the report.Testimony of prosecutrix (PW 1) is not corroborated by any other witness.The injuries have not been corroborated by any medical evidence.No independent witnesses have supported the prosecutrix due to political enmity.The appellant has been falsely implicated.No material witness has been examined except the prosecutrix (PW 1) whose statement is untrustworthy.9 Learned P.L for the respondent/State at the other hand has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that the prosecutrix had no reason to implicate the appellant falsely.Corroboration of the prosecutrix statement is not necessary.The prosecution has established the case.There is not any reasonable doubt in the prosecution story, therefore, interference is not warranted.10 The prosecution has examined the prosecutrix (PW 1), her brother Lakhu (PW 2), Sarpanch Hakam Singh (PW3), chaukidar, apart from the police witnesses, Shri M.L. Gathia (PW 5) the Sub Inspector, Police Chowki Jethari and Pankaj Dixit (PW 6) the Office-In charge, Police Station Deori.11 Mansha Ram (PW 4) has not supported the prosecution case.12 Lakhu (PW 2) and Hakam Singh (PW 3) are witnesses who have not seen the incident.Some bangles caused injury on her wrist.She sustained injuries on her legs.She went to lodge report on the following day.14 It is observed in her report and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that she named two persons, arrived on her shout, at the scene of crime, but in her testimony before the Court, she has not spoken a word about these persons.Neither the prosecution examined Ramcharan Choudhary and his grand son, who allegedly came at the scene of crime on her shout.15 The injuries have not been proved by any medical evidence.Lakhu (PW 2) is a witness, who is the brother of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix informed the incident to him when he arrived at the village.Hakam Singh (PW3) the Sarpanch of village Hathora also was informed by the prosecutrix, though these witnesses say that the prosecutrix was being molestated by the appellant- Harinarayan, but their statements do not have much evidenciary value because they are not eye witnesses.They are hearsay witnesses.Besides, the prosecutrix (PW1) admitted that in her village there are two parties.The accused belong to the other party.Her husband- Chaman belonged to the other party.She also agrees that both the parties have enmity to each other.In this background, the statement of Lakhu Singh (PW 2), Hakam Singh (PW 3) who are not eye witnesses, cannot be relied upon.The statement of the prosecutrix (PW 1) has to be scrutinized minutely.16 The test as to whether corroboration is necessary lies in the naturalness of the story deposed by the prosecutrix.If there be any doubt as regards its genuineness, there is need of caution and, therefore, corroboration.Though there is no rule of law that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed without corroboration on any material particulars, but her statement should be of sterling quality.17 If we examine the statement of prosecutrix (PW 1), it would be seen that:-(i) The eye witnesses Ramcharan Choudhary and his grand son were not examined, who could be supporting her allegations.(iii) She lodged the report on 27.02.1996 at about 09.30 am.The explanation given by the prosecutrix show that she had gone to Chauki Jethari of Police Station Deori for lodging the report but because the Officer-in-charge was not present, she could not lodge report.Therefore, went to the police station on the following day to lodge the report.But this explanation does not hold much water as the report has been lodged on the 3rd day of the incident.18 The enmity between the two parties in the village exist, has been admitted by her.The accused- Harinarayan belonged to one party and her husband of the prosecutrix Chaman, belong to another party.1995, Rule 7 and Penal Code, Section 294-Accused persons- appellants allegedly threw stones and hurled abuse at complainants in the name of their caste, namely, Balai-Therefore, it would not be proper to sustain the impugned judgment.Hence, this appeal is allowed. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,432,387 | The main accused Jagdish Rajak is stated to have met her and on the promise of marriage, he is stated to have forcibly taken her to Manegaon where they met the applicant who is the aunt of the main accused Jagdish Rajak.The prosecutrix alleges that the applicant herein locked her up in a room and the main accused Jagdish Rajak is alleged to have raped her.From there, upon insistence of the applicant, the prosecutrix and the main accused went to Mokhala from where she was apprehended by her uncle.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rkThis application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2018 for offences 363 and 366 of IPC registered at Police Station-Devori, District-Sagar.The applicant is 40 years old lady.She is not main accused in this case.The main accused is one Jagdish Rajak.Initially the FIR was registered under section 363 and 366 of IPC and subsequently after the recovery of the prosecutrix it was enhanced by section 376 of IPC.The prosecutrix is aged above 17 years plus.The incident relates to 06.01.2018 when the prosecutrix is stated to have come out her home to answer the natures call in the night. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,484 | (a) The deceased, who are husband and wife, belong to Kattunayakanpatti.PW-1 Kakilakshmi is their daughter while PW-4 Balakrishnan is their son, both minors at the time of occurrence.The second deceased's brother's wife is PW-3 Saradha, who resides in the village called Solapuram.(b) There had been disputes between the accused and first deceased with regard to a plot of land and in that regard, first deceased also gave a police complaint.(c) On the fateful day, while the second deceased was returning from Adhanur, where she was doing business of selling sweets, noticed the son of the accused cutting a branch in the tree standing in the land of the deceased.Seeing this, the second deceased told that boy not to cut and further warned him that otherwise he will be beaten.It appears that the boy went and told his mother as if the second deceased had beaten him.The wife of the accused, probably believing the statement of his son, came to the house of the deceased and questioned the second deceased as to why she had beaten her son.The second deceased told the wife of the accused that she did not beat her son and that she is prepared to go to any temple and swear before the God.Thereafter, the wife of the accused left the place stating that the second deceased had beaten her son.(d) The second deceased then followed the wife of the accused saying that the matter could be informed to Thanga Asari.PW-1 and the first deceased followed the second deceased.Again there was wordy altercation between the second deceased and the wife of the accused.At that time, the accused came there and he was having an aruval in his hands.The accused pushed the first deceased down and cut him on his neck.The first deceased then shouting "btl;lhnj", prevented the accused cutting and thus the cut fell on the left hand of the first deceased and three fingers were completely severed off.Seeing this, the second deceased prevented the accused by saying "vd; g[U#id btl;otpl;lhna".Thereafter, the accused held the tuft of the second deceased and pushed her down and cut her on the back and neck.Both the deceased, who received the cut injuries, died on the spot.Thereafter the accused threatened PW-1 and she immediately ran to inform her brother PW-4 who was witnessing temple festival at that time.After PW-1 informed PW-4, both of them came to the scene of occurrence and after seeing both the deceased, proceeded to inform their aunt PW-3 at Solapuram.Then all of them came back to the scene of occurrence and PW-1 and PW-3 proceeded to Eppothum Vendran Police Station.(e) PW-11 was the Head Constable at the Eppothum Vendran Police Station at the relevant time.At about 2.00 p.m., Pws.1 and 3 appeared before him and gave a statement Ex.P-1 and the same was reduced to writing, in which PW-1 affixed her thumb impression.PW-3 also signed in the said statement.On the basis of the said complaint, crime No.52 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered and printed F.I.R. Ex.P-11 was prepared.Investigation in the case was done by Mr.Iyathurai Anthony, Inspector of Police and since he retired from service and at the relevant time he was bed ridden, PW-13, who is well familiar with the hand writing of the said Inspector of Police, deposed before the Court.According to PW-13, Inspector of Police Iyathurai Anthony took over the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 14.6.1996 at about 3.35 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-17 rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.The blood stained earth, ordinary earth, etc., viz., MOS.2 to 5 were seized from the scene of occurrence under mahazar Ex.On exploration of the injury No.8 - C7 level severed of spinal cord, vertebral column, muscles, great vessels, nerves.Internal appearance: All internal viscera organs pale.Stomach - empty; Heart chambers empty; Hyoid - Hyoid cartilage intact; Uterus empty; Brain pale."The Doctor in the post mortem certificate Ex.P-7 had opined that the death would have occurred 23 to 27 hours prior to post mortem due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained.(i) The accused surrendered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the Inspector of Police, coming to know that, took steps to get police custody of the accused.On 1.7.1996, the police custody of the accused was secured and the accused was enquired in the presence of PW-8 and another.The accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement and the admissible portion in the said statement is Ex.Pursuant to the said statement, the accused took the police party and witnesses to the place north of Kattunayakanpatti and from a bush in the burial ground, took out and handed over an aruval and the same was seized under Ex.P-9 mahazar.The arrest as well as recovery was done in the presence of witnesses.JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.The appellant herein was charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (2 counts) for causing the death of Soorasankaravel (hereinafter referred to as first deceased) and his wife Pachaiammal (hereinafter referred to as second deceased) at about 11.30 a.m. on 14.6.1996 in the village Kattunayakanpatti.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, who tried the accused, found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each count.The Court also held that the accused should undergo the sentences consecutively.The aggrieved accused has preferred the above appeal.As could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution can be narrated as under.Both Exs.P-1 and P-11 were sent to the Judicial Magistrate through PW-9 constable.(f) PW-13 Kandasamy is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Eppothum Vendran Police station.An inquest over the body of first deceased was held in the presence of Panchayatdars between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on that day and Ex.P-18 inquest report was prepared.Similarly, inquest over the body of the second deceased was held in the presence of Panchayatdars between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on the same day and Ex.P-19 inquest report was prepared.During inquest, Inspector of Police examined Pws.1 to 4, 6 and others and recorded their statements.Thereafter, necessary requisition was sent to the Doctor at the Government Hospital to conduct post mortem on the body of both the deceased.Ex.P-6 is the post mortem certificate with regard to the first deceased.In the said certificate, the Doctor had noted the following, "A moderately nourished, built body of a male aged about 45 years, lies on back, eyes partially opened.Mud present over the head, face, chest left side.Blood stains over the face, left ear, nostrils, left thigh, right thigh.1) Right Thumb Phalanx (proximal) cut completely - the cut edges of the Phalanx - matches.2) Right index finger completely severed at proximal phalanx - cut edges matches.3) Right middle finger proximal phalanx - completely severed - cut edges - matches.Specimen of bone and soft tissues - from both fragments sent for Forensic Experts opinion.1. 12 x 7 cms a curved incised wound on the left shoulder exposing the muscles underneath.An incised wound 6 x 7 cms just above the previous.An incised wound 8 x 3 cms just below the No.1 injury on the back side of chest.4. 20 x 2 cms incised just behind the left ear around the back side of neck C2, C3 level severing the vertebral column, spinal cord (nc) nerves, blood vessels ending just behind right ear lobe.5. 22 x 3 cms an incised wound merging with the previous sparing tag of skin interiorly.6. 22 x 6 cms an incised wound back side of neck just merging with the previous.Hyoid intact; stomach empty; Heart chambers empty.All internal organs pale.Brain pale."The Doctor had opined that the deceased would have died about 22 to 26 hours prior to post mortem due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained, the fatal injury being the one caused around the neck.(h) On the same day, the Doctor conducted autopsy over the body of the second deceased and issued Ex.P-7 post mortem certificate.In the said certificate the Doctor has noted the following."A moderately nourished built body of a female aged 40 years, lies on back.Mud over the face, head and abdomen.Blood stains over the face, chest, frothy discharge from mouth, nostrils.Eyes partially opened, tongue within the mouth.1. 5 x 2 cms an oblique - incised wound left forearm inner aspect - muscles severed - with fracture ulnar bone.2. 4 x 2 cms - an incised wound just below the former.3. 6 x 5 cms incised wound on the left wrist - outer aspect.Fracture of radius distain end left.5. 14 x 3 cms a transverse cut injury on the right inter scapular region severing the vertebral column and spinal cord underneath.Fracture right scapular medial end.7. 23 x 5 cms an incised wound on the right supra scapular region, back side of the neck upto the medial end of left collar bone.8. 23 x 5 cms an incised wound merging with the previous - commencing from just above the medial end of right collar bone.(j) On 3.7.1996, the Inspector of Police examined PW-7 Doctor and other witnesses Pws.9 to 11 and recorded their statements.P-15 is the chemical analysis report while Ex.P-16 is the serologist's report.The Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation, filed his final report before the Court.When questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C., the accused pleaded ignorance and further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case.That both the deceased died of homicidal violence is fairly clear from the evidence of PW-7 Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased.So far as the first deceased is concerned, the Doctor noted six injuries and so far second accused is concerned, the Doctor noted as many as nine injuries.According to the Doctor, both the deceased died due to the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained.The case of the prosecution briefly is that there had been dispute between the accused and the first deceased with regard to a plot of land and in fact, in this regard the first deceased also gave a complaint to the Police.On the fateful day, the second deceased was coming back from Athanur when she noticed the son of the accused cutting a branch of the tree, standing in their land.The second deceased warned that boy not to do so and it appears, the boy complained to his mother and she came and questioned the second deceased.The wife of the accused after so questioning the second deceased, left the place and the second deceased followed her for the purpose of telling one Thanga Asari, so that the matter could be talked over.The second deceased was followed by the first deceased and PW-1 and the whole occurrence took place in front of the house of Thanga Asari.The accused, first attacked the first deceased and inflicted injuries and then attacked second deceased and both of them died on the spot.This gruesome act was witnessed by PW-1, daughter of both the deceased, who informed his brother PW-4, who was in the temple witnessing a festival and that thereafter both of them went and informed PW-3, their aunt in the nearby village.Pws.1 and 3 thereafter went and gave complaint to PW-11 Head Constable.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it would not be safe to act on the testimony of PW-1 for various reasons.First, he contended that PW-1 is none else than the daughter of the deceased and that being so, she being a related witness, it would not be safe to act on her testimony.Secondly it is submitted that at the relevant time, this witness was aged only 13 years old and further she was examined in court virtually after a period of four years and because of the long gap, she would not have remembered the occurrence properly to depose before the Court correctly.Yet another submission has been made to the effect that PW-1 being a child witness, the possibility of other interested witnesses viz., PW-3 and PW-4 tutoring PW-1 was always there.Then it is contended that Eppothum Vendran Police Station lies between Kattunayakanpatti and Solapuram and when Pws.1 and 4 went to Solapuram all the way from Kattunayakanpatti, they could have informed the Police.Even if it is not while going to Solapuram, at least on their way back from Solapuram they could have complained to the Police.The story that Pws.1, 3 and 4 went to Kattunayakanpatti and after seeing the deceased, Pws.1 and 3 went to Police station to give complaint, cannot be believed and such a story has been put forward only to gain time for the purpose of discussion and deliberation before giving complaint.Finally a submission is made that the thumb impression found in Ex.P-1 is not that of PW-1 and that in fact the deceased have lot of enemies in the scene village as well as in the adjoining village and in all likelihood only they should have finished off both the deceased.True, PW-1 is none else than the daughter of the deceased.But on that ground the Court cannot refuse to consider her evidence or eschew that evidence totally from consideration.It is also true that at the relevant time PW-1 was just 13 years old.When a young girl like PW-1 witnesses such a gruesome murder of the deceased, who are none else than her father and mother and moreso when attacked by a known person, the possibility of PW-1 forgetting as to what had happened on the fateful day would be very remote.Such an event will never go out of mind.The occurrence was at about 11.30 a.m. on that unfortunate day.Naturally, PW-1, who was just 13 years old, would not have known as to what to do.That is why she immediately rushed to see her brother PW-4 aged 16 years, who was near the temple witnessing the festival.Both these minors naturally rushed to see their aunt PW-3 in the nearby village and all of them viz., Pws.1, 3 and 4 rushed back to see the deceased and thereafter Pws.1 and 3 went to give complaint to Eppothum Vendran Police Station, which is about 2 kms away.The complaint was given at about 2.00 p.m. and it cannot be said that there was long delay in giving complaint and was given after much deliberation and discussion.This Court has also to remember that it is a case of single accused and the occurrence took place in the broad day light.No one will leave the real assailant and implicate someone else.Various suggestions were made to PW-1 in the cross examination such as the deceased got many enemies, both in the same village and in the adjoining village and further the thumb impression found in Ex.P-1 is not that of her.Pw-1 has emphatically denied all those suggestions.We went through the testimony of PW-1, in particular, the cross examination and our assessment is that this witness has spoken only truth and nothing else.To sum up, we are fully satisfied that PW-1 is a reliable witness and her testimony can be safely acted upon.The evidence of Pws.3 and 4 can be taken up together for consideration.PW-4, as already stated is the brother of PW-1 and son of the deceased.At the relevant time PW-4 was also a minor, aged about 16 years.Pws.1 and 4 being minors, probably were not at that time in a position to decide as to what to do and because of which they decided first to go and see PW-3, their aunt in the nearby village.It would be rather difficult to expect Pws.1 and 4, the minors to go to Police Station and give a complaint.Their conduct in approaching PW-3 is quite natural.There is no abnormality in the conduct of Pw-3 also in seeing the deceased first and then lodging complaint after that.13. Pws.1 and 3 appeared before the Police Station and gave complaint at about 2.00 p.m. The complaint was given by PW-1 and in the said complaint PW-3 also affixed her signature.Certainly recording of the complaint and preparing printed F.I.R. and observing other formalities would have taken an hour or so.Thereafter, the complaint was sent through PW-9 Police Constable to the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, which is about 20 kms away and the same reached the Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. It cannot be said that there was delay in express F.I.R. reaching the Court.There is yet another aspect, which we have to point out.PW-4 also resides along with the deceased.If really the Police desired to create some evidence, they could have very well projected a case as if the occurrence was witnessed by PW-4 also. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,451,573 | has been passed.(2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 03.02.2000, the complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) along with his son-in-law Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) and deceased Balkishan @ Laddu left the village Janora for village Paryaya to hold a meeting relating to the marriage of the niece of the complainant Bramhanand.On the way, accused Munnalal hailed them.When they reached near accused Munnalal then appellants and Munnalal put guns on their heads and thereafter nooses were put on their necks.Then, the accused persons including appellants robbed a sum of Rs.240/-, 60/- and 20,200/- from the pockets of Swadesh Kumar Joshi, Bramhanand and the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu respectively.One watch was also taken from Bramhanand.Thereafter, the appellants and Munnalal took them to a lonely place in the Beehad.They were confined 3 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.On 09.02.2000, when accused Murarilal, Suratram and Ramjilal etc went to the spot, Munnalal handed over the deceased Balkishan to them.Munnalal and accused Murarilal, Suratram and Ramjilal beat the deceased Balkishan with lathis [sticks] and consequently Balkishan died.His dead body was hidden in a cave in the Beehad.Thereafter, Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi were confined by the appellants in the Beehad upto 17.02.2000 and on 17.02.2000 at about 08:00 pm they were released.They tried to look for the dead body of the deceased Balkishan.Again on 18.02.2000, they tried to search out the dead body of the deceased Balkishan and they found it in Beehad.Thereafter, when they were going to Police Station Ater, on Raipura trisection, they met with S.S. Parmar (PW-15), the former Station House Officer of the Police Station Ater and a Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-5 was recorded.Station House officer -S.S. Parmar (PW-15) prepared the panchayatnama lash of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu and dead body was sent for post mortem.medico-legal examination.Dr. H. D. Gupta (PW-2) examined them and gave MLC reports Ex.P-2 and P-3 respectively.Three simple injuries were found to the complainant Bramhanand whereas two simple injuries were found to the witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi which were two to seven days old.Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu and gave his report Ex.He found as many as seven contusions at various places of the body i.e. on the back, left shoulder, left side of the head, left thigh and chest.On the chest, three contusions were found under which left 07th and 08th ribs were found broken and left lung was torn and blood clots were present in pleura.The deceased died due to the aforesaid injuries and these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the natural course of life.deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to them.(15) If it is presumed that Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi etc had left for village Paryaya to see a boy for settlement of marriage then such a fact should have been in the knowledge of the family of Bramhanand but Ramkumar (PW-7), being brother of complainant Bramhanand, lodged a missing persons report Ex.P-13 on 10.02.2000 at police station phooph that Bramhanand, Swadesh Kumar Joshi etc went missing when they were on the way from village Janora to village Surajpura.(27/10/2016) Per N.K. Gupta, J.The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, Bhind (M.P.) in Special Case No.29/2000 whereby each of the 2 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:Section Code/Act Sentence In default of payment of finie 395 IPC Seven Years' RI with a Two months' fine of Rs.500/- each additional sentence 397 IPC Seven Years' RI with a Two months' fine of Rs.500/- each additional sentence 364-A IPC Imprisonment for life Six months' (Rigorous) with a fine of additional Rs.2,000/- sentence 302 IPC Imprisonment for life Six months' (Rigorous) with a fine of additional Rs.2,000/- sentence 11, 13 MPDVPK No separate sentence -(3) During this time, Ramkumar (PW-7), brother of the complainant Bramhanand, lodged a missing persons report Ex.P-13 for Bramhanand, Swadesh Kumar Joshi and deceased Balkishan @ Laddu.However that report was lodged at Police Station Phooph and the police officers of Police Station Phooph did not take any action on that report.When the complainant Brahmanand and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi informed the police that they were abducted by the appellants and that they were beaten in the period between 03.02.2000 to 09.02.2000, therefore, Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi were sent for their 4 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.Thereafter, the investigating officer arrested the appellants.A gun was recovered from accused Munnalal which was sent for its examination to Arms Mohorrir.Prosecution sanction was also obtained.Test Identification Parade was arranged against the appellants Subhash and Ramautar.The complainant Bramhanand and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi identified them before the Naib Tahsildar, M.L. Gupta (PW-13) and a memo Ex.P9 was prepared.After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity "the Special Act").(4) The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to prior enmity.It was stated that the accused Munnalal had enmity with the complainant Bramhanand and therefore he 5 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.was falsely implicated in the matter, however, no defence evidence was adduced.(5) Accused Murarilal, Suratram and Ramjilal, sons of Balister Sharma did not appear before the trial court and they were declared absconding.Then, the learned trial court after considering the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.(6) Accused Munnalal was also convicted of the aforesaid offences and it appears that no appeal has been preferred on his behalf.(7) Appellant No.1 Murarilal expired during the pendency of the appeal and his name was deleted from cause-title of memo of appeal because the appeal stood abated against him.(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.(9) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were implicated in the crime due to political enmity and enmity of the complainant Bramhanand with accused Munnalal.The story as told by the complainant and witnesses appears to be unnatural.Ocular evidence is heavily contradicted with the medical evidence and looking to the medical evidence such ocular evidence should be discarded.The learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Shiv Kumar and others"[(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 99] to show the effect of contradiction of ocular evidence with medical evidence and also the appreciation of evidence.State of Andra Pradesh"[AIR 1991 SC 1356].The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Takhaji Hiraji Vs.Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others"[(2001) 6 SCC 145] to show that the interested witnesses should be disbelieved where the defence is highly probable and if prosecution evidence is not clear, cogent or trustworthy then it should be discarded.(10) In the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Apex Court, if the case of the appellants is considered then it would be clear from the prosecution evidence that there is a lot of contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.Also various allegations as made by the Bramhanand (PW-4) and another eyewitness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) appear to be unnatural and imaginary.To avoid repetition, it would be appropriate to consider the crime committed by the appellants under Section 302 and 364A of IPC simultaneously.Bramhanand (PW-4) and Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) have stated that when they were going to village Paryaya to see a boy for engagement of niece of the complainant Bramhanand, they were abducted by the appellants and one Munnalal.Thereafter, they were kept in the Beehad upto 09.02.2000 and on 09.02.2000, the absconded accused Murarilal etc. came to the Beehad where accused Munnalal handed over the 7 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.They immediately assaulted the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu with lathis (sticks) causing his death and his dead body was hidden in a cave.Thereafter, the appellant kept the complainant and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi at another place in the Beehad up to 17.02.2000 and thereafter they were released.They tried to look for the dead body of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu and on 18.02.2000 they could trace it and thereafter they went to the Police Station Ater, however, in the midway Station House Officer of Police Station Ater Shri S.S. Parmar (PW-15) met them and thereafter a Dehati Nalisi, Ex.P-5) was lodged.In the description as given by complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5), an inherent defect in the prosecution story is as to why complainant Bramhanand, witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi and deceased Balkishan @ Laddu were abducted.Also according to complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5), they were kept by the appellants even after the death of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu for approximatey eight days and in those days no ransom was demanded by the appellants from anyone.It is strange that if the appellants were not interested in demand of the ransom then it was unnatural that they abducted these three persons viz. complainant Bramhanand (PW-4), witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) and deceased Balkishan @ Laddu without any reason.If it is presumed that the appellants had abducted them to kill the deceased 8 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.Balkishan @ Laddu then a message could be sent to the absconding accused Murarilal, Suratram and Ramjilal, sons of Balister Sharma, on 04.02.2000 itself to come and take the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu with them.Dr. H.D. Gupta (PW-2) examined the complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) and gave MLC reports Ex.P-2 and P-3 respectively.He found three simple injuries sustained by victim Bramhanand which could be 4 to 7 days' old whereas he found two simple injuries to the victim Swadesh Kumar Joshi which could be 2 to 4 days'old.If complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) were beaten prior to 09.02.2000 then their medical examination was done after 10 to 12 days from the incident of alleged assault and therefore injuries found to complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and victim Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) were not connected to the alleged incident of assault and hence there is no corroboration of the statements of complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) by medical evidence.Further, when they were continuously beaten for 3-4 days then it is surprising that only 2-3 injuries were found to them.It is not the claim of the complainant Bramhanand and victim Swadesh Kumar 9 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.Joshi that injuries caused to them were healed prior to lodging of FIR.(12) Secondly, according to complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5), they were released by the appellants in the evening of 17.02.2000 and they tried to search for the dead body of deceased Balkishan @ Laddu.When the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu was killed before complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) and his dead body was shifted to a cave and these witnesses were taken by the appellants to another place then the natural conduct of the complainant Bramhanand would have been that he would have visited the police station of appropriate jurisdiction to lodge the FIR first and thereafter he would have requested the police to trace the dead body of the deceased.It was not expected from complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) and other villagers to whom they had contacted to trace the dead body of deceased Balkishan @ Laddu in the Beehad which was spread across many square kilometers.Hence, the story that they traced the dead-body of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu themselves appears to be unnatural and doubtful.The possibility cannot be ruled out that when the dead body of the deceased was noticed and complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) were informed then they cooked up a story of abduction and claimed that they were the eyewitnesses otherwise their story would be totally unnatural and there 10 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.was no reason to show as to why complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) were abducted.(13) Also the place of incident was within the jurisdiction of police station Surpura but the complainant Bramhanand and witness Swadesh Kumar (PW-5) did not go to the police station Surpura.As per the police regulations, every police station is required to keep a Rojnamcha and an FIR register which should be filled from time to time by mentioning its time and crime number be registered in chronological order.When a report is to be lodged ante- dated or ante-time then it is for the police officer to register a Dehati Nalisi to show that it was registered within time and thereafter it was sent to the concerned police station.Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu on 19.02.2000 then possibility cannot be ruled out that neither the body of the deceased was recovered on 18.02.2000 in early hours nor such Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-5 was registered on 18.02.2000 in early hours.In the circumstances, Dehati Nalisi, Ex.P-5, appears to be a document prepared ante-time and ante-dated.If it is presumed that it was registered on 18.02.2000 at a particular time then still that FIR was lodged with delay and explanation of delay given by the complainant Bramhanand is not acceptable.If he was released on 17.02.2000 then it was for him to immediately visit his brother Ramkumar who was a respectable politician and to get the help of the police whereas the complainant Bramhanand claimed that he along with his companions tried to search for the dead body of the deceased 11 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.Hence, it is established that the alleged Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-5 was not only ante- time and ante-dated but also lodged with delay and no proper explanation of that delay has been given by the complainant Bramhanand.Hence, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Peddireddy Subbareddy (supra), the prosecution's story comes under the clouds of doubt and the testimony of complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) is also considered doubtful.(14) As discussed above, there was no reason proved by the prosecution as to why the complainant Bramhanand (PW-4) and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5) would have been abducted.Also according to Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi they were going along with deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to settle the proposal of marriage at village Paryaya.If they have started from the residence of complainant Bramhanand then there should be a cogent evidence that they had assembled at the house of Bramhanand and thereafter left the village Janora to Paryaya.However, in the cross-examination, neither complainant Bramhanand nor witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi could confirm the person of whose son they wanted to see for the settlement of marriage with the niece of the complainant Bramhanand.When it was not stated whom they wanted to see for settlement of marriage then it was 12 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.not possible for the complainant Bramhanand and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi along with deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to leave village Janora simultaneously for a particular purpose and therefore, their visit in which they have claimed that they were abducted was imaginary.By omission of such a fact, the prosecution story also appears to be doubtful.The fact of the missing persons report Ex.P-13 was mentioned by Ramkumar after his contact with the family members of complainant Bramhanand, hence, Bramhanand had left for village Surajpura then why was he told a falsehood that Bramhanand left for village Paryaya.If on the way of Surajpura from Janora, there was no Beehad then there was no possibility of the admission as complainant Bramhanand, Swadesh Kumar Joshi etc have stated that they were going to village Paryaya and in the way they were hailed by accused Munnalal and the appellants and thereafter when they reached near them, they were abducted at gunpoint.Contrary to that version, Ramkumar had mentioned in the missing report, Ex.P-13 that Bramhanand etc had left the village Janora by a motorcycle.If the complainant Bramhanand and his 13 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.companions were on a motorcycle then after their abduction what happened to that motorcycle.There is no reason as to why motorcycle was not recovered by the police from a particular place, from where the complainant Bramhanand etc. were abducted.A material contradiction is visible in between the description of abduction as given by Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi and the missing persons report lodged by Ramkumar (PW-7) which also creates a doubt on the story of abduction.(16) Witness Ramkumar (PW-7) has accepted in the cross- examination that he had fought an election for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat at village Janora and his opponent was Suratram.When Ramkumar won the election, Suratram took revenge on his nephew Balkishan @ Laddu.No clear date was given by the witness Ramkumar as to when the result of election was declared.Similarly, Ramkumar (PW-7) has accepted that Balkishan had shifted to the city Bhind.It is also stated by witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi that Balkishan @ Laddu was residing at Bhind and therefore it was for the complainant Bramhanand to establish as to when the deceased Balkishan came to his house from Bhind.On the other hand, the investigating officer, Parmal Singh Tomar (PW-12) has accepted in para 5 that in his enquiry he found that Balkishan @ Laddu was residing along with his family in a rented house at Ater 14 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.Road, Bhind (M.P.) and he examined one Bhikarilal, a relative of Balkishan @ Laddu who informed that on 06.02.2000 he enquired about the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu at his house then his grand-daughter told the witness Bhikarlal that Bramhanand had visited Bhind and deceased Balkishan @ Laddu had gone along with Bramhanand to the local market.Since statement of Bhikarilal did not match with the prosecution story, he was not examined.(17) According to Bramhanand in Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-5, he was abducted on 03.02.2000 whereas according to the missing persons report Ex.Therefore, the story of Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi that they were abducted on 03.02.2000 goes away.It appears that a story was cooked up.(18) According to Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi, on 09.02.2000, the absconded accused appeared at the scene of crime and the accused Munnalal handed over the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to the absconded accused Murarilal etc who assaulted the deceased Balkishan @ 15 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.Laddu with lathis (sticks) and killed him.Hence, according to the eyewitnesses Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi, the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu was killed on 09.02.2000 whereas Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) had performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu on 19.02.2000 i.e. ten days after his death.Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) was cross-examined to set the time period of death of the deceased.Though the deceased died during the winter season but it was the end of winter season and after considering the fact of cold climate etc, Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-10) had opined that the death of the deceased was caused 4-5 days prior to the date of post-mortem.Hence, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), the testimony of the witnesses Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi cannot be accepted.It was not established that the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu had come to the house of Bramhanand on 03.02.2000 and accompanied him.The deceased Balkishan @ Laddu did not die on 09.02.2000 and he had 16 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.actually died much later than that date.Hence, the conclusion would be that neither the complainant Bramhanand nor witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi was abducted nor did they see the incident of murder done by the various persons.It appears that on receiving the intimation that the dead body of deceased Balkishan @ Laddu was found at a particular place, Bramhanand would have cooked up the story and lodged a Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-5 to the then SHO S.S. Parmar (PW-15) otherwise there must be some acceptable reason for abduction of Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi.At least some ransom must have been demanded in consequence of the aforesaid abduction.Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants abducted Bramhanand, Swadesh Kumar Joshi or the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu for ransom.The trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC.(20) If these witnesses are deleted from the list of witnesses then no ocular evidence remains against the appellants.No weapon has been recovered from any of the appellants.No other circumstance could be established by the prosecution against various appellants.It is not proved that the appellants were seen with the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu soon before his murder.If for the sake of argument, it is accepted that Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi were the actual eyewitnesses then still according to them the accused Munnalal handed over the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to the absconding accused persons Murarilal etc who had killed the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu by beating him with lathis.Since it was a circumstantial evidence that the absconding accused 17 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.persons contacted Munnalal and he handed over the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu to them then there was no role of the present appellants in the crime of murder of the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu.There is no allegation that any of them assaulted the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu along with accused Munnalal and absconding accused persons.Hence, the appellants could not have been convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC and when complainant Bramhanand and witness Swadesh Kumar Joshi were not the eyewitnesses the offence of Section 302 of IPC done by the culprits but it was not established that the appellants had committed the aforesaid offence.The trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.(21) It is pertinent to note that there was no named FIR against appellants No.2 and 3 Subhash and Ramautar and those were claimed to be indentified by Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi.An identification memo Ex.Appellants No.2 and 3 were arrested on 25.05.2000 whereas test identification parade was arranged on 22.06.2000 and therefore there was every possibility before the complainant Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi to view the appellants No.2 and 3 when they were produced before the concerned Magisterial or Trial Court.It is pertinent to note that complainant Bramhanand was so interested in the case that he engaged one advocate 18 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.Hence, if the said document is discarded then there is no evidence against appellants No.2 and 3 that they had participated in the crime of murder or abduction.(22) As discussed above, if no abduction of the complainant Bramhanand took place then certainly there was no possibility that the complainant Bramhanand or Swadesh Kumar Joshi etc were looted by the appellants.Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi made an allegation of robbery done by the appellants but it is surprising that a sum of Rs.40 or 60 was found with Bramhanand and Swadesh Kumar Joshi whereas they were going to settle a marriage of niece of complainant Bramhanand and on the other hand it is surprising that the deceased Balkishan @ Laddu had a significant amount of Rs.20,200/- in his pocket when he had no direct relation with the girl whose engagement was to be done.When it is not proved that the complainant Bramhanand etc were abducted the story of robbery cannot be believed.Hence, the allegation of committing dacoity by five persons including the appellants and Munnalal cannot be accepted.The trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellants of offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.It is also pertinent to note that when the appellants cannot be convicted of offence under Section 395 of IPC or 364-A of IPC then they cannot be convicted of the offence under the provisions of the Special Act.(23) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that appellants cannot be convicted of any of the offences 19 Criminal Appeal No.604/2002 Murarilal and others Vs.State of M.P.punishable under Sections 395 read with Section 397, 302, 364-A of IPC or under Section 11/13 of the Special Act or any inferior offence of such nature whereas none of the appellants was charged of offence of the Arms Act. Such charge was framed against the accused Munnalal only.Hence, appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable and consequently it is hereby accepted.The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants of offence under Sections 395 read with Section 397, 364-A, 302 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of the Special Act are hereby set aside.(25) A copy of this judgment be sent to the court below along with its record for information and compliance. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,451,595 | This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint case bearing No. 34/2006 under Section 406/452/323/504/506/147 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh, U.P. This case was transferred for trial to Delhi under orders of the Supreme Court and is presently pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.Quashing of this criminal case has been sought on the ground that respondent Pushpa Rani had entered into a compromise with the petitioners through Mediation cell on 13th March, 2008 and it was agreed in the compromise that this case would be got quashed.It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would withdraw his divorce case pending Crl.M.C. 173 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 before the Court of ADJ.However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case, the respondent did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and therefore this petition has been filed.M.C. 173 of 2010 Page 1 of 4The respondent has opposed quashing of criminal case on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties was breached by the petitioner and in view of the breach of the compromise, she was not bound by the compromise.To press his point, the petitioner relied upon Jaibir & Ors.State & Anr., 142 (2007) DLT 141 and Ruchi Agarwal Vs.Amit Kumar Agarwal and Ors., JT 2004 (10) SC 475, whereas the respondent relied upon Kamal Dhawan Vs.It would be advantageous to reproduce the terms agreed between the parties before Mediation Cell;It is agreed that petitioner Sh.Ajit Singh shall make a statement before the court of Sh.M.C. 173 of 2010 Page 2 of 4Both the parties have undertaken to remain bound by the terms of settlement."A perusal of above agreement would show that the basis of compromise between the parties was living amicably as husband and wife at the house of husband.The parties, in fact, had started living together from 2nd March, 2008 onwards and the settlement was arrived at on 13 th March, 2008 i.e. hardly after 11 days of living together.The terms of compromise could not materialize and the respondent had to leave the house of her husband.She made allegations that she was again ill- treated at the matrimonial home and had to leave her matrimonial home due to ill-treatment of all family members.She had given the incidents of ill treatment in her complaint as well as in reply filed by her.She stated that her husband and other family members did not adhere to the compromise of treating her in a proper manner and therefore the complaint case should not be quashed.The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are those judgments where parties had separated from each-other and the compromise arrived at between the parties were based on lump sum payment to be received by the wife and the wife, after taking benefit of the compromise and receiving part payment, had refused to agree to the quashing of FIR.M.C. 173 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 Present case is entirely different.Here, respondent had agreed for quashing of criminal case in order to reconcile and give a fresh chance to the marriage so that she could happily live in matrimonial home.Since the atmosphere in the matrimonial home continued to be same and she could not live there, I consider that she cannot be forced to withdraw the criminal complaint lodged by her on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.M.C. 173 of 2010 Page 3 of 4I find no force in this petition, the petition is hereby dismissed. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,452,686 | Allegation against the appellant is that he kidnapped and committed rape with prosecutrix who was near about 15 years old at the time of incident.Charge sheet has been filed.Trial will take time to conclude.Further submitted that as per the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., prosecutrix herself went with the appellant and solemnized marriage and lived like husband and wife.Learned P.L., opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the same.It is ordered that the appellant/accused Asindra @ Bhagwat Vishwakarma be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in subsection (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J.P. GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2020.11.10 02:11:04 -08'00' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,845,293 | All the four cases are pending against the present applicant.There is sufficient evidence available in the case diary and this Court does not find any reason to enlarge the applicant on bail.Parties through their counsel.This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant Virendrapal Singh in connection with Crime No.205/2015 registered at Police Station Malhargarh, District Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302 r/w 115, 506, 507 & 201 of the IPC.The allegation against the present applicant is that he has entered into an agreement in respect of contract killing as the deceased was not vacating the property which was valued at Rs.9 Crores.Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued before this Court that one of the co-accused Salman has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench.With due respect the order passed by the coordinate Bench is not binding upon this Court.This Court has looked into the evidence available in the case diary and the material brought by both the parties.In the case diary there are as many as 3 other cases registered against the present applicant; one is of an offence under Section 302 IPC registered at Crime No.199/2004, second is in respect of Section 307, 387, 120-B IPC at Crime No.390/2011 and third is again under Section 307 IPC along with NDPS Act and fourth is the present case.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application.The M.Cr. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,537 | The facts, as narrated by the police, are as follows (3) On 14.7.77, a Quawali party headed by a lady was giving performance at Hotel Moti Mahal, Darya Gang, to entertain the people who happened to be taking dinner.Nichhater Singh (the complainant) and his two companions, namely, Mohan Singh and Prem Kumar were taking dinner.At that time, the complainant was armed with a revolver loaded with six cartridges which was tied by means of a belt to his waist.There were 8 other live cartridges of the revolver in the space meant for them which was attached to the belt.The respondents along with one Anand Vardhan Aggarwal were also taking dinner on an adjoining table.All of them were unarmed.(4) At about 10.15 p.m. the complainant offered a ten rupee note to the lady Quawal with the request that quawali of his choice be sung.Further, the complainant was given beating and one out of the respondent party snatched the wrist watch tied on the right hand of the complainant.Thereafter all the respondents and Anand Vardhan started running away.But Anand Vardhan was apprehended by Prem Kumar with the help of a constable Suresh Pal who happened to be there, (5) The respondents fled away in car No. DHD7740ofAnant Vardhan The complainant chased the respondents in his car No. Pun 5336 but the respondents escaped.(6) Anand Vardhan was interrogated and he disclosed the names of respondents who were his companions with the result that respondents were arrested.The respondents had abandoned the car Dhd 7740 at Shivaji Park.On July 17, 1977 the revolver was also recovered from the said car.However the wrist watch alleged to have been snatched from the complainant was never recovered.Immediately, perhaps with a view to exhibit wealth, ego and taste for quawali, one out of the respondents and Anand Vardhan stood up and offered Rs. 20.00 to the lady Quawal for first of all singing another quawali of his choice.It appears that the ego of the complainant and his companions could not tolerate this sort of overbidding and the result was a flare up.Soon grappling started between the respondents and Anand Vardhan Aggarwal on one side and the complainant and his companions on the other side.Three out of the respondent party caught hold of the complainant while the fourth one removed the revolver from its holster.P.C. was filed against the respondents only. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
78,455,151 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 29.10.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicant vide order dated 20.11.2018 in Special Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC and 3910Da and 3(1) Dha of SC and ST Act, police station Phugana, district Muzaffar Nagar.The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
784,552 | These have been unforced by Public Witness 4 Chanderwati.The facts are that on 22nd September 1973, when Chanderwati was guarding the crop in her field the appellant Charan Singh alias Charne drove his she-buffalos into the said fields.On the refusal of Charan Singh to drive them out of the field Chanderwati herself drove them out.This is said to have provoked Charan Singh who abused Chanderwati and then left the scene.Within next 15/20 minutes, while Chanderwati was.returning to her house and reached near the turning of her Gali.all the three appellants.armed with lathis and knife appeared on the site and at .the asking.of Mir Singh appellant "ISKO Maza Chakha DO" the accused Charan singh gave a lathi blow on her leg, Mir Singh also charged her leg with lathi.Ajit Singh, who was armed with knife, gave two knife blows on the calf of her left leg.At this stage, her son Public Witness 2 Dev Singh who was coming out of his house also raised an alarm which attracted Ghanderwati's husband, Kanhaiya, her daughter Batto and her mother-in-law Samli together with one Manohar Lal and Bhagwat who were sitting in their house.They came to rescue Chanderwati but immediately on their arrival Ajit Singh appellant, who was armed with knife, gave- knife blows on the head, back and the calf of Kanhaiya.Mir Singh and Charne appellants, who were armed with lathis charged Kanhaiya with lathis and struck him on his head, back and, leg.While this was going on the appellant Mir Singh is said to have exhorted the other appellants in these words "ISKO Khatamkar DO".As a result of this beating, Kanhaiya bleeder and fell unconscious.Batto, another victim, raised alarm and Mir Singh appellant again exhorted the other appellants saying "IS Sali Ko Bhi Maza Chakha DO" and simultaneously he inflicted lathi blows on her leg.Charne appellant also charged her with lathi While Ajit Singh appellant gave knife blow on the abdomen of Batto.Thereafter, the accused are said to have escaped from the scene of occurrence.At the time of incident Batto was carrying a baby in her womb.(4) The report in this regard was transmitted to police by Dev Singh P.W.2 on telephone and on the arrival of police they found Kanhaiya, Chanderwati and Batto lying injured.JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.After finding the acc-used guilty and convicting them for the aforesaid offences Charne and Ajit Singh appellants who. were found to be under 21 years age and first offenders were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety each in the similar amount to appear ana receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior.Appellant Mir Singh was refused the benefit of Probation Of Offenders Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 325/ 34, to rigorous imprisonment for six months' under Section; 324/34 and to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.(2) Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence all the three appellants have preferred this appeal.The State has also moved an acquittal appeal No. 368/76 (State v. Mir Singh and others) on the ground that after having charged the accused under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind as to whether the offence under Section 307/34 is made out or not.The statement of Dev Singh Public Witness 2 marked as Ext. Public Witness 2/A was recorded and the injured were removed to Willingdon hospital.The report, Ext. Public Witness 13/A came to be recorded by Head Constable Sat Parkash who in pursuance of the statement of Dev Singh Public Witness 2 recorded a formal F. I. R. No. 753, Police Station, Tilak Nagar, dated 22-9-73 at 1.45 Pm now marked as Ext. Public Witness 13/C. S.I. Sampuran Singh who had reached the scene of occurrence removed the injured to the hospital and investigated this case.On arrival in the hospital, Dr. V. P. Vasudeva Public Witness 10 examined the injured and recorded medico-legal certificates of Batto, Kanhaiya Lal and Chanderwati which are marked as Public Witness 8/B, Public Witness 8/D and PW10/B. On the same day S.I. Sampuran Singh, who was investigating the case, records the statements of the victims Batto and Chanderwati.(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and given our anxious 'thought to the facts and evidence.The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses, while the defense has also examined one witness, namely, Chandgi Ram.Before consideration of the points raised during the course of arguments, we' may take notice of the stand taken by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Charan Singh and Mir Singh have pleaded alibi.Accused Charan Singh has said that at the time of incident he was present in the school while accused Mir Singh has said that he reached the place of occurrence after 2/4 minutes of the incident when between 20 to 30 people had already assembled and it were they who told him about the incident.In respect of the fact as to how the incident took place the stand of accused Mir Singh is similar to the one taken by Ajit Singh appellant.Ajit Singh appellant has said that on the day of incident some gravel belonging to them was lying near the wall of their Chakki and on finding Chanderwati and Batto stealing the same and filling their 'taslas' with gravel he snatched it from them; that while snatching Tasla from Batto there was a quarrel.In this scuffle he gave a push to Batto resulting in her fall on the ground; that Chanderwati then threw stones at him and in retaliation he inflicted an injury with a stone on her; that at that stage Kanhaiya Lal also appeared on the scene and started beating him and then there was a free exchange of brick bats between them.According to him, his rather reached on the spot within one or two minutes after he had pushed Batto and that between 20 to 30 people assembled on the spot; that his father went to lodge a report and police removed Kanhaiya Lal, Batto and Chanderwati to the hospital.(6) This would show that the fact of the incident having taken place on that day between the parties is undisputed.Accused Ajit Singh has not indicated as to how incised wounds were inflicted on the person of Kanhaiya Lal and Batto.The other two accused Mir Singh and Charan Singh have attempted to keep themselves out of the incident by raising the plea of alibi.(7) In this case prosecution has led evidence of three sets of witnesses.The first set consists of the statements of eye-witnesses namely, Public Witness 1 Kanhaiya Lal, Public Witness 2 Dev Singh, Public Witness 3 Batto, Public Witness 4 Chanderwati, Public Witness 5 Samli, PW6 Bhagwat Singh and Public Witness 7 Manohar Singh.The next set of witnesses consists of statements of Public Witness 8 Charan DasChauhan, Public Witness 9 Dr. B. B. Kathuria Radiologist, Public Witness 10 Dr. V. P. Vasudeva,and Public Witness 11 Dr. M. Sarkar.The third set consists of Public Witness 12 Subhash Chand S.I. and Public Witness 13 Sampuran Singh S.I.(8) At this stage we may take notice of the testimony of these eyewitnesses on whom reliance was placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Public Witness 1 Kanhaiya Lal, one of the victims, has said that while his wife was returning from the field, all the three appellants had garaged her and had started an assault on her.On hearing alarm he along with his daughter Batto rushed towards the scene where Mir Singh and Charan Singh appellants were found giving lathi blows to his wife while two knife blows on her calf and right leg were inflicted by appellant Ajit Singh; that when he together with his daughter Batto went to rescue Chanderwati, Ajit Singh accused attacked him with knife and inflicted injuries on the right side of his fore-head, on his right thumb and on his back.As a result of lathi blow his little finger was fractured and another knife injury was caused above the ankle of his left leg.Charan Singh and Mir Singh gave lathi blows as a result of which his left leg was fractured.Ajit Singh gave a knife blow on the right side of abdomen of his daughter Batto who was carrying a child of five months in her womb; that Public Witness Samli, Bhagat Singh and Manohar witnesses also saw the occurrence.Further says that this was done by the accused in pursuance of exhortation by Mir Singh appellant to the effect 'IN Ko Khatam Kardo, Inko Maza Chakhado, Mein Dekh LOONGA.' Further says that he regained consciousness next day and was discharged after 17 days from the hospital; that his daughter was discharged from the hospital after 21 days; that he had received 4/5 lathi blows.He has also said that about 5 to 7 months before this incident Mir Singh appellant while under the influence of liquor had abused his wife who in turn also abused him; and that Mir Singh had then threatened to avenge her.(9) Public Witness 2, Dev Singh has started that on seeing his mother being assaulted, he raised an alarm as a result of which his father and sister came to spot.He saw appellant Mir Singh and Charan Singh wielding, lathis and Ajit Singh appellant armed with knife chasing, his mother.Further says that his mother was given lathi blows by Mir Singh and Charan Singh and was given knife blows by Ajit Singh.On the intervention of his father Kanhaiya and his sister, Batto, Kanhaiya was hit with lathis by Mir Singh and Charan Singh while Ajit Singh accused inflicted knife blows on the fore-head and back of his father and also inflicted a knife blow on the abdomen of his sister Batto, who was pregnant at that time.That lathi blows were inflicted on the right thumb, left little finger and the leg of his father.Further says that his grand mother Samli,Bhagwat Singh and one or two neigh borers were present.He rang up the police station and on the arrival of police his statement Ext. PW2/A was reduced into writing.He was confronted with the statement, Ext. Public Witness 2/A made before the police in respect of the.absence of certain minor defails, but from our point of view these are -not material for the decision of this case.He says that the statement of his mother was recorded in the hospital at about 1.15PM on the same day.He has also testified that at the time of occurrence accused Mir Singh exhorted the other accused.to do away with them.(10) Public Witness 3, Batto, daughter of Kanhaiya, one of the victims, has made a similar statement as has been made by Public Witness 1 Kanhaiya.According to her she remained in-door in the hospital for about 25/26 days and thereafter was also Under treatment as an out-door patient.Suggestion that while removing the Bajri of appellants they had a quarrel with appellant Ajit Singh in which they sustained injuries was repelled by her.(11) Public Witness 4 Chanderwati, after giving a background of what transpired between her and Charan Singh appellant in the field when he pushed his she-buffaloes into the field, has said that while she was returning from the held, all the three accused came on the turning of her Gali; that Mir Singh and Charan Singh were armed with lathis while Ajit Singh appellant was armed with knife; that after exhortation by Mir Singh, they charged her with lathis and Ajit Singh caused an injury with knife on the calf of her left leg; that her son was coming out of his house and when she raised an alarm, her husband Kanhaiya and daughter Batto and her mother-in-law, Samli, together with Manohar Lal and Bhagwat Singh came to rescue her; that the accused Ajit Singh inflicted a number of knife blows on her husband and the other two accused charged him with lathis; that her daughter Batto on the exhortations of Mir Singh was first assaulted by Mir Singh and Charan Singh with lathis and was also given a knife blow on the abdomen by accused Ajit Singh.According to her she was discharged from the hospital on 4th day, her husband was discharged on 16th day while her daughter Batto was discharged after 25/26 days; that at the time when injury was caused Batto was carrying a child of five months in her womb.(12) Public Witness 5 Samli has corroborated the testimony of Public Witness Kanhaiya Lal and Batto in all material details.(13) We do not propose to reproduce the testimony of Public Witness 6, Public Witness 7, who are also supposed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.We do so for the reason that from our point of view the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given complete justification for not relying on their testimony.We may further add that their presence at the scene of occurrence is really doubtful.(14) This brings us to the testimony of third set of witnesses, first of which is Public Witness 8 Charan Dass Chauhan, a record clerk of the Willingdon hospital.It would appear that Dr. R.K. Gupta, Frcs, who was working as a surgeon and Dr. R.K.Jaiswal who was working as radiologist in the hospital had since gone abroad as a result of which prosecution felt it necessary to examine Public Witness 8 to testify in respect of the writings and signatures of both these doctors.He is conversant with the writing and signatures of both the doctors.He identified endorsement Ext. Public Witness 8/A on M.L.C. Ext. Public Witness 8/B to be in the hand-writing of Dr. R.K. Gupta.The opinion in respect of nature of injuries on M.L.C. Ext.PW 8/B has been identified by him as in the hand-writing of Dr. V.P. Vasudeva, endorsement Ext. Public Witness 8/C on the M.L.C. Ext. Public Witness 8/D as that of Dr. R.K. Gupta and he has also said that M.L.C. Ext. Public Witness 8/D is in the hand-writing and under the signatures of Dr. V.P. Vasudeva.The opinion Ext. Public Witness 8/E has been identified by him in the hand-writing of and under the signatures of Dr. R.K. Jaiswal.He further says that the present address of those doctors who have gone abroad is not available with them.(15) Public Witness 9 Dr. B.B. Kathuria, Radiologist, with an experience since 1942 in this field was shown skiagram bearing No. 26056 dated 22-9-73 pertaining to Kanhaiya coming from X-ray department of Willingdon hospital.He has opined that this skiagram shows fracture in the proximal phalanx of his fifth finger of right hand and the symbol at point 'A' as given in report Ext. Public Witness 8/E denotes a fracture.One clean incised wound 1.5 cm.left sub costal region.He was of the opinion that this injury was caused by sharp edged weapon which could be knife and he referred the patient to Surgery.M.L.C. report Ext. Public Witness 8/B is written by him.In respect of Kanhaiya Lal victim he found :- 1.contused lacerated wound 2"x1/2"x1/2" on the scalp.2. contused lacerated wound on the left leg 1/2" x 1/2".confused lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the upper portion of the back.Injury on the right thumb.He suspected fracture of the skull, thigh, leg and wrist and as such the patient was referred for X-ray examination for which he issued requisition slip Ext. Public Witness 10/A. On X-ray examination it was revealed that his right hand wrist was fractured.He has further testified that Dr R.K. Jaiswal Radiologist has since left the service and his whereabouts are not known; that he is conversant with his hand-writing.In respect of Chanderwati he found :-1.Clean incised wound 1"" x "" x "" on left leg.Blunt injury on right calf.3 Abrasion on left wrist "" x ""Injury No. 1 on left leg could be caused by sharp edged weapon like knife.The patient was referred to the fracture clinic under requisition slip Ext. Pw 10/C and the Mlc Ext. Public Witness 10/B of Chanderwati is in his hand-writing.He further says that injury on the person of Batto could because by a fall against a sharp edged object like a glass piece; that injuries on the person of Kanhaiya and injury No. 3 on the person of Chanderwati were also possible by brickbat.(17) Public Witness 11, Dr. M. Sarkar, has examined Ajit Singh appellant on the same day i.e. 22nd September 1973 in the same hospital.He was brought there by Sampuran Singh S.I. and he found one contused lacerated wound (2"x"") on the right parietal bone.He advised X-ray and referred the case to surgery side for further line of treatment.He has proved the Mlc Ext. Pw 11/A and requisition slip Ext. Public Witness 11/B in respect of this patient to be in his hand-writing.(18) The testimony of S.I. Sampuran Singh and S.I.Subash Chand, another set of witnesses is not in controversy.(19) We may at this stage also take notice of Dw 1 Chandgi Ram who has been examined in defense.This gentleman has testified in support of the defense version.He has also testified that Mir Singh and Charan Singh accused were not present on spot.He admits that Mir Singh is his collateral and that he made no statement before the police when it had visited the scene of occurrence.(20) We may at once say that the scope of enquiry in this falls within a very.narrow compass.The success of this case depends upon the fact as to whether the eye-witness account is credit-worthy or not.Together with this, we are required to examine as to how these found guilty should be dealt with.In this ease we find that the fact of the incident having taken place, between the parties on that day is not in dispute.In fact, we are faced with two divergent versions of the incident.But since the prosecution has to prove the case it cannot depend upon the weakness of the defense.We, therefore, propose to deal with the prosecution evidence to discover as to how far it has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused.On the strength of evidence of Kanhaiya Public Witness 1 we find that a few months prior to the incident Mir Singh accused had abused Chanderwati Public Witness 4 in a drunken state and on her hurling counter-abuses Mir Singh had issued a warning to her.This is not to suggest that this was the immediate cause but it does provide a background regarding the state of mind of the accused.Immediate cause of occurrence is that on the day of incident Charan Singh appellant had abused Chanderwati Public Witness 4 when she resisted his attempt to drive his she-buffaloes into her field.We do not have any evidence as to how Chanderwati re-acted to the abuses of Charan Singh but in all probability, keeping in view how Chanderwati had earlier behaved with Mir Singh, it seems that she must also have given counter-abuses to Charan Singh.Charan Singh then goes to his home and within the next 20 minutes the incident takes place.Obviously, Charan Singh must have informed his father Mir Singh and his brother Ajit Singh co-accused and it is only thereafter that all the three came out with arms.While the first two, Mir Singh and Charan Singh arm themselves with lathis Ajit Singh comes with knife.By the time they come out Chanderwati Pw was returning and on their coming face to face at the scene of occurrence near her Gali the accused immediately attacked her.It will be seen that all the three appellants have attacked simultaneously.She raises alarm.Her son Dev Singh Public Witness on seeing this also raises an alarm attracting other two victims Kanhaiya her husband, and Batto her daughter, followed by Samli and others.On their arrival Kanhaiya and Batto victims Public Witness s. 1 and 3 are also attacked in succession and a number of injuries are inflicted upon all the three victims.(21) Mr. Naseem while arguing on behalf of the appellants says that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not believed the presence of the two eye-witnesses, namely, Bhagwat and Manohar and they have been declared false and when such is the state of affairs it does impair the veracity of prosecution case.Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we see no reason to discredit the testimony of other eye-witnesses who are mostly the victims of this crime.It may be recalled that the occurrence did not last long.In fact, after Public Witness 4 Chanderwati was attacked in the Gali of her house her shouts naturally attracted her family members and that is how Kanhaiya and Batto Public Witness s came there, never knowing that they are also going to be dealt with in the same manner.The presence of Kanhaiya and Batto Public Witness s is evidenced by the grievous injuries sustained by them.(22) We have every reason to believe that Samli and Dev Singh Public Witness s also saw the occurrence.The doubtful presence of Bhagwat and Manohar PWs at the scene of occurrence to our mind does not provide a basis for discrediting the other eye-witnesses particularly the victims whose presence cannot be doubted.Their presence is not denied by the appellants.In fact, they are the most natural witnesses to the incident.Public Witness s Chanderwati, Kanhaiya and Batto are, in fact, the real aggrieved persons and they would always want revenge from their assailants.They would neither screen the real culprit nor name wrong persons.Moreover, we find sufficient reason for our belief that the incident took place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution and not in the manner the defense wants us to believe.It will be seen that three of the complainant party have received a number of injuries, The injuries sustained by them are caused both by blunt and sharp edged weapons.The number and nature of injuries clearly goes to show that more than one person have caused these with more than one weapon.Batto has sustained grievous incised wounds which called for immediate surgery.Kanhaiya is also referred for surgical treatment.How could these incised wounds be received by pelting of brick-bats as the defense has attempted to snow ? The fact that Dev Singh saw the occurrence cannot be doubted.We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has sufficiently connected all the three appellants with the commission of this crime, and the testimony of eye witness is trustworthy and is corroborated by the medical evidence.(23) Next we take up for consideration as to how the appellants found guilty should be dealt with.This also calls for an examination of the merits of the acquittal appeal preferred by the State.Ajit Singh appellant, who has also been found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 325/34, 324/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code, is further sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code, to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code and to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code All the sentences shall, however, run concurrently.(31) The appeal shall stand dismissed and the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in respect of Mir Singh appellant is confirmed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,822,295 | He would submit that the petitioner had only carried two unit of sand from private property.Despite the petitioner explaining the same to the respondent, he was arrested.Further, he would submit that the petitioner was in judicial custody from 09.01.2020 and seeks bail for the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.7190 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner transported two unit of sand in his lorry without prior permit.(a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the Cancer Institute (WIA), (Regional Cancer Centre), Adyar, Chennai-600 020 (Bank:Andhra Bank, Madhya Kailash, SB A/c.(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;nsd Crl.O.P.No.7190 of 2020 10.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.This Court, by order dated 31.03.2020, has passed a detailed order and granted interim bail to the petitioner till 27.04.2020 on he executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison in which the petitioner has been confined and thereafter, posted the case to be listed on the second week of June.Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already been granted interim bail by this Court on 31.03.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions :(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.1.The Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.7190 of 20202.The Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Thiruvannamalai District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.7190 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,826,391 | The appellant in Crl.A.No.303 of 2013 is the 1st Accused, the appellants in Crl.A.No.282 of 2013 are the Accused Nos.2 and 3, the appellant in Crl.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Murugan.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.2.1. A1 is a resident of J.J.Nagar, Korukkupet.A2 to A5 are his friends and associates.It is alleged that on 19.12.2009, around 01.30 p.m., the deceased was proceeding along the Manali Road.He was accompanied by his wife (P.W.1) and mother-in-law (P.W.2).When they were crossing a wine shop on Manali Road, all these five accused suddenly emerged there and at that time, A1 to A3 were armed with knives while A4 and A5 were unarmed.They surrounded the deceased and A4 and A5 caught hold the deceased.A1 attacked the deceased with knife repeatedly on the head of the deceased; A2 stabbed him with knife on the chest of the deceased; A3 stabbed the deceased with knife on the back hip of the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 2 raised alarm.Immediately, thereafter, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased fell down in a pool of blood.P.Ws.1 and 2, with the help of the others, immediately rushed the deceased to the Stanley Government Medical College Hospital.P.W.8, Dr.He found that there was no life in the body of the deceased and accordingly, he declared him dead.P.10 is the accident register.He gave intimation to the police under Ex.P.11. P.W.1, thereafter, rushed to R.K. Nagar Police Station and made a complaint.P.W.13, the then Inspector of Police, R.K.Nagar Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.934 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC against the accused.P.24 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded both the complaint (Ex.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.13 went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 04.00 p.m. and forwarded the body for postmortem.At 06.30 p.m., he visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P3) and a rough sketch (Ex.P26) in the presence of of P.W.5 and another witness.C/S Musosa congested.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys are normal in size C/S pale.They are M.O.12-series.Then, he forwarded both A4 and A2 to the court for judicial remand.On returning to the police station, P.W.13 recovered a blood stained grey and brown colour T-shirt and a grey colour pants under a mahazar (Ex.P32).The clothes recovered from A5 are M.O.13 series.Then, he forwarded A5 to the court for judicial remand.He also forwarded the material objects to the court.In the course of further investigation, P.W.13, on 22.12.2009 at 12.00 noon arrested A1 and also A3 in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.On such arrest, at 12.10 p.m. A1 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the blood stained clothes.Similarly, at 01.00 p.m., A3 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knives.In pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.P.33), A1 led the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out.On returning to the police station, P.W.13, at 03.30 p.m. recovered a blood stained sandal colour full sleeve shirt (M.O.8) and a jeans pants (M.O.7) worn by A1 and from A3, P.W.13 recovered a blood stained white colour full hand shirt (M.O.9) and a blood stained lungi (M.O.10) under a mahazar (Ex.P4) in the presence of the same witnesses.P.W.13, then, on returning to the police station, forwarded A3 and A1 to the court for judicial remand.He also forwarded the material objects recovered from the accused along with a request to send them for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were blood stains on all the material objects including the knives recovered from the accused and the clothes recovered from the respective accused.A.No.195 of 2013 is the 4th Accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.508 of 2014 is the 5th Accused in S.C.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.A1 to A3 stood charged for offences under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and A4 and A5 stood charged for offences under Section 147, 342, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.The trial court, by judgement 22.08.2012, convicted A1 to A5 under the charges framed against each of them and accordingly sentenced them as detailed below:-Two years before the occurrence, he was released.He had all bad habits, like drinking and ganja consuming, etc. Two months prior to the occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the mother of A1 and the deceased.He also recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar (Ex.P2).P.W.9 Dr.Vedanayagam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.12.2009 on 12.05 p.m. He found the following fifteen external injuries and corresponding internal injuries:-"Injuries:(1) An oblique cut laceration of size 5 x 1.5 cm x bone deep seen on the left mid parietal region with clear cut edges and surrounding soft tissue contusion.(2) An oblique cut laceration of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep seen on the right parietal region with clear cut edges and surrounding soft tissue contusion.(3) An oblique cut laceration of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep surrounding soft tissue contusion.(4) An oblique cut laceration of size 3 x 1.5 cm x bone deep seen below the left side of the angle of the mouth with clear cut margins and surrounding soft tissue contusion.(5) An oblique stab injury of size 2.5 cm x 4 cm seen just below the lateral 1/3rd of clavicle and directed backwards and downwards with clear cut margin and surrounding soft tissue contusion.(6) An oblique stab injury of size 4.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep seen 1 cm medial to the left nipple and 7 cm away from the sternum with regular margins and directed downwards and backwards.(7) An oblique stab injury of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm seen on the laterial side of upper part of left thigh with clear cut margins.(8) An oblique stab injury of size 2 x 1 x 4 cm seen along the medial border of the lower part of left scapula with clear cut margins.(9) A reddish brown abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm seen along with lateral part of left forearm.(10) A reddish brown abrasion of size 5 x 3 cm seen along the lateral part of left forearm.(11) A cut laceration of size 6 x 1 x 1 cm seen on the left forearm just above the wrist joint with clear cut margins.(12) A reddish brown abrasion of size 3 x 0.5 cm seen on the medial edpicandyl of left elbow joint.(13) A cut laceration of size 2 x 1 x 1 cm seen on the web space between ring and middle finger of the left hand with clear cut margins.(14) A cut laceration of size 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm seen on the webspace between left middle and index finger with clear cut margins.(15) Multiple abrasion os variable size and shape seen on the anterior part of the left knee joint.On dissection of Head: Scalp found contused on both parietal and temporal regions.A cut fracture of length 5 cm seen under the injury No.1 on the mid parietal region.A cut fracture of length 3 cm seen under the injury No.2 on the right parietal region.Dura matter found intact.A thin layer of subarachnoid haemorrhage seen all over the brain surface.Brain dura matter C/S pale.On dissection of Thorax:-Anterior chest wall found contused on the left side over the 2-8 ribs on further dissection 4-5 ribs on the left side found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion along the midclavicular line.On further dissection and Thoracic cavity, pericardial sac found to contain about 175 ml of fluid blood with pericardial puncture close to apex.A stab injury of size 2 x 0.5 x chamber deep seen on the left ventricles anterior surface close to the apex.Lungs: Both normal in size C/S pale.On dissection of abdomen: Stomach contains about 10 mg of light yellow coloured partly digested food particles with no specific odour.Hyoid bone, Pelvis, and Spinal Column found intact."He preserved the visceral organs of the deceased and forwarded the same for chemical analysis.Ex.P.12 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above stab injuries.According to P.W.9 After the postmortem was over, P.W.13 recovered the dress materials from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the court along with a request to send them for chemical analysis.On such arrest, at 10.10 a.m., A4 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife.Following him, at 11.00 a.m., A2 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden three knives.P.W.13 recovered the above said knives (M.O.11-series) under a mahazar(Ex.P.30) in the presence of the same witnesses.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement [Ex.P.28], A2 took the police and the witnesses to CP Road Bridge and from a bush he produced three knives.P.W.13 also recovered a blood stained dark green colour full sleeve shirt and a blood stained torned lunghi from A2 under a mahazar (Ex.P.31) in the presence of the same witnesses.On completing the investigation, P.W.13 laid charge sheet against all the five accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges against A1 to A5 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined, 34 documents and 13 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, the wife and mother respectively of the deceased, are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.They have stated about the motive.They have further stated that when they were in the company of the deceased and proceeding along the Manali Road, A1 to A5 emerged there suddenly and surrounded the deceased; A4 and A5 caught hold him; A1 cut the deceased with knife on his head; A2 stabbed the deceased on his chest and A3 stabbed the deceased on his back hip.P.Ws.3 and 4, examined as eye witnesses have spoken, have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and also the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of A2, A4 and A5 and the consequential recoveries of material objects pursuant to the disclosure statements of A2, A4 and A5 and also the recoveries of clothes worn by the respective accused.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.8, the Doctor, has stated that he declared the deceased dead at 02.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence.P.W.9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of the death.P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of A1 and A3 and the consequential recoveries on the disclosure statement made by the respective accused.P.W.11 has spoken about the fact that he took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, as directed by P.W.13, and identified the same to the doctor for postmortem.P.W.12 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects received from the court and his report.P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case and the entire investigation done by him in the case and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.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 they did mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellants/A1 to A5 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, the A1 to A5 are now before this Court with these criminal appeals.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/state and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed.He would further submit that the discovery of the material objects on the disclosure statements made by the respective accused would not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution.The learned counsel would point out that there is enormous delay in lodging the complaint and forwarding the same to the court which remains unexplained.The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.2 has not even identified the accused.For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, per contra, submit that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the place of occurrence is quite natural and their evidences deserve credence.He would further submit that the medical evidence duly corroborates the eye witness account.He would also submit that A1 has got yet another yet another murder case to his credit.Similarly, A5 has also got a murder case.He would further submit that all the accused have got bad antecedents.For these reasons, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.We have considered the above rival submissions carefully.But, on that score, no one can claim right to take away his life.Here, in the instant case, the deceased sustained fifteen external injuries which were so deep and extensive.The death had occurred instantaneously due to shock and haemorrhage.It was nowhere suggested to P.W.1 that she did not know these accused previously.She has stated that A1 to A3 were armed with knives when they attacked the deceased.She has further stated that A4 and A5 held the deceased so as to facilitate A1 to A3 to attack the deceased.The presence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted and her presence is quite natural.It has been elicited during cross examination that the distance between her house and the place of occurrence is hardly 1 km. She has further stated that she accompanied the deceased to go to Manali Road and when they were proceeding, the occurrence had taken place.Though P.W.1 happens to be the wife of the deceased and highly interested in the case, on that score, her evidence cannot be rejected.Prudence requires only a close scrutiny.Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.2, she is the mother of P.W.1 and mother-in-law of the deceased.According to the prosecution, she was also present at the time of occurrence.P.W.1 speaks about her presence also.She accompanied the deceased and she has spoken about the entire occurrence.But, unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor who conducted the case had failed to call upon P.W.2 to identify the assailants in court.The evidence, in chief examination of this witness, would go to show that she has stated that she did not identify any of these accused as assailants.Taking advantage of the same, the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that had it been true that these accused were the assailants, she would have identified them in court.But, we do not find any force in the said argument inasmuch as it is a sheer failure on the part of the Public Prosecutor who conducted trial to call upon the eye witness namely P.W.2 to identify the assailants in court.The trial court has not recorded that when the witness was called upon to identify the accused, she was unable to identify.This would go to indicate that no attempt was made by the Public Prosecutor to call upon this witness to identify the accused.For two purposes, her evidence could be taken into consideration.P.W.1 has identified A1 to A5 as the assailants.We, thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 hold that the prosecution has clearly proved that it was A1 to A5 who are the perpetrators of the crime.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.1 has stated during cross examination that she knew the names of the accused only as it were mentioned by the deceased.In our considered view, this part of the evidence of P.W.1 would in no way affect her evidence regarding the identity of the assailants.The names of the accused were made known to her before the occurrence by her husband and not after the occurrence.The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that on receiving the injuries the deceased fell down and he died instantaneously.Therefore, the deceased would not have stated about the names of A1 to A5 at the time or after the occurrence.Their names would have been told to P.W.1 by the deceased long before and after the motive occurrence which had taken place two months before this occurrence.Therefore, we hold that P.W.1 knew the names of the accused before the occurrence and that is how, she mentioned the same in the FIR.P.W.2 is an illiterate witness and she does not know even to sign her name.P.W.1 had lost her husband.She would have been under shock.Thus, absolutely, there is no delay in registering the FIR.The FIR had, of course, reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 07.15 p.m., that is, after 4 hours and 15 minutes of the registration of the case. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,832,599 | According to the prosecution case, on 19.9.2019, at about 8:30 in the night, when the complainant was coming back home and passing through the house of Radheshyam, the accused petitioner No.1 Radheshyam, petitioner No.2 Kripal & petitioner No.3 Vikram cordoned him.Radheshyam was having axe, Kripal was having sword & Vikram was having Knife.They all restrained his way and started abusing him.When asked not to do so, they all assaulted and beat him.As declared by the petitioner, this is the fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Radheshyam inflicted axe directly on the head, right wrist, left knee and below the right knee.Kripal gave a blow of sword on left shoulder.Vikram also knifed him on left shoulder, right thigh and left temple region.When the victim was trying to save himself, co-accused Gangaram & Rama having sticks in their hands also joined them and beat him.Younger brother Kamal and Santosh intervened and rescued him.The offenders 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. 29443/2020 Radheshyam, Kripal and Vikram Vs.State of M.P.threatened him with his life.The complainant was immediately taken to the hospital where doctor found 8 corresponding injuries including 6 incised wound over several part of the body with active bleeding.He advised X-ray for most of the injured parts of the body.The police registered the case under sections 324, 294, 341 and 506 of IPC on the date of the incident itself, but did not raised query to know the nature of the injuries for next 5 days for the reasons not known to the Court.In the meanwhile, on 23.9.2019 arrested the petitioners and produced them in the court, who granted them bail considering the case one u/S 324 IPC along with few other minor offences.On 24.09.2019, the Doctor opined that the injuries would have been dangerous to life, if would not have been treated on time.Therefore, Section 307 was added to the charge-sheet and the accused persons were arrested again.It does not appear from the record as to why the query was not raised immediately even when the victim was seriously injured and approached the police with active bleeding.Axe, sword and knife have been recovered from petitioner No.1 Radheshyam, petitioner No.2 Kripal and petitioner No.3 Vikram respectively.Before this Court, much emphasis is given by the learned counsel for the petitioners for pleading bail that the petitioners were earlier granted bail.Section 307 of IPC is added later on, therefore, they have right to get bail.Reliance has been placed on the orders passed by this Court in MCRC.No.16979/2018 dated 7.5.2018 and MCRC.No.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. 29443/2020 Radheshyam, Kripal and Vikram Vs.Therefore, neither on merits nor on the ground of bail granted earlier, the petitioners are entitled for bail.Replying the plea of the petitioner that the grievous injury was only on non-vital part, the doctor opined that injuries would have been dangerous to life if would not have been treated in time, the learned penal lawyer submitted that the intention of the petitioners was unambiguous that they wanted to head off the victim. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,883,582 | The prosecution has approached the learned Trial Court with a case that on 03.11.2015 at about 7-8:00 in the night; when the deceased was coming back home from Maanpur and was passing by the house of the appellants, they started abusing him as to why he is using that path, and started beating him by kicks and fists and when he fell down, Gyanchand clamped his throat.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 2 Son Vinod, who was tilling land by tractor with his brother Laxman close to the place, rushed to the spot and made a clamour.Brother-in-law of the appellants Pappu saved him and took to his house, where he was kept for next 24 hours and was given traditional treatment and was thereafter taken to the Prashanti Hospital, Mhow.Before going to CHC, Maanpur, Vinod informed the police.The police registered crime no.362/2015 under section 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC.It is further observed that evidence of crescentic shaped nail marks were present on anterior and anterior lateral part of the neck.Dr. Prakhar Agrawal PW-7 was of the opinion that possibility cannot be ruled out that damage to the brain observed in the C.T. Scan may be due to sudden increase in the blood pressure or some paralytic attack.Dr. Jaiswal, who performed autopsy, has stated that there were crescentic shaped nail marks on the front and frontolateral part of the neck and three contusions on left parietal, occipital, cerebellum parts of the skull of the deceased.Dr. Shukla, who examined the deceased after filing of the FIR, has stated that there were two abrasions on both side of front part of the neck, but according to him, these marks were having brownish black scales and were two days old.But Dr. Agrawal, who examined and treated the deceased first or prior to Dr. Jaiswal or Dr. Shukla, did not find any such nail marks or contusions.They both (Dr. Agrawal & Dr. Shukla) have admitted that at the time of examination of the deceased, they did not notice any external HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:They dragged him and threw him in front of his house.When he tried to intervene, they (appellants) threatened him to kill.(Delivered on 28/03/2019) Per : Virender Singh, J. :With consent of the parties, heard finally.After the death, the police added Section 302 and also registered Merg no.17/2015 (Ex.P/12), sent the dead body for post-mortem (Ex.P/11), obtained post-mortem report Ex.P/1, visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/10, arrested the appellants (Ex.P/13 & 14), seized Viscera and clothes of the deceased, sent them to FSL for chemical examination (Ex.17), recorded statements of the witnesses.In the post-mortem, it was opined that the death was due to cardio respiratory failure.Evidence of hypoxic brain injury was fount.The doctor opined that the death was a repercussion of attempted throttling and its complications.After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under section 302, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC.The appellants were charged under section 294 and 302 in alternate 302/34 of the IPC.They abjured their guilt.After the trial, they are acquitted from the charge under section 294 of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 3 IPC and convicted under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced as stated in para no.1 above.The appellant have preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned Trial court is contrary to the law and facts available on record.The judgment is contrary to the settled principles of law.Statements of all three doctors produced by the prosecution namely Dr. Sunil Jaiswal of MY Hospital, Indore (PW-6), Dr. Prakhar Agrawal of Prashanti Hospital, Mhow (PW-7) and Dr. Madhukar Shukla of CHC, Manpur (PW-Dr. Agrawal, who examined the deceased first, did not notice any external injury to the deceased.Dr. Shukla has admitted in para no.7 of his cross-examination that no external injury on the head of the deceased was noticed by him.He did not deny that the injuries might have been caused due to fall on the hard surface.He has further admitted that the symptoms and ailments observed by him may be due to sudden increase in blood pressure.Condition of brain as observed by him may be due to this sudden rise in blood pressure and it is quite possible that the condition of brain of the deceased as observed by him may be due to sudden paralytic attack.All the prosecution witnesses are interested and are inimical towards the appellants.The learned Trial Court has erred in relying on such interested witnesses or such contradictory medical evidence.There is delay in filing the FIR and delay is not explained.Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.In the present case, the prosecution has come forward with a case that the incident took place on 03.11.2015 at about 7/8:00 in the night.Admittedly, the deceased was not taken to any HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 4 hospital in the night even when, according to his son Vinod PW/2, he had sustained serious injuries on head and was unconscious.He was not even taken to the hospital for next 24 hours.Even after 24 hours, the kins of the deceased chose to take him to the Prashanti Hospital, Mhow situated about 15 Kms away from the village of the deceased, instead of taking him to Community Health Center (CHC) situated just 4-5 kms away from their village.This shows that the intention of the complainants was to provide better treatment and not to approach the police which usually happens in the case of commission of some crime.Dr. Pawar, who first examined the deceased, is not produced before the trial Court.Dr. Agrawal, who examined the deceased at Prashanti Hospital, has admitted that it does not reflect from the case-sheet Ex.P/8&9 that at the time of admission, any information regarding cause of injury was given to the treating doctor.The case-sheet of the deceased shows that at the time when he was brought to the Prashanti Hospital, he was drunk.The doctors did not rule out the possibility of sustaining injuries due to fall on the hard surface or due to sudden rise in blood pressure or due to sudden paralytic attack.Dr. Shukla has stated that brother Bhurkhilal had brought the deceased to the CHC and he revealed before him that the deceased was feeling weakness on the right side of body since last two days.He was immediately provided treatment.Treating Doctors were of the opinion that the symptoms observed were indicating that the patient was suffering from paralytic attack and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 5 on the same line his treatment was started.His treatment in hospital is as under:-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 12According to Dr. Prakhar Agrawal PW/7, considering the condition of the patient, it was felt that there may be a need of ventilator and this facility was not available at Prashanti Hospital, Mhow, therefore, kins of the patient were advised to take him to some other hospital where such facility was available.The deceased was discharged from the hospital on 05.11.2015 at 11:00 PM.This is apposite to mention here that till the time of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 13 discharge of the deceased from Prashanti Hospital, there was nothing to show that the deceased had sustained the alleged injuries in any scuffle or fight or by any external force used by the appellants.Rather, doctors were suspecting that he had suffered a paralytic attack which laid to the patient in the condition observed by them.Thus, it was not found a Medico Legal Case (MLC) and this was the reason that the doctors did not inform the Police.It shows that at the first available occasion, no allegation of thrashing or throttling was made against the appellants and this makes the lateral or subsequent allegations suspicious.One more important thing to note here is that in the complaint, the kins of the deceased revealed before the doctors of the Prashanti Hospital that the deceased was having weakness on the right side of the body since last two days.The deceased was brought to the Prashanti Hospital on 04.11.2015 at 06:00 PM.This also makes the allegation of the prosecution doubtful.The story of scuffle/bashing and thrashing has first come in the air when after getting discharged from the Prashanti Hospital on 6.11.2015 at 11.00 PM, the deceased was being taken to the another hospital from Mhow to CHC Manpur.This FIR reflects that intimation was received at the police station on 6.11.2015 at 1.00 A.M. The police registered the case under Section 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC, thereafter the deceased was sent to the CHC HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:This delay coupled with non discloser of the incident at the first occasion before the doctors of the Prashanti Hospital further strengthens the doubts about genuineness of the allegation made by the complainant later on.Though it is mentioned in the FIR that information was received at 1:00 AM on 06.11.2015 and the case was registered under Sections 294,323,506/34 of the IPC but the FIR Ex.P/2 shows that it was registered at 4:39 A.M., which means that the information was received and registered after examination of the deceased by Dr. Madhukar Shukla at CHC, Maanpur at 1:20 A.M. No explanation is given as to why even after receiving the intimation of commission of cognizable offence, the FIR was not registered then and there.It creates a doubt that this is an ante- timed document.The deceased was first taken to the CHC, Maanpur from the Prashanti Hospital and where a story was concocted and narrated before the doctor, who mentioned this story in the MLC report Ex.P/1 and thereafter the complainants approached the police and the police mentioned the time of receiving information prior to the time of MLC to show that the case was registered first and then the injured was sent to the hospital.This shows that the complainants have not acted in all fairness and the police was also not very fair in dealing with the crime.One thing is also important to notice that at CHC, Maanpur, Dr. Shukla noted in the MLC report that "H/o Assault to head & throttling Wednesday morning during fight of Sakharam & Gyan HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 15 Singh.History given by Bherusingh brother." Here the name of second accused Lalu @ Lalsingh is missing in this history, but it is very well mentioned in the FIR.No reason is assigned by the prosecution as to why the name of Lalu was not disclosed before the doctor.This is an important lacuna in the prosecution case and this shows that the story of fight, which was first concocted after discharge of the deceased from the Prashanti Hospital due to his critical condition with advice to take him to some big hospital to Indore, was further improved at the time of filing of the FIR and that the addition of name of Lalsingh is an afterthought action and therefore, cannot be relied upon.The story of the scrambling or bashing or throttling was first revealed on 06.11.2015 at 01:20 A.M, means intervening night of 5/6-11-2015, when after discharge of the deceased from the Prashanti Hospital, he was brought to the CHC, Manpur.Bhuresingh, who brought the deceased, revealed before Dr. Madhukar Shukla PW-1 that the deceased sustained injuries due to assault on the head and throttling in the morning of Wednesday.This further increases the doubts aroused in the mind.During his admission in Prashanti Hospital Mhow the deceased was advised for C.T. Scan.The C.T. Scan report is also available on record which is as under:-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 16This C.T. Scan report does not reflect any signs of scuffle, bashing, trashing or throttling as claimed by the prosecution.Even no nail marks were noticed by any of the technician or the doctor during scanning.No external injury was noticed on the head as alleged by the son of the deceased and also by other witnesses.Dr. Prakhar Agrawal PW-7 of the Prashnti Hospital has HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 17 clearly admitted that at the time of observation, he had not noticed any external injury on the body of the deceased.BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 18 injury caused to the deceased.In CT Scan also no such injury as mentioned by Dr. Jaiswal was found.Dr. Jaiswal has opined that the death was result of attempt of throttling and the complication arisen out of such attempt, but as per Dr. Agrawal and Dr. Shukla the symptoms, ailment and condition of brain observed by them may be due to sudden increase in blood pressure or may be due to sudden paralytic attack.In the last we would like to mention treatment undergone at or treatment protocol of the deceased by the M.Y. Hospital, Indore, which reflects that the deceased was only treated for Ceribro Vesicular Accident (CVA).Entire treatment prescriptions do not reflect that he was ever treated for the complication arising out of throttling or any injury caused on the head due to collusion with the hard surface or stoned floor or by forcible push on the hard floor as alleged or claimed by the prosecution witnesses.Now we will examine ocular evidences produced by the prosecution before the trial Court.The prosecution has examined three prime witnesses namely Vinod PW-2, Laxman PW-3 and Tarwar Singh PW-4 all sons of the deceased.Vinod has stated that at the time of the incident he was with his brother Laxman and they both were plying tractor.He saw the appellants beating his father and they pushed him on the ground, who fell with head towards the floor and they also throttled his neck.He got scared and did not disclose the incident at home till the next morning.Next morning his uncle (Mama) took his father to Mhow Hospital by Bolero HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 19 Jeep and in the hospital he revealed the incident to his uncle Bhuresingh.It is to be noticed here that the deceased was taken to the Prashanti Hospital on 4.11.2015 at 6.00 PM and not in the morning but even we take it that in the morning Vinod revealed the crime of the appellants before his uncle Bhuresingh even then they did not approach the police or lodged the report on the same day i.e 4.11.2015 but waited for the next two days.Statement of Vinod that he got scared due to threat of the appellants is unnatural and also not believable as both the complainant and the appellants belongs to the same family and are residents of the same village.They both have common relatives in the village and there is nothing on record to show that how he came out from the fear in the next morning.Another son Laxman PW/3 has reiterated the facts stated by Vinod, but he has stated that at the time of the incident, Vinod was not with him on the tractor but was sitting at the house of Gyansingh (appellant).In para no.3 of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that his uncle Bhuresingh was also present on the spot at the time of the incident.This makes the statement of Vinod that next day in the hospital he revealed the incident before Bhuresingh false.Further Laxman has stated that in the night itself, his father was taken to the MY Hospital, Indore where he was treated.Though, later when the learned public prosecutor asked some questions with the permission of the Court, he has stated that after keeping his father a day, he was taken to the Prashanti Hospital on the next day.Third son Tarwar Singh PW/4 claimed that at the time of incident, he was at home.His brother informed him about the incident.He immediately rushed to the spot.Picked up his father HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.7871/2018 20 and took him home and next day took him to a private hospital of Basi, thereafter, to Madhya Bharat Hospital, Mhow then to Manpur Hospital and thereafter, to MY Hospital, Indore, where he died.Means this witness has claimed that he had always accompanied his father, whenever and wherever he was taken.But even after knowing that the appellants have beaten his father or have throttled him, he also never tried to lodge the report or approach the police, while he has admitted that the police station is hardly 5 Kms away from his village.The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR makes his statement unbelievable.This statement of Tarwarsingh also belies the claim of his brothers Vinod and Laxman that due to threat given by the appellants, they got scared and did not disclose the incident before anyone.According to Vinod and Laxman, the cause of incident was use of passage passing through the house of the appellants but according to Tarwarsingh the cause was that the deceased intervened in the dispute between the appellants and tried to exhort them not to fight with each other.Except all the three sons of the deceased, no other independent witness is examined by the prosecution and all this three sons have admitted that both the parties belong to the same family and there was a dispute between both of them on account of some loan taken by the deceased for purchasing a tractor and for repayment of the installments of this loan.In such a situation absence of independent witness raises doubt in the mind and this doubt coupled with the unexplained delay in revealing the incident before the police or lodging the report within a reasonable time along with the fact that the alleged incident was never disclosed before the doctor before whom the deceased was HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:We have certain doubts regarding truthfulness of the prosecution case and certainly benefit of such doubt have to be given to the appellants.The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate all these discrepancies, shortcomings and contradictions appeared in the statements of the witnesses which goes to the roots or very foundation of the prosecution case, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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. |
28,835,833 | This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested for offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 308and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered vide Crime No.335/2015 by Police Station Shamshavad, District Vidisha.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant himself got injured in the incident in question.The -2- applicant was trying to prevent the quarrel.It is also pointed out that though the case of the prosecution is that applicant has given blow by 'pharsa' to the non-applicant, however, only seizure of 'lathi' from the applicant has been made.The applicant is in custody since 02.11.2015 and custodial interrogation is over.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.Taking into account the applciant himself has received injuries in the incident which is evident form the MLC report as well as the fact that -3- weapon of the offence has not been seized from the applicant.In view of aforesaid submissions I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed and it is directed that applicant-Kamal son of Bhanwarlal shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK ARADHE) | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,837,587 | Prosecution case is that Om Parkash, who is nephew of accused N.P. Singh, along with another person called Choudhary went to the house of Ram Singh and Manoj Kumar in a jeep; put them in jeep, brought them to their kothi in Vasant Kunj and there these two persons were allegedly tortured, apart from injured Manoj Kumar, Ram Singh, Raju, Pardip, Ganga and Nahar Singh were also brought to the same place of accused persons.Deceased Arjun was also brought there.The present petitions lay a challenge to the impugned orders passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, Crl.Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 1 of 22 whereby the petitioners were charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC.(Criminal Revision No.746/2006 has been filed by the petitioner Inder Singh Bisht impugning the order dated 12.12.2002 and Criminal Revision No.545/2006 has been filed by petitioner O.P.Chaudhary impugning the order dated 25.02.2005, vide which they were separately charged in Sessions Case No. 12/05)Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 1 of 22The facts of the case which are common to both the petitions, as set out in the impugned order dated 12.12.2002 are as under:-These persons were allegedly confined in the house of accused Om Parkash Choudhary and given beatings by accused persons.Out of the torture allegedly given to Arjun by accused Om Parkash, N.P. Singh; Om Parkash Choudhary and I.S. Bist, Present accused, he died due to multiple injuries present on his body.Other persons also sustained injuries at the hand of accused persons, therefore, present case under above mentioned Sections was filed against accused persons.Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 2 of 22Role assigned to accused I.S. Bist is that he along with O.P. Choudhary and others was present in the house and he performed the role of recording the confessional statement of the persons allegedly tortured by accused O.P. Choudhary and others.In the statement of Manoj Kumar, Ram Singh, Pardip and others witnesses, it is mentioned that accused persons O.P. Choudhary and N.P. Singh had brought the abovenamed injured and deceased to the house in question where they were beaten with the help of iron rod and steel pipes.Even the freeze water is alleged to have been poured upon them and thereafter they were beaten up.Accused O.P. Singh, N.P. Singh and O.P. Choudhary @ Omi Choudhary collectively gave beating to Arjun and others to extract confession.Apart from that he was made to inhale the smoke produced by burning chillis.The role assigned to accused I.S. Bist is that accused N.P. Singh gave a pen to I.S. Bist and asked him to record the confession for future use which he wrote on a paper and obtained the signature of the persons allegedly tortured.He also asked the injured persons that he had noted down their names and addresses and if any of the injured persons disclosed anything to that person, he will get their parents kidnapped.These witnesses have also stated that accused persons subjected them to severe beatings as a result of which Arjun died."The apparent conflict in the rulings of Division Bench and Single Bench of the Kerala High Court on the issue led to reference to the Full Bench in the circumstances detailed in para-1 of the report Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police 2006 Crl.L.J 1922, as under:-Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 10 of 22 tactics for the eventual report to such short-cut method.Subsequently, Crl.M.C.Nos.3102-3300, 3460 and other connected matters which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court also were referred to the Full Bench."Consequently, his trial was separated and the trial against five other accused persons proceeded but out of them, one accused died before the commencement of the trial, therefore, trial was held against four accused persons, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court.The four convicted accused persons filed appeal in the High Court against their conviction, which was allowed by the High Court and all four of them were acquitted.The case of the accused, who was tried subsequently had to be decided only on the basis of evidence led during the course of his trial and the evidence led in the case of previously tried accused persons was irrelevant.But it was mainly on the identity of the persons facing trial at that time i.e. N.P.Singh and O.P.Chaudhary not being proved that they have Crl.Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 17 of 22 been acquitted.So far as the incident is concerned, except PWNos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 17 of 22- Pradeep, who stated that he received the injuries in factory, but admitted that he was also removed to hospital along with other injured persons by the police, others have deposed about the incident in which Arjun died and others suffered injuries.Here, it is necessary to refer their version that they could identify the persons involved in the incident."PW2 Ram Singh deposed that "I cannot tell the names of the persons who gave beatings but I can identify them if shown to me."PW1 Neelam Devi deposed about her husband being taken by two persons from the house for making some inquiry and that next day she had approached the police by visiting the police station in connection with the occurrence.She has stated that "I can identify the person who took away my husband, if shown to me".PW6 Raju, another injured, deposed that "I do not know who were the person who made me sit in the vehicle or the persons who were already sitting in the vehicle.I do not know the name of other two labourers who were already present there.Then four persons started giving beatings to me, Badal and two labourers with dandas."I do not know who took me from my house or gave beatings to me but I may identify them if shown to me."It is necessary to mention here that so far as the complainant Neelam is concerned, she is a witness only to the incident of her husband Ram Singh and one Manoj being taken from the house after the midnight and on their failure to return, Crl.Nos.746/2006 & 545/2006 Page 18 of 22 her contacting the police for their rescue.She also stated that she could identify the person who took away her husband. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
288,434 | 2) The case of the prosecution is as under:(a) On 03.04.1997, Hanumanthappa, father of the victim,lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter Shilpa, aged 13years, was kidnapped by the appellants herein on 24.01.1997at about 11.00 a.m. from his house and they had taken her toBombay with an intention to force her to have illicitintercourse and thereafter, had sold the victim to Shanta (A-1)at Bombay for Rs.5000/- for the purpose of prostitution andfor immoral purposes.On the strength of the said complaint,Kumarapatnam Police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of1997 and started investigation.On 2 the same day, the statement of the victim Shilpa was recordedand she was sent to the C.G. Hospital Davanagere for medicalexamination.4) Among the three accused, Manjappa (A-3) and Vijay M.S.Balakrishna Madiwalar (A-2) are before us.As already noticed,the appellants, along with one Shanta (A-1) were charged forcommitting offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372,373 read with 34 IPC.P. Sathasivam, J.The appellants herein and Shanta were arrestedon 27.04.1997 and charged for the commission of the offencespunishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with 34 I.P.C.(b) The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of itscase and marked several documents.By order dated03.02.1999, the Sessions Judge convicted Shanta (A-1) andVijay M.S.Balakrishna Madiwalar (A-2) (appellant in Crl.A.No.735/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections366A, 372, 373 read with section 34 I.P.C. and acquittedManjappa (A-3) (appellant in Crl.A. 653/07).Against the saidorder, the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-3 and another for enhancement of the sentence of A-1 and A-2before the High Court.The High Court, vide its judgmentdated 06.02.2006, allowed both the appeals of the Stateconfirmed the conviction of A-1 and A-2 and enhanced thesentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years with afine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, S.I. for two years and setaside the acquittal of A-3 and convicted him for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for aperiod of seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default S.I.for two years.Challenging the impugned judgment of the HighCourt, A-3 filed Crl.A. No. 653 of 2007 and A-2 filed Crl.A. No.735 of 2008 before this Court.3) Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned counsel for theappellants and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for theState of Karnataka.Since the learned counsel for theappellants argued only for reduction of sentence, let us firstunderstand the offences and the sentence, as fixed in the IPC.Section 366A relates to procuration of minor girl.As per thesection, whoever induces any minor girl under the age of 18years to go from any place or to do any act, forces or seducesto illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable 4 with imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable to fine.Section 372 speaks of selling minor for purposes ofprostitution.Here again, whoever involves in disposal of anyperson under the age of 18 years for the purpose ofprostitution or illicit intercourse or for any unlawful andimmoral purpose shall be punished with imprisonment up to10 years and also liable to fine.Section 373 speaks aboutbuying minor for purposes of prostitution.This section alsomakes it clear that whoever buys or obtains possession of anyperson under the age of 18 years with an intention to employor use such person for the purpose of prostitution or illicitintercourse or for any unlawful or immoral purpose is liable tobe punished up to 10 years and also liable to fine.All thethree sections make it clear that if the victim is under the ageof 18 years and whoever uses, procures, employs, buys orhires such person for prostitution or for illicit intercourse withany person or for any immoral purpose are liable to bepunished.The maximum sentence prescribed is 10 years andalso liable to fine.She also narrated howthese accused persons took her to Bombay on the assurancethat they would get a job for her.She also explained that afterreaching Bombay, A-2 and A-3 had sold her for a sum of Rs.5,000/-.She informed the Court that A-1 used to purchasegirls and engage them for immoral purposes.She assertedthat A-1 used to engage her daily for prostitution against herwish.Medical Report dated 28.08.1997 (Annexure P-2) clearlyshows that she is below 18 years of age.From her date ofbirth, it can easily be presumed that at the time of occurrencei.e.in 1997, she was below 18 years.Her father, PW-1, alsoexplained how his daughter was taken to Bombay and theagony undergone by her.PWs 3 and 4, both accompanied thepolicemen to Bombay were examined as panch witnesses.Considering the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-2, 6 whose statement and assertion are acceptable, the High Courtrightly confirmed the conviction and enhanced the sentence to7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each.6) Looking from any angle and considering the fact that thevictim was below 18 years as on the date of occurrence, thesentence of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by theHigh Court is quite reasonable and acceptable.There is novalid ground for interference in the quantum of sentence.Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,844 | (a) The present practitioner claims to be a manufacturer and supplier of all types of engineering materials, pipes and fittings.He carries on business at Latur.JUDGMENT Sharad Manohar, J.The petitioner did not move his small finger against the said order and even in the present petition it is not his contention that there was anything wrong about the said order.But his novel plea is that because the respondent/complainant filed a suit against him in the Civil Court and even obtained an ex parte decree against him, the criminal proceeding which was instituted against him changed its character into a proceeding of purely civil character.It will first state the facts which are, more or less, admitted facts.I have stated that they are admitted because they have been averred by the respondent/complainant; he has led evidence about that; the Sessions Court has referred to them and still there is not as much as a murmur on the part of the present petitioner denying them.He persuaded the respondent/complainant to take an agency for the goods manufactured by him, for territory of the Parbhani District as also at Nanded District by offering commission at the rate of 20% on the orders placed.On 25-11-1979, the complainant booked 9 orders for supply of pipes amounting to Rs. 16,500/-.The petitioner required the complainant himself to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/- to him with the assurance that the goods would be supplied to his customers in due course.Thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 3,500/- was received by the petitioner/accused from the complainant in connection with the various transactions.Thus, the complainant paid to the petitioner/accused a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as an advance towards the supply of goods.No goods were supplied by him.The accused used to visit the complainant at Nanded and give to him facile promises of the supply of goods; the supply never forthcoming.The case of the complainant is that for the purposes of carrying on the business of agency, he spent an amount of Rs. 5000/- for acquiring office at Nanded.His further contention is that the customers who had placed the orders with the complainant were clamouring for the supply and on that account the complainant himself had to shell out a sum of Rs. 6000/- to them in order to ward off actions against him.Fact, however, remains that such a cheque was given by the present petitioner/accused to the complainant.The complainant went all the way to Bidar and tried to encash the cheque on 16-10-1980 only to draw blank, because he was informed that there was no balance in the petitioner's account.Another attempt was made by the complainant to encash the cheque on November 1980 by putting it in his Bank at Nanded.But once again the cheque bounced back, as there was no balance, with the endorsement "refer to drawer".(c) On 28-1-1981, the complainant sent a registered Notice to the petitioner recording all the above facts and demanding immediate payment.Mr. Badve appearing for the complainant before he made a categorical statement that there was no reply received to this notice from the accused.Mr. Solshe appearing for the petitioner had to concede that this was the correct position.It was in these circumstance that the instant complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, at Nanded, accusing the petitioner/accused of the intention to cheat him and of the offence of cheating.On 2-3-81, the complainant filed the complaint in the Court.Upon receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order calling for report of the Police under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The police made investigation and submitted their Report to the learned Magistrate on 30-5-1981, which is at Exh. 22 in these proceedings.In the proceedings which started thereafter, as many as 3 witnesses were examined by the learned Magistrate.It is pertinent to note that the complainant chose not to cross-examine those witnesses.In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there existed prima facie case of cheating on the part of the petitioner/accused and hence on 9-6-1982 he framed a charge against him for commission of offence under section 420 I.P.C.Against this order, Revision Application No. 96 of 1982 was filed by the accused.His only contentions appeared to be :---(d) that there existed no criminal intention or mens rea in the act alleged against the petitioner/accused; andThe Revision Application against the order of the learned Magistrate framing the charge was, therefore, dismissed by the learned Addl.The learned Judge also directed both the parties to remain present in the Court on 20-1-1983 and directed the trial to proceed against the accused.The petitioner does not claim any relief against the order passed by the learned Addl.The Revision Application filed by the respondent was pending in the Sessions Court.In these circumstances, very advisedly, the complainant filed Special Suit No. 58 of 1983 (in the Court of Civil Judge (S.J.), Nanded) against the accused for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,380/- with costs.In that proceeding, on his own showing, the petitioner/accused came to learn, on 14-2-1983, about at least an attempt to serve the summons upon him.Thereafter he took no steps for setting aside the ex parte decree although he has not been contending from house-tops in this Court, not without prevarication, that no summons was served upon him in the suit.This is his story in the present petition.When I asked Mr. Solshe as to how it was that if no summons was served upon him the petitioner did not make an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the answer was that the summons was served upon him, but that the copy of the plaint was not accompanied by the summons.(h) The circumstances in which the ex parte decree came to be passed was also of a tell-tale character.Before me, two contradictory statements have come to be made.In the present petition it is stated that no summons was ever served upon the petitioner.In the trial Court, however, the applications made on behalf of the defendant/accused was extremely significant.That application was granted.On 16-6-1983 also once again, the defendant chose not to file his written statement.From the record it appears that the defendant's advocate did not even appear before him on that date.In any event, no application for further time to file the written statement appears to have been made.It may be mentioned here that on the first two occasions, dated 14-2-1983 and 4-4-1983, no grievance was made of the fact that the defendant was not having with him a copy of the plaint.On that account, it was prayed that one more chance may be granted to him for filing his written statement.On that application, the Court passed an order as follows :---I asked him as to whether in any proceeding whatsoever at any stage such a plea was taken by the accused.I further asked him as to whether any proceeding was taken by the present petitioner against the said employee.The inevitable answer coming from Mr. Solshe was in the negative. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
28,850,477 | The jointcompromise memo filed on 06.07.2018 shall form part of this order.9.In this case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmitted that the petitioners are willing to contribute some amount to theDistrict Legal Services Authority, Trichirapalli under the Head?Environmental Fund? to preserve the environment.Hence, each petitioner isdirected to remit a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Total sum of Rs.12,000/-) as costswithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder, by way of an individual/collective Demand Draft drawn in favour of theDistrict Legal Services Authority, Trichirapalli, 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].5.The District Legal Services Authority, Trichirapalli.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.1761 of 2008 forthe offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPCagainst the petitioners herein and subsequently Section 307 IPC has beendeleted and final report has been filed under Sections 147, 341, 294(b) and506(ii) IPC.After completing investigation, the first respondent has filedcharge sheet before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Maduraiand the same has been taken on file in S.C.No.364 of 2011 and for quashingthe same, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 and the defacto complainant arebefore this Court on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.K.Chinnasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, C-1, Thideer Nagar (L &O) Police Station, Madurai District is present.The defacto complainant andthe petitioners are present and their identifications were also verified bythis Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties bythe learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) through Mr.K.Chinnasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, C-1, Thideer Nagar (L & O) Police Station,Madurai District.Learned counsel appearing for the parties also endorsed theidentify of their respective parties.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for thefirst respondent submitted that trial in S.C.No.364 of 2011 is yet to becommenced.5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed thisquash petition along with a joint memo of compromise on 06.07.2018, wherein,it is stated as follows:"3.It is submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant areknown to each other and belongs to same town.Further, to avoid unpleasantsituation, the petitioners and the defacto complainant, by considering thewelfare of both the parties and at the intervention of well wishers they hadamicably resolved their disputes.Therefore, the entireproceedings in S.C.No.364 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional District andSessions Judge, Madurai in respect of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 arehereby quashed.8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.A report in this regard shall be sent by the District Legal ServicesAuthority, Trichirapalli to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State LegalServices Authority, Chennai, mentioning clearly the amounts spent towards thepurposes mentioned in the above order and the balance amount left etc.,To1.The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, C-1, Thideer Nagar (L & O) Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,364,373 | (iii) The applicant/accused shall surrender his bail bond and shall remain present before the trial Court for the execution of remaining sentence.(iv) The period of detention, if any, be given as set off as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 02:40:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 02:40:36 :::Rs. 20,000/- be given to injured Dinanath Mahadu Sargar towards compensation.(vi) The accused shall deposit the amount of fine before the trial Court within a period of eight days and he shall surrender himself within that period before the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2019 02:40:36 ::: | ['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. |
38,368,781 | This is first application preferred by the applicant under Section 439(II) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail order passed on 17/09/2014 in Mcrc No.8256/2014, whereby respondent No.2 was enlarged on bail in regard to Crime No.189/2014 registered at Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 336, 146, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.Prayer for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 has been made on the ground that after grant of bail respondent No.2 committed one more offence and for which the FIR was lodged by Manish Sharma on 09.11.2014 which was registered at Crime No.363/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506B, 34 of IPC. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,370,913 | Heard arguments on bail application.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as she apprehends her arrest in Crime No.613/2017, registered at Police Station, Dabra, District Gwalior, against her and five other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 427, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.As per prosecution, complainant Preeti got married to co- accused Ashish Tiwari.Applicant Jamvati is mother-in-law, co- accused Munnalal is her father-in-law, co-accused Arvind is her Devar and co-accused Raju and Sanju are their relatives.On 05/07/2017 they barged into the house of the complainant's parents situated in Dabra town and assaulted the complainant and her mother Madda Bai and damaged the house-hold appliances.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the complainant got cases registered against the applicant and some of the co-accused persons under Sections 498-A, 294, 323 and 505 (2) of the IPC and for the offences punishable under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in these cases the complainant entered into the compromises with the applicant and others.He submits that the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in the case.He submits that looking to the allegations levelled against the 2 M.Cr.C. No.9174/2017 (Jamvati Vs.State of M.P.) applicant, her custodial interrogations are not required.He submits that the applicant is aged about 50 years and that she has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge Astha | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,378,614 | No.80 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 12008 of 2017 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.11.2017 in connection with Sankrail Police Station Case No. 1028 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/353/283/427/436/307/295A/ 296/506/332/333/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. (S.T. No. 245 of 2017) And In Re: Saddam Middey ... ... Petitioner Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta ... ... for the State The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to an offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/353/283/427/436/307/295A/296/506/ 332/333/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for about 11 months and that co-accused persons are on bail.Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that a communal strife had broken out in the locality over the incident.He shall also furnish his place of residence to the trial court as well as the Investigating Officer of the case and shall not intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever or commit similar offences in future.In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
383,792 | ORDER Desai, J. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,379,291 | O.P(MD)No.13167 of 2015 in Crime No.33 of 2015 for the alleged offencesunder Sections 448, 294(b), 324, 506(i) and 307 IPC and Section 3 of TamilNadu Property Act (Prevention of Loss and Damages) .The petitioners in both the cases are relatives.When the mattersare taken up for hearing, two joint memo of compromise have been field by theparties and countersigned by them to the effect that both FIRs may bequashed.The parties are also present before this Court along with theirrespective Counsels.Crime No.34 of 20142.Prema ...2nd Respondent/ Defacto-Complainant PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.72 of 2015 pending on thefile of Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur and quash the same.Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.78 of 2015 pending on thefile of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Aruppukottai and quash the same.against the Crime No.34 of 2014 by second respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13100 of 2015 for the alleged offence under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324, 506(ii),307 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. S.C.No.78 of 2015 has been filed by the second respondent inCrl.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after goingthrough the records as well as joint compromise memos, this Court is inclinedto quash the proceedings in S.C.No.72 and 78 of 2015 on the file of theMahila Court Srivilliputhur and Assistant Sessions Judge, Aruppukotttairespectively are quashed against the petitioners and these Criminal OriginalPetitions are allowed.1.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.The Mahila Court Srivilliputhur3.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Aruppukotttai4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,391,133 | Rank of the Offences for which Sentence of Fine amount No. Accused convicted imprisonment Section 452 of IPC Seven Years Rigorous Rs.5,000/-in default to Imprisonment undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-in default to1. A1 undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment Section 506(ii) of IPC Four Years Rigorous -Imprisonment Section 452 of IPC Seven Years Rigorous Rs.5,000/-in default to Imprisonment undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-in default toA2 undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment Section 506(ii) of IPC Four Years Rigorous -Imprisonment Section 452 of IPC Seven Years Rigorous Rs.5,000/-in default to Imprisonment undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-in default to3. A3 undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment Section 506(ii) of IPC Four Years Rigorous -Initially, there were eight accused persons against whom the Trial was conducted before the Court below and the Trial Court had acquitted A4 to 8 from all charges.The case of the prosecution:A6 to A8 were running a Browsing Centre and they are said to have hatched conspiracy 15 days prior to the date of occurrence to retaliate for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 murder of their brother and to do away with the deceased, who was holding the post of the President of the Cable TV Operators.They are said to have engaged the services of A1 to A5 in order to commit this crime.On 06.05.2009 at about 1:20pm, A1 to A3 are said to have entered into the Browsing Centre that was run by the deceased and they indiscriminately caused cut injuries with an Aruval and thereby caused the instantaneous death of the deceased.Complaint and evidence collected in the course of investigation:The brother of the deceased, namely, P.W.1, who was shown as an eyewitness in this case, after witnessing the incident immediately arranged for an Ambulance and had taken the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi and the deceased was declared to have been brought dead and the dead body was kept in the mortuary.The complaint was received and an FIR (Ex.P43) came to be registered in Crime No.271 of 2009 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.The Express FIR was sent through a Head Constable (P.W.27) to the Judicial Magistrate Court and it reached the Court at about 3.30pm on the same date.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/29 Crl.The investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police (P.W.31) and he went to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 3:00pm to 4.45pm and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P34).He thereafter went to the scene of crime at about 5.15pm and and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) and also the Rough Sketch (Ex.P55) in the presence of the witness (P.W.17).He also collected the Material Objects from the scene of crime under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5).He thereafter recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.The Investigation Officer collected the dress worn by the deceased and the same was submitted before the Court with a requisition to send the same to the Forensic Laboratory.On 08.05.2009, the Investigation Officer came to know that A1 to A3 had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tirunelveli on 08.05.2009 and thereafter, he took steps to take A1 to A3 on Police custody and a letter was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate Court on 11.05.2009 and the Police custody was also granted on 14.05.2009 for a period of four days.While the accused persons were taken on Police custody, they voluntarily gave their confession in the presence of P.Ws.18 and 19 and based on their confession, the Material Objects (M.Os.1 to 3) were recovered under Seizure Mahazar Ex.Ps.12 tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017The weapons that were seized were sent to the Court with a requisition to send the same to the Forensic Department.The Investigation Officer thereafter surrendered the accused persons before the Court and they were sent back to the jail.He thereafter took steps to alter the FIR.On 21.05.2009, A1 was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Tirunelveli, since he wanted to give voluntary confession under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The confession was recorded before the concerned Court on the same day.Thereafter, he took steps to arrest the other accused persons and also recovered the Material Objects.4.6 The Investigation Officer thereafter took steps to arrange for a Test Identification Parade by means of a requisition letter given to the Magistrate (Ex.P.49) and the Test Identification Parade was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.30).The Investigation Officer recorded the statements of the Postmortem Doctor (P.W.24), the Hand Writing Expert (P.W.23) and also the Forensic Expert (P.W.26) and collected the Postmortem report (Ex.P.36), Forensic Report (Ex.P.41) and the Serological Report (Ex.P.42).[S.V.N.,J.] & [N.A.V.,J.] 12.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes arhttp://www.judis.nic.in 27/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.A(MD)No.467 of 2017http://www.judis.nic.in 28/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 12.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 29/29S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.The Appellants / A1 to A3 have filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Court (Communal Clash Cases Court),http://www.judis.nic.in 1/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 Madurai made in S.C.No.4 of 2009, dated 31.10.2017, convicting and sentencing the Appellants as follows:On completion of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/29 Crl.The Trial Court furnished a copy of the Final Report and all other documents relied upon, under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. to the accused persons and framed the following charges against the accused persons:No. Rank of the Accused Offences for which convicted1. A1 - Murugan 120(b), 148, 307, 452, 302 and 506(ii)2. A2 – Thamburan @ 120(b), 148, 307, 452, 302 and 506(ii) IPC Krishnan3. A3 - Ponnaiah 120(b), 148, 307, 452, 302 and 506(ii)4. A4 – Murugan @ Gundu 120(b), 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 and 506(ii) IPC MuruganA5 – Muthukumar @ 120(b), 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 and 506(ii) IPC Prasanth6. A6 – Kalaizhar @ 120(b), 148, 302 r/w 149 and 506(ii) IPC Karunanithy @ Sankar7. A7 – Ravi @ Arumugam 120(b), 148 and 302 r/w 109 IPCA8 – Sakthi Pandian 120(b), 148 and 302 r/w 109 IPCThe prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 31, marked Ex.The Court below questioned the accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., by putting all the incriminating materials that were collected against them, during the course of trial and the accused persons denied the same as false.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017The Trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1 to A3 and proceeded to convict and sentence them in the manner stated supra.All other accused persons, namely, A4 to A8 were acquitted from all charges.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants 1 & 2 / A1 & A2 made the following submissions:➢ The case of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who were examined as eyewitnesses.Except, P.W.1, none of the other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.➢ P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased could not have been present in the scene of occurrence and a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that he could not have seen the incident and if actually he was present in the scene of occurrence, it would have been spoken by P.W.3, who was an employee working in the Browsing Centre.➢ P.W.3, who was examined as an eyewitness did not support the case of the prosecution and inspite of the same, she was not treated as a hostile witness and therefore, her evidence is to be taken as it is and the same is in favour of the accused personshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 ➢ It is the categorical admission of P.W.1 that he knew the accused persons even before the incident, including their names and inspite of the same, it was not mentioned in the complaint (Ex.P.1).Therefore, the Test Identification Parade that is said to have been conducted in the present case has absolutely no meaning, since P.W.1 knows these accused persons even at the time when he gave the complaint.➢ P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased has improved his case at every stage and if really he did not know the names of the accused persons, he could not have given the graphic details of the overt act that was committed by each of the accused persons with their names.➢ The evidence of P.W.1 is not completely reliable and therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and the same was not done in the present case.➢ If A1 had already given a confession statement to the Police, there was no requirement for A1 to go before the Judicial Magistrate and give a confession.➢ The confession that was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., did not satisfy the mandatory requirements and the Court did not satisfy itself that A1 had voluntarily made the confession and no time was given for him to reflect upon the consequence of such confession.In order to substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandran vs. The State ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/29 Crl.➢ The so-called confession that was made before the Police was marked in toto by the Court below and even in the confession, there was no mention regarding the place at which the weapon was kept.➢ The Defacto Complainant in this case, namely, P.W.1 has stated in the course of examination that after the occurrence, the Police had immediately enquired him and taken his statement and thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital and he was again examined by the Police.None of these statements were marked before the Court and the complaint that came into existence on the date of occurrence at 2:15pm was the only document that was marked and therefore, the earliest version regarding the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution.➢ The Court below had relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the confession statement made before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also the fact that the Appellants have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, has come to an erroneous conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case beyond reasonable doubts.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017That apart, he made the following submissions:➢ P.W.1 could not have seen the incident, since he himself accepts in the course of examination that the first time he saw the deceased, when he was lying in a pool of blood in the Browsing Centre and only the persons, who were working in the Centre, were present in the scene and there was no other outsider available.➢ It was the specific case of the prosecution that P.W.1 had taken the deceased in the Ambulance and P.W.1 had specifically stated about the presence of bloodstains in his dress and his dress was not taken for the forensic analysis and this would have clearly proved the presence of P.W.1 in the scene of occurrence.➢ The prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubts and the Court below went wrong in convicting the Appellants and the same requires inference of this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 10/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions:➢ The motive for the crime has been clearly spoken by P.Ws.5 and 9 and their evidence establishes the case of the prosecution with regard to the motive behind the attack.➢ The Trial Court has assessed the oral and documentary evidence and has come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has proved the casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 beyond reasonable doubts against A1 to A3 and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the said judgment and this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also carefully assessed the oral and documentary evidence.In this case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who were cited as eyewitnesses.Therefore, it becomes necessary for this Court to closely analyze the evidence of P.W.1 and satisfy itself as to whether P.W.1 had actually seen the occurrence.If the evidence of P.W.1 inspires the confidence of this Court, it may not even be necessary to look for corroboration.13. P.W.1 has stated in his Chief Examination as follows:“....M[h; vjphpfs; midtiuAk; vdf;F njhpAk;.ehd; K];yPk; r%fj;ijr; Nrh;e;jtd;. M[h; vjphpfs; ,e;J r%fj;ijr; Nrh;e;jth;fs;.05.05.2005e; Njjp ,uT 7.00 kzpf;F Nfgps; btp rq;f $l;lk; eilngw;wJ. vdJ mz;zd; jhd; rq;fj;jiyth;. rq;ff; $l;lj;jpy; tuT> nryT fzf;F thrpf;fg;gl;lJ. ,jd; fhuzkhf gpur;rid Vw;gl;lJ. Nfgps; btpf;F ghf;fp fl;l Ntz;bath;fs; $l;lj;jpw;F tutpy;iy. ,we;JNghd vdJ mz;zd; njd;fhrp Nfgps; btp rq;fj; jiytuhfTk;> ney;iy Nkw;F khtl;l Nfgps; btp rq;fj; jiytuhfTk; ,Ue;J te;jhh;.6.5.2009e; Njjp vdJ mz;zd; KfkJ nkha;jPd; fhiy 9.30 kzpastpy; vd;dplk; Nehpy; te;J Nghdpy; rpy Ngh; kpul;bajhf $wptpl;L mth; filf;F nrd;Whttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 tpl;lhh;.vdJ mz;zd; filapd; ngah; lhd; fk;g;A+l;lh; gpnusrpq; nrd;lh; ehd; kjpak; 12.00 kzpastpy; vdJ mz;zd; lhd; gpnusrpq; nrd;lUf;F nrd;wpUe;Njd;.mtuJ Nrhpy; cl;fhh;e;jpUe;jhh;.gf;fj;J Nrhpy; filapy; Ntiy ghh;f;fpd;w uhzp> ,rf;fpKj;J> ,rf;fpuh[;> iraJ myp mq;F Ntiy ghh;j;Jf; nfhz;bUe;jhh;fs;.ehd; gf;fj;J Nrhpy; cl;fhh;e;jpUe;Njd;.vdJ mz;zd; rj;jk; Nghl ehd; kw;Wk; filapy; Ntiy ghh;ff ; pd;w uhzp> ,rf;fpuh[;> iraJ myp> vy;NyhUk; Nrh;e;J fj;jpNdhk;.mth;fs; %d;W NgUk; vq;fis ghh;j;J gf;fj;jpy; te;jhy; cq;fisAk; Nrh;j;J ntl;b tpLNthk; vd;W kpul;bdhh;fs;.ehd; vdJ mz;zid fhg;ghw;Wtjw;F jKKfh Mk;Gyd;rpw;F Nghd; nra;J> Mk;Gyd;]; te;j gpwF njd;fhrp muR kUj;Jtkid nfhz;L nrd;Nwd;.kUj;Jth; ghh;j;Jtpl;L ,we;Jtpl;ljhf $wptpl;lhh;.cld; vdJ mz;zid gpNuj thh;Lf;F vLj;J nrd;Wtpl;Nlhk;.mjd;gpwF vdJ mz;zid nfhd;wth;fis fz;Lgpbj;J eltbf;if vLf;Fk;gb njd;fhrp fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F ehd; Nehpy; nrd;W> Gfhh; kD xd;W vOjpf;nfhLj;Njd;.ehd; nfhLj;j Gfhh; kD m.rh.M.1.”This finding gets confirmed by the specific statement made by P.W.1 in his cross examination as follows:“...ehd; Gfhhpy; rk;gtj;jpd; NghJ ,Uth; ntl;bajhf $wtpy;iy.KUfd; vd;gth; vd; mz;zd; Njhs;gl;ilapy; mUthyhy; ntl;bdhh;.jk;Guhd; jiyapy; ntl;bdhh;.nghd;idahTk; ntl;bdhh; vd;W ngah; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;.Nghyp];tprhuizapYk; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;.”The next issue that has to be ascertained is, as to whether P.W.1 had actually seen the occurrence.At this juncture, it will be relevant to extract the evidence of P.W.3, who was working in the Browsing Centre of the deceased, which reads as follows:“.....M[h; vjphpfspy; ahiuAk; vdf;F njhpahJ. vdJ Xdh; KfkJ ikjPd; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;.6.5.2009 e; Njjpgfy; Rkhh;1.25 kzpastpy; ehd; gpnua;rpq; nrd;lupy; ,Ue;Njd;.mg;NghJ fil chpikahsh; KfkJ ikjPd; filapy; ,Ue;jhh;.mg;NghJ vdJ gf;fj;jpy; NtW ahUk; ,y;iy....”The evidence of P.W.3 shows that there was no one else, who was present in the Browsing Centre during the incident.It is important to note that this witness has not been treated to be a hostile witness by the prosecution.Therefore,http://www.judis.nic.in 14/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 the evidence given by P.W.3 will have to be necessarily taken into consideration in toto.P.W.3 does not talk about the presence of P.W.1 in the scene of occurrence.With this background, it is important to analyze as to what P.W.1 says about the incident in the cross cross examination.The relevant portion in the evidence is extracted hereunder:“.....vd; mz;zid ehd; Kjd; Kjypy; uj;j nts;sj;jpy; ghh;j;jNghJ filapd; cs;Ns Ntiyahl;fis jtpu NtW thbf;ifahsh;fs; ahUk; ,y;iy.”A careful reading of the above statement made by P.W.1 during the course of examination, creates a lot of doubts as to whether P.W.1 could have seen the incident.If really P.W.1 had seen this incident and he already knows the accused persons, he would have definitely named the accused persons in the complaint.That apart, P.W.1 specifically states that when he took the deceased to the Hospital from the scene of occurrence, his dress was also stained with the blood of the deceased.However, the dress was not recovered and sent for forensic analysis.At least, this would have ensured that P.W.1 was actually present in the scene of occurrence.The evidence of P.W.1, who is the only eyewitness available in the present case, does not inspire the confidence of this Court.Therefore, it becomeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 15/29 Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 necessary for this Court to look for corroboration.At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Chinnadurai and others vs. State, [Crl.A.Nos.455 of 2011, etc. batch] decided on 12.02.2015 [in which one of us (Justice S.Vaidyanathan) was a party].A.(MD) No.467 of 2017 Judicial Magistrate (P.W.29).The 164 statement was marked as Ex.271/2009 ,.j.r.GphpTfs; 302> 506(2)-d;gbahd tof;fpy; thf;F%yk; nfhLf;f jpUney;Ntyp ePjpj;Jiw eLth; vz;.5 Kd;G nfhz;Ltug;gl;Ls;sPh; vd;gij njhpe;Jnfhz;Buh?vd;dhy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vOjg;gl;L vjphpf;F gbj;J fhz;gpf;fg;gl;L gjpy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;lij rhp vd xg;Gf;nfhz;L vd; Kd;ifnaOj;J nra;jhh;.ePjpj;Jiw eLth; vz;.5 jpUney;Ntyp.,d;W ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; njd;fhrp fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;.271/09 ,jr gphpT 302 kw;Wk; 506(2) rk;ge;jg;gl;l vjphp Rg;igahNjth; kfd; KUfd; vd;gth; M[h; gLj;jg;gl;lhh;.A.(MD) No.467 of 2017Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the bail bonds executed by the Appellants shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to the Appellants.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.ar To:The District and Sessions Judge (Communal Clash Cases Court), Madurai.The Inspector of Police, Tenkasi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
38,402,235 | This revision has been preferred against order dated 23.03.1990 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 912 of 1990 summoning the revisionists as accused under Sections 452, 307 and 323 I.P.C.Brief facts are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report dated 02.05.1988 implicating the revisionists as accused which was registered as case crime no. 100 of 1988, under Sections 452, 307 and 504 I.P.C. and after investigating into the matter the police of police station Mandawal submitted a final report in the said case.During the pendency of the said final report, the opposite party no. 2 filed his own affidavit and also filed filed affidavits of three persons namely Lakhan Singh, Deo Raj Singh and Vijai Pal Singh corroborating the allegations made in the first information report.I have heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionists.Perusal of the impugned order shown that the impugned order was passed on 23.03.1990 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, which is as follows:-"Case called out.Applicant appeared.Perused the C.D. and affidavit filed by the witnesses. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,325,137 | C.R.M. 13777 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 06, 2010 And In re.: Madhusudan Mahato & 2 Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Joypur Police Station Case No. 70 of 2009 dated 02.12.2009 under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and for the State.In case they surrender, their prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb | ['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,328,279 | Prosecutrix is also present in Court in person and is also represented by her counsel.CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 3 of 14It is common knowledge that gifts given to a person are never CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 7 of 14 considered to an "entrustment" made in favour of that person.Once the article is admitted to have been given to the accused persons as gift, it cannot be said that same were entrusted by the complainant or her family to them for safe keeping or that accused persons have mis- appropriated the same for their own use.Admittedly, gifts sweets etc. were given to accused no. 1 to 5 and their family members for their use and hence, I am of the opinion that allegation levelled against accused persons does not fall within the purview of section 405 IPC.Hence accused no. 2 to 5 are discharged for the offence u/s 406 IPC as well as under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 7 of 14***** ***** *****The accused no. 1 was very much excited and he took out his mobile phone and shown some inappropriate /porn photographs to complainant in order to instigate her to have sexual favour from her.But, no incident other than this has happened on that day.As regards the section 376 IPC, it has been stated by the prosecutrix in her complaint that on 30/04/2014, complainant met with accused no. 1 in the Lagan/Sagaai CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 10 of 14 of his friend Gaurav and "he was publicly hugging and moving with complainant and showing intimacy and introducing her to others in the Lagan/Sagaai of his friend Gaurav".% 26.10.2018 CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 1 of 14 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 1 of 14The petitioner in Crl.Rev. P. 360/2017 is the prosecutrix on whose complaint subject FIR No. 29 of 2016 under Section 354/406/34 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered.Subsequently, after the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 376 IPC was added.Prosecutrix filed Crl.Rev. P. 360/2017 impugning the order dated 30.01.2017 whereby the trial court has discharged the accused of all offences.3. Crl.Rev. P. 555 of 2017 has been filed by the State impugning said order on charge dated 30.01.2017, whereby the accused were discharged.Pending the present proceedings, the prosecutrix as well as the accused have entered into a settlement whereby the parties have agreed to settle all their disputes subject matter of the present FIR as also other civil and criminal litigations pending between them.She submits that she has settled the disputes with the respondent as also his family and does not wish to press her petition any further and is satisfied with the order of the trial court whereby the accused have been discharged of all offences under the subject FIR.Settlement agreement has been filed, same is taken CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 2 of 14 on record.CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 2 of 146. Learned Addl.PP contends that there is sufficient material to frame a charge against the accused and the trial court erred in discharging the accused.Even though, the petitioner has settled with the respondents.Since the State has impugned order discharging the accused of all offences, I propose to consider the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 on merits.The allegations in the FIR are that the father of the prosecutrix came in contact with respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Boy') and his family through one common mediator.Subsequently the families met and it was agreed that they shall get married.Ring- cum-engagement ceremony was also organized in the presence of friends and family.It is alleged that substantial amount of money was spent for making the said arrangements.It is contended that subsequently the Boy came to the house of the prosecutrix along with a friend for giving a marriage card of his friend and requested her to meet him separately in a room.It is alleged that in the room, he misbehaved with her and wanted to establish physical relationship, to which she refused, on which he left.Thereafter, once again it is alleged that he met her on the engagement of his friend on 30.04.2014 and publicly hugged her and showed CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 3 of 14 intimacy.Thereafter it is contended that demands for dowry were made as also for provision of a car which were not satisfied.Subsequently, it is alleged that, the boy refused to marry her on the ground that he was already married.On this complaint, subject FIR was registered.Subsequently, the statement of girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.She has merely stated that he was publicly hugging and moving with complainant and showing intimacy and introducing her to others in the Lagan/Sagaai of his friend Gaurav.On the said complaint to the Police Authorities, subject FIR was registered.The Trial Court has held as under: -In the entire complaint as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the other supplementary statements, there is no specific averment of demand of dowry against accused no. 2 to 5 at any point of time.As per the choice of the parents and other relatives of accused no.1, the Centaur Hotel, IGI Airport, New Delhi was booked and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by brother of the complainant on dated 10/08/2015 and "Band" was also booked.Apart from this, there is no allegations levelled by the prosecutrix- complainant against accused no. 2 to 5 of making any demand.Even in this paragraph there is no allegation made against accused no. 2 to 5 regarding demand of dowry.It has no where been alleged by the prosecutrix that after seeing the hotel on 20/09/15, accused no. 2 to 5 have raised any demand, further or had not liked the place, which has been booked for the marriage.The allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint against accused no. 1 in respect to 30/04/2014 is that he was hugging and moving with complainant and showing intimacy and introducing her to others.There is no even a whisper in the complaint that accused no. 1 had one any act towards commission of physical assault against the complainant.Subsequently said amount of Rs. 5.5 lakhs have been given to the prosecutrix towards the amount spent in the engagement function and the gifts given.Further, Trial court on perusal of the records has found CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 12 of 14 that the allegations under Section 376 and 354 IPC were also not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.CRL.REV.P. 360/2017 & 555/2017 Page 12 of 14 | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,329,138 | 2 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that first accused was a anchor of the show, which was telecast by New Delhi Television Limited (herein after referred to as “NDTV Ltd.,”), in which, according to the complainant, defamatory was made, second accused was Chairman of NDTV Ltd., third accused was Chief Executive Officer and fourth accused was Executive Vice Chairman of the NDTV Ltd. It is admitted by the respondent in his complaint that show was telecasted by NDTV, but, however, NDTV was not named as accused in his complaint.Further The entire complaint is silent on the role played by the petitioners in the alleged defamation.There is no specific averment as to how each of the petitioners involved in the commission of alleged offence.The petitioners herein are accused and the respondent is complainant.The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C. after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, 2/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.10348 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013 has taken cognizance on the complaint in C.C.No.15 of 2013 and issued summons on the petitioners.The accused 1 to 4, on receipt of the summons, approached this Court, seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.15 of 2013 against them.It is respectfully stated that the first accused Miss.Kashish Gupta, Anchor, the second accused Thiru Prannoy Ry, Chairman, the third accused Thiru Vikram Chandra, chief Executive Officer and the fourth accused Thiru K.V.L.Narayan Rao, Executive Vice Chairman.The accused are jointly responsible for the functioning of NDTV where the defamatory news item was published.” 11 As far as enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, in this case the allegation is that defamatory statement was telecasted in NDTV and copy of the CD has also been produced and therefore order of enquiry by the Magistrate to find out prima facie case is unnecessary and hence the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is not 12/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.10348 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013 acceptable.12 Without going into the merits of the case, on the score that there is no specific allegation personally alleged against the petitioners and they have been arrayed as accused only as employees of the company even without impleading NDTV as an accused, the case in C.C.No.15 of 2013 is hereby quashed.This criminal original petition is allowed accordingly.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.01.2020 Index:Yes/No cgi ToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.13/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl. | ['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
24,329,251 | Certified copy as per rules.Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the parties are heard.This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail.The applicant was arrested on 23.6.2018 by Police Station City Kotwali district Morena in connection with Crime No.426 of 2018 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 458, 294, 323, 506B, 34, 459 and 325 of the IPC.On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned PP has opposed the application.The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court concerned with a direction that he will remain present on each and every date of the trial before the trial court/committal court concerned and shall abide by all the 2 MCRC-36466-2018 terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 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. |
24,335,514 | TheHon'bleJusticeDebasishKarGupta And TheHon'bleJusticeMd.According to the prosecution case, in a nutshell, on January 10, 1997, at about 7.30 hours one Sitaram Mondal (since deceased), village-Radhanagar, Police Station-Raghunathganj, District-Murshidabad, started proceeding towards Tahabazar Market of Jangipur, District-Murshidabad, riding on a bicycle for selling brinjals in the market.His son Indra Mondal (PW1) was following him taking brinjals in a basket.When the aforesaid Sitaram Mondal (since deceased) reached in front of the shop of selling "Tadi" at Mahabirtala, the appellants hurled bomb aiming at him.The aforesaid Sitaram Mondal fell down on the ground and breathed his last.The appellants fled away.Since the appellants were carrying bombs in their hands, the PW 1 could not catch hold of them.A written complaint dated January 10, 1997 was lodged by the PW 1 in Raghunathganj Police Station at 08.20 hours.PW 6 was the scribe of the above written complaint.Formal FIR bearing Raghunathganj P.S. Case FIR No.6/97 was drawn on the aforesaid date, i.e. on January 10, 1997, after making an entry in the General Diary of the above police station bearing No.402 against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34PW 8 was engaged as Investigating Officer of the above case.He reached the place of occurrence on the same day i.e. on January 10, 1997, at 8.20 hours.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Present:MumtazKhan CRA No.85 of 2008 Jagannath Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal With CRA No.103 of 2008 Nanku Mondal & Ors.This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated January 22, 2008 and sentence dated January 24, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Jangipur in Sessions Trial No.17(4)/2004 arising out of Sessions Serial No.11/2004 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 5 (five) years each.He prepared the rough sketch map of the place of occurrence.He conducted the inquest examination over the dead body of the aforesaid deceased person in presence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 and according to their identification.According to the preliminary investigation, as incorporated in the above inquest report, a few persons, who belonged to the opposite party of the deceased person, hurled bombs aiming at the aforesaid deceased person successively when he reached near the shop selling "Tadi" at western bank of river Bhagirathi riding on a bicycle with a sack of brinjals on January 10, 1997 at 7.30 hours.The PW 8 sent the dead body of the deceased to Jangipur Sub-Divisional Hospital through Home Guard No.1447 attached to Jangipur Police Station, District-Murshidabad (PW 5) for post mortem examination.He seized some articles from the place of occurrence on the aforesaid dated under a seizure list.According to the above post mortem report, the following injuries were detected over the dead body of the deceased:-(i) Grossly lacerated wound surrounded by blakish dis colouration over posterior aspect of head and neck due to cervical vertebra;(ii) Fracture of oxipetal bone and brain matter coming outside;(iii) One lacerated wound 5" x " peritonial cavity transversely over both hips.According to the opinion of PW 7, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.The PW 8 could not complete the investigation due to his transfer from the aforesaid police station.He submitted Raghunathganj P.S. charge sheet No.194 dated November 30, 1997 against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34It is further submitted by him that the gist of statements though PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 were witnesses of the inquest report, the names of the appellants did not appear in the report.According to him, this was a matter of suspicion that the inquest examination over the dead body of the deceased started within 10 minutes after drawing the formal FIR.According to Mr. Mukherjee, though wearing apparels of the deceased person and some materials were seized from the place of occurrence by the I.O., those were not sent for obtaining report from the Forensic Science Laboratory.It is also submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that there were also contradictions in between the evidence of the purported eyewitnesses touching the root of the prosecution case.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have also considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the basis of the evidence on record.Taking into consideration the settled principles of law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Meharaj Singh (supra) which was repeated and reiterated by a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Thaneder Singh (supra), this bench delivered a judgment dated August 11, 2016, in CRA No. 840 of 2013 ( in re : Asraf Biswas vs. The State of West Bengal & others with CRA No. 892 of 2013 (in re: Jahiruddin Molla & Others vs. The State of West Bengal & Others) taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the above appeal by quashing and setting aside the order of conviction.PW 7 had reached the place of occurrence before the police party arrived there on the date of occurrence."10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .According to this evidence the accused is alleged to have been taken PW 11 and others to the open paddy field where the dead body was lying.However, PW 11 stated in his evidence that before going to the paddy field the FIR Ex. P. 10 was drawn up by him.Surprisingly we find a mention about the discovery of the body in the FIR itself.But the same is not found in the inquest.There is not even a reference to the accused in the column No.9 of the inquest report where the information of witness as to the cause of death has to be noticed.The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR.In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW 8."The above proposition of law was repeated and reiterated by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thanedar Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 487 with the observation that failure to send the FIR to the Court of learned Magistrate at an inordinate delay having no explanation for the same cast doubt about the prosecution case so far as the place and time of occurrence and the manner in which the death of the victims claimed to have been taken place." | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,434,056 | In December 2000 Gurbachan Singh, since deceased who happened to be the husband of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 1 Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 1 of 12 made a request to the respondent for a friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs as he was going through some bad phase and needed some money for his business.Gurbachan Singh issued three post-dated cheques bearing No. 685442 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, 685443 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and 685444 dated 15.1.2004 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Civil Line, Agra, in favour of respondent as an assurance for repayment of the loan.After his death respondent approached the petitioners in January, 2004 and asked them to repay the friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 9 of 12None of these ingredients have been made out from the averments contained in the complaint.As already stated above, prima facie there is no evidence to indicate that complainant had entrusted the petitioners with Rs. 4 lacs.In fact the said money was allegedly advanced as friendly loan to Gurbachan Singh and not to the petitioners.Gurbachan Singh had issued three post-dated cheques which were surprisingly accepted by the respondent.The cheques were not presented for encashment on the request of the petitioners as they were not having sufficient funds.Thereafter respondent continued to request the petitioners to repay the friendly loan amount.A legal notice dated 26.12.2006 Crl.Since petitioners failed to pay the loan amount, respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406/420 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) against the petitioners.petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 1M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 1 of 12M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 2 of 12Learned trial court vide its order dated 16.10.2007 took cognizance of offence under Section 406 IPC and summoned both the petitioners.Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the impugned summoning order of the MM.Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that cause of action for filing the complaint arose in December 2000 whereas the complaint was filed in June 2007 and was hopelessly barred by period of limitation at the time when it was presented and also that complaint does not disclose any cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious and oppressive.It is further argued that Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 3 of 12 the loan, if any, advanced to Gurbachan Singh ensued civil liability and no offence within the meaning of Section 406 IPC is shown to have been committed by the petitioners.It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no particulars of the alleged cash payment of Rs. 4 lacs in two installments have been provided in the complaint and that the respondent allegedly secured the loan amount by taking alleged post- dated cheques against the alleged loan in no manner attracts the provisions of Section 406 IPC.Since there was no breach of trust, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 3 of 12The cheques were issued at Agra and petitioners were resident of Agra at the time of issuance of the cheques.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent who happened to be a close relative of the petitioners managed to lay Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 4 of 12 his hands on the cheque book of deceased Gurbachan Singh after his death and misused the cheques by forging the signatures of Gurbachan Singh with ulterior motives to defraud and cheat the petitioners.The complaint having been filed malafidely, learned MM failed to appreciate the evidence and the facts pleaded in the complaint and acted mechanically while passing the impugned order.Therefore, neither the complaint nor the summoning order dated 16.10.2007 are sustainable and are liable to be quashed.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 4 of 12Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that petitioner No. 2 along with Gurbachan Singh had approached the respondent for the said loan of Rs. 4 lacs and she had also assured that the loan amount would be paid after some time.She became dishonest after the death of Gurbachan Singh and with malafide intentions had been putting off the respondent on one pretext or the other with a view not to repay the loan amount along with interest accrued thereon.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 5 of 12 the petition is without any merits and should be dismissed.a. Parties to the petition are closely related.e. Complainant approached the petitioners in January 2004 and sought repayment of the advanced friendly loan.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 7 of 12 issued by Gurbachan Singh in favour of respondent were dated 5.1.2004 i.e. after three years of the raising of the alleged loan from the respondent.Advanced cheques issued by Gurbachan Singh were never presented by the respondent for encashment within the period of their validity for the reasons best known to the respondent.After the death of Gurbachan Singh his account must have been closed or transferred in the name of the petitioners.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 7 of 12Loan was paid to Gurbachan Singh and not to the petitioners.Loan must have been utilised by Gurbachan Singh during his life time as he needed the money for his commercial purposes i.e. business.Since, as per the allegations in the complaint respondent had not paid any amount as part of the loan to the petitioners, they cannot be said to have malafide intentions not to return back Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 8 of 12 the loan amount to the respondent.Respondent had never entrusted the petitioners with any money much less Rs. 4 lacs and therefore to involve them for an offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC is neither just, proper nor legal.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 8 of 12To make out an offence under Section 406 IPC following ingredients of criminal breach of trust are required to be made out in the complaint:a. A person should be entrusted with a property or with dominion over a property.b. The said person dishonestly uses or disposes of that property.c. Such user or disposal of the property was in violation of any direction of law prescribing the manner in which the such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract which such person had made touching the discharge of such trust.d. Such person is also liable for criminal breach of trust if he wilfully suffers any Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 9 of 12 other person so to do.No prudent man would accept post- dated cheques beyond three years knowing it well that any claim after three years would become barred by period of limitation.There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioners had misappropriated or done away with the money allegedly advanced to Gurbachan Singh; their predecessor in interest.The averments in the complaint clearly indicate that it was a transaction of loan and on failure of Gurbachan Singh to repay the same or the petitioners as the case may be, the dispute if any was essentially of civil in nature.No Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 10 of 12 criminality is involved nor any such malafide intention to commit breach of trust is reflected from the facts contained in the complaint and the evidence of the complainant placed on record.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 10 of 12Summoning of a person is a serious matter and the Magistrate therefore should have applied his mind after considering the evidence available on the record and the contents of the complaint in a reasonable manner instead of proceeding with the complaint and summoning the petitioners in a mechanical manner.His order should have indicated that before taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the accused persons he had weighed the material available on record and had applied his mind for coming to a conclusion that prima facie an offence was made out against the petitioners.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 11 of 12M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 11 of 12Under these circumstances, none of the cases referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, as above, have any bearing to the facts and circumstances of this case.Hence petition is allowed.Complaint No. 156/2001 and summoning order dated 16.10.2007 are hereby quashed.Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court.(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE February 06, 2009 jk Crl.M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 12 of 12M.C. No. 3678/2007 Page 12 of 12 | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
243,468 | (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu/petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).The order of detention dated 8.4.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.168 of 2007 on the file of Kavindapadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with 397 IPC and 25(1)(b)(a) of Indian Arms Act, complaint of which was given by one Sivaprakash.On 26.2.2007, the complainant along with his wife were on their way to Kuttaigoundenpudur from Erode at 7.30 pm in motorcycle.When they were near Angalamman Koil on the eastern side of Ayyampalayam pirivu, Kavandapadi, a Tata Sumo Car came speedily and halted, obstructing their way.Three persons got down from the car, two of them were armed and threatened to part with the jewels worn by the wife of the complainant.One accused snatched the hand bag of the wife of the complainant.The complainant and his wife raised alarm and on hearing the same, the nearby public came.The accused seeing this sped away towards Gobichettipalayam.The Inspector of Police, Kavindapadi Police Station took up the case for investigation and the detenu was arrested.Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime No.18 of 2007 on the file of Kavindapadi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC; Crime No.34 of 2007 on the file of Thingalur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC; and Crime No.119 of 2007 on the file of Gobichettipalayam Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.Challenging the said detention, the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the detention of the detenu, by order of detention passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.4/2007/ C1, dated 8.4.2007, to set aside the same and to direct the second respondent to cause production of body and person of the detenu, who is now confined in Central Prison at Coimbatore before this Court and to set him at liberty.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.Remarks were called for from the detaining authority on 26.4.2007 and the said representation was received on 26.4.2007 itself by the detaining authority, and in turn, parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on the same date.However, remarks of the sponsoring authority were received by the detaining authority only on 8.5.2007, viz., after a delay of 7 days, excluding 5 days public holidays.The detention order dated 8.4.2007 is set aside.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District Erode.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,142,950 | Item No. 74And In the matter of: Rajib Kumar Mongal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amitabha Karmakar Miss Sutanuka Chowdhury For the Petitioner Mrs. Suman Sehanabish For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Chandrakona Police Station Case No. 150 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013 under Sections 448/323/354/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record including the injury report.Considering the nature of injuries there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J) | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,714,539 | The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows:-i)The deceased in this case was one Narayana Konar.The deceased NarayanaKonar had Palmyra trees on his land.On 22.11.2001, at about 8.00 a.m, theaccused had collected leaves of palmyra trees by engaging coolies without theconsent of the deceased.The deceased questioned the same.Suddenly, theaccused shouted at the deceased saying that solong as the deceased was alive, hecould not collect leaves.At that time, the accused was armed with aruval.Hesuddenly cut the deceased on his left leg.The left leg was amputated.Then,he made another cut on the neck of the deceased.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with theweapon.P.W.2 and others, thereafter, took the deceased to the GovernmentMedical College Hospital at High-ground at Tirunelveli.Murugan was anAssistant Surgeon attached to the Government Medical College Hospital atTirunelveli at High-Ground.On 22.11.2001, at about 10.55 a.m, the deceased wasbrought for treatment.He underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by himas an inpatient continuously.Despite the treatment given on 30.01.2002, atabout 11.00 p.m, he succumbed to the injuries.ii)While the deceased was in the hospital, P.W.12, the then Sub-Inspectorof Police, attached to Kalakadu Police Station proceeded to the hospital and metthe deceased.Then, one Head Constable by name Pandiyaraj also accompanied him.The deceased gave an oral complaint.On the directions of the P.W.12, the HeadConstable Pandiyaraj reduced the same into writing.The deceased signed thesame.P.18 is the said statement of the deceased.On returning to thePolice Station, P.W.12, registered a case in Cr.No.266/2001 under Section 307I.P.C. Ex.P.19 is the First Information Report.He forwarded Exs.iii)P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the Kalakkadu PoliceStation took up the case for investigation.On 22.11.2001 at 06.00 p.m, heproceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and arough sketch in the presence of witnesses.He recovered the bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 andanother witness.Then, he examined the deceased, P.Ws.1, 2 and other witness andrecorded their statements.On 26.11.2001, he recovered the dress materials wornby the deceased at the time of occurrence.In the meanwhile, the accused hadsurrendered before the Court.On 10.12.2001, on the orders of the learnedJudicial Magistrate, he took the accused into his custody.(The judgment of the court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J.) The State is the appellant in this case.The respondent is the accused inS.C.No.374 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge,Tirunelveli.The respondent stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC.ByJudgment dated 06.02.2003, the trial Court in stead of Section 302 IPC,convicted him under Section 326 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo rigorousimprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in de fault toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The respondent has not preferred anyappeal challenging the conviction and sentence.But the State has come up withthis appeal seeking enhancement of the punishment.That is how, this appeal isbefore this Court.On the same day at3.30 p.m, while in the Police Station, the accused gave a voluntary confession,in which, he had disclosed the place where, he had hidden the aruval (M.O.1).In pursuance of the said statement, the accused took the Police and witness tothe said place and produced M.O.1(aruval).The same was recovered under amahazar.iv)It was only at that stage on 31.01.2002, the deceased succumbed to theinjuries.On receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.14 altered the caseinto one under Section 302 IPC.P.24 is the report.P.25 is the inquest report.He forwarded the body for postmortem.Mani conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on31.01.2002 at 01.00 p.m. He noticed the following injuries."i)Healed scar 9 cm in length seen on the left cheek to back of left ear.ii)7 cm below the lower part of left patella, the entire left leg foundmissing.The intact cut portion of upper part of left leg is found infected.iii)Bedsore seen on the sacral and gluteal regions"P.7 is the post mortem certificate.He opined that the deceased would appearto have died of complications of traumatic amputation of left lower limb byheavy cut injury sustained by him.v)P.W.14 collected medical records including the treatment records,examined the doctors and finally, he handed over the case-diary to his successorInspector.vi)P.W.15, the successor, Inspector of Police, took up the case forfurther investigation and he made a request to the Court to forward all thematerials for chemical examination.P.11 is the analysis report.Accordingto the same, the aruval recovered from the accused contained human blood of 'o'group, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased found on the dressmaterials on the deceased.On completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid acharge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone chargeagainst the accused under Section 302 IPC.The accused pleaded innocence.Therefore, he was put on trial.In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as15 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents besides 5 material objects.Out of thesaid witnesses, Pws.1 & 2 were examined as eye witnesses.But, P.W.1, the wifeof the deceased has turned hostile and she has not supported the case of theprosecution in any manner.P.W.2 alone has deposed about the occurrence.P.W.6has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased and P.W.7 has spoken toabout the cause of the death.When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he has not chosen toexamine any witness or to mark any document on his side.In this appeal, notice was ordered by this Court to the respondent whenthis appeal was admitted.Though notice was duly served on the respondent, hehas not engaged any counsel to defend him in this appeal before this Court.The learned counsel Mr.After the said letter, the brother of the accused by nameBalasubramaniyan spoke to him over phone and gave instructions.After havingobtained the case records and also on the basis of the above said instructions,Mr.The first cutwas made on the left leg and the left leg was amputated and second cut was madeon the neck.The shock will occur as soon as a considerable volume of blood isdrained from the body.It is for the Court to comprehensivelyand judiciously consider the crime as well as the criminal namely the agravatingcircumstances as well as the mitigating circumstances, while deciding thequantum of punishment.In this case, having regard to the all the relevantfacts such as the age, absence of premeditation, family background pointed outby the learned counsel, the gravity of offence and the nature of the weaponused, the nature of the injury and all the other circumstances, we are of theview that imposing a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with afine of Rs.1,000/- will be fair, just reasonable.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:i)The conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent/accused by thelearned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli under Section 326 I.P.C is setaside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i) I.P.C and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, indefault to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.1.The Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.2.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,371,465 | The facts are very interesting and intricate.JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.Appeal against this order and judgment was filed by Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, sole appellant, being appeal No. 785 of 1993 (matter No. 1759 of 1993).He claimed to be a tenant in possession of the disputed premises and stated that he felt aggrieved of the order and judgment of the learned single Judge which had resulted in his dispossession from the premises in question.The Supreme Court passed the following operative order, while disposing of the appeal:--"In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the appeal court dated 14th January, 1994 is set aside and we remand the case back to the appeal court.The appeal court will direct an enquiry as to whether Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was the person who was actually evicted from possession on the strength of the order passed on 30.8.1993 and, if so, restore Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar back into the possession of the disputed premises.Before passing any order the court must satisfy itself as to the true identity and the wish of the appellant, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.If necessary, the court will direct Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar to be personally present in the court.The appeal court will be at liberty to pass such order in the interest of justice as it thinks fit after ascertaining the facts and in accordance with law.The respondents, who were the writ petitioners in this case, will pay costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to appellant."On 9.5.96, when the matter was taken for the first time after it was remanded by the Supreme Court, it was posted for 18.6.96 for directions.When the matter was taken up on 16th July, 1996 however Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was not produced in the court on the ground that he was lying ill at Patna and some more time was sought for his production.Despite a couple of adjournments thereafter and more opportunities, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar did not appear in the court with the result that the respondent Smt. Geeta Rani Roy represented to the court that Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar is not being produced deliberately and that he is actually residing in Calcutta and that he can be produced in the court if proper steps were taken for procuring his attendance.P.M. on 22nd August, 1996 when the matter appeared for consideration, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar actually did appear into the court personally.At that point of time it was pointed out to us that some one else had been allegedly impersonating as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and this name was stated to be Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar.It was also revealed that a short-while ago he was in the court room but after Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar appeared, the said Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar vanished.On 23.8.96 Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar was produced in the court by the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station under arrest.On that day itself the statements of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar were recorded by the court.It shall be advantageous to recount a brief resume of the statements, as recorded by the court, of these two persons.In his statement, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar stated and admitted that he had not filed the appeal in question, i.e., Appeal No. 785 of 1993 and that he was not even in possession of the disputed premises at any point of time after 1966 when he had left the premises.He also stated that for more than a year, he has been residing in Calcutta.He also stated that he has not filed the present application for the restoration of possession (G.A. No. 1381 of 1996) nor the affidavit supporting the said application.In short, the tone and tenor of his sworn testimony in this court is that he was not even aware of the proceedings in this case till about on and a half years back, that he did not prefer Appeal No. 785 of 1993 nor signed any papers, pleadings, documents, affidavits, memos, petitions or powers of attorney with regard to any such application that he did not file Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court nor signed any papers there.He also stated that he was not a tenant in the disputed premises nor was in possession therein when the order was first passed by the learned single Judge.In and substance therefore he clearly stated that he was not appellant as was being made out and that some one else might have filed the appeal in his name and on his behalf, but without his consent, knowledge or permission.The statement of Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar was indeed very interesting.Even while he made some clear admissions, he also made some patent contradictions in his own statement.Whereas in the opening part of the statement he gave an impression that he had filed the appeal with the knowledge and consent of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, in the subsequent part of the statement he clearly came out with an admission that the act of filing the appeal in this court as well as in the Supreme Court was his own.He stated that he knew Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, who was his blood relation.He also identified him in the court.He stated that it was he who had engaged, briefed and instructed Shri Tridib Kumar Sarkar, advocate in this case and that he was doing it on his own and not on behalf of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar or at his instructions.He also stated that he used to hand over/pass over documents, pleadings, affidavits and powers of attorney etc to Shri Tridib Kumar Sarkar, which were all signed by him as and in the name of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and not in his own name.He also stated that along with the Memo of appeal, the accompanying application were also signed by him as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.He had also signed the affidavit in support of the appeal and the said application as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and that he knew that he was signing all these documents as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.He also admitted that the present application for restoration of possession was also signed by him as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, as well as the affidavit accompanying the said application.He also admitted that it was he who had filed the appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, even though in the name of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and that it was he who had signed the power of attorney in favour of the advocate on record in the Supreme Court as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was not a party in the writ application filed by respondent Smt. Geeta Rani Roy.When she obtained the order dated 30th August, 1996 from the learned single Judge of this court whereby writ-petition was finally disposed of, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar even till then was not a party in the writ petition/. It was only at the stage of appeal that his name came in the picture.He forged the signatures on the power of attorney, affidavit accompanying and other documents filed in Supreme Court.We accordingly direct Additional Registrar (Vigilance) of this court to file a criminal complaint in terms of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar, son of late Netai Chandra Roy of 36, Gokul Boral Street, Calcutta--700012 for the aforesaid offences in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction and to pursue it to its logical conclusion.With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is finally disposed of.Visheswar Nath Khare, C.J. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
13,715,008 | Heard on admission.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.164/2012, registered at Police Station Navegaon, District Balaghat, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506-B & 34 of IPC.In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned Panel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on merits of the case and considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant-Fagulal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.C.C. as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,371,503 | According to the prosecution allegations, the informant Mohd. Hamid was resident of village Lodipur, Police Station Sarai Inayat, district Allahabad.Deceased Mohd. Mahmood was the father of the informant while deceased Mohd. Hameed was the elder brother of deceased Mohd. Mahmood.Mohd. Shahid is the brother of informant.It was alleged that about 7.00 a.m. on 3-6-1978, these four persons were sitting on the Chabutra in front of the shop of Mohd. Hameed in village Lodipur.At that time, accused Lodhai, armed with a pistol; Saddan armed with a pistol; Usman armed with his licenced gun; Phallu armed with a pistol, Faiq armed with a pistol; Jameeluddin armed with pistol; and Husnain armed with a licenced gun, came there from northern side.Accused Saddan asked his associates to kill these persons in order to take revenge of the murder of their brother-in-law.All the accused persons thereupon started firing with their respective weapons.The victims tried to run away.Mohd. Hameed was hit and fell down on the Rasta.Mohd. Mahmood was aslo hit and injured but in order to save himself, he ran from there and entered into the shop of one Murli situated in the house of Tejai.The accused persons, however, chased him and after entering the shop, fired shots killing him there.The shouts of the informant and other persons attracted a large number of persons to the scene of occurrence.The accused persons thereupon fired shots causing injuries to Mohd. Afzal; Jeet Lal; Ram Bali and Mohd. Kazim.The informant and his brother Mohd. Shahid also received fire-arm injuries.The accused persons thereafter went away from the scene of occurrence.Mohd. Mahmood and Mohd. Hameed died on the spot.Informant thereafter prepared the written report and lodged the same at Police Station Sarai Inayat, which is situated at a distance of about five miles from the place of occurrence, at 8.15 a.m.On the basis of the written report, the case was registered.The investigation was entrusted to Sri Raghuraj Singh, Station Officer (P.W. 11).He immediately reached the place of occurrence.He found the dead body of Mohd. Hameed lying on the Rasta near the place of occurrence and the dead body of Mohd. Mahmood lying inside the shop of Murli.The inquest reports as well as other connected papers were prepared by the Investigating Officer.Both the dead bodies were sealed and were sent for post-mortem examination.The Investigating Officer took in his custody the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place where the dead bodies were lying.He also took in his possession five empty cartridges.Necessary memos were prepared in respect of the recovered articles.The Investigating Officer then recorded the statements of Mohd. Hamid and Mohd. Shahid who had by that time returned after the medical examination.The site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer after local inspection.Margins lacerated and everted.(2) Fire-arm wound 2 1/2 x 2'/2" x abdominal cavaity deep on left side of abdomen.Middle in the anterior axillary line.Margins lacerated, inverted and irregular.Skull - Broken into pieces.Base - Fractured.Peritoreum - Lacerated.Cavity - Contained about 2 pint clotted blood.Contents - Ruptured at many places.Small intestines - Lacerated at many places.Large intestines - Contained laceration.Bladder - Empty.He recovered two large sized pellets from the right side of the abdomen and sealed them.Margins lacerated, irregular, but margins at the upper end of the wound is inverted and blackening and tattooing present.But margins at the lower end is everted and no blackening or tattooing present.Direction from upward down to the left side of the body.Trachea and cardial vessels of left side were punctured.(2) Fire-arm wound 2" x 2" x chest cavity deep on the left side chest upper part just below injury No. 1 with 6 small fire-arm wounds around the main wound each 1/10" x 1/10" x skin deep.Margins lacerated, inverted and irregular.There was no blackening and tattooing.On the internal examination of the dead body, the doctor found the following conditions:Skull - Ten small fire-arm pellets were recovered from the chest left side.Right Lung - Nil.Thoracic cavity - Contained about 2 bottles of clotted blood.Contents - Empty.Small intestines - Empty.Large Intestines - Full of faecal matter.The doctor recovered 10 small sized pellets from inside injury No. 2 and sealed them in a packet and forwarded them to the S.S.P. He also sealed the clothes of the dead body.In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused by fire-arm.In the opinion of Dr. Singh, both deceased had died about one day earlier.JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrotra, J.Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1982 has been filed by appellants Usman, Lodhai, Saddan alias Mohammad Sad and Husnain while Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 1982 has been filed by appellants Phallu alias Pharooq Ahmad and Jamiluddin against the judgment and order dated 17-4-1982 by Shri K.L. Sharma, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad convicting the accused persons for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/149; 307/149; 148 and 147, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment ranging from two years' R.I. to life imprisonment.Both these appeals have been heard together and shall be disposed of by this judgment.During the pendency of these appeals, appellants Lodhai and Jameeluddin died and so the appeals as far as these relate to them, have abated.He also recorded the statements of the witnesses of inquest proceedings and also the witnesses of the memos.The Investigating Officer then searched for the accused persons at their houses but they were not available.On 4-6-1978 also, the Investigating Officer searched for the accused persons but could not find them.He then returned to the police station where the sealed articles were kept.The Investigating Officer again searched for the accused persons on 5-6-1978 but was unable to find them.He was then transferred on promotion and, so further investigation was entrusted to S.I. M.P. Singh (P. W. 13).We went to the village in question on 7-6-1978 and recorded the statements of Jeet Lal, Ram Bali and others.On 15-6-1978, the further investigation was entrusted to the Station Officer, Amar Singh (P.W. 8).He found the following injury on his person:-"Fire-arm wound 3/10 cm.circular on the left side of back of thigh upper portion.There was no tattooing." The duration of the injury was noted as recent.The same doctor medically examined the informant Mohd. Hamid at 10.15 a.m. on the same day.He found the following injury on his person:-"One fire-arm wound 3/10 cm circular on the 8th rib 10 cm.below nipple.No tattooing or scratching was found.Depth could not be ascertained." The duration of the injury was noted as recent.He found the abrasions on the face, chest and illiac.The injuries were found fresh and were caused by some blunt object.Injured Jeet Lal (P.W. 6) was medically examined at 11.30 a.m. on the same day by Dr. Gupta.He found one abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the right side back.The injury was fresh and was caused by some blunt object.Injured Mohd. Kazim was medically examined at 11.45 a.m. on the same day and abrasions measuring 1/4" x 1/4" were found on the right side chest and right leg.Both these injuries were fresh and were caused by some blunt object.Injured Ram Bali (P.W. 5) was medically examined at 10.00 a.m. on the same day by Dr. Gupta.He found one fire-arm wound 2 1/2" x 2" x through and through on the inner aspect of the right hand.Corresponding wound of exit was also found.The injury was grievous and was caused by some fire-arm.The injury was fresh in duration.He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased Mohd. Mahmood :-(1) Lacerated wound 8" x 8" bone deep on the head front back and side.Skull was broken into pieces.Brain matter absent.Tattooing present.A small portion of the loop of intestine was coming out of the wound.(3) Fire-arm wound 3"x 3" x muscle deep on the front of left elbow joint.Margins lacerated and irregular but the margins of the outer side of the wound were inverted with marks of blackening.Margins of the inner side of the wound was everted.No blackening.On internal examination, Dr. B.B. Singh found the following conditions:-He also sealed the clothes of the dead body.In his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage and coma caused by the injuries.He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body:(1) Fire-arm wound 4" x 7" x bone deep on the front of face lower half part of neck and left side of neck up to cheek bone.The injuries were sufficient to cause their death in the ordinary course of nature.The prosecution has in this case examined 15 witnesses.The witnesses included Mohd. Hamid (P. W. 2); Mohd. Shahid (P.W. 3); Ram Bali (P. W. 5); Jeet Lai (P.W. 6) and Abdul Aziz (P.W. 7), who are said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Apart from these, the three doctors, investigating officers and other police personnel were also examined.During the trial, accused Faiq died and the trial proceeded against the remaining six accused persons.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offences charged.They denied the prosecution allegations and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity.They also alleged that the murder of Mohd. Mahmood and Mohd. Hameed was committed outside the village before the day-break and was not seen by anybody.It was also asserted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested and belonged to the party of the informant.The accused persons examined five witnesses in defence.D.W. 1 Gopal Ji was probably examined to prove that Ram Bali son of Babbar Pasi was admitted in his Nursing Home.However, this witness could not say anything about it.He asserted that he could not say as to whether that, person was admitted there on 7-6-1978 or remained there for 3 or 4 days.D.W. 2 Lakhanji, D.W. 3 Manmohan Gopal, D.W. 4 Prajapati Lal and D.W. 5 R.K. Kapoor are the employees of the Ordnance Depot, Fort.It is said that accused Mohd. Usman and Husnain were employees of the Ordnance Depot and were present at the Fort, Allahabad and could not have been present in village Lodipur at the time of occurrence.These four witnesses have been examined to prove the alibi set up on behalf of these two accused persons.The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence produced by the prosecution, rejected the plea of alibi taken by the accused Mohd. Usman and Husnain and observed that though it appears that these accused persons had reached the Fort at Allahabad by 8.00 a.m. on 3-6-1978; they could have covered the distance of about 12-13 miles from village Lodipur to Fort within half an hour or so to reach the Fort after the occurrence.In these appeals, Sri S.S. Tiwari, who is representing the appellants, has argued that the prosecution evidence in this case is highly interested and unreliable.It has also been argued that the statements of the eye-witnesses do not find support from the medical evidence.It has further been argued that in the cases of two of the accused persons, who have set up the plea of alibi, it has been established that they had reached the Fort at Allahabad at about 7.45 a.m. and so their presence on the scene of occurrence could not be possible.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and State and have perused the material on record.The medical evidence, referred to above, clearly shows that Mohd. Mahmood and Mohd. Hameed had died on 3-6-1978 as a result of ante mortem injuries received by them.The medical evidence also establishes that Mohd. Shahid and Mohd. Hamid as well as Ram Bali (P.W. 5) had received fire-arm injuries.These injuries could have been caused at the time of occurrence.Jeet Lal (P.W. 6) received one injury i.e. abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the right side back.Apart from these, Mohd. Kazim received two abrasions measuring each 1/4" x 1/4".Mohd. Afzal received four abrasions.Regarding these three injured persons, Dr. M.K. Gupta (P.W. 10) was of the opinion that these injuries could not be caused by fire-arm.We are unable to accept this opinion.In case the shot is fired from a long distance by some country made pistol, it is quite possible that the pellets could cause abrasions also in case their velocity at the time they hit the person is not such as to penetrate the skin.This fact is also observed by H.W.V. Cox in his Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 283, 5th Edition.The nature of the injuries received by these three persons indicates that the same could possibly be caused by pellets.It was suggested on behalf of the accused persons that the occurrence took place somewhere outside the village in the early hours when it was dark.On the contrary, the statements of the eye-witnesses as well as the medical evidence indicate that the occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 a.m. on that day.It is in evidence that the dead body of Mohd. Mahmood was found lying inside the shop of Murli while the dead body of Mohd. Hameed was found in the passage near the Chabutra where the victims were allegedly sitting before the assailants reached the spot and started firing.The Investigating Officer prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead bodies at these places and he also took in his possession the blood stained earth and plain earth and also the empty cartridges lying on the spot.In these circumstances, it can be said that it has been fully established that the occurrence had taken place near the Chabutra of the shop of the two deceased persons.The places where the two dead bodies were found have been shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer.The site plan indicates that the shop of Mohd. Hameed was to the west of the place where his dead body was lying.The shop of Murli is towards the north of the shop of Mohd. Hameed and it is situated in the outer room of the house of one Tejai.Now coming to the statement of the pro-, secution witnesses, great reliance has been placed on the depositions of Mohd. Hamid (P.W. 2) and Mohd. Shahid (P.W. 3).Both these witnesses have stated that they as well as the two deceased persons were sitting on the Chabutra in front of the shop of deceased Mohd. Hameed and were talking.All the accused persons came there from the northern side.Accused Saddan shouted that these persons be killed in order to take revenge of the murder of their brother-in-law.The accused persons then started firing.The persons, who were present on the Chabutra, tried to ran away.Mohd. Hameed was, however, hit and fell down on the Rasta.Mohd. Mahmood, however, ran towards north and entered into the shop of Murli.The accused persons chased him and after entering the shop fired shots killing him there.As mentioned earlier, both these witnesses had received one gun shot injury each which could be caused by pellets when they and other persons, who had collected on the scene of occurrence, were shouting.The presence of these witnesses on the spot has been fully established.It is true that these witnesses are related witnesses and it can also be said that there was enmity between both the sides, but merely due to this their statements cannot be discarded when their presence at the scene of occurrence has been established.The statements of the abovementioned witnesses find some support from the statements of Ram Bali (P. W. 5) and Jeet Lal (P. W. 6).As mentioned earlier, both these witnesses had received injuries.The injury received by Ram Bali (P. W. 5) was grievous in nature.Ram Bali (P.W.5) is a resident of village Sarai Shanker which is at a distance of about one and half furlongs from village Lodipur.This witness has stated that at about 7.30 a.m., he had come to the shop of Murli to purchase soap.According to him, Murli was at the shop and at that time, Mohd. Mahmood had entered the shop and after being injured by gun fire, he fell there.He has also stated that he ran away due to fear but was injured in his hand by shot.He has also stated that people were shouting but he could not see the persons who had fired the shot though he had seen accused Saddan running away with the gun.This witnesses has then stated that Mohd. Mahmood died inside the shop of Murli.He has also stated that he was medically examined by the doctor on the same day.Obviously, this witness was not prepared to name the assailants.He was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. where he had named the assailants.He, however, denied that he had made any such statement.This witness has admitted that he was afraid and so he was making untruthful statement.It is obvious that this witness was under great fear.Similar is the case with Jeet Lal (P. W. 6) who is the son of Murli.He has stated that the occurrence took place at 7.00 a.m. when he was present at the shop.On hearing the sound of gun fire, he came out when he was hit with the pellets.He has also stated that Hamid, Shahid, Ram Bali and others were also injured.He has further stated that Mohd. Mahmood fell down inside the shop after being injured.He has, however, stated that he has heard the sound of 4-6 gun fires.He then stated that he could not identify the assailants.He has further stated that Mohd. Mahmood died inside the shop while Mohd. Hameed had died on the Rasta.This witness was also cross-examined by the prosecution but he was not prepared to name the assailants.To a Court question, he replied that he was afraid and apprehended danger to his life.On being asked from whom he apprehended danger, the witness kept mum.This witness was then confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. where he had named the assailants.He, however, kept mum.He then stated he was afraid of the accused persons and so he was not stating the whole truth.The statements of Ram Bali (P. W. 5) and Jeet Lal (P. W. 6) clearly support the prosecution assertion about the place and time of occurrence.It also appears that these witnesses were not prepared to name the assailants as they were mortally afraid of them.The next eye-witness examined by the prosecution is Abdul Aziz (P. W. 7).This witness has stated that the occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m. when he was present at his door way.He saw the two deceased and witnesses Mohd. Hamid and Mohd. Shahid sitting on the Chabutra of their shop.At that time, all the accused persons armed with guns and pistols reached there and started firing shots.He has also stated about the injuries received by the two deceased persons.He has further stated that Mohd. Mahmood had entered the shop and all the seven accused persons also reached there and fired shots killing him.This witness has also stated that after killing the victim inside the shop, the assailants came out and fired shots which caused injuries to the witnesses and after that they went away towards the west.On behalf of the appellants, it has been argued that this witness was inimical to the accused persons and for this, he was deposing against them.The statement of this witness does indicate that he had some enmity with accused Lodhai as about 14-15 years before this occurrence, he was arrested for attempting to commit theft at his house.However, merely due to this reason, the statement of this witness cannot be discarded.He has explained his presence at the scene of occurrence and there does not appear to be anything in his statement to indicate that he has not witnessed the occurrence which took place in the broad day light.The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that though it is alleged by the prosecution witnesses that a large number of persons of the village had assembled at the place of occurrence, no independent witness has been examined.We have already mentioned that the two indpendent injured witnesses appeared to be mortally afraid of the assailants and could not dare to name them even though they supported the prosecution case about the actual occurrence.Considering the circumstances in which this occurrence took-place, it will be difficult to expect any independent witness to fully support the prosecution case.Any how, we have to examine the reliability of the witnesses who have been actually examined by the prosecution.As mentioned earlier, the presence of Mohd. Hamid and Mohd. Shahid cannot be doubted.They have fully supported the prosecution version of the occurrence which also finds support from the statements of other witnesses examined by the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellants has then argued that the manner of the occurrence, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses, does not appear to be probable.The learned counsel has contended that it is difficult to believe that though four persons were present at the Chabutra of the shop, no injury was caused to Mohd Hamid and Mohd. Shahid while they were at that place.It is true that these witnesses have stated that they do not receive any injury when they were present at the Chabutra but considering the fact that when the assailants reached the Spot and started firing after one of them had shouted that the revenge be taken of the murder of his brother-in-law, these two witnesses could succeed in running away from the Chabutra so as to escape any injury being caused to them at that place.The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that it does not appear to be probable that Mohd. Mahmood could have tried to run away towards north when it was said that the assailants had also come from northern side.We do not find any improbability in this act.As mentioned earlier, the dead body of Mohd. Mahmood was, in fact, found inside the shop.One could say that it would have been proper for Mohd. Mahmood to run towards the south or the west instead of running away towards the north, but the victim did not have the opportunity to ponder over the matter in a detached manner.The assailants had reached the spot and had started firing their weapons.In such circumstances, the deceased must have lost his wits and tried to run away without thinking whether he will be able to escape death.It cannot, under the circumstances, be said to be improbable that a person who was injured at the Chabutra, would have run towards the shop of Murli which is situated at a distance of only a few paces from the place of occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellants has then argued that injury No. 1 of Mohd. Mahmood could not have been caused by gun shot.The learned counsel has relied on the statement of Dr. B.B. Singh (P. W. 14) who had conducted the post-mortem examination.In this cross-examination, this witness has stated that injury No. 1 of Mohd. Mahmood could have been caused by explosive but could not have been caused by pistol or gun.To a Court's question, the witness replied that even if several shots were aimed at the head, even then injury No. 1 could not have been caused.When this witness was reexamined by the prosecution, he replied that he was not a ballistic expert.He then said that injury No. 1 of Mohd. Mahmood could have been caused by firing shots from fire-arms in case shot had hit at adjoining places.The statement of this witness does not rule out the possibility that injury No. 1 of Mohd. Mahmood could have been caused by gun fire.According to H.W.V. Cox, high velocity projectiles, especially those of military weapons, may cause gross damage to the head by virtue of the total release of their extremely high kinetic energy.The effects may be so destructive as to cause virtual decapitation and the injuries may sometimes be confused with those due to high explosive rather than to a simple projectile.According to Modi also, high velocity missiles produce gross brain damage, the skull is shattered and bone pieces are indriven with force.Taylor in his Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence mentions that if a standard shot gun (20 bore or greater) with a normal load cartridge is fired at contact range through the head, the skull will often disintegrate, whereas if fired at contact range into the chest no injury other than the entry wound may be visible, the chest cavity containing the expanding gases.In both the skull and the chest cavity the shot is widely dispersed.In the present case, the prosecution witnesses were not inside the shop when the assailants entered it and fired several shots.It may be that several shots were fired aimed at the head of the victim from a very close range.In the circumstances, it cannot be said that injury No. 1 of Mohd. Mahmood could not have been caused by gun fire.The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that though it is alleged that the two of the victims had received injuries .while they were present at the Chabutra in front of their shop, no blood stains were found at that place or in between the Chabutra and the shop of Murli.It is true that the Investigating Officer has not mentioned that any blood stains were found on the Chabutra or on the passage but that does not, in any way, show that the occurrence had not started from the Chabutra.The evidence on record shows that a large number of village people had reached the place of occurrence.In the circumstances, even if some drops of blood had fallen on the Chabutra or on the passage, that could have been erazed by the time the Investigating Officer reached there.It is not alleged that any of the victims had fallen on the Chabutra after being injured but, instead, it is alleged that they had immediately started running away from the place.In such circumstances, the absence of blood at these places is not at all material.The prosecution evidence has in this case fully established the place and time of occurrence.The statements of the eye-witnesses are also supported by the medical evidence.Further, the F.I.R. in this case was lodged shortly after the occurrence without any unnecessary delay.The contents of the F.I.R. corroborate the statement of informant Mohd. Hamid on all material particulars.As regards the motive for the crime, it is not disputed that there was long standing enmity between the two parties.It is also not disputed that the brother-in-law of accused Usman and Saddan had been murdered before this occurrence for which both the deceased persons as well as Mohd. Hamid (P. W. 2) and Mohd. Shahid (P. W. 3) were prosecuted but these persons were acquitted in the month of March, 1976 by the Sessions Court.This is said to be the immediate motive for committing the crime as it is alleged that both the murders were committed in retaliation.Thus the prosecution has established sufficient motive for commission of this crime.The learned counsel for the appellants' has been argued that accused-appellants Mohd. Usman and Husnain, in any case, were falsely implicated in the case as they could not have been present at the scene of occurrence but they had gone to the Fort, Allahabad where they were serving in the Ordinance Depot.As mentioned earlier, D.W. 2 Lakhanji; D.W. 3 Manmohan Gopal; D.W. 14 Prajapati Lal and D.W. 5 R.K. Kapoor, who were working in the Ordnance Depot, Fort, Allahabad, have been examined to prove the alibi set up by these accused persons.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has after considering this evidence, came to the conclusion that though it has been shown that these accused had reached the Fort at Allahabad by 8.00 a.m. on 3-6-1978, they could have reached there after covering the distance of 12 or 13 miles from the place of occurrence at village Lodipur.Sri S. A. Gilani, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of informant, as well as the learned A.G.A., have argued that the plea of alibi set up by the accused persons is false and the documents which have been produced by these defence witnesses could not be relied upon due to the inconsistencies in the same.It has further been argued that even if it is accepted that these accused persons had reached the Fort at Allahabad by 8.00 a.m., as has been observed by the trial Court, even then they could have covered the distance of 12 or 13 miles from village Lodipur after participating in the crime.We have considered the evidence on this question.There appears to be some inconsistencies in the documents produced by the defence witnesses regarding the presence of these accused at Fort, Allahabad.However, even if it is accepted that these accused had reached there by 8.00 a.m. on 3-6-1978, as has been observed by the learned trial Judge, still we are unable to accept the plea of alibi set up by these accused persons.As will appear from the prosecution evidence, this occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 a.m. The distance of the place of occurrence from Fort, Allahabad is said to be about 12 or 13 miles.Can it be said that a person who had participated in the commission of the crime at village Lodipur, could not have been present at the Fort, Allahabad about 8.00 a.m. The answer is a clear 'no'.A person could have covered this distance by any fast moving vehicle such as a motor cycle or a car.It is obvious that these murders were committed in a planned manner.So it cannot be difficult for these accused persons to plan their presence at the Fort, Allahabad immediately after committing the crime.They could have easily arranged for a fast moving vehicle so as to reach the Fort before the gate admitting the employees is closed.Obviously, the prosecution cannot be in a position to lead definite evidence regarding the vehicle by which these accused persons might have travelled.Considering these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention by these accused persons that they could, not have been present at the scene of occurrence when these murders took place.In the circumstances, we reject the plea of alibi set up on behalf of these accused persons.On a consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.In the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding the accused persons guilty of committing the offences punishable under sections 302/149; 307/149, and 148, I.P.C. As regards the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. we are of the view that as the appellants were allegedly armed with fire-arms, they were rightly convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and they could not have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C.Thus while setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 147, I.P.C. of the appellants, we confirm the conviction of appellants Usman, Saddan alias Mohammad Sad, Husnain and Phallu alias Pharooq Ahmad under Sections 302/149; 307/149 148, I.P.C. We also confirm the sentences imposed on the appellants for these offences.All the appellants are on bail.They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed on them.The appeals by deceased appellants Lodhai and Jameeluddin have abated. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,153,239 | /307/379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Surajit Amin @ Chottu ... ... petitioner Mr. Biswajit Manna ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Santanu Chatterjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Baguiati P.S. Case No. 404 of 2018 dated 20.10.2018 under Sections 341/324/325/326/307/379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.The State produces the case diary and refers to a finger injury suffered by one of the victims.A total of seven persons were initially arrested following the complaint and some arms have been recovered from them.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 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,156,330 | Item No. 41And In the matter of: Sk.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Ashok Das For the Petitioners Ms. Kumkum Mitra For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No. 313 of 2013 dated 01.05.2013 under sections 448/323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code , have come to this Court for the anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,157,728 | I.A.No.7033/2017 is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant-Kishore S/o Ramlal.The present appellant is in jail on account of his conviction vide judgment dated 03.02.2017 passed in S.T.No.340/2015 for offences under Sections 376 (2)(i), 376(2)(n), 506, 190 of IPC read with Section 3/5, 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to 11 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC, 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 506 of IPC, 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 190 of IPC and 11 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 3/5, 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with default stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the complainant has lodged a report against the present appellant that on 27.09.2015 at about 4.10 P.M., she was subjected to rape.He has argued that FIR was lodged after two years and in the cross examination the prosecutrix has stated that she has not mentioned the incident of rape in the earlier First Information Report.It has also been stated that the girl in question is more than 18 years of age and the learned trial Judge has not considered the evidence in true perspective.It has also been stated that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for suspension.This Court after careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application (I.A.No.7033/2017) deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.It is directed that if the present appellant furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.12.2017 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.List for final hearing in due course.C.C.as per rules. | ['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,162,365 | 3. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order passed without application of mind for the reasons that the respondent No. 1 has arbitrarily revised its decision repeatedly.The earlier recommendations/decisions of the same read as under:-a) On 29.03.2007 Respondent No. 1 recommended RDA against the petitioner only for Minor Penalty and specifically recommended that no prosecution needs to be launched.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 3 of 44b) On 01.10.2007 the Respondent No. 1 granted sanction only to prosecute Sh.Rajeev Aggarwal and impliedly refused to grant sanction to prosecute the Petitioner.c) In July 2008, Respondent No. 1 while considering CVC's advice dated 04.03.2008 observed that ends of Justice would be met, if an administration warning is issued to the Petitioner and requested Respondent No. 2(CVC) to reconsider its advises dated 03.05.2007, 09.08.2007 and 04.03.2008 whereby CVC advised for RDA for major penalty and prosecution against the Petitioner.d) On 12.08.2009 the Respondent No. 1 granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner u/s 109, 120B, 467 & 471 of IPC read with Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act.g) On 21.10.2009 the Respondent No. 1 on its own revised Sanction Order dated 12.08.2009 and issued a fresh Sanction Order to prosecute the Petitioner.As stated in the petition, all aforesaid steps were taken by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the same material and CBI did not W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 4 of 44 provide any new material in support of the changes carried out by the respondent No. 1 in its decision.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 4 of 44In the instant case, contrary to its mandates and while acting on CBIs request and influence, CVC (respondent No. 2) repeatedly reviewed and changed its advice as under:-d) On 30.7.2008 vide its Third reconsidered Ist stage advice recommended Respondent No. 1 to follow prescriptions of DoPT OM No. 399/33/2006- AVDIII dated 06.11.2006 and OM No. 134/2/85- AVDI dated 17.10.1986 for reconsideration for commission's reconsidered advice for prosecution of Shri A.K. Aswal, A.C.The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner while posted as Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) at Raigarh, a Customs case W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 5 of 44 vide reference No.V/VI/Raigarh/2004 against one M/s. New Era Exports (A 100% EoU) was initiated for duty evasion.This case was under investigation by one Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Superintendent (Preventive).On 11.05.2004, the petitioner along with five other officials inspected the premises of M/s. New Era Exports and realized that one more Unit, namely, M/s. Oriental Enterprises was also operating from the same premises and one Mr. Khalik Chataiwala is the Proprietor of both the Units.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 5 of 44As per procedure, proceedings of the inspection were recorded, panchnama was drawn and copies thereof were given to the Units concerned.Thereafter, repeatedly summons were issued under signatures of the Superintendent (Preventive) to the concerned persons of the said two Units including Mr. Chataiwala.On 12 th and 28th May, 2004, statements of the Manager of the Units and Mr. Chataiwala were recorded.On 28.05.2004, Mr. Chataiwala assured to produce relevant records on 31.05.2004; however, no records were produced thereafter.Between 3rd and 24th of June 2004, again summons were issued under signatures of the Superintendent (Preventive).However, neither anyone appeared nor any requisite records were produced thereafter.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 6 of 44For the purposes of aforesaid investigation, the petitioner used three persons, namely, Shri Rajesh Madhawan, Shri Mange Arora and Shri Wasim Bhai, as sources.It is pertinent to state here that the Department had used Mr. Madhawan earlier for investigation in FN.SG/MISC.- 95/SP/2002/SIIB(import), whereby the Department had recovered Rs.1.1 crores.Shri Mange Aroras services were sought for his views and opinions on Textile (Quality and Market) and Shri Wasim Bhais, being a buyer from the defaulting Units.In total, the petitioner met with these persons separately three times and discussed the case with them.These meetings led to discovery of bills of entry showing that the goods in question were imported by the defaulting Units from Tuticorin Port through a transporters office at Vashi, New Mumbai.Based on the knowledge so acquired, letters were sent to Tuticorin Port Authority for cooperation and summons were issued to third parties under the signatures of the Superintendent (Preventive).The allegations against him are as under:-W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 7 of 44i. On 22nd May, 2004, Shri Rajiv Agarwal (the Commissioner) allegedly said to Mr. Khalik Chataiwala that he should handover bribe amount to the Petitioner.One Bangi Arora told Mr. Khalik Chataiwala that Shri Rajesh was Petitioner's friend and will deliver the money to the Petitioner;On 7th June, 2004 Shri Rajiv Agarwal allegedly was angry and said to Mr. Khalik Chataiwala that he should immediately handover remaining 40 lakhs to the Petitioner.(Note: on both the occasions Shri Rajiv Agarwal and Mr. Khalik Chataiwala, met at the former's residence wherein the Petitioner was not even present);Allegedly Mr. Khalik Chataiwala met the Petitioner and the Petitioner said Commissioner, Mr. Agarwal was very angry with him as he has not completed the commitment by then;v. The Petitioner allegedly directed Mr. Chataiwala to handover remaining 40 lakhs bribe to Shri Rajesh; vi.Mr. Chataiwala allegedly expressed his inabilities to give the entire bribe amount at one go and sought time from the Petitioner to give in instalments;During the investigation, the petitioner cooperated with CBI in investigating the matter.Some of the instances of cooperation are as under:-a) On 25.06.2004, CBI team searched the Petitioner's office in his absence.Nothing found to indicate the Petitioner's involvement in the case;W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 8 of 44b) On 28.06.2004, CBI team searched the Petitioner's house.Nothing found to indicate the Petitioner's involvement in the case;c) On 29.06.2004, Shri Rajesh was interrogated and his statement was recorded.Nothing found therein to incriminate the Petitioner;d) On 02.07.2004 Shri Rajesh filed Crl.A. No. 2820 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court, for being tortured by CBI to implicate the Petitioner and the High Court gave relief to Sri Rajesh by permitting his counsel to accompany him during his interrogation by CBI.g) On 30.06.2004 Rajesh lodged complaint with Colaba, Mumbai Police against the I.O., CBI for being tortured by the I.O., who apparently insisted him to give a statement to implicate the Petitioner in the matter.The Petitioner did nothing to prevent investigation by CBI despite of such important revelation in his favour.g) CBI laid a trap to catch the bribe collector/his agent red handed.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 9 of 44As stated by the petitioner, the aforesaid instances of cooperation by him demonstrate his innocence.Sometime in March, 2007, CBI sought sanction from the respondent No.1 intere-alia to prosecute the petitioner.Upon receipt of summons from the Court of Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, the petitioner filed an application and sought his discharge.The aforesaid application was considered on different dates i.e. on 05.03.2009, 20.04.2009, 22.04.2009, 27.04.2009 and finally on 07.05.2009 the petitioner was discharged by the Special Court, despite W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 12 of 44 the fact that on all these dates of hearing, CBI continuously attended the Court.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 12 of 44R.K. Agarwal, Commissioner and Sh.A.S. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner.As regards issue of prosecution sanction, the Commission has decided to hold a joint meeting in order to resolve the difference of opinion between the CBI and the CBEC, the dates for which will be intimated separately.The respondent No.2 also issued office memorandum dated 9.8.2007 wherein stated as under:-W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 13 of 44W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 13 of 44And vide office memorandum dated 04.03.2008 the respondent No.2 sent the communication to respondent No.1 as under:-CBI's proposal for reconsideration of the case for issue of prosecution sanction in respect of Shri A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner, has been examined by the Commission.After analyzing the available evidence and the contentions of both the CBEC and the CBI, the Committee of Experts constituted by the Commission for the purpose has held the view that circumstantial evidence on record has established the active role of Shri Aswal as a facilitator or abettor in the demand and acceptance of bribe by Shri Agarwal, Commissioner.The Commission would, therefore, on reconsideration of its earlier advice tendered vide its OM of even number dated 09.08.2007, advised the Competent Authority for issue of sanction for prosecution of Shri A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner.Mr. Parekh has further submitted that in meetings of the Committee of Experts held on 22.01.2008 and 31.01.2008 while considering the CBIs proposal for consideration of the case of the petitioner, regarding issue of sanction for prosecution recorded as under:-" Committee of Experts met on 22.1.2008 and thereafter on 31.1.2008 in terms of DoPT's Order No. 399/33/2006-AVD-III dated 6.11.2006, to reconsider the issue of prosecution sanction in respect of Sh.A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.The Commission had earlier, in agreement with the CBEC, not recommended for issue of prosecution sanction against Shri A.K. Aswal W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 14 of 44 vide its OM No. 004/CEX/124 dated 9.8.2007 CBI had proposed for reconsideration of the advice.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 14 of 44Vide this memorandum dated 30.07.2008 the respondent No.2 advised the respondent No.1 as under:-" The Commission would therefore, advise the CBEC to follow the aforesaid extant procedure in the subject case and refer the case directly to DoPT if it propose for reconsideration of Commission's reconsidered advice for prosecution of Shri A.K. Aswal, A.C.Learned counsel has further submitted that despite the aforesaid communications between the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the CBI continued to pressurize the respondent No.1 for granting the sanction to prosecute the petitioner.The CBI vide its communication dated 6.4.2009 to respondent No.1 stated as under:-" However, inspite of lapse of more than one year and the repeated reminders, the requisite sanction for prosecution is still awaited from you.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 15 of 44Thereafter, the respondent No.3, CBI vide communication dated 21.04.2009 communicated to the office of the respondent No.1 as under:-If the accused gets discharged from the Hon'ble Court to the want of the sanction for prosecution, the responsibility of the same will be upon your office.He further submitted that the CBI sent another communication dated 23.07.2009 to the respondent No.2 whereby it is requested that CBEC may be directed to grant sanction against the petitioner.Thereafter the respondent No.3 CBI vide communication dated 2.10.2009 wrote to respondent No.1 by stating as under:-However on the basis of legal advice it was found that it will not be proper to file the sanction for prosecution along with corrigendum in the CBI court, which may imply the non application of mind by the sanctioning authority.Therefore, it will be proper to have a revised sanction for prosecution against Shri Ashok Kumar Aswal containing all the necessary corrections.Further page No. 2,3 & 4 of the sanction for prosecution is photocopy of the draft sanction order and this also needs to be typed afresh, to avoid the impression of giving of sanction mechanically by the sanctioning authority.He also issued summons regularly and gave opportunities to Sri Chataiwala to produce records in his defence, which was avoided by him and he failed W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 19 of 44 to appear initially.Thereafter, on 01.10.2007, respondent No. 1 had granted sanction only to prosecute Sh.Rajeev Aggarwal, whereas, W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 34 of 44 the CBI sought sanction to prosecute the petitioner also.In July 2008, respondent No. 1 while considering CVCs advice dated 04.03.2008 had observed that ends of justice would be met, if an administrative warning is issued to the petitioner.It is further requested to respondent No. 2(CVC) to reconsider its advices dated 03.05.2007, 09.08.2007 and 04.03.2008 whereby CVC advised for departmental inquiry for major penalty and prosecution against the petitioner.The respondent No. 1, however, granted the sanction on 12.08.2009 to prosecute the petitioner for the offences mentioned above.On 18-24/08/2009, the respondent No. 1 served a Memorandum upon the petitioner stating therein that they have decided to hold RDA against the petitioner for major penalty on the basis of the aforesaid sanction.The respondent No. 1 on 21.10.2009, on its own revised aforesaid sanction order dated 12.08.2009 and issued a fresh sanction order to prosecute the petitioner.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 34 of 44Admittedly, there was no fresh material before the respondent No. 1 to vary from its earlier decision.I note that the CVC (respondent No.2) repeatedly reviewed and changed its advice.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 36 of 44It is further pertinent to mention here that on 22.07.2007, CVC convened a meeting to determine the issue of sanction to prosecute the petitioner, wherein officials of CBI, CBEC and respondent No.2 (CVC) had participated.During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the CBI had repeatedly wrote letters to respondent No.1 stating therein that if the petitioner is discharged by the Court, then respondent No.1 would be held responsible.Vide memorandum dated 30.07.2008, the respondent No.2 had advised respondent No.1 to follow the extant procedure in the subject case and refer the case directly to DoPT if it propose for reconsideration of Commissions reconsidered advice for prosecution of the petitioner.Despite the aforesaid communications between the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the CBI had continued to pressurize respondent W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 38 of 44 No.1 for granting the sanction to prosecute the petitioner.+ W.P. (C) No. 578/2010W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 1 of 44It is very pertinent to mention here that while dictating the judgment, this Court noticed that as per the Memo of Parties filed by the petitioner, inadvertently, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been shown/arraigned as under:-However, as per the pleadings in the petition and the counter- affidavits filed by the respective respondents, the correct sequence of the aforesaid respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should have been as under:-W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 2 of 44Therefore, this Court is deciding the instant petition on the basis of the aforementioned Memo of Parties, wherein respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been highlighted.a) On 3.5.07 vide its Initial Ist stage advice recommended RDA for major penalty proceedings against the Petitioner.b) On 9.8.2007 observed that there has been neither recovery nor any incriminating evidence of demand of money by the Petitioner and gave First reconsidered Ist stage advice recommending RDA only for major penalty proceedings against the Petitioner - not Sanction to prosecute the Petitioner;c) On 4.3.2008 vide its Second reconsidered Ist Stage advice recommended Sanction to prosecute the Petitioner (not RDA for major penalty proceedings) despite the Committee of Expert's clear observation that there is no direct evidence such as transcript on record of any meeting between Shri Aswal and Shri Chataiwala to establish direct demand or receipt of illegal gratification by Shri Aswal;Mr. Chataiwala, in the meantime moved an anticipatory bail application being No.ABA746/2004 before the Sessions Court, Brihan Mumbai and obtained some relief for which the Department could not take him into custody.Mr. Sanjay Parekh, Ld.Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the aforesaid investigation was going on, the accused in the aforesaid Customs case (Shri Khalik Chataiwala) to stall and jeopardize the aforesaid ongoing investigation under Customs Act lodged a false complaint with CBI (respondent No.3) alleging demand of bribe by the Commissioner, which led to registration of FIR bearing No.RCBA 1/2004-CBI/A0031, wherein the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused.For that purpose on 09.06.2004, Mr. Chataiwala requests Sri Wasim to collect money on the Petitioner's behalf, also he told Wasim that the Petitioner asked him to receive W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 9 of 44 money.It is pertinent to mention here that as a matter of practice and procedure, respondent No. 1 before granting sanction seeks advice of respondent No. 2(CVC).For this purpose, respondent No.1 considered the investigating agencys request seeking sanction and formulated its own recommendations to be considered by respondent No. 2 for advice.On 29.03.2007, the respondent No. 1 considered CBIs request seeking sanction and recommended no prosecution and only minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner.Such recommendation was sent to respondent No.2(CVC) for its advice.Upon consideration of CBIs request and respondent No.1s comments, the respondent No.2 (CVC) on 03.05.2007 gave its initial first stage advice, whereby only major penalty proceedings against the petitioner was advised.It is pertinent to mention here that at that stage, the respondents differed in their views on the issue of sanction to launch prosecution.On 22.07.2007, CVC convened a meeting to determine the issue of sanction of prosecution, wherein officials of CBI, CBEC and respondent No.2 (CVC) have also participated.They all discussed the allegations and evidence against the petitioner.Pursuant to such meeting, respondent No. 2(CVC) vide its OM dated 09.08.2007 W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 10 of 44 advised only major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.The aforesaid OM inter alia reads as under:-W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 10 of 44Thus, the respondent No. 1 never wanted to institute major penalty proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, it recommended only minor penalty.Be that as it may, the aforesaid advice was approved by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.09.2007 and the sanction order bearing No.19/07 dated 01.10.2007 was issued by the respondent No. 1 only against the Commissioner (Rajiv Kumar Agarwal).The aforesaid incident constitutes a conclusive denial of sanction by the respondent No.1 for prosecuting the petitioner, consequently, rejecting the CBIs request seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner.However, while filing the said charge sheet, the CBI made the petitioner an accused in the aforesaid case despite the fact that respondent No. 1 granted the prosecution only against the Commissioner, mentioned above and not against the petitioner.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 11 of 44As regards Shri A.K. Aswal, the Commission has observed that there has been neither recovery nor any incriminating evidence of demand of money by Shri A.K. Aswal.The Commission, therefore, in agreement with the CVO, CBEC, holds the view that initiation of major penalty proceedings against Shri A.K. Aswal, as already advised, would suffice.Now, Shri, A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner has filed application in the Hon'ble CBI Court, Mumbai for his discharge on the grounds of non availability of sanction for prosecution against him.The date of hearing in the Hon'ble Court in this matter is 20.04.2009 and you are requested to issue the sanction for prosecution against Shri A.K. Aswal expeditiously before 20.04.2009 so that the charge sheet against the accused Shri A.K. Aswal can be stopped from being discharged.You may, therefore, kindly ensure expeditious issue of sanction for prosecution of A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner before 30.04.2009 and fax the same to this office on the above mentioned fax number immediately.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 15 of 44" However, inspite of lapse of more than one year and the repeated reminders the requisite sanction for prosecution is still awaited from your office.Now, Shri A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner has filed application in the Hon'ble CBI Court Mumbai for his discharge on the ground of non-availability of sanction for prosecution against him.Therefore, the original Sanction for Prosecution as well as the corrigendum is here with returned with a request to correct the above anomalies and send the corrected Sanction for Prosecution to this office at the earliest."W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 16 of 44Respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 21.10.2009 communicated to the CBI (respondent No.3) as under:-"Subject:- Case No. AC-RC-BAI/204/A0031 dated 8.6.2004 regarding against Sh.A.K. Aswal--regarding.Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. DP 026, 2009/8065/31/A/04 dated 2/5-10-2009 on the subject mentioned above.A revised sanction order as advised by you is enclosed herewith for further necessary action at your end.The Sanction Order No. 12/2009 dated 12.08.2009 and corrigendum thereof dated 14.09.2009 in this regard stands superseded.Counsel for the petitioner submitted, during the course of investigation of the Customs case mentioned above, CBI sought sanction from respondent No.1 (CBEC) to prosecute Sh.Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal, Commissioner as well as the petitioner in the case FIR bearing No. RCBA 1/2004-CBI/A0031 which was registered on the complaint of one Mr. Khalik Chataiwala, who is principal accused in the Customs case mentioned above.The respondent No.1, after consultation with the CVC and due application of mind granted sanction to prosecute Sh.Despite absence of sanction against the petitioner, the CBI filed charge sheet before the concerned trial court and arrayed the petitioner as an accused.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 17 of 44As discussed above, the CBI instead of respecting the rule of law and following the procedures, kept on pressurizing and influencing both CBEC (respondent No.1) and CVC (respondent No.2) to obtain sanction to prosecute the petitioner on the basis of the same very material in consideration whereof CBEC and CVC earlier denied sanction.Thereafter recommended sanction to prosecute petitioner, while doing so, CVC vide its own circular No. 17/507 dated 13.06.2007 which is reproduced stated as under:-" In accordance with the guidelines issued by M/o Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Deptt.Of Personnel & Training) vide O.M. No. 399/33/2006-AVD-III dated 6.11.2006 , a committee of experts is to be set up by the Central Vigilance Commission (with experts drawn from civil services, public sector undertakings and banks) to examine such reconsideration proposals received from various ministries/departments/organizations.And vide DOP&T OM dated 6.11.2006 which is as under:-" Subject: Guidelines for checking delay in grant of sanction for prosecution.of Investigation against any public servant who is not removable from his office except with the sanction of the President, the CBI forwards its final report of investigation to the CVC and also simultaneously endorses a copy of the report to the administrative Ministry/Department concerned, the competent authority shall within three weeks formulate its tentative view regarding the action to be taken and seek the advice of the CVC in the matter.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 18 of 44(ii) The CVC would tender its advice within ten days to the concerned administrative Ministry/Department which shall finalize its view in the matter within a week and issue orders for sanction for prosecution accordingly.(iii) The concerned Ministry/Department shall refer the case to CVC for reconsideration only in exceptional cases when new facts come to light.The committee of experts proposed to be set up by the CVC, with experts drawn from the civil services, public sector undertakings and banks shall examine the CBT's recommendation and the tentative view of the concerned Ministry/Department in greater detail and CVC would render appropriate advice to the competent authority based on the findings of the expert committee within a fortnight.(iv) If the CVC on reconsideration advices for grant of sanction, the concerned Ministry/Department will issue the requisite orders immediately.The respondent No.1 accordingly observed as under:-The mater in its totality has been examined.However, he appeared on 28.05.2004 and promised to submit the documents by 31.05.2004 but again failed.He also failed to appear on further summons.Sensing no remedy, Sri Chataiwala appears to have switched over to illegal gratification to Commissioner to hush up the ongoing investigation which also failed.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 19 of 44It is important to mention that the past record of Sri Chataiwala is also not satisfactory as several cases were under Investigation by the Department for duty evasion in fraudulent manner, whereas the antecedents of Sri Aswal had been found unblemished.He had detected many duty evasion cases involving crores of revenue.Further, when his house was searched by the CBI, nothing incriminating was recovered.These all accumulatively establish that Sri Aswal has not acted as a facilitator in the demand of illegal gratification by Sri Agarwal.This Directorate, did not recommend launching of Prosecution against Sri Aswal on the reason that no action of Sri Aswal indicated/established Criminal Conspiracy either with Sri Agarwal or Sri Chataiwala and three private persons.However, based on available facts at that time, this Directorate considered meeting of Sri Aswal with private persons as misconduct on his part and so recommended for Minor Penalty proceedings.The CBI's observation that Sri Aswal had used a private mobile having No. 9820654453 in official matter in order to conceal his activities from official eyes and, as such, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant appears unreasonable.When the entire facts now revealed in the matter have been re-examined, it is observed that the alleged meetings with private persons took place under compulsion to obtain inputs for completing the ongoing investigation against Sri Chataiwala as he was neither responding to the summons nor submitting the relevant documents.It is now established that W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 20 of 44 due to inputs obtained from these private persons, the investigation in the duty evasion case progressed further and a team was sent to Tuticorin Port.On considering the matter in its entirety, it is evident that in fact no action is warranted against Sri Aswal and hence, this Directorate feels that Commission's advice for RDA for major Penalty appears harsh and ends of justice would be met, if an Administrative Warning is issued to Sri Aswal for meeting the private persons for official matters without bringing the same to the knowledge of his immediate superior officer.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 20 of 44In view of above, this Directorate feels that the Commissions advice for RDA for major penalty as well as sanction of Prosecution require reconsideration in the light of evidences/facts emerged at this stage.Thereafter on 30.07.2008 CVC asked CBEC to refer the matter to DOPT for the reasons mentioned as under:-Respondent No.2 (CVC) refused to consider Respondent No. 1's aforesaid request and gave its third reconsidered first stage advice on 30.07,2008 thereby instructing Respondent No.1 to seek DoPT's views in terms of DOPT's OM No. 399/33/2006- AVDIII dated 06.11.2006 and OM No. 134/2/85-AVDI dated 17.10.1986 to resolve the difference of opinions.Note: CVC could not have refused to consider Respondent No.1's request seeking reconsideration of its earlier advice in terms of binding orders of DOPT.Due to the aforesaid discussion, deliberation and communication between CVC and CBEC, the CBI became vindictive and started taking on terms to CBEC and wrote the communication as discussed above which forced to grant the sanction.Unfortunately, the CBEC abdicated its duties and granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide sanction order dated 12.08.2009, despite there not being any fresh material and contrary to its earlier decision "not to grant sanction".W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 21 of 44Apart from that, the petitioner is also posted at Delhi.When a Sanction order is challenged on such grounds before High Court, it will have exclusive right, prerogative and duty to examine validity of an order passed by the sanctioning authority.e) In the absence of fresh material, the authority will have no powers to recall and revise the sanction order issued earlier; even fresh look at the earlier order required fresh material for the authority intending to differ from its earlier decision.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 24 of 44f) The authority competent to grant sanction should be free from external influences and forces from any quarter whatsoever while exercising the discretion vested in it and it has to apply of own independent mind for generation of genuine objective satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not.It did not require a fresh decision, W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 25 of 44 therefore, there was no need for fresh consultation with CVC at that stage.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 25 of 44In Para 22 of the counter affidavit it is stated that a revised sanction order was issued by the respondent No.1 accepting the suggestion of the CBI regarding need for issue of fresh sanction order.Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI wherein it is stated in Para 6 that the facts which were not considered at the time of the first advice were further highlighted by the CBI for consideration of CVC, hence, the same were re-considered by the CVC.In the counter affidavit filed by the CVC in Para 5 it is stated that the CBI thereafter requested CVC for consideration of advice and expressed the view that there was sufficient evidence to launch prosecution against the petitioner who was at the heart of criminal conspiracy.Learned counsel has further submitted that the CBEC had revised its orders time and again without any fresh material on record or further investigation in the matter.None of the respondents stated in the counter affidavits or furnished any material to show availability of fresh material to support fresh/revised sanction order in the instant case.Issuance of sanction order dated 01.10.2007 only against Rajiv Kumar Agarwal and discharge of the petitioner by the Trial Court further established refusal of sanction by appropriate authority qua the petitioner.The aforenoted sanction was with respect to certain request made by the CBI by which it sought sanction to prosecute two W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 26 of 44 officials.The CBEC has not placed anything on record as to why they refused the sanction of the petitioner.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 26 of 44The CVCs advice dated 03.05.2007, 11.07.2007 and 09.08.2007, which are at pages 64 to 66 of the paper book, wherein the Commission agreed with the CBEC for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.Thus, CBEC refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner at the first instance.Once the CVC agreed with the CVO of CBEC that no sanction of prosecution against the petitioner was required and only major penalty would suffice also constitutes refusal to grant sanction.However, vide communication dated 04.03.2008, it advised the respondent No.1 to issue sanction order for prosecuting the petitioner.Moreover, in the minutes of meeting of the Committee of Experts held on 22.01.2008 it was unanimously resolved that it was a fit case for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner by the competent authority.He further submitted that vide communication dated 30.07.2008, as quoted above, the CBEC was advised to refer the case directly to the DOP&T for re-consideration of Commissions advice.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 27 of 44After receipt of the First Information Reports, a wireless message was sent by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bombay to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh.Itanagar with a request to advise the respondent to meet Shri A.K. Asthana.It was stated in the message that the matter was most urgent.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 31 of 44Accordingly, the same were reconsidered by the CVC.The instant petition may be dismissed accordingly.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 33 of 44The petitioner has not challenged the merits of the criminal case.On 03.05.2007, vide its initial Ist stage advice, the CVC recommended departmental inquiry for major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.On 09.08.2007 while observing that there has been neither any recovery nor any incriminating evidence of W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 35 of 44 demand of money by the petitioner, therefore, only major penalty proceedings would be justified.It was specifically mentioned not to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner.However, CVC (respondent No. 2) vide second reconsidered Ist stage advice on 04.03.2008 recommended sanction to prosecute the petitioner despite the Committee of Experts clear observation that there was no direct evidence such as transcript on record of any meeting between the petitioner and the complainant.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 35 of 44For this purpose, respondent No.1 considered the investigating agencys request seeking sanction and formulated its own recommendations to be considered by respondent No. 2 for advice.On 29.03.2007, the respondent No. 1 had considered CBIs request seeking sanction and recommended no prosecution and only minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner.Such recommendation was sent to respondent No.2 (CVC) for its advice.Upon considering CBIs request and respondent No.1s comments, the respondent No.2 (CVC) gave its initial first stage advice on W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 36 of 44 03.05.2007, whereby only major penalty proceedings against the petitioner were advised.All of them had discussed the allegations and evidence against the petitioner.Pursuant to such meeting, respondent No. 2(CVC) vide its OM dated 09.08.2007 had advised only major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.The aforesaid advice was approved by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.09.2007 by issuing the sanction order only against the Commissioner (Rajiv Kumar Agarwal).W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 37 of 44The CBI in its communication dated 06.04.2009 to respondent No.1 stated that "inspite of lapse of more than one year and repeated reminders, the requisite sanction for prosecution is still awaited from you".Also stated, the petitioner had filed an application in the Honble CBI Court, Mumbai for his discharge on the grounds of non availability of sanction for prosecution against him.It is further stated that "kindly ensure expeditious issue of sanction for prosecution of A.K. Aswal, Assistant Commissioner (petitioner herein)."W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 38 of 44Thereafter, vide communication dated 21.04.2009, CBI stated that "if the accused gets discharged from the Honble Court for want of sanction for prosecution, the responsibility of the same will be upon your office."The respondent No. 3, CBI vide its communication dated 23.07.2009 to respondent No.2, had requested that CBEC, i.e. respondent No. 1, may be directed to grant sanction against the petitioner.Again on 02.10.2009, CBI sent a communication to respondent No.1 stating therein as under:-However on the basis of legal advice it was found that it will not be proper to file the sanction for prosecution along with corrigendum in the CBI court, which may imply the non application of mind by the sanctioning authority.Therefore, it will be proper to have a revised sanction for prosecution against Shri Ashok Kumar Aswal containing all the necessary corrections.Further page No. 2,3 & 4 of the sanction for prosecution is photocopy of the draft sanction W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 39 of 44 order and this also needs to be typed afresh, to avoid the impression of giving of sanction mechanically by the sanctioning authority.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 39 of 44Therefore, the original Sanction for Prosecution as well as the corrigendum is here with returned with a request to correct the above anomalies and send the corrected Sanction for Prosecution to this office at the earliest."In response to above, respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 21.10.2009 communicated to the CBI (respondent No.3) as under:-" I am directed to refer to your letter No. DP 026, 2009/8065/31/A/04 dated 2/5-10-2009 on the subject mentioned above.A revised sanction order as advised by you is enclosed herewith for further necessary action at your end.The Sanction Order No. 12/2009 dated 12.08.2009 and corrigendum thereof dated 14.09.2009 in this regard stands superseded.I have no hesitation to say that respondent No. 1, after consultation with CVC (respondent No.2), deliberations with CBI (respondent no. 3) and after due application of mind, granted sanction to prosecute Sh.It is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide order dated 18.02.2010 stayed the impugned prosecution against the petitioner.On perusal of the aforesaid communications sent by the CBI (respondent No.3) to CBEC (respondent No. 1) and CVC (respondent W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 40 of 44 No.2), it is established that respondent No.2 CVC changed its earlier opinion due to which CBEC (respondent No. 1) came under the influence of the repeated pressure tactics adopted by the CBI.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 40 of 44It is pertinent to mention here that for the first time, CBEC (respondent No.1) came to the conclusion that the petitioner should not be prosecuted, therefore, sought reconsideration of the CVCs recommendation dated 04.03.2008, wherein the CBEC specifically mentioned that the petitioner had issued summons regularly and gave opportunities to Sri Chataiwala to produce records in his defence, which was avoided by him and he failed to appear initially.Therefore, it establishes misconduct, negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in investigating the Customs case.It is further specifically stated that the past record of the complainant Shri Chataiwala was also not satisfactory as several cases were under investigation against him for duty evasion in fraudulent manner wherein the antecedents of the petitioner had been found unblemished.It is further stated that the petitioner had detected many duty evasion cases involving Crores of rupees.When his house was searched by the CBI, nothing incriminating was recovered.Further recorded, that all these accumulatively establish that the petitioner has not acted as a facilitator in the demand of illegal gratification by Shri Agarwal.The respondent No. 1 further observed in the aforesaid communication that the Directorate did not recommend launching of prosecution against the petitioner for the reason that no action of him indicated/established criminal conspiracy either with Shri Agarwal or W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 41 of 44 Shri Chataiwala and three other private persons.It is also recorded that on considering the matter in its entirety, it is evident that in fact no action was warranted against the petitioner, therefore, the Commissions advice for departmental inquiry for major penalty appears harsh and ends of justice would be met, if an administrative warning was issued to the petitioner for meeting the private persons in official matters.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 41 of 44As per above discussion, the CBEC, i.e. respondent No.1, abdicated its duties and granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide sanction order dated 12.08.2009, despite there being any fresh material to do so and that too contrary to its earlier decision "not to grant sanction".In para 22 it is admitted that a revised sanction order was issued by the respondent No.1 by accepting the suggestion of the CBI regarding need for issue of fresh sanction order.W.P (C) No. 578/2010 Page 42 of 44Additionally, CBI in para-6 of its counter-affidavit stated that the facts which were not considered at the time of the first advice were further highlighted by the CBI for consideration of CVC, hence, the same were re-considered by the CVC.Moreover, the CVCs advices dated 03.05.2007, 11.07.2007 and 09.08.2007, which are at page Nos. 64 to 66 of the paper book, wherein the Commission agreed with the CBEC that initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner, as advised by the Commission, would suffice, clearly indicates that the CBEC had refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner at the first instance.Once the CVC agreed with the CVO of the CBEC that no sanction of prosecution against the petitioner was required and only major penalty proceedings would suffice, that itself constitutes refusal to grant sanction.In view of the above discussion and the legal position, the impugned sanction order dated 21.10.2009 is hereby set aside.The petition is allowed.No order as to costs.The application is dismissed being infructuous. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,176,029 | The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.[M.J.,J.] [T.M.,J.] 23.12.2016 vvkTo4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.JAICHANDREN,J.AND T.MATHIVANAN, J.vvk H.C.P.No.1326 of 201623.12.2016 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 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 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,180,229 | 1 25.7.2018 24 Bail Allowed md.CRM No. 5186 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.7.2018 in connection with Deganga Police Station Case No. 162 dated 24.4.2018 under Sections 326/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code ;And In Re:-Md. Latif ... Petitioner Md. Younush Mondal, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Deganga Police Station Case No. 162 dated 24.4.2018 under Sections 326/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,181,807 | Case diary perused.This is 2nd application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.642/2018, registered at Police Station- Kishangunj, Mhow, District Indore for commission of the offence punishable under Section 307, 327, 329, 452, 294, 506, 353, 332 & 333/34 of I.P.C. The first bail application being M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.Although, it is alleged that the applicant gave a stick blow on the head of the injured Yogesh due to which he sustained injury, however, there is no X-Ray report of Yogesh available on record to show that the aforesaid injury was found to be serious in nature and also there is no medical opinion that the injuries sustained to the injured Yogesh were fatal or dangerous to life.The applicant gave a single blow to the injured, therefore , no intention can be attributed to cause the death of the injured Yogesh, thus, the injury sustained to the applicant is simple in nature.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Therefore, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.:2:Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi)) Judge praveen PRAVEEN KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, NAYAK 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715d6eccc5a350c9111fb0 19b34dace6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.04.29 19:14:36 -07'00' | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,371,890 | It is the case of the prosecution that on 26-1-1987 PW 1 Zamir Ahmed was playing gulli-danda with PW 11 Bobby son of Pyare Lal in Lambi Gali, Hauz Qazi.At the time they were so playing the appellant came there along with one boy and he assaulted both PW. 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 11 Bobby.Thereupon, Zamir Ahmed ran towards his house and on the way he met his uncle Hafeez Ahmed and Zafar Ahmed.He told them about the appellant having assaulted him.The appellant had also reached there and he assaulted PW 1 Zamir Ahmed in the presence of his uncles.At that time deceased Hafeez Ahmed had abused and scolded the appellant.Thereupon the appellant went away threatening that he would teach him a lesson and within five to ten minutes the appellant came back to the spot, armed with a big dagger-cum-chhuri and gave a blow of the same on the chest of deceased Hafeez Ahmed on the left side near nipple.When PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed tried to stop the appellant he brandished his dagger towards them and managed to run away.They had followed the appellant to some distance, meanwhile PW4 Farooq came there and gave support to injured Hafeez Ahmed.Thereafter two rickshaws were called and in one of them Hafeez Ahmed was put and PW 4 Farooq took him to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital.Zamir Ahmed PW 1 and Zafar Ahmed PW 2 also went to the said hospital in the other rickshaw.When Hafeez Ahmed was admitted in the hospital PW 4, Farooq had given the information regarding the injuries sustained by him.PW/4 Farooq had asked the deceased on the way as to how he had sustained injury and deceased had told him that he was stabbed by the present appellant.The constable on duty at the JPN Hospital gave intimation to the police station at Hauz Qazi about Hafeez Ahmed being admitted in the hospital with stab injury.P.W. 6 ASI Kishan Lal and PW 14 S.I. Mahinder Singh came to the hospital and they recorded the statement of PW 1 Zamir Ahmed.The doctor on duty had certified that injured Hafeez Ahmed was not in a position to make any statement.JUDGMENT S.D. Pandit, J.Abdul Hamid son of Abdul Wahid resident of 44/93, Lambi Gali, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, stands convicted of an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56/87 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for three months.Thereafter spot memorandum was prepared.Statements of PW 2 Zafar Ahmed, PW 4 Farooq, PW 11 Bobby and others were recorded.At his instance the weapon of offence, viz. dagger-cum-chhuri, which was cut into six pieces was also recovered and on completion of necessary investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under S. 302 of the IPC.Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 302 of the IPC.On 14-7-1987 appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.His defense is of total denial and false implication.In order to prove its case against the appellant prosecution had examined 16 witnesses.Out of these 16 witnesses PW 1 Zamir Ahmed, PW 2 Zafar Ahmed and PW 4 Farooq are direct witnesses to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him.The trial Court accepted the evidence of these three witnesses and found that the same was also corroborated by the circumstantial evidence on record.The appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced, as stated earlier.Feeling aggrieved by the said decision appellant has come in appeal before us.It is submitted before us by Mr. Sushil Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellant, that the prosecution had not examined any independent witness to support and corroborate the claim of the prosecution.PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed are close relations of the deceased and they are interested witnesses.Therefore, their evidence ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court.It is further contended that while making the entry in the daily diary the name of the present appellant as well as the names of the witnesses were not entered and the copy of the First Information Report was not sent immediately to the Magistrate.Therefore, those circumstances created doubt about the truth of the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended before us that the appellant should be given benefit of doubt.In the alternative, he submitted, that the appellant should be held to have committed the offence punishable under S. 304, Part II of the IPC by holding that the act committed by him was under grave and sudden provocation.Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned counsel for the State contended before us that there is clear evidence against the accused and the material on record clearly shows that he had intentionally and knowingly caused the death of the deceased.He, therefore, contended that the appeal be dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court should be maintained.There is no dispute over the fact that the evidence against the present appellant consists of two eye-witnesses PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed, who are related to deceased Hafeez Ahmed.Thus, these two witnesses are interested witnesses but merely because they are interested witnesses their evidence could not be thrown out.If the evidence of PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed is taken into consideration along with the testimony of PW 4 Farooq and PW 11 Bobby, then it would be quite clear that the presence of both these witnesses at the spot at the time of the incident could not be at all doubted.The evidence of PW 11 Bobby clearly shows that on that day he and PW 1 Zamir Ahmed were playing gulli-danda in the Lambi Gali and when they were so playing the present appellant came there with another boy and assaulted both of them and thereafter PW 1 Zamir Ahmed went weeping towards his house near the primary school.If the cross-examination of PW 11 Bobby is taken into consideration then it would be quite clear that his claim about this part of the prosecution case is not at all shattered.PW 4 Farooq has also deposed that on that fateful afternoon he heard some noise and disturbance coming from the road and, therefore, he came out of his house and at that time he found deceased Hafeez Ahmed standing with his hand on the injury on his chest and at that time PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed came back to that spot and then all the three put Hafeez Ahmed in the rickshaw and he was taken to the hospital.This witness has also deposed that he had questioned Hafeez on the way as to what had happened and at that time Hafeez had told him that the appellant had stabbed him.Therefore, the evidence of PW 4 Farooq gives support and corroboration to the earlier evidence of the two witnesses, viz. PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed.It is pertinent to note that the M.L.C. Exhibit PW 15/A shows that at the time of the admission of deceased Hafeez Ahmed in the hospital PW 4 Farooq had given the history of injury by saying that he was "stabbed by one Abdul Hamid son of Abdul Wahid in front of Nagar Nigam School, Lambi Gali, at 2-00 p.m." This history is given by him at 2-30 p.m. If the time of the incident is taken into consideration along with the time of the M.L.C. then it would be quite clear that there was no scope for any concoction or making any improvements.If the evidence of PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed is seen it would be quite clear that the evidence of both of them is quite consistent and cogent.Their evidence clearly shows that on that day when PW 2 Zafar Ahmed and deceased Hafeez Ahmed were talking with each other PW 1 Zamir Ahmed came there weeping saying that he was assaulted by the appellant and at that time appellant came there and he assaulted Zamir Ahmed, PW 1 in their presence.At that time deceased Hafeez Ahmed had abused and scolded the appellant who went away by saying that he would teach him a lesson.Appellant returned within five to 10 minutes and gave a blow with dagger-cum-chhuri on the chest of deceased and took to his heels.If the cross-examination of PW 1 Zamir Ahmed and PW 2 Zafar Ahmed is seen it would be quite clear that the version given by them is not at all shattered and no major inconsistencies or contradictions are brought out in their cross-examination.No doubt there are a few minor discrepancies but those minor discrepancies instead of creating doubt about their evidence rather indicate that the witnesses were not tutored.The appellant also does not claim in his statement under S. 313 that because of certain events or incidents these prosecution witnesses were interested in falsely implicating him.When the witnesses are related to the deceased and when they have no animosity or ill-will towards the appellant it would not at all be probable that they would leave the real culprit and try to falsely implicate the appellant.The evidence of the eye-witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence on record.Evidence of Dr. George Paul, P.W. 7, clearly shows that there was a single stab injury on the chest of the deceased and the said single injury had resulted into injury of the lobe on the left lung and a cut injury on the left lung.The doctor has also opined that the said injury was anti-mortem and the said injury in the ordinary course was sufficient to cause the death.Hence, merely the failure of examination of independent witnesses could result in rejecting prosecution case.The First Information Report was received in the Police Station as per DD No. 20-A at 3-15 p.m. about the admission of the injured person in the JPN Hospital and thereafter the officials from Police Station, Hauz Qazi went to the hospital and they recorded the First Information Report on the basis of the statement made by PW/1 Zamir Ahmed.The said First Information Report was registered at 4-10 p.m. and it was dispatched at 4-30 p.m. It must be further mentioned that it is but natural that PW 1 and PW 2 would first take steps to rush the injured person to the hospital than to run to the police to lodge the report.The prosecution has brought on record through Shri K. K. Chhibber, PW. 15, that the contents of the M.L.C. are in the handwriting of Dr. P. P. Mandal and that he is acquainted very well with the handwriting and signature of Dr. P. P. Mandal and Dr. Sundresh.He has further deposed that both Dr. Sundresh and Dr. P. P. Mandal have left the job in the J.P.N. Hospital and their addresses and whereabouts are not known.He has further deposed that the contents of the said M.L.C. are in the handwriting of Dr. Sundresh.The said evidence of P.W. 15 is not challenged or discredited in his cross-examination.In the M.L.C. in question the doctor has made the following endorsement :This endorsement is made by the doctor on the same day of 26-1-1987 at 2-30 p.m. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the said intimation was given without any lapse of time and PW 4 Farooq has deposed that deceased himself had given him the name of the appellant as the person who had stabbed him.Therefore, in view of the said document Ex. PW.15/A it is quite obvious that there was no question of any concoction for implicating the appellant in this case.Therefore, as the offence was initially registered under S. 307 on the strength of the First Information Report, the copy of the First Information Report in this case was not sent with special messenger and, therefore, that act of the investigating agency could not be said to be a deliberate act so as to cast any doubt on the prosecution case.The Investigating Officer was also not cross-examined on that point.It is not brought on record through the cross-examination of eye-witnesses that as a matter of fact any blood stains had come on their clothes when they helped in putting the deceased in the rickshaw.Similarly, the Investigating Officer was also not cross-examined on this point and was not asked as to why he had not attached blood stained clothes of the eye-witnesses.Therefore, in these circumstances, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for non-attachment of the blood stained clothes of the prosecution witnesses.For holding this we rely on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana , where the following principles are laid down :"There is nothing on record to show that the clothes of PW 8 and PW 10 had not been stained with blood while lifting the deceased and the mere negligence of the Investigating Officer to take their clothes into possession cannot affect the trustworthiness of these witnesses."Thus, in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite right and justified in accepting the evidence of the prosecution and to hold that the present appellant had stabbed the deceased and deceased had met with homicidal death due to the said stab injury.Learned counsel for the appellant further urged before us that the appellant in this case could not be held to be guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He submitted before us that the appellant had given only one single blow to the deceased.As per the evidence of the eye-witnesses there was exchange of abuses between the appellant and the deceased and deceased had also admonished the appellant.Therefore, in view of these admitted facts, there must have been grave provocation for the appellant and that grave and sudden provocation must have led him in committing the offence in question.He, therefore, urged before us that the appellant could be held guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.In support of this submission he has cited before us the case of Gurdip Singh v. State (1995 (1) Apex Decisions Delhi 41).In view of the peculiar facts of the said case it was held that appellant Gurdip Singh was not guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302 of the IPC but he was guilty of the offence punishable under S. 304, Part I. In that case, deceased Murlidhar was quarrelling with one Ishwar and they were abusing each other.At that time appellant Gurdip Singh and one Ram Swarup intervened and separated both deceased Murlidhar and Ishwar and, thereafter, Ishwar went away but deceased Murlidhar for no reason picked up quarrel with the appellant.In this case, admittedly, the appellant himself was the aggressor.He first attacked and assaulted PW 1, Zamir Ahmed and when he was questioned by deceased he again assaulted Zamir Ahmed in the presence of deceased and, therefore, deceased, who was the Uncle of PW 1, abused him and had also admonished him.No doubt he has given a single blow but he had given the blow with a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body with great force.The appellant be informed about the decision of this appeal through the jail authorities.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,190,470 | Post for 26.11.2015 (ALOK VERMA) JUDGE 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE BEFORE HON.MR.JUSTICE ALOK VERMA, JUDGE Criminal Revision No.1327/2015 Dr. Rajkumar Gupta S/o Kashiram Gupta Vs.Mohanlal S/o Bhanwarlal Gupta Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ( Passed on this 26th day of November, 2015 ) This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge-Mandsaur, in Sessions Trial No.84/2015 dated 03.09.2015 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 468 of IPC.The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the present applicant is a government 3 Ayurvedic doctor.His wife is also a government teacher.The applicant submitted a certificate to his higher authorities that after three children, his wife had undergone L.T.T. operation on 29.12.1983, and also he applied to the higher authorities that as per the rules prevailing at the relevant time, he was entitled for one increment of Rs.30/- per month.After considering his application, the additional increment was granted, thereafter, a complaint was lodged against him under Sections 420, 468 by the complainant.After that the complainant filed a revision against the order of dismissal before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur and the revisional court remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to enquire the matter additionally and then pass an appropriate order.By the order dated 10.02.2012, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and a bailable warrant was issued against the present applicant. | ['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. |
137,201,562 | (16-10-2015)This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicants/accused persons Chhota @ Akash, Vipin and Veeru. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,202,063 | Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21/2/11 at about 4 p.m., Badibai (PW1) along with her 12 year old daughter Kallubai (since deceased) had gone to Village Hinota and while she was sitting in the Village at a door, respondent came and inquired about her purpose of visiting the Village and when she informed him that she had come to meet her grandchildren, he asked her to leave and not to come again.At about 6 p.m., when she along with Kallubai reached the culvert situated near Electricity Office at Hinota, respondent along with one other unknown person, came there and gave 3-4 Danda blows on the head of Kallubai, who fell immediately and blood started oozing from her head.Complainant reached Village Pawai in a Bus and apprised her son Punnu (PW11) of the incident.Upon the aforesaid information given by Badibai, Crime No.45/11 was registered against the respondent and an unknown person for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC.Kallubai was taken for treatment to Community Health Centre, Pawai, where she succumbed to her injuries on the same day.The case was, accordingly, converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment.In this case, First Information Report (Ex.P/2, for brevity "FIR") dated 21/2/11 was lodged by the only eye-witness Badibai (PW1), mother of Kallubai.Badibai testified in her evidence that her daughter was assaulted by respondent with a Danda, but as per evidence of Dr. Dinesh (PW9), in all, 7 injuries were found on the body of Kallubai.According to the MLC report (Ex.P/13) prepared by him, injury nos. 1,2 and 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon, but neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of Badibai, it has come that the deceased was assaulted by such a weapons.Moreover, no such weapon was seized.As per the trial Court, evidence of Badibai appeared unnatural and did not inspire confidence in view of the fact, that instead of protecting her 12 year old daughter, she had run away from the spot.Moreover, the ticket of Bus could also not be recovered from her.Her evidence was found to be full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.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.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,205 | ORDER K.C. Agrawal, J.This revision is directed against the judgment of the Third Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 30th October, 1972 convicting the applicant under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 50/-.In default of payment of the fine he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The Magistrate had further ordered the applicant to remove the encroachment within 5 days of the order failing to do so he was liable to a fine of Rs. 10/-per clay.The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that the applicant had constructed a house at Kilometer No. 217 of the provincial G.T. East.A report was made in the police station and the applicant was asked to desist from doing so but he did not pay any heed to the request.Hence he was served with a notice.The applicant still persisted with the construction.Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Assistant Engineer, P.W. D. against the applicant under Section 447, I.P.C.The applicant denied that the house constructed on the site in question belonged to him.He asserted that the house belonged to his wife Shrimati Bhagwati Devi, He also alleged that no encroachment upon the road had been made and, therefore, the complaint filed was liable to be rejected.The prosecution produced Mohammad Hamid, (P.W. 1) the Survey Amin of the Public Works Department who had made measurements and had prepared a survey map Ex. Ka. 1 showing that the house lies within the boundary of the Public Works Department, Ram Dular (P.W. 2) the works Agent of the Public Works Department stated that the construction made by the applicant was on the land belonging to the P.W. D, After examining the evidence of the prosecution as well as that which was produced by the defence the Magistrate found that the applicant had encroached upon the road and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.The appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed and hence the present revision.The learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the conviction of the applicant was unjustified in law inasmuch as there was no reliable evidence on the record of the present case on the basis of which the encroachment alleged by the prosecution was established.The submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant had no merits.As stated above, the prosecution had not only given oral evidence establishing that the construction was made by the applicant on the road belonging to the Public Works Department but also produced the Survey map.Measurements given in the Survey Map demonstrated and established that the house of the applicant lay within the road boundary of the Provincial G.T. Road.According to the measurements of Mohd. Hamid (P.W. 1) the house was made at a distance of 22 feet 2" from the centre of the road and the road at that place was 56 feet wide.The circumstantial evidence has been defined as a fact from which the judge may infer the existence of a fact in issue. | ['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,207,935 | He has further submitted that one co-accused namely Raju has been granted bail by this Court on 30.8.2019 in Bail No. 8174 of 2019, Annexure no. 5 to the bail application, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the basis of parity and the applicant may be granted bail.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Vivekdhar Dwivedi, involved in Case Crime No. 113/2019 u/s 379, 411,413,419,420 IPC & Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda be released on bail on his 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 shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.Order Date :- 17.10.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
137,211,778 | Somangalam Police Station Crime No.472/2016 registered under Sections 147, 148 and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of TNPPDL Act.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 21.12.2016, at about 10.30 a.m., one Murugesan, aged 32 years, S/o.Palaniyandi, residing at No.16/5, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Ganesan Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai-78, as de facto complainant has given a complaint against the present detenu and others, wherein, it is alleged that in the place of occurrence, the detenu has tried to attack the de facto complainant by using filthy words and also caused damages to properties and at such circumstances, a case has been registered in Otteri Police Station Crime No.673/2017 under Sections 294[b] and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of Tamil Nadu Property [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act, 1992 @ into under Sections 147, 148, 294[b] and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of Tamil Nadu Property [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act, 1992 and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived to a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed and therefore, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of available materials on record.Sekar is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,950,655 | of the present case are not in the realm of dispute at all.It is sufficiently brought on record from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was dispute relating to common cart-way passing through the lands of the deceased and the Respondents.The dispute was to such an extent that Panchas were called to act as Mediators to settle the dispute.There is evidence of PW-2 Ajappa, who was called upon to act as Mediator, that he was trying to negotiate with both the parties.On the date of incident, along with some other Panchas, he went to the house of the deceased.Thereafter, they also visited the house of the Respondents and were trying to arrive at some amicable solution.However, it was of no use as deceased left, along with PW-4 Ganapati, PW-6 Dhanpal and some other persons, to dig the pit on the common cart-way, so as to close the said cart-way.As per evidence of PW-2 Ajappa, after some time, he and other Panchas heard the noise of quarrel.Hence, they rushed to the spot and found that both the parties were injured.Then the injured were taken to the hospital.The quarrel ensued between the two parties.Respondent No.3 gave threat to the deceased that he should not dig and close the cart-way.However, the deceased insisted that as he is digging in his own land, Respondent No.3 had no right to stop him.Thus, the ocular account and medical evidence in the case goes to prove the occurrence of the incident, which ultimately resulted into the death of deceased Baburao.As stated above, the Respondents are also not disputing the occurrence of the incident.The very defence taken by them is that in the same incident, they had also sustained injuries, which injuries are not at all explained by the Prosecution.PW-2 Ajappa has, in his examination-in-chief itself, deposed that when after hearing the noise of quarrel, he rushed to the spot, he saw both the parties were injured.PW-4 Ganapati has deposed that deceased left the house, after the negotiations failed, with a hoe and shovel along with him, PW-5 Dharmanna and PW-6 Dhanpal.PW-5 Dharmanna has also stated that he started digging on the cart-way with hoe and deceased was removing earth with shovel.PW-6 Dhanpal has also deposed that they were digging with the weapons in their hands.However, Respondents were obstructing them from doing so.There is corresponding evidence of PW-4 Ganapati, who has also deposed that, at about 5:30 pm, as the negotiations held by 6/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: Panchas failed, he left along with deceased, PW-5 Dharmanna and PW-6 Dhanpal towards the cart-way, as deceased threatened to close it.They were carrying the hoe and shovel and started digging the cart-way on the eastern side.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::In the said quarrel, Respondent No.3 held the collar of the deceased and pushed him.Then, he assaulted him with shovel on his head, whereas Respondent No.1 assaulted him on his head with handle of the hoe.Then Respondent No.2 beat the deceased with fist blows and kicks.Thereafter Panchas came there, intervened and separated the quarrel.The evidence of PW-5 Dharmanna is also of an identical nature.According to him also, he went along with the deceased, Annasaheb Gadage and PW-6 Dhanpal to the spot.He started digging and deceased was removing the earth with shovel.APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: Respondent No.2 saw them doing this and then all the three Respondents came there.Respondent No.3 held the deceased and started quarreling with him.In the ensuing scuffle between the deceased and Respondent No.3, Respondent No.3 assaulted the deceased with shovel on his head.According to his evidence, as he was busy in attending to deceased, he does not know as to what has happened to PW-4 Ganapati and Annasaheb Gadage.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::PW-6 Dhanpal has corroborated the evidence of these witnesses by deposing that when they went to the spot and started digging with shovel, Respondents came there and started quarreling with the deceased.Respondent No.3 assaulted the deceased with shovel on his head.As a result, deceased sustained bleeding injury and became unconscious.He has also not stated anything about the assault on PW-4 Ganapati.There is medical evidence on record proving the injuries sustained by the deceased.PW-3 Dr. Tukaram Suryavanshi, who, at the relevant time, was attached to Zilla Parishad Hospital at Kurundwad, has examined the deceased on the requisition of the Police and he found following injuries :-APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::(i) Depressed fracture of right side frontal bone 2½" x 2½" size.It was circular starting from right eye-brow upwards depression seen.There was minor abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm size on fracture side.Bleeding present.(ii) Right side eye lid movements were difficult.There was difficulty of opening of eye.According to him, both these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.As there was fracture to the frontal bone of the head, he referred the deceased to the Civil Hospital at Sangli.At the same time, at about 6:20 pm, he has examined PW-4 Ganapati also and found following injuries on his person :-(i) Contused lacerated wound on the right temporar alea 1" x ½" by skull, deep bleeding present.(ii) Minor abrasion on right zyagomatic area in 1 cm x 1 cm size, bleeding present.(iii) CLW on forehead 1" x ½" size by scalp deep bleeding present.APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::(iv) CLW on the left parital area 3" x ½" by bone deep, bleeding present.These injuries, according to him, were caused by hard and blunt object, like, the handle of the hoe.Further, he has examined Annasaheb Gadage and found some minor abrasions on his right joint elbow.Then there is evidence of PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kulkarni, who has examined the deceased at Civil Hospital, Sangli and confirmed the presence of the injuries, as referred above.Then, on the request of the deceased, he was given discharge and then deceased got himself admitted in Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai.According to PW-10 Dr. Kulkarni also, the injury sustained by the deceased is possible by the reverse side of the hoe.The x-ray plate and the certificate of the deceased, as issued by him, are produced on record.In his opinion also, the cause of the death was "complications occurred on account of the head injuries sustained by him".The Postmortem Report is at Exhibit-::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::They had also lodged a counter criminal complaint against the deceased and the prosecution witnesses, on which C.R. No.40 of 1986 was registered.After investigation in the said C.R., Sessions Case No.51 of 1987 was filed.The Defence has also examined DW-1 Advocate Kashim Bargir to prove that there was a civil dispute between the parties in 11/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: respect of this common cart-way and the orders were passed in their favour in the said dispute.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::The defence taken by the Respondents stands proved from the evidence of prosecution witnesses themselves.Thus, as per the evidence of these four witnesses, the weapons like hoe and shovel, which are alleged to be used in the commission of the offence, were in the hands of the deceased and prosecution witnesses.They had gone to the spot with these weapons in their hands.There is no evidence to show that the Respondents had come their with such weapons.APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::The medical evidence reveals that in the same incident, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 had also sustained the injuries.There is evidence of PW-3 Dr. Suryavanshi, who has, on the date of incident itself, at 7:30 pm, examined Respondent No.1 Satlinga and found following injuries on his person :-(i) Minor abrasion on occipital area 1" x 1" size superficial bleeding present.(ii) Minor abrasion on right mastrod area 1 cm x 1 cm size.Bleeding present.(iii) Minor abrasion on forehead 1" x 1" size bleeding present.No evidence of fracture present.(iv) Swelling of left side occipital area 2" x 2" size.No fracture seen.(v) Minor abrasion on left knee joint by 1" x 2"(vi) Minor abrasion on right elbow joint ½ cm.x ½ cm. size.According to him, these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and within six hours.He has issued the Injury Certificate (Exhibit-40) accordingly.APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::On the same day, he has also examined Respondent No.3 Sangappa at 7:15 pm and found following injury on his person, which is also caused within six hours and by hard and blunt object :-CLW on right parietal region 3" x ½ % into scalp deep parallel to sactan area.Bleeding present.No evidence of fracture.It is brought out in his cross-examination that injuries caused to Respondent 1 Satlinga are possible by the handle of hoe.Further, he has admitted that the injury sustained by Respondent No.3 Sangappa was on the vital part of the body and it can be also caused by the handle of hoe.He has even referred Respondent No.3 Sangappa to the Civil Hospital, Sangli.There is corroborating evidence to that effect of PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kulkarni, who has examined Respondent No.3 Sangappa in Civil Hospital at Sangli on the same day at 9:00 pm, after he was referred there by PW-3 Dr. Suryavanshi from Zilla Parishad 14/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: Hospital, Kurundwad.He has also deposed that he found "CLW on the right parietal scalp 3½ cm into scalp deep bleeding present".He has taken the x-ray of the said injury and in cross-::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::examination, he has admitted that the said injury can be possible due to assault by hoe and it was on the vital part of the body.Thus, the fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 had sustained injuries in the same incident, is more than sufficiently proved on record by PW-3 Dr. Suryavanshi and PW-10 Dr. Kulkarni.PW-9 ASI Kamble has also stated that as in the same incident, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 had also sustained the injuries, he has referred them for medical examination.He has also recorded their complaint to that effect.In view thereof, the burden was on the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries sustained by the Respondents.However, the Prosecution has not done so.As a matter of fact, an attempt on the part of the prosecution witnesses had been to suppress these injuries.Except for PW-2 Ajappa Chougule, who was an independent witness, being the Panch to negotiate the dispute, and hence admitted that both the parties were injured, when he saw them, 15/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: the remaining three eye witnesses have not accepted the fact that the Respondents had sustained the injuries in the said incident.When PW-4 Ganapati was specifically confronted about the same, he has denied that the Respondents had sustained the injuries.According to him, he did not see any injury on the person of any of the Respondents.He even did not see that the Respondents were brought in the Zilla Parishad Hospital at Kurundwad, though he was very much present there.According to him, none of them beat the Respondents at any time.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::However, he has admitted the fact that he and other prosecution witnesses are charge sheeted by Police for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 r/w. 34 of the IPC for beating of the Respondents and that Charge-Sheet is pending, which proves that he is trying to suppress the injuries sustained by the Respondents in the same incident.34. PW-5 Dharmanna has also, in his cross-examination, denied that there was injury on the head of Respondent No.3 and on the body of other Respondents, despite admitting that the scuffle between deceased and Respondent No.3 was going on for about 10 to 15 minutes.He has further denied that the clothes of 16/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were soaked with blood due to injury sustained in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::PW-6 Dhanpal has again, though admitted that there was quarrel between PW-4 Ganapati and the Respondents, denied that they beat the Respondents in the same incident;Respondents had also sustained the injuries and their clothes were blood soaked.State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263, it is held that, "In a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time 17/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences :-::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::It is also held as under in the same ruling that, "The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::As a result of failure and suppression on the part of prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries sustained by the Respondents in the same incident, it has to be held that the Prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version of the incident.As they are lying on the most material point, hence, their evidence is unreliable.This ratio applies with far more effect when the prosecution evidence consists of interested witnesses, as in the present case.APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 20/20 APEAL-328-94.doc ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:39:56 ::: | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,069,507 | The facts relevant for the present application are : on the night of 4/5th July, 1991 at about 2.55 a.m. a case of death on account of bullet shot was registered at P.S. Mansarover Park, Delhi.The incident occurred in a marriage party.The petitioner herein as well as the deceased Ranbir Singh were part of a marriage party.Admittedly the petitioner as well as deceased Ranbir Singh and a few others had enjoyed drinks and at the relevant time they were dancing in front of the marriage procession.The petitioner as well as deceased Ranbir Singh had revolvers in their hands and were firing in the air through their respective revolvers as part of enjoyment and marriage celebrations.In the course of dancing and while shots were being fired, one bullet hit deceased Ranbir Singh.He was immediately rushed to the hospital where he was declare as "brought dead".The FIR was lodged by one Jitender Kumar who was an employee of deceased Ranbir Singh.As per version in the FIR the deceased was under the influence of liquor.He took the revolver in his hand to fire while dancing along with others as a part of celebration of the occasion.During the dancing and while Ranabir Singh was holding the revolver in his hand, somebody struck against him as a result of which the hand in which he was holding the revolver was shaken and he got the bullet injury on his right temple from his own revolver.Ranbir Singh fell down and blood started oozing out from his temple.He was removed to the G.T.B. Hospital.In the hospital he was declared as 'brought dead'.Several other persons who were in the marriage party are also alleged to have given the same version of the incident.This was in the shape of statements of Jitender son of Iqbal Singh who is the brother of the widow of Ranbir Singh and Kesar Singh, brother of the deceased.According to these two persons, the bullet had hit the deceased on his forehead just above his nose and towards the right eyebrow.These two persons further added that according to them some other person had shot the deceased but they were unable to say as to who that other person was.This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The FIR was registered under Section 304A I.P.C.The police filed the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code on 28th May, 1993 for a case against the petitioner under Section 304A Indian Penal Code.In the meanwhile, however, the wife of the deceased, namely, Ms. Jeet Chaudhary filed a complaint on 7th November, 1992 alleging that the petitioner along with certain other persons named in the complaint had committed murder of her husband.In other words, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner and some others for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.The widow also made a grievance that in connivance with the petitioner, the local police had not properly investigated the case.The local police was trying to help the petitioner to escape the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code according to her.It is on record that the case was investigated by three agencies : first by the local police, then by the special staff, East District, and thereafter by the Crime Branch.The case registered under Section 304A Indian Penal Code was proceeding before a Metropolitan Magistrate while the complaint of the widow of the deceased was before another Metropolitan Magistrate.In pursuance of her complaint, the complainant led some preliminary evidence which included the statement of Dr. L. K. Baruah of Civil Hospital, Delhi.The main point in the said statement for present purposes is that the fatal shot was fired from the front from about a distance of three feet.The punctured hole was seen about the right eyebrow of the size of the 0.9 cm to 0.9 cm.On the same day, another statement of one Satbir was recorded according to which petitioner Ram Kumar Tyagi had fired at Ranbir Singh, deceased.On the basis of the complaint of Smt. Jeet Chaudhary, documents placed on record and the preliminary evidence adduced, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate felt prima facie satisfied that a case was made out against the petitioner Ram Kumar Tyagi under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and on 24th January, 1994 ordered the accused to be summoned.In the statement of Smt. Jeet Chaudhary recorded on 4th December, 1993 in support of her complaint, she clearly implicated the petitioner for having committed the murder of her husband.However, it is worth noting that she had given a statement on 21st September, 1991, i.e., about two and a half months after the incident.In that statement, she did not level any such accusation against the petitioner.In the said statement, she also admitted that Jitender who lodged the FIR was the servant of the deceased.From the above facts, it is clear that there are three versions on the incident.The first version is as per the FIR lodged soon after the occurrence on 5th July, 1991 according to which the petitioner as well as the deceased had enjoyed drinks before the incident along with some other persons.The petitioner and the deceased were dancing in front of the marriage procession along with others.The petitioner as well as the deceased had revolvers on their respective hands which they were firing in the air as part of the marriage celebration.One of the boys in the dancing party struck against the hand of the deceased in which he was holding his revolver.The hand got shaken as a result of which the deceased hit himself with his own bullet at his right temple which resulted in his death.Apart from the statement of Jitender to this effect, there were several other statements of those who were in the marriage party to the same effect.The second version is as per the police report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code according to which the petitioner was to be tried for offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code.It is a bailable offence and the petitioner had already been granted bail.The third version is based on the complaint of the widow of the deceased dated 7th November, 1992 according to which the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.He further submitted that the third version of murder came nearly two years after the incident and the petitioner had been free during all this period and it cannot be in the interest of justice to send him in custody now.Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to Lie Detector test and its result had gone against the prosecution.The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the fact that in the statement of complainant Mrs. Jeet Chaudhary recorded on 21st September, 1994, i.e., long after the incident, she did not implicate the petitioner at all.By that time also, the statements of her own brother Jeetender and that of the brother of the deceased Kesar Singh, were on record, according to which, the deceased had been hit on the forehead from the front and not on the temple as suggested by the author of the FIR Jitender Kumar (This is the other Jitender who is deceased's driver).Therefore, the complainant must have been aware of the other version, i.e., the deceased had been hit by a bullet from the front and not on the side on the temple.The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to highlight the weakness of the complainants case by saying that "Will I wait to fire at a time when I am surrounded by so many baratis (members of the marriage party) and in front of the bride's house where the marriage party was to be received".According to the petitioner, the reports exonerate him while according to the respondent complainant, the reports clearly implicate the petitioner.I have mentioned about the reports in this order because they have been placed on record before me and both parties have argued on the basis of the reports.However, I feel any observation on the reports at this stage is likely to cause prejudice at the trial end, therefore, I am retraining to go further into this aspect.In reply, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner tried to manipulate the investigation right from the beginning in his favor.According to him, the person who lodged the FIR was planted by the petitioner which fact is denied by the petitioner on the basis of statements of the complainant herself on record where she admits that Jitender who lodged the FIR was employee of the deceased.It is further stated that the version that the bullet had hit the deceased on the temple was itself wrong right from the beginning.It was manipulated to make out a case of accidental fire from deceased's own revolver when actually the bullet was fried from the front which could not be so if it was fired from deceased's own revolver.In other words, according to him, straight fire could never be accidental.Now, both the cases, i.e., the police case under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and the complaint case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code are before the same Court.I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considered the material placed on record before me. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,959,472 | In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. DD No.44-A, dated 29.06.2008 was recorded in Police Station Crl.Inspector Keshav Kumar (PW-13) along with SI Pawan Kumar (PW-14) and other police officials proceeded to the spot and found Sanjeev @ Koki (the deceased), resident of House No.364, Gali No.3, Railway Colony lying in an injured condition at the corner of house of one Chhidda.CATS ambulance also reached the spot and immediately removed the deceased to the hospital.Vide MLC Ex.PW-8/A, the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead at 11:40 p.m. PW-13 found that Mangal Nagar (PW-3), who was an eye witness to the incident and brother of the deceased was also present in the hospital.PW-13 recorded his statement Ex.One boy Raja Ram @ Chota Raja (the appellant) was residing in the house of Chhidda.The appellant used to ask him and his brother (the deceased) to arrange liquor.On their refusal, he (the appellant) would threaten to beat them.He was a bad character (B.C.) of the area and due to fear, the deceased sometimes used to provide liquor to him.On 29.06.2008 at about 9:30 p.m., the appellant was asking his brother (the deceased) for liquor.He took the deceased with him to the liquor vend (theka).The appellant was hurling abuses on the deceased under the influence of liquor.All of a sudden, the appellant took out a country made pistol from his waist Crl.A. 597/2010 Page 2 of 12 and shot the deceased on his head.The deceased fell down swirling at the corner of the street.PW-3 ran behind the appellant but he disappeared in the darkness.Police and the ambulance arrived at the spot.Ambulance removed his brother to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital (LBS hospital).He also followed and reached LBS hospital where his brother was declared as brought dead.PW-13 made endorsement Ex.PW-13/A on the statement and transmitted it to the Police Station through Constable Chagan Lal (PW-6) for getting the case registered.The dead body was shifted to the mortuary.The crime team was summoned.The police photographer took photographs of the scene of incident from various angles.PW-13 lifted the blood and bloodstained earth and earth control and kept the same in small plastic jars which were sealed with the seal of 'KK'.The appellant was not found available at his rented room.On the basis of secret information, the appellant was arrested on 30.06.2008, while sitting near the railway track and a country made pistol Ex.P-1 was recovered from the left dub of his trouser.On opening the country made pistol, one fired cartridge was found in the chamber; the country made pistol was measured; its sketch was prepared; it was sealed and deposited in the malkhana.The country made pistol was subsequently sent to FSL and expert opinion Ex.PW-13/B as also the scaled site plan Ex.PW-5/A. In the unscaled site plan Ex.A. 597/2010 Page 9 of 12 which are close to the place of incident and the position of the electric pole (sodium light) has also been shown which is very close to the place of incident.Since PW-3 had testified in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was shot from a country made pistol while he (the deceased) was standing in the gali at the corner of house of Chhidda.Point 'A' is at the corner of two houses, the appellant could have required the witness/witnesses to either give the number of Chhidda's house or to point out the same in the rough sketch or in the scaled site plan.G.P. MITTAL, J.Appellant Raja Ram @ Chota Raja impugns the judgment dated 01.10.2009 and the order on sentence dated 12.10.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.175/2009 (arising out of FIR No.254/2008 Police Station Mandawali) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.PW- 9/A, PW-10/A and PW-10/B were obtained.A. 597/2010 Page 1 of 12A. 597/2010 Page 2 of 12On appellant pleading not guilty to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses.In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) the appellant denied the Crl.A. 597/2010 Page 3 of 12 incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded false implication.The appellant stated that he was sleeping at his rented room when the police came and broke open the door.He was told by the police that he had committed the murder of one Gurjar and he was taken to the Police Station and was implicated in the case falsely.On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found that PW-3's testimony as an eye witness was fully corroborated by Ex.PW-3/A, the DD entry, recovery of the country made pistol Ex.P-1 and the FSL report and thus, the Trial Court found that the prosecution case was proved against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and the appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.A. 597/2010 Page 3 of 12It is urged by Mr. Bankim Kulshrestha, the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case revolves around the testimony of Mangal Nagar (PW-3) who in his statement Ex.PW-3/A made to the police stated that the appellant being a BC of the area used to ask for liquor from him and his brother (the deceased) and that sometimes they would succumb to his (the appellant's) command and that on the date of the incident also, the appellant had allegedly taken the deceased with him to get liquor.The learned counsel argues that PW- 3 has not given the dates when such demands were allegedly raised and also the details when the liquor was arranged by him or by his deceased brother which belies the prosecution version.PW-8/A of the deceased wherein the name of PW-3 is not mentioned.It is urged that had PW-3 been present at the spot at the time of incident and seen the incident, he would have accompanied his brother Crl.A. 597/2010 Page 4 of 12 (the deceased) in the ambulance to the hospital.Further, if PW-3 was present at the spot at the time of the incident, he should have been seen by the officials of PCR and CATS ambulance and these officials could have been examined to prove PW-3's presence at the time of incident.Their non-examination thus, goes against the prosecution.Referring to the MLC Ex.PW-8/A, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the name of the assailant has also not been mentioned in the MLC which clearly reveals that till the time the deceased was medically examined, the name of the assailant was not known.A. 597/2010 Page 4 of 12The learned counsel further contends that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-3 and of other important witnesses examined by the prosecution.Although the incident is alleged to have taken place near the house of Chhidda, however, the said house was not shown in the site plan prepared by the IO or by the draftsman.It is pointed out that taking totality of the circumstances, the Trial Court erred in relying on the testimony of PW-3 to base the appellant's conviction.It is stated that the incident occurred in a street dominantly inhabited by Gurjar community to which the deceased belonged and the appellant has been falsely implicated as he belongs Crl.A. 597/2010 Page 5 of 12 to a different community.It is urged that the prosecution case against the appellant is not established; rather there are grave doubts about appellant's involvement and thus, he is liable to be acquitted.A. 597/2010 Page 5 of 12In his examination-in-chief he testified:-"......He is a boy of bad character (badmash type ka) and he has been facing a number of litigations.Accused used to demand money from me and my brother on several occasions for purchasing liquor for him.He used to threaten us in case we declined to give money for fetching him liquor.Due to fear we used to give him money sometimes......"When PW-3 was questioned on this aspect on behalf of the defence, he deposed that prior to the incident, the appellant had demanded money for liquor from them two-three times.On the appellant's demand, they had given him money for drinks once or twice.He went on to add that the appellant had also extended threats (to them) once or twice when they refused to provide him drinks.The statement of PW-3 was generally with regard to the demand of liquor, otherwise it had no relevance to the actual incident of inflicting a gunshot injury upon the deceased.Otherwise also, while stating that the demand for money for drinks was made twice/thrice, the witness was quite specific that it is not possible to take note of these demands precisely.Thus, simply because the specific dates of demands were not given in the examination-in-A. 597/2010 Page 6 of 12chief or in the statement Ex. PW3/A by PW-3, it does not make the prosecution case doubtful.Turning to the contention that PW-3 was not an eye witness to the incident for the reason that he had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital, we may say that the deceased was removed to LBS hospital in CATS ambulance.These are well equipped ambulances to remove a victim of an assault or a motor vehicle accident to the hospital without any loss of time so that the precious life of the injured may be saved.Normally, the persons employed on the CATS ambulance themselves carry the injured to the hospital.It is not a case where the injured (the deceased) was removed to a hospital in a private vehicle or a public hired vehicle where the person who has seen the incident, particularly a relation or a friend is expected to accompany the injured to the hospital.In fact, Inspector Keshav Kumar (PW-13) along with other police officials had reached the spot immediately after the incident.The deceased was still at the spot and immediately thereafter the CATS ambulance reached.PW-13 testified that while the injured was being taken to LBS hospital in CATS ambulance, he also proceeded to the hospital while leaving Head Constable Devender Kumar Arya (PW-12) at the spot.It is important to note that prime concern of the police and the doctors is first to provide all the necessary medical assistance to the injured and then quickly pursue investigation so as to bring the offender to book.The deceased was declared as brought dead.PW-3, the deceased's brother was found present in the hospital at that time and the statement of PW- 3, Ex.PW-3/A was recorded before 12:40 a.m. (because the rukka was transmitted to the PS at 12:40 a.m. on 30.06.2008).This would make Crl.A. 597/2010 Page 7 of 12 it explicit that not only the injured was very quickly removed to the hospital, but the statement of the eye witness (PW-3) was also recorded promptly.Rukka was sent at 12:40 a.m. within two hours of the incident and the FIR was also started at 1:00 a.m. There was no possibility of any deliberation so as to falsely implicate any person.Similarly there was no opportunity to mention the name of the assailant in the MLC because the deceased was declared as 'brought dead' when he was examined by the doctor and the deceased was removed to the hospital in CATS ambulance by Ajab Singh, who was not a witness to the incident.Their testimonies however, were hardly of any significance.Admittedly, they had not witnessed the occurrence.The CATS ambulance and PCR officials are primarily concerned with the removal of the injured to the hospital.The aforesaid facts have been proved and established.The PCR officials are further expected to pass on the information to the local police so that the local police takes over the injured and the investigation of the case.Thus, CATS ambulance employee and PCR officials are not expected to depose about any minute details of the crime spot or events in the hospital before the court.Thus, examination of these officials was not required.The contention raised on appellant's behalf that their non-examination adversely affects the prosecution case is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, liable to be rejected.It is a matter of record that DD No.44-A was recorded on an Crl.PW-3 testified that the appellant shot at his brother's head with a country made pistol and ran away in the darkness.When PW-3 was questioned with regard to the telephone from which the call was made, he was quite specific that he made the call from mobile phone number 9213315447 which was in the name of his father.No further question was put to PW-3 in this regard.Moreover, PW-3's testimony that he made the call from this number and that this mobile phone belonged to his father was not even challenged in his cross-examination.In the circumstances, the prosecution was not under obligation to make investigation in respect of a totally unnecessary aspect.The contention raised is without any substance and is therefore rejected.A. 597/2010 Page 8 of 12The scaled site plan Ex.PW-5/A shows the place at Point 'A' where the incident occurred and Point 'B', is the place from where PW-3 witnessed the occurrence.It has not been mentioned in either of the two site plans that Point 'A' was close to the house of Chhidda.Also, the house of Chhidda has not been shown in either of the two documents.At the same time, all the properties have been mentioned and described by their numbers, i.e. properties No.229, 236 and 220 Crl.That question having not been put to the witnesses, the appellant cannot make any grievance that the house of Chhidda has not been shown in the site plan when the numbers of the houses which are close to the place of incident have been very much mentioned in the rough sketch as also in the scaled site plan Ex.PW-13/B and Ex.PW-5/A respectively.A. 597/2010 Page 9 of 12It is true that House No. 364 has not been shown in the site plan.The same is also inconsequential as PW-3 and the deceased were residents of that house but as per the prosecution version, the incident did not take place close to that house.PW-3 categorically stated that at about 10:30/10:45 p.m. while he was returning home after taking a stroll, when he reached near his street, he saw his brother Koki @ Sanjeev and the appellant standing at the corner of house of Chhidda and the appellant was hurling abuses to his brother.Thus, House No. 364 may be at a little distance from the spot and therefore, the same might not have been shown by the IO in the site plan.Thus, non-showing of House No.364 in the rough sketch or in the scaled site plan is not at all relevant.A. 597/2010 Page 10 of 12The eye witness account (PW-3's testimony) is corroborated by Manoj @ Lilu (PW-7) who deposed about the presence of PW-3 and the appellant at a roof near the place of incident where they all (appellant, PW-3 and PW-7) took liquor.He also deposed that there was an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant and that he had pacified them and then had proceeded to his house.The prosecution version is further corroborated from the FSL Report Ex.PW-16/A which shows that the pellets marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32 which were taken out from the dead body and sealed in a packet with the seal of 'LBSH-DFMT', corresponded to the size of the pellets of the shot gun cartridge (like 12 bore).The country made pistol of 12 bore Ex. P-1 was recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest on 30.06.2008 at 5:00 a.m.In our considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.The contention raised on appellant's behalf that the appellant was implicated in the case falsely because he belonged to a different community is totally farfetched.There was no reason for PW-3 to have saved the real culprit and to falsely implicate the appellant.It is not the appellant's case that there was any caste divide in the street where the deceased and the appellant were residing or there was any specific cause for appellant's false implication because he belonged to a different caste. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,960,278 | I have heard the counsel for the parties.The respondent Delhi Police has filed status reports as well as reply affidavit.As per the respondents, on 17th September, 2007 on the basis of secret information, nakabandi was done and at about 9.15 P.M. and two persons were seen coming from D Block, Nand Nagri.The informer pointed out and identified the said two persons.They were stopped and were asked to identify themselves.They gave their names as Om Prakash and Bijender.As it was suspected that they were carrying narcotics, a written notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short) was served on Om Prakash.In the meanwhile persons from nearby gathered at the spot and started W.P.(Crl) 1313/2007 & 1568/2007 Page 1 obstructing and pelting stone at the policemen.Bijender ran away from the spot but Om Prakash was apprehended.The allegation of the prosecution is that on search of Om Prakash, a transparent polythene bag containing brownish material was recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt.It is alleged that ASI Devender had suffered injuries because of stone pelting and was taken to GTB Hospital.Two other police officers ASI Rishiram and Head Constable Bijender had also sustained injuries and required medical attention.The transparent polythene bag recovered from Om Prakash was found to be weighing 300 Grams.It is alleged that this powder is smack.FIR No.802/2007 under Sections 186/353/332/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Sections 21/61/85 NDPS Act, police station Nand Nagri was registered.It is the prosecution case that Om Prakash was interrogated and he had made a disclosure statement that he along with Bijender were going to supply smack to one Tilak Raj of Mangol Puri.Om Prakash had stated that relatives of Bijender had pelted stone and helped Bijender in escaping from the spot.As per the affidavit filed by Delhi Police, Om Prakash had identified the house where they use to prepare smack by mixing chemicals.On search of the said house, utensils for preparing smack powder were recovered and it is alleged that the utensils were smudged with the smack powder.The said house, it is stated, is owned by the wife of Om Prakash.It is stated that Bijender is a bad character as per police records and is involved in 12 cases out of which 3 cases are under NDPS Act. Petitioner Meeta Devi is wife of Bijender and there are as many as 7 FIRs registered against her including 2 FIRs under the NDPS Act.The allegation made by the petitioners, namely, Bijender and W.P.(Crl) 1313/2007 & 1568/2007 Page 2 Meeta in these writ petitions is that they are residing at D-2/376-388, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93 with their family.They had kept gold ornaments weighing 4 Kilograms and Rs. 8 lacs in cash at their residence for the purpose of marriage in their family.It is stated that the petitioners belong to Sansi caste and this caste was earlier infamous for dealing in liquor and drug trade and therefore they are easy prey for the police.It is further alleged that Head Constable Dilawar Singh, Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri along with other police officers use to extract money from the petitioners.It is averred that Head Constable Dilawar Singh somehow came to know that the aforesaid 4 kilograms of gold and Rs. 8 lacs cash were lying in the house of the petitioners and he along with 8-9 police officers in plain clothes forcibly entered into the house of the petitioners on 17th September, 2007 and had given a beating to the two petitioners.It is alleged that Head Constable Dilawar Singh had kept a pistol at the head of Bijender and forcibly took the keys of the almirah and the entire cash of Rs. 8 lacs and 4 kilograms gold jewellery ornaments was taken away in 2-3 bags, which they were carrying with them.It is alleged that the petitioners made a call to police control room at 100 and thereafter have been writing letters to various authorities but FIR has not been registered.Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made by the petitioners disclose commission of a cognizable offence and therefore FIR should have been registered and investigation should be conducted by the police/CBI.The petitioners rely upon several affidavits which have been filed with the writ petitions.Pursuant to directions given by the Court, the respondent Delhi Police has also filed status report dated 28th May, 2010 with regard to daily diary entries and the records maintained by them.It is stated in the status W.P.(Crl) 1313/2007 & 1568/2007 Page 3 report that on 17th September, 2007 two calls were received but the audio recording is no longer available as it is maintained only for 365 days.A call was made to PCR from mobile telephone number 9911603147 at 10.11 p.m. As per the information provided by the service provider, this mobile telephone was at that time in Ashok Nagar in East Delhi and not at the location i.e. D-2/376- 388, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93 where the alleged incident had happened.There is another DD entry 17A dated 18th September, 2007 at 4.05 a.m. This records that a team of Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri consisting of ASI Devender Kumar, ASI Rishiraj, Head Constable Vijender, SI Akshay Kumar and Inspector Jitender Singh Kundu had raided the place of Meeta at Nand Nagri as they are criminals or persons of bad character, who had obstructed the police officers in discharge of their duties. | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,963,413 | Criminal Application No. 645/2018 is filed by accused Amol Choudante for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail.So, the bail application stands rejected.Application No. 30/2019 is filed by the State for::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:36:40 ::: Appln.for leave to appeal by State No. 30/19 2 grant of leave to file appeal against the respondents as they are acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 149, 323, 148 etc. of IPC.Heard the learned APP.Seen the record of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:36:40 :::The prosecution evidence is in the form of dying declaration of Shuddhodhan Taru and there is also direct evidence of Ravi Taru.The incident took place in front of their house.There are allegations that all the five accused came together in the evening time after 6.30 p.m. and started quarrel.During quarrel, according to Ravi Taru, accused No. 1 Amol took out knife and inflicted blows of knife on the person of Shuddhodhan.There are allegations that other accused participated in the incident and they assaulted by kick blows and fist blows etc. Statement of Shuddhodhan was recorded in hospital as dying declaration and he blamed not only Amol, but also Datta by disclosing that Datta had handed over weapon to Amol and after that Amol had inflicted the blows.The learned APP submitted that when all the accused had come together, it needs to be inferred that their common object was to murder.This proposition is not acceptable as weapon used by Amol was simple knife and it is not the case that he was carrying the knife::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:36:40 ::: Appln.for leave to appeal by State No. 30/19 3 openly.On the contrary, evidence of eye witness shows that he took out the knife and gave the blows of knife to the deceased.This circumstance is considered by the Trial Court and the inconsistency in the dying declaration and direct evidence of Ravi with regard to evidence given as against Datta is considered.No specific role was attributed to accused Nos. 3 to::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:36:40 :::In the result, application filed by the State for leave to file appeal stands rejected.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 03:36:40 ::: | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
106,979,508 | The prosecution case in brief is that, there was a tree of "Tad" near the houses of appellant Jamsingh and victim/injured Richhu.Both were claiming right over that tree and wanted to fetch/extract "Tadi" (an intoxicating liquid extracted from the fruits of tree of "Tad").Agitating 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.the issue as to why Richhu tried to take out "Tadi" from that tree, on 08.03.2015 at about 17:00 hours when Richhu was sitting in his courtyard with his brother Kesharsingh, Jamsingh along with Tersingh, Chimliya, Mithu and Magan having "Faliya" in their hands, assaulted them and stating that they will finish him today, Jamsingh inflicted "Faliya" on the head of Richhu, he repeated the blow and caused injuries on the back and scalp also.When Kesharsingh intervened, Tersingh and Chimliya gave him blows of "Faliya" and caused injuries on his left ribs and head.Richhu, Kesharsingh and complainant Masaru Bai wife of Richhu made clamour.Hearing their clamours, brother of Richhu, Mohan Singh rushed towards the spot but Mithu and Magan stating that as to why he is intervening and they will kill him also gave blow of "Faliya" on right side back neck and other parts of the body to him.After injuring all three Richhu, Keshar and Mohan Singh, offenders ran away from the spot.Wife of Chhatar Singh called Ambulance and all the injured persons were taken to the Hospital.Wife of Richhu, Masaru Bai lodged FIR No.0027/2015 Ex.P/1 at Police Station--Nanpur and set the machinery in motion.The police requested the Doctor to examine the injured persons.Doctor Yashwant Bhandole (PW-11) examined them and observing two incised and one lacerated wounds on the body of Richhu, one lacerated and 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.one incised wounds along with one abrasion on the body of Mohan and one incised and one lacerated wounds on the body of Kesharsingh, submitted report Exs.The police visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.P/2, collected plain and blood smeared soil vide Ex.P/3, seized two shirts of Richhu and Mohan Singh having cut marks from wife of Richhu vide Ex.It is also prayed that both the parties are close relatives, neighbours, reside in the same Colony and belongs to Bhil community.(27/09/2019)By filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 307 of IPC and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default four months additional rigorous imprisonment awarded vide judgment dated 24 th April, 2018 delivered in Sessions Trial No.63/2015 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District--Alirajpur.Arrested the accused persons, interrogated them and recovered one "Faliya" each from them (Exs.P/5 - P/16).FSL submitted report Ex.P/18 confirming the presence of human blood on all the articles.The police also raised a query to the Doctor to reveal as to whether the injuries caused to the victims were sufficient to cause death.Doctor R. Mandal (PW-10) replied that injury of Richhu was dangerous to life, if would not have been treated in time, while the injuries of Keshar and Mohan Singh were simple in nature.After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against four accused persons, namely, Jamsingh, Mithu, Magan and Tersingh.Accused Chimliya was found minor, therefore, charge-sheet against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.All the accused persons were charged under Sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149 of IPC (two counts) and put to trial.After the trial, accused Mithu, Magan and Tersingh 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.were acquitted from all the charges observing that the witnesses have admitted in their cross-examinations that they were trying to save Richhu.Accused Jamsingh was also acquitted from all other charges, except the charge under Section 307 IPC for causing life threatening injuries to Richhu.He is awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of fine, further to undergo additional four months rigorous imprisonment.The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record.In order to defend himself, the accused/appellant used force.The appellant himself 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.No weapon, except "Faliya" which the Bhils carried with them usually to take out "Tadi" etc. from the trees, was used in the incident.No specific opinion is given by the doctor as to why the injury was dangerous to life.Size and place of injuries as observed by the doctor, make it clear that they were simple in nature, therefore, at the most, the appellant can be convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC.They are marginal farmers, tree of "Tad" is very important for them and on this petty issue, they often get entangled.Nothing serious had 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.No useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the appellant in jail, as neither he is habitual criminal nor having intention to kill anybody.The offence alleged against the appellant has no wide spreaded social impact, therefore, appellant be acquitted first and if not, he be convicted only for the offence under Section 324 IPC and be awarded imprisonment for the period already undergone, which is now more than one and half years.Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer.I have gone through the evidence produced before the Trial Court.Before the Trial Court Richhu (PW-4), Kesharsingh (PW-1), Mantar (PW-2) and Masaru Bai (PW-3) have narrated the incident.They all have stated that at the time of incident, Jamsingh assaulted Richhu and stating that as to why he is claiming "Tad" tree standing on his land gave blow of "Faliya" and caused him injuries.Their statements could not be shattered even after cross-examinations and finds support from the statement of Dr. Yashwant Bhandole (PW-11) and Dr. R. Mandal (PW-10) and S.I. S. S. Nayak (PW-9) and further find corroboration from MLC report Ex.P/22, query report Ex.P/19, FIR Ex.P/1, spot map Ex.P/2, seizure of shirts and soil etc. Exs.P/3 - P/4, seizure of "Faliya" Ex.P/9, and FSL report Ex.P/18, which are duly proved by the prosecution, therefore, no doubts remain that on the date, time and place of the alleged 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.incident, the appellant assaulted on Richhu and caused him injuries.Injuries of victim Richhu are as under:From the evidence, it is elicited that no witnesses have stated in their Court statements that the appellant has caused the aforesaid injuries to victim--Richhu with intention, premeditation or preparation.No weapon, except "Faliya" which the Bhils carried with them usually to take out "Tadi" etc. from the trees, was used in the incident.There is no evidence nor any witness has stated that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P.No serious injuries were caused on any vital part of the body of Richhu.The injuries caused to him, were simple in nature.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the fact that the appellant remained in jail since 14 th March 2015 to 21st 10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.3796 of 2018 Jamsingh Versus State of M.P. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
33,363,690 | { 21/12/2017 } Per: Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice:After giving wrong information, the College admitted ineligible candidates, namely, Shweta Jadav, Deepesh Dubey, Neha Batra and Karishma Singhai.In fact, one of the candidate, namely, Neha Batra prepared a demand draft of Rs.3,81,200/- from a Bank in New Delhi on 28.09.2012 for admission in People's Medical College though her name was not appearing in any of the list of the Director, Medical Education.She was admitted on 30.09.2012 and was linked with middleman Sonu Pachori.Challenge in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is to an order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 15 th Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (CBI), Bhopal in Case No.ST/9500317/2014 wherein cognizance of the offence registered as Crime No.RC2172015A0025 has been taken and warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.The petitioner has further challenged an order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure A-2) whereby application for cancellation of warrant of arrest was declined.The facts, in brief, are that on 30.10.2013, an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3-D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was MCRC No. 26749/2017 3 registered as Crime No.12/2013 by the Special Task Force, Bhopal constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of irregularities committed in Pre-Medical Test-2012 (for short "PMT-2012") conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board (for short "the VYAPAM").Later, the investigations were taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "CBI").The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 11.11.2017 (Annexure A-3) received by him on 21.11.2017 that a charge-sheet shall be filed on 23.11.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal.The charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with 120-B of IPC; Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 43 read with 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3-D (1) and (2) and 4 of the M.P. Recognised Examination Act, 1937 was filed on 23.11.2017, but, since the petitioner did not appear on the said date, the learned Special Judge, issued non-bailable warrants.It is at that stage, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the non-bailable warrant, which stood declined.The petitioner also applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code, which also stands declined vide order passed on 23.11.2017 (Annexure A-19) in Bail Application No.4002/2017 (Dr. S.N. Vijaywargiya and another vs. State of M.P. Through CBI, Bhopal).Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for grant of anticipatory bail, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A-20) passed in Bail Application No.9604139/2017 (S.N. Vijaywargiya vs. CBI, Bhopal).MCRC No. 26749/2017 4As per the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, the petitioner is Chairman of People's Medical College, Bhopal.The allegation against the petitioner is that the People's Medical College, Bhopal has given wrong information in respect of vacant seats relating to PMT-2102 admission process to the Director, Medical Education, Bhopal with the dishonest intention and illegally admitted Anugrah Verma, Mohd. Sajid, Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Patel, whose real name is Sandeep Kumar and Virendra Kumar.The relevant excerpt from the said letter dated 11.11.2017 is reproduced as under:-Once the matter was before the Court, the Court should have issued summons for securing the presence of the accused rather than to issue non- bailable warrants in the first instance itself.Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a Single Bench order of this Court passed on 20.10.2016 in MCRC No.17501/2016 (Rajendra Kori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) wherein the learned Single Bench considering an application under Section 438 of the Code in connection with a crime registered at Police Station, CBI, ACB, Jabalpur for an offence punishable MCRC No. 26749/2017 6 under Sections 420 read with 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 observed as under:-There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a notice by the investigating agency requiring the prospective accused person to appear before the Trial Court on the date on which the charge sheet is filed.5.4 In fact, in Writ Petition No.21251/2013 (PIL) (Shri K.K. Mishra vs. State of M.P. and others) (Annexure A-14), prayer 11(iv) was to direct the respondents including the CBI to inquire into the matter regarding the number of students said to be more than 20 in every private medical colleges whereby students have taken admission to block the seats and thereafter, on the last date cancelled their admission.The relevant prayer read as under:-The relevant extract of the order dated 09.07.2015, read as under:-Thus, the said five seats were declared vacant and filled on 30.09.2012 without following any due process in an arbitrary manner.In fact, it was pointed out that one of the candidate, namely, Neha Batra has prepared a demand draft of Rs.3,81,200/- from a Bank in New Delhi on 28.09.2012 though her name was not appearing in any of the list of the Director, Medical Education.She was admitted on 30.09.2012 and is linked with middleman Sonu Pachori." | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
33,367,342 | The criminal justice system was set in motion by information being Crl.A. 963/2002 Page 1 of 8 received at PS Shahdara noted as DD No.7A that the dead body of a young person with several stab injuries is lying in a open plot of land behind Loni Road in Shahdara.The said DD No.7A was dated 5th January 1998 and was marked to SI Rohtash Kumar (PW-13).Accompanied by Constable Ram Phal (PW-14) and Constable Preet Singh (PW-11), PW-13 went to the spot and found a dead body of a young boy aged about 20-22 years wearing a sky blue shirt, white banyan, black pant, cream coloured underwear and sports shoes.There were a number of stab wounds on the neck, chest and abdomen of the dead body and it was lying in a pool of blood and the clothes of the deceased were also cut at several places.A. 963/2002 Page 1 of 8A search of the dead body revealed two white coloured slips, in the back pocket of his pant, having certain lines written.There was a newspaper cutting and there was a one DTC ticket of Rs.2/-.Attempts of getting the dead body identified by anyone from the public proved unsuccessful.In the meanwhile, the rukka was drawn up and sent to the PS for registration of the FIR.A crime team was also called there.The site plan (Ex.PW-13/C) was prepared.From the spot, a jacket of brown colour lying in the water was taken into possession.The shoes, kara and ring of the deceased were also seized.Blood lying there with the dead body was picked up.The Additional SHO who had noted the telephone numbers on the slips recovered from the dead body managed to contact one Jai Prakash who identified the dead body to be that of Mukesh (the deceased).PW-13 then went in search of the relatives of the deceased.He met Suresh Chand (PW-14), son of Kallu Singh, and took him to the mortuary Crl.A. 963/2002 Page 2 of 8 and he identified the deceased as his younger brother.The statement of Suresh was recorded.Thereafter, PW-13 got the dead body identified by Genda Lal (PW-6) another brother of the deceased.A. 963/2002 Page 2 of 8The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. A.K. Tyagi (PW-3).There were as many as twenty-six external injuries, of which twenty-four were incised stab wounds.This included one on the right side of the chest which was cavity deep and incised wounds all over the front of the abdomen.The opinion given by PW-3 was that death was due to shock as a result of haemorrhage caused by the multiple injuries.The injuries were held individually and collectively to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Later, when the weapon of offence was shown to PW-3, he confirmed that the injuries could have been caused with that weapon.According to PW-13, on 7th January 1998, along with SI Ajay Kumar (PW-7) and Constable Ram Phal (PW-14), he proceeded in search of the accused persons as the names had appeared in the statements of the brothers of the deceased, i.e. Genda Lal (PW-6), Suresh (PW-4) and Mahesh (PW-5), as the persons last seen in the company of the deceased.The police went to Gali No.7 where there was a factory.Pravesh (A-1) was found on the first floor.His interrogation led to a disclosure and thereafter they found Jitender (A-2) in the corner of Gali No.15, Ashok Nagar.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21 st November 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No.79/2002 arising out of FIR No.10/1998 registered at PS Shahdara convicting the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code ('IPC').The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 22nd November 2002 whereby each of the Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.A purse containing some visiting cards, slips and documents was seized from him and sealed.The clothes of A-2 were also likewise sealed.It is stated that on 16th January 1998, Devender (A-3) surrendered to the Crl.A. 963/2002 Page 3 of 8 Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ('ACMM').The knife used in the commission of the offence was got recovered at the instance of A-3 from his factory.This was sealed as well.A. 963/2002 Page 3 of 8On 24th February 1998, the exhibits, i.e. the knife as well as the clothes of the deceased and the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL').The FSL report confirmed the presence of human blood with the blood group of 'AB' on the knife, the clothes of Jitender (A-2), the clothes of Pravesh (A-1) as well as the clothes of the deceased.At the end of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and by an order dated 17th June 1998, charges were framed against all the three Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.Fifteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution.In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr PC, each of the Appellants denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed to have been falsely implicated.However, no defence evidence was led.In the impugned judgment dated 21st November 2002, the learned trial Court came to the following conclusions:-(i) The last seen evidence put forth by the PWs- 4, 5 and 6 proved that the Appellants were seen with the deceased shortly prior to his death.The depositions of PWs- 4 and 5, while somewhat differing from each other, were not contradictory.No explanation is offered by the Appellants as to where they were if not at the spot and no evidence had been led in this regard.The last seen evidence, therefore, could Crl.A. 963/2002 Page 4 of 8 not be shaken.A. 963/2002 Page 4 of 8(ii) The death was homicidal.The multiple stab and incised wounds were caused, according to the medical evidence, by the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused.(iii) The injuries of A-3 could not be explained by his working in the factory.He has not offered any other satisfactory explanation as to where he had got those injuries.(iv) The non-association of public witnesses to the recoveries was not fatal to the case of the prosecution.There was no justification for discarding the evidence of the police witnesses to the recoveries, particularly since the FSL report has confirmed that the blood stains on the knife matched the blood group of the deceased.(v) The doctor's testimony that the wounds on the dead body could have been caused by the weapon recovered provides an important link in the chain of circumstances.(vi) Although the disclosure statements did not disclose the accused persons' claim that they could get their clothes recovered, there are seizure memos for the recovery of the clothes which are shown to be blood stained.This is another piece of corroborative evidence.(vii) The FSL report was an important piece of corroborative evidence.(viii) Lastly, the motive for the commission of the crime was explained by PWs 4 and 5, the brothers of the deceased.It was suggested that the deceased and A-3 were inimical due to the mutual interest of each of the in the same girl.Although this was been supported by PW-9, the father of the girl with whom A-3 is said to have had a relationship, the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 was sufficient to establish the motive for Crl.A. 963/2002 Page 5 of 8 commission of the crime.A. 963/2002 Page 5 of 8For the aforementioned reasons, the trial Court found the Appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and by the order dated 22nd November 2002, proceeded to sentence them in the manner indicated.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. M.L. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, and Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, the learned APP for the State.These were proved by the prosecution.The criticism that no public witnesses were associated with the recoveries has been rightly rejected by the trial Court.The recoveries do not appear to be planted in the present case as alleged by the Appellants.A. 963/2002 Page 6 of 8The medical evidence established that the death was homicidal.The doctor conducting the post mortem opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could be caused by the recovered weapon.The FSL report confirmed that the blood stains on the knife were of human origin and were of the 'AB' group which was the blood group of the deceased.Likewise, the set of clothes recovered from A-1 and A-2 revealed the presence of the same blood of human origin and of 'AB' group.This clinched the prosecution case as far as A-1 and A-2 were concerned.Even in respect of A-3, there is sufficient evidence to link his involvement in the commission of the evidence, particularly since the recovery of the weapon of offence was made at his instance.With each link in the chain of circumstance having been proved beyond reasonable doubt and with the complete chain of circumstance so proved pointing unerringly to the guilt of the three Appellants and no one else, the Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court or the order on sentence.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
3,337,153 | The brief facts of this case are that parties were married according to Arya Samaj rites and ceremonies on 12th November, 1978 at Delhi.The marriage was also registered.No.90/2007 Page 2 of 119After solemnization of the marriage between the parties, the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty as under:-(A) The respondent is an IAS Officer of 1978 Batch (U.P.Cadre) and at the time of filing of petition was posted as Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Ministry of Textiles).The appellant is an IPS Officer of 1978 batch (U.T.Cadre) and was posted as DIG, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Bangalore.After that both were at Delhi between 1984 to 1990, at Arunachal Pradesh between 1990 to 1992 and again at Delhi after 1992 till the appellant got himself transferred to Bangalore MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 3 of 119 on 16.11.1998 and the respondent continued to be in Delhi till date.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 3 of 119(C) Their matrimonial life went on well after the marriage for another 10-11 years.However, due to appellants misbehavior, ill-treatment, ego problems, cruel acts, etc., with time the matrimonial life of the parties greatly deteriorated.(D) The appellant on the smallest pretext would pick up a fight with the respondent and would humiliate, insult and abuse the respondent in front of the children and also in front of the relatives of the respondent.The appellant even refused to do the normal household chores.On smallest pretext, the appellant would pack up respondents clothes and ask him to leave as the residence was on her name since sometimes the residence was allotted to the appellant.The respondent in order to make the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 4 of 119 marriage survive and especially to keep the atmosphere conducive for the upbringing of the children, kept on bearing the mental torture, cruelty, humiliation and the insult.The respondent would normally do the household chores and the appellant would not even help the respondent.The appellant though earning well, has not been contributing towards domestic expenditure for the last 4-5 years and the entire household expense is being borne by the respondent so as to humiliate and harass the respondent as she has deliberately taken the expenditure beyond affordable limits of the respondent.The stage came when the appellant in order to show her domination and pride used to humiliate and insult respondent on every possible occasion and pick up fight almost every day.Whenever, respondents father or brother or relatives came to visit the respondent, the appellant would ill-treat them MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 5 of 119 and fight with the respondent as to why they were there and they should leave immediately.When the niece of the respondent, namely Urmila, got married on 2.5.1995, the respondent invited the couple to his residence on 4.5.1995, the appellant not only objected but rather ridiculed the respondent.(E) One of the brothers of the respondent, namely, Sh.The appellant objected to the dead body being brought from Lucknow to 31, Ashok Road, New Delhi (Official residence of the respondent/appellant at that point of time).Even the wife of Sh.Therefore, their children, namely, Vertika and Vivek, came to stay with the respondent being their uncle and the natural guardian and especially due to the fact that they would find the same atmosphere MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 6 of 119 in which they were staying.Though, Vivek was studying in Ghaziabad and staying in the College Hostel over there but he used to visit the respondent on week-ends but Vertika was studying in College in Delhi and staying with the respondent.The appellant instead of having a humanitarian approach in taking care of the two orphans who were undergoing a bad phase, used to openly say that they were orphans and actually she does not want them to come or stay in the house.The appellant even ill-treated and misbehaved with both the children and also humiliated and insulted them even in front of their friends.The appellant would not allow Vertika to celebrate her birthday or call her friends at home or go out with her friends.In fact, in order to harass and humiliate the respondent on 27.02.1998, when the respondent was going to Ghosi (UP) on Election Duty, the appellant started creating MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 7 of 119 problems and stated that after the respondent had gone she would throw Vertika out of the house.The respondent requested her not to do so and wait till he returned from his duty after a few days.But she told that in any case if the respondent did not make alternative arrangements for the stay of his niece Vertika, she would throw her out of the house.In sheer desperation and with a sense of help-lessness, the respondent requested one of his nephews namely, Ajay Mehra to take Vertika away to avoid and untoward incident.Even the respondents nephew Vivek stopped visiting the respondent.This whole episode has greatly tortured the respondent mentally.The respondent has been humiliated, insulted and harassed by this act of the appellant.(F) The respondent did not stop her acts of cruelty there.Thereafter, in June, 1998 when respondents father came to visit the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 8 of 119 respondent, the appellant used to shout at the respondent and his father as to why his father was there.Instead of taking care of the old man, she never used to allow him to come in her sight and insult him and the respondent in case he came down from his room.One day when the respondents father came down from his room to go to the toilet, the appellant insulted him and told the respondent and his father that, the old man was intruding into her privacy and he should stay in his room and not to come out from the room whenever she is in the house.Thereafter, the respondents father left the house and since June 1998 has been staying with the younger brother of the respondent namely, Sh.P.S. Mehra.This greatly affected the psyche of the respondent who felt insulted and humiliated that he cannot even take care of his aged father.Even earlier on many occasions, the father of the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 9 of 119 respondent had to be sent away on her insistences as she would say that she could not stand him (the respondents father).It was the sad plight of the son (the respondent) who had to bear all these insults and humiliation in silence just to ensure that there was peace at home.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 4 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 5 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 6 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 7 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 8 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 9 of 119The respondent requested her not to do so since this would completely breakdown their family life.But the appellant refused to listen to his requests and in fact took the eldest son Kanak with her to Bangalore.Moreover, the appellant has kept a room under the lock in the present house of the respondent for herself even though the accommodation is a Government accommodation allotted in the name of the respondent.All this the appellant MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 10 of 119 has done to psychologically pressure and mentally torture the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 10 of 119Even otherwise, the appellant is a traditional and God fearing woman who wants to keep the family together.It is not disputed that respondent is an IAS Officer and used to remain posted from one place to another and was posted as Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Textile at the time of filing of the petition.It is also not disputed that appellant is an IPS Officer of 1978 batch (UT Cadre) and was earlier posted as D.I.G. (Group Centre C.R.P.F.) Bangalore, but presently she is posted in Delhi as Joint MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 14 of 119 Commissioner in Women Cell of Delhi Police and is living with children in the same house where the respondent was/is also living.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 14 of 119The respondent has presently been posted to Lakshadweep Islands but the matrimonial home is being retained and the respondent resides in the said home whenever he visits Delhi.The appellant was earlier posted to Bangalore and joined the respondent and children after her transfer in Delhi and both the parties started living peacefully under the matrimonial home.It is further stated that respondent has intentionally and deliberately not mentioned in the petition that he and the appellant knew each other for about two years prior to their marriage being the civil servants of 1978 Batch and married each other after complete understanding and due deliberations.There has never been any complaint either on her part or the respondent during their previous posting from one place to another.It is denied by the appellant that after10-11 years of marriage, the matrimonial life of respondent greatly deteriorated due to her misbehavior, ill-treatment, ego problem, cruel acts etc. The behaviour of appellant has always been cordial, adjustable and with love and affection and there has never been any ill-treatment or any ego problem as alleged.The appellant never committed any act of cruelty.In fact there has never been anything wrong with the marriage and the marriage has gone through the normal wear and tear over the period of time.The intention of respondent is not bonafide as he wanted to oust the appellant from the matrimonial home for which purpose he filed suit for permanent injunction against the appellant, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge.It is denied that the appellant would pick up a fight with the respondent on the smallest pretext or humiliate, insult or abuse him either in front of children or in front of the relatives of the respondent.It is also denied that she has refused to do the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 17 of 119 household chores as alleged by the respondent, in fact she attended the all household chores more so because the respondent could not attend to them.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 17 of 119The respondent has also not mentioned any date, month and year when he is alleged to be bearing any mental torture, cruelty or humiliation to keep the atmosphere conducive for the upbringing of the children or in order to make the marriage survive.It is admitted that sometimes the residence was allotted in the name of the appellant but she never ever remotely tried to assert her lien over the house.Since June, 1994, the family of appellant/respondent staying in Chankya Puri in the house allotted to the respondent.It is denied that the appellant has never contributed towards domestic expenditure.On the other hand, she at all times contributed to the best of her ability towards households expenditure as well as towards education of their children.During her MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 18 of 119 posting in Bangalore, she took along the elder son and bore the entire expenditure of his study as well as his boarding and lodging at Bangalore and did not leave both the sons with respondent and hence shared the responsibility equally.No.90/2007 Page 18 of 119It is further denied that the appellant in order to show her domination and pride used to humiliate and insult the respondent on every possible occasion and pick up fight almost every day.It is also wrong that whenever the respondents father or brother or other relatives come to visit respondent, the appellant would ill-treat them and fight with the respondent as to why they were there and they should leave immediately.It is also denied that when the niece of the respondent namely Urmila got married on 2nd May, 1995, the MAT App.Regarding invitation to the newly married couple to the house it is stated that it was not only that 8-9 guests had dinner party in the house but they also stayed in the house overnight.The appellant extended most generous hospitability to the newly wed couple and also presented expensive gifts to them.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 19 of 119It is also stated that the respondent has not mentioned any date, month and year when the appellant is alleged to have insulted or humiliated the respondent either in front of the children or in front of his relatives.The respondent has not mentioned the name of even a single relative in whose presence she is alleged to have insulted or humiliated or abused the respondent.It is admitted that one of the brother of the respondent, namely I.S.Mehra an IPS Officer U.P.Cadre committed suicide on 29th October, 1993 but MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 20 of 119 is denied that the appellant objected to the dead body being brought from Lucknow to 31, Ashok Road, New Delhi.It is stated that when the brother of the respondent committed suicide on 29th October, 1993, the respondent himself was also undergoing treatment for depression.In fact, the sequence of events is very different from what has been alleged.On the fateful day, the appellant was in a meeting at the I.B. Office where she received the said news of her brother-in- laws unnatural death.She immediately left the meeting and rushed to locate the respondent.In the meantime, informed other relatives, made arrangements for travel to Lucknow as the family of the deceased and the dead body was at Lucknow.The appellant was able to locate the respondent only late in the evening at around 5.30 p.m. as he was untraceable during the day and nobody knew about his whereabouts.The appellant undertook it to be her own responsibility to arrange for whatever was to be done and she was also concerned that the respondents MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 21 of 119 condition does not deteriorate so she was constantly in touch with the Doctor who was treating the respondent.The appellant took a loan from her friend Mrs. Nargis Rajkumar to buy Air Tickets for Lucknow.One of the appellants officers even went to the airport to buy the tickets and oversee the arrangements for the respondent and relatives visit to Lucknow.Under the circumstances, there is no question of appellants saying anything as alleged.The dead body was brought to the house at Ashok Road and from there it was taken to Village Mundhela Kalan for cremation in the afternoon.All the arrangements were made by the appellant as per her wisdom and capacity and she took leave and stayed in the village for 13 days, arranged Garuda Puran Path in the village for the entire duration, at the same time she was looking after the treatment of the respondent, welfare of the bereaved family and her family.MAT App.The appellant never objected to stay of Vertika and Vivek, children of Sh.I.S.Mehra as alleged by the respondent.It is denied that the appellant instead of having humanitarian approach in taking care of the children used to openly say that they were orphans and she does not want them to come or stay in the house.It is denied that she ill-treated and misbehaved with the children or humiliated and insulted them in front of the friends.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 22 of 119Vivek was doing his medical first year from Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad and he used to stay in the Hostel and used to come to their house on weekends and on quite a few occasions appellant and respondent used to go his college to meet him and to deliver food, clothes etc. in order to support him.No.90/2007 Page 23 of 119 same Psychiatrist who was treating the respondent.Vertika was pampered in every possible way like appellants own daughter.Her friends from Ghaziabad used to come and stay in their house very often which was encouraged to make Vertika feel at home.Appellant even tried to teach Vertika cooking and made efforts in that direction.It is denied that Vertika was not allowed to celebrate her birthday or call her friends at home or to go out with her friends.In fact Vertika and appellant share the same birthday and Vertikas birthday was celebrated and her friends did visit the house.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 23 of 119It is further denied that in order to harass and humiliate the respondent on 26th February, 1998 when he was going to Ghosi, U.P. on election duty, the appellant started creating problems and stated that after the respondent had gone, she would throw Vertika out of the house.In fact on 27th February, 1998 when the respondent was going to Ghosi (U.P.) and the appellant was posted in RAF, the job of MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 24 of 119 appellant involved a lot of touring.The appellants two sons were having their Board Examination for X and XII which required a lot of preparation and concentration.The appellant requested the respondent to send Vertika to respondents brothers house or to Vertikas aunts house for a month, so that the children could study without any distraction and disturbance.Respondent refused to pay any heed to her request.Ultimately, respondent did make arrangement for Vertika to go to respondents brother house when Sandeep, Vertikas cousin came to pick her up.The appellant never differentiated between them and her children and rather showed more love and affection towards them and pampered them.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 24 of 119It is further stated that the respondent has not been able to mention even a single incidence from 1993 to 27th February, 1998 when the appellant might have objected either to the stay of the children with the appellant or any incident of cruelty which is MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 25 of 119 alleged to have caused any humiliation or insult to the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 25 of 119It is denied by the appellant that in June 1998 when the father of respondent visited him, she used to shout on him and his father as to why his father was there.The appellant neither ignored her father-in-law nor ill-treated or mistreated him.The appellants father-in-law continued staying in the same house till the respondent was transferred to Lakshadweep and continues to stay in the said house as and when the respondent visits Delhi.The appellant has always extended warm welcome and has given due respect and taken care of her father-in-law.The allegations made by the respondent in this regard are false and fabricated.The appellant would have MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 26 of 119 preferred not to go but was compelled.It is denied that the respondent had requested her not to do so since this would completely break down the family life.In fact, even while in Bangalore she remained in touch with her family and was available whenever required.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 26 of 119It is further stated that on 25th October, 1999 when she visited Delhi, the respondent threatened to MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 27 of 119 forcibly oust her from the matrimonial home.Respondent even called his two nephews namely Ajay Mehra and Sandeep Mehra to help him achieve his objectives.She denies having narrated any false and frivolous story to him.It is also denied that she ever stated to any such Secretary that the respondent does not take care of the children or wants to keep a mistress.It is admitted that she took appointment with the Secretary to Delhi Government, that is, senior colleague of the respondent not to humiliate him.It MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 28 of 119 was merely to use the intervention to sort out the differences between her and the respondent.MAT App.Quarrels usually take place in every house MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 31 of 119 and these quarrels are normal wear and tear in the married life which cannot be said to the act of cruelty.Some incidents have been blown out of proportion and no allegation with regard to cruelty has been made from 1978 to 1998 in the petition.The marriage is still alive.There is complete loss of trust and faith between the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 33 of 119 parties.There is no love between the parties.Para 4(A) and (B) gives the status and place of posting of both the appellant as well as respondent.The facts mentioned in these paras by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an incident of cruelty.Para 4(C) mentions about the general behaviour of the appellant, ill-treatment, ego problems and her cruel acts etc. It nowhere states about any specific incident of cruelty.As per Rules framed under the Act, incidents of cruelty are to be specifically mentioned MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 51 of 119 with date, time and place but in this para, no specific incident of cruelty has been mentioned.This shows that the matrimonial life was going smooth till 1989 and all the differences started between the parties thereafter.73. Allegations with regard to the misbehaviour by the appellant, as alleged in the petition are that she on smallest pretext would pickup fight with respondent and would humiliate, insult and abuse him in front of children and also in front of his relatives.Thus whatever evidence which has come on record but which is beyond pleading, will not be looked into or considered at all by this Court.However, respondent has mentioned specifically about one incident when he was ridiculed by the appellant and that incident is dated 04.05.1995, when niece of the respondent Ms. Urmila got married and respondent invited the couple to the residence.Respondent claimed that whenever, his father or brother or relatives came to visit them, the appellant would ill-treat them and fight with him as to why they MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 54 of 119 were there and they should leave immediately.When Ms. Urmila, the newly married niece of the respondent with her family, were invited by respondent at their residence on 4.5.1995, the appellant not only objected, but rather ridiculed him.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 54 of 119The respondent in his cross-examination stated that the programme was fixed one day prior to the marriage after the consultation with the appellant.Urmila, her husband along with some relatives including mother of the husband of Urmila came for dinner and had stayed overnight and left on the next day.Appellant had objected to the stay of Urmila and told him as to why he had invited them.Respondent denied the suggestion that invitation to Urmila and her husband was given by both of them.He stated that he does not remember as to when he had discussed the invitation with the appellant.The suggestion to invite them was of his own.He also admits that the photographs of the party were also taken and this occasion was also celebrated with bottle of champagne.PW4, S.S. Mehra, brother of the respondent, regarding the dinner hosted by the respondent on 04.05.95, has stated that he found the appellant was not at all hospitable and respectful to anyone of them and it was a sad experience for them.In his cross examination, he stated that the respondent invited them and denied the suggestion that the appellant had given gifts to his daughter and her in-laws.He also stated that there was no conversation between himself and appellant before MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 56 of 119 04.05.95 regarding going for the dinner.He stated that the photographs were also taken.He also admits that they had enjoyed good food but he claimed that they were not given good treatment.Respondent and his witness have no where stated as to in what manner the appellant "ridiculated them".It is not the case of the respondent that appellant did not join in this dinner.Admittedly, gifts were given to the newly wedded couple.As per statement of PW4 S.S. Mehra, they had good food while, respondent MAT App.So, where was the cruelty in the dinner party of 4th May, 1995? The findings of Trial Court on this point are affirmed.Objection to the dead body of respondent's brother being brought to their residence:The respondent claims that appellant has objected to the dead body being brought from Lucknow to 31, Ashoka Road, New Delhi, their official residence.He had also stated that appellant neither did take loan or brought air tickets or made arrangements for him and his relatives visit to Lucknow nor took any leave or stayed in village for 13 days or arranged Garuda path MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 58 of 119 in the village.The tickets were purchased by his elder brother S.S. Mehra (PW4).It is wrong to suggest that the intimation about the death of my brother was given to me by the respondent.When I reached home at 5 p.m., there was crowd of persons at house and they also told me.It is correct that decision to bring the dead body at Ashok Road was already taken when I reached house at 5 p.m. The decision to bring dead body was not taken by me.My elder brother had taken the decision to bring the dead body at Ashok Road."Further he stated that;"It is correct that dead body from Airport was brought to 31, Ashok Road.It was our official residence.I accompanied the dead body from Delhi Airport to 31, Ashok Road.It was 30th October, 1993 early morning.It was decided by me to bring the dead body to 31, Ashok Road."PW 4, S.S. Mehra has deposed in his affidavit that when he informed Vimla Mehra about the demise of his MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 59 of 119 brother I.S. Mehra, she informed him that she would come after attending the meeting.The place of cremation was finalized as Mundela Kala Village as per the wish of deceased I.S. Mehras wife.When they said that the dead body will be brought to Ashoka Road house and then it will be taken to the village, Vimla Mehra argued rudely that the dead body should not be brought to Ashoka Road residence and only after her parents persuaded her that she agreed to allow the dead body to be brought to her Ashoka Road residence.He stated that he arranged for the money for the air tickets for his journey as well as the journey of his relatives from Delhi to Lucknow.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 59 of 119He did not enquire him regarding the death.His father was at Lucknow with his brother who died.He tried to contact the respondent but he could not be contacted then he contacted appellant over telephone to inform MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 60 of 119 regarding the death.Apart from them, he did not inform anybody.He himself reached at Ashoka Road.He called the respondent in his office but he was not available.He could not contact the respondent and without meeting him, he left with his uncle to Lucknow.He left for Lucknow by air at 5 pm.Respondent did not go to Lucknow.Appellant has met him at the residence before he left Delhi.He had spoken to her as it was solemn occasion of death and she told him that she was in meeting.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 60 of 119He admitted that the appellant had arranged for the air tickets though they had paid the fare and he had also left for airport in her official car.She had arranged for two tickets to his knowledge and he had paid the money of the tickets to Sh.Mukhtiyar Singh, police man at the airport as the tickets were with him.He denied that he collected the tickets from U.K. Chaudhary ACP, on behalf of the appellant.However, he admitted that all the arrangement for bringing the dead body was made by the appellant on her own and MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 61 of 119 the same was appreciated.He stated that he told the appellant that the dead body would be brought to Ashoka Road to which she had objected.MAT App.RW3, Nargis Raj Kumar in her examination-in- chief has stated that she had lent some money to the appellant to meet the unforeseen required expenditure due to the death of I.S.Mehra.It is clear from the perusal of the record that PW4, S.S. Mehra has more or less admitted the version of the appellant except that he has made the payment.From the testimony of RW3/Nargis Raj Kumar, it appears that initially the appellant might have borrowed money from RW3, but at the time of leaving the airport, she might have been paid money, for the tickets brought by the police man.As regards the version of the appellant staying there for 13 days, RW4 has not stated that the appellant had remained at the village for 13 days in the Puja.She admits that respondent also attended tervi of her mother but she did not stay there.RW3, Nargis Kumar claims that she had attended the last rites of I.S. Mehra and she had gone to the village with the dead body.In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not remember whether she had gone alone in the car or somebody else or appellant was with her in the car for the cremation of Sh.I.S. Mehra.She also stated that she did not remember at what time she came to know MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 63 of 119 about the death of I.S.Mehra.She stated that she neither remember the time after how much time of her reaching the place, the body was brought and who had brought the body from Lucknow nor she remember as to whether the respondent reached Ashoka Road prior to her reaching to Ashoka Road or subsequently.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 63 of 119After scanning through the evidence, it stands clearly established that all the arrangements for bringing the dead body were made by the appellant on her own and the same were appreciated.It is also proved from the record that appellant arranged for the Air Tickets and PW4 had left for airport in appellants official car and she had also attended tervi of wife of brother of respondent.Can it be said under these circumstances, that appellant had raised objection to the dead body of respondents brother being brought to their residence.Respondent has stated that as the wife of Sh.I.S. Mehra, his brother, who was also an IPS Officer (U.P. Cadre) expired on 12.10.1997, therefore, their children, namely, Vertika (PW3) and Vivek, came to stay with him being their uncle and the natural guardian and especially due to the fact that they would find the same atmosphere in which they were staying.Vivek was studying in Ghaziabad and staying in the College Hostel over there but he used to visit him on week-ends but Vertika was studying in College in Delhi and staying with him.It is the case of respondent that, the appellant instead of having a humanitarian approach in taking care of the two orphans who were undergoing a bad MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 65 of 119 phase, used to openly say that they were orphans and actually she does not want them to come or stay in the house.The appellant would not allow Vertika (PW3) to celebrate her birthday or call her friends at home or go out with her friends.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 65 of 119In fact, in order to harass and humiliate the respondent, on 27.02.1998, when the respondent was going to Ghosi (UP) on Election Duty, the appellant started creating problems and stated that after the respondent had gone, she would throw Vertika (PW3) out of the house.The respondent requested her not to do so and wait till he returned from his duty after a few days.But she told that in any case, if the respondent did not make alternative arrangements for the stay of his niece Vertika (PW3), she would throw her out of the house.In sheer desperation and with a sense of help- lessness, the respondent requested one of his nephews namely, Ajay Mehra to take Vertika (PW3) away to MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 66 of 119 avoid an untoward incident.Even the respondents nephew Vivek, stopped visiting the respondent.This whole episode has greatly tortured the respondent mentally.The respondent has been humiliated, insulted and harassed by this act of the appellant.MAT App.I.S.Mehra as alleged by the respondent.It has been denied by her that she ill-treated and misbehaved with the children or humiliated and insulted them in front of the friends.She claimed that Vivek was doing his medical first year from Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad and he used to stay in the Hostel and used to come to their house on weekends and on quite a few other occasions.The appellant pampered Vertika in every possible way like her own daughter.She got Vertika admitted in a music college in Saket and paid her fees etc. She also took her for swimming at Talkatora Indoor MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 67 of 119 Stadium and for treatment of depression, Vertika was also taken to the same Psychiatrist who was treating the respondent.Her friends from Ghaziabad used to come and stay in their house very often which encouraged to make Vertika feel at home.Appellant even tried to teach Vertika cooking and made efforts in that direction.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 67 of 119It is denied by the appellant that Vertika was not allowed to celebrate her birthday or call her friends at home or to go out with her friends.In fact, Vertika and appellant, share the same birthday and Vertikas birthday was celebrated and her friends did visit the house.Appellant further stated that there is no dispute that on 26th February, 1998, the respondent was going to Ghosi, U.P. on election duty and on the said day, Vertika was taken by his nephew but reason for this is that her children were also having their Board Examination for X and XII class which required a lot of MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 68 of 119 preparation and concentration.The appellant requested the respondent to send Vertika to respondents brothers house or to Vertikas aunts house for a month, so that the children could study without any distraction and disturbance.Respondent never used to pay any heed to her request.Ultimately, appellant did make arrangement for Vertika to go to respondents brother house when Sandeep, Vertikas cousin came to pick her up.The appellant never differentiated between them and her children and rather showed more love and affection towards them and pampered them.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 68 of 119In her cross examination, appellant has stated that she took Vertika to musical school and the fees was paid by her in cash and the same was discussed with the respondent before taking Vertika to the school.She further stated that she do not have the receipt.She knew the Principal and Director of the institute.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 69 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 69 of 119These facts have not been disputed by Vertika.She admits that she had gone to musical school but she claims that she had gone only for once.She also admitted that appellant had gone for swimming with her which fact the respondent has denied that she had ever gone with the appellant.In her cross examination, appellant has admitted that Vertikas birthday was not celebrated, but her friends had visited at night.In her cross examination she stated that she did not remember about the percentage of marks secured by her sons in the examination and whether the percentage of elder son was 66% and of younger son 78%.She admitted that Vertika was having the examination of XII class in the same year and her elder son and Vertika, were both in XII class, having the same subject.She denied the suggestion that both had prepared together.MAT App.It is also the case of respondent that Vertika was told by the appellant not to mourn at the death of her mother by crying.So, the main grouse of respondent is that after the death of his brother and his brothers wife, his children namely Vertika and Vivek came to his house but both these orphan children, were ill-treated by the appellant and respondent was forced to send Vertika away to his brothers house.Vertika in her cross-examination has stated that since November, 1997 till 27th February, 1998 she was living in Chanakayapuri with her uncle, the respondent in Flat No.Further, she has stated that since August, 1999 off and on she was living at Chankyapuri till she moved to Lakshdweep off and on.During this period she was residing at her Mausis and Taujis place at Shalimar Bagh.Vertika in her cross-examination admits that during November, 1997 to February, 1998 her friends MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 71 of 119 stayed with her in room mark C. Vertika has also stated in her cross-examination that once or twice her friends might have stayed.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 71 of 119Vertika in her cross-examination also states that "My Tauji, my uncle enquired from me where I want to live after death of my mother and I replied that I will live in Delhi at Chankyapuri".She also states that she was not having much interaction with the children of respondent as she was not visiting Delhi much but her brother was having not only interaction but visiting Delhi frequently.Vertika further said in her cross-examination that she had not joined any music school or swimming.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 72 of 119 However, she states that on her desire to swim, her aunt (i.e. Appellant) sent her for swimming and she was sent in official vehicle by her aunt.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 72 of 119She also admitted that she had gone to Bhatt Khande Sangeet Vidhyalaya, B-6, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi for learning vocal music and appellant accompanied her to said Sangeet Vidhyalaya.Vertika further stated that she was only having interaction with her aunt of wishing good morning and good night.She had drawn the conclusion that her aunt was emotionless with the fact that she was asked by her not to cry in her house for her dead parents and she was used to such dramas.However, she (Vertika) did not lodge any complaint or grievance with any of her family members that she was not comfortable in Chankayapuri flat.Vertika also states that her cousin brothers also used to sit and talk with her while her stay at Chankyapuri flat and she used to have dinner with other family MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 73 of 119 members while sitting on the same dinning table only on some occasions.When she came to reside with respondent at Chankyapuri, she was not crying, it is after her admission to Music School through appellant, that appellant asked her not to cry at her house for her dead parents.Vertika said that she cannot tell the exact dates, etc., however, appellant ridiculed and maltreated her several times.MAT App.Vertika has admitted in her cross-examination that on her desire to swim, she was sent for swimming by appellant in her official car, and appellant got her admitted in music school and also accompanied her.She also admits that her friends used to stay with her at appellants place and she used to have dinner with family members at dinning table.So, where are the incidents as alleged by Vertika that she was ill-treated and ridiculed by appellant?Much stress has been laid on the incident of Vertika leaving parties house on 27th February, 1998, when, appellant asked her to leave the house.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 75 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 75 of 119Assuming for arguments sake that Vertika was asked to leave the house, but the reason was justified, since both the sons of the parties had to appear in their Tenth and Twelth class board examinations.Every mother would ensure that study of their children is not disturbed and they are able to concentrate and prepare for Board Examination.It is a common knowledge then when the children are preparing for their final board examinations, and if both parents are employed, then one of them even take leave from office and assist their children in study.Thus, in asking Vertika to go to respondents brother place, during the exams of children of the parties, cannot in any manner be called a cruel act.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 76 of 119Behaviour of appellant towards father of respondent.As per averments made in the petition, the allegations of the respondent are that whenever his father came to visit him, the appellant ill-treated him and fight with the respondent as to why his father and other relatives were there and they should leave immediately.In June, 1998, when respondents father came to visit the respondent, the appellant used to shout at the respondent and his father, as to why his father was there.Instead of taking care of the old man, she never used to allow him to come in her sight MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 77 of 119 and insulted him and the respondent, in case he came down from his room.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 77 of 119One day when the respondents father came down from his room to go to the toilet, the appellant insulted him and told the respondent and his father that the old man was intruding into her privacy and he should stay in his room and not to come out from the room whenever she is in the house.Thereafter, the respondents father left the house and since June, 1998 has been staying with the younger brother of the respondent namely, Sh.P.S. Mehra.This greatly affected the psyche of the respondent, who felt insulted and humiliated that he cannot even take care of his aged father.Even earlier on many occasions, the father of the respondent had to be sent away on appellants insistence as she would say that she could not stand him (respondents father).It was the son (respondent) who had to bear all these MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 78 of 119 insults and humiliation in silence just to ensure that there was peace at home.Further, respondent in his examination-in-chief has stated that in June, 1998, when his father came to visit him, appellant used to shout at him and his father as to why his father was there.Instead of taking care of old man, she never used to allow him to come in her sight and insulted him (the respondent) and his father in case he comes down from his room.One day, when his father came down from his room to go to the toilet, the appellant insulted him and told him (the respondent) and his father that the old man was intruding into her privacy and he should stay in his MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 79 of 119 room, and not to come out from the room whenever she is in the house.Thereafter, his father left the house and since June, 1998, has been staying with his younger brother Sh.No.90/2007 Page 79 of 119In his cross-examination, respondent admitted that he has not mentioned in his petition the incident of October, 1995, when appellant told him that she cannot stand his father and he should be taken out of the house.Respondent also admitted that he has not mentioned the name of any person in whose presence, the appellant humiliates him and he did not tell the date, month or year to his advocate when the appellant used to humiliate and insult him.Respondent has further stated in his cross-examination that it was every days affair and therefore, there was no need to give any specific date.His father left him in May, 1998 when he went to live with his younger brother namely Sh.P.S. Mehra.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 80 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 80 of 119On the other hand, appellant in her examination- in-chief has stated that she neither ignored her father- in-law nor ill-treated or mistreated him.She denied that when her father-in-law came from her room to go to toilet, she insulted him and told the respondent that the old man was intruding him in her privacy and he should stay into his room and not to come down from his room whenever she was in the house.Appellant further stated that her father-in-law continued staying in the same house till the respondent was transferred to Lakshadweep and continued to stay in the said house as and when respondent visited Delhi from Lakshdweep.The case of respondent is that his father was ill- treated by the appellant and appellant used to shout at him as to why the old man was there and he should leave immediately.As per examination-in-chief of the respondent, in October, 1995, the appellant specially told him that MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 81 of 119 she cannot stand his father and he should be taken away out of the house.If this was the behavior of the appellant towards the father of respondent then why his father continued to live in the same house till 1998, that is, for over three years, because as per averments made in the petition, in June 1998, when respondents father came to visit him, the appellant used to shout at the respondent and his father, as to why his father was there.The case of respondent is that since June 1998, father of respondent left respondents house, has been staying with respondents younger brother Sh.P.S. Mehra.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 81 of 119As per respondents case, where in October, 1995, appellant specially told him that she cannot stand his father and he should be taken out of house, then it does not appeal to common sense, that the father-in-law of appellant, who had been humiliated, in October, 1995 and have been asked in uneqvovical terms not to stay with the parties and to leave immediately, then why he continued to live for more MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 82 of 119 than three years undergoing worst humiliation.It is not the case of respondent, that there was no one besides him to take care of his old father, when admittedly, in June, 1998 again after humiliation, his father went to live with respondents younger brother Sh.P.S. Mehra.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 82 of 119Surprisingly, when respondent and his father had suffered humiliation at the hands of appellant in October, 1995, then it does not appeal to common sense that again in 1998 his father would come and stay with the parties.When the statements of the parties are on equal footings, then the Court has to look for some other corroborative evidence.The case of respondent is that his father was being humiliated by the appellant while appellant in her statement has denied these allegations and have stated that she was respectful to her father-in-law.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 83 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 83 of 119Under these circumstances, Sh.P.S. Mehra, younger brother of the respondent was an independent and material witness, as since June 1998, respondents father left parties house and has been staying with the younger brother of the respondent namely Sh.P.S. Mehra.For reasons best known to respondent, he has not examined this material witness.Recording of evidence of respondent started in the Year 2002 and at that time his father was alive.Thus, father of the respondent was the best person to depose about the humiliation and abuses suffered by him at the hands of the appellant.Father of respondent died on 9th October, 2004 and there is nothing on record to show as to what prevented the respondent to produce the primary and best evidence, that is, his father in the Court.This shows that father of respondent has been visiting respondent quite often.So, from the evidence on record it does not inspire confidence and it is also not established that appellant humiliated, ill-treated either respondent or his father during October, 1995 till June 1998, when respondents father was staying with parties.Transfer to Bangalore and locking of the master bed roomThe respondent requested her not to do so since this would completely break down their family life but the appellant refused to listen and in fact took the elder MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 85 of 119 son Kanak with her to Bangalore.Moreover, the appellant has kept a room under lock in the present house of the respondent for herself even though the accommodation is a government accommodation allotted in the name of the respondent and all this has been done by the appellant to psychologically pressurise and mentally torture the respondent.MAT App.The posting and transfer in a Government job are routine matter.After scanning through the entire evidence, I could lay hand on the statement of respondents own witness PW-3 Vertika which clinches this issue.She in her cross-examination has stated that room marked A has been in use and occupied by the appellant which is the master bed room.Even in the absence of her aunt Vimla Mehra (appellant), Vaibhav used to occupy the said rooms Mark A and C. She also stated that she had not stayed in room Mark A but might have gone in the said room to inform about telephone etc. to Vaibhav or to respondent if she was there in the said room.She has further stated that when she came on 1st November, 1997 to stay at MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 93 of 119 Chankya Puri flat, his uncle (respondent) sometimes used to sleep in room Mark C or in room Mark A or in drawing room.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 93 of 119So as per statement of PW-3 Vertika, when Vaibhav, son of the parties was using and enjoying room Mark A then where was the question of locking the room Mark A which is admittedly the master bed room as alleged by the respondent.Thus it stands established that room Mark A, that is the master bed room, was never under the lock and key of the appellant and it was being used by other family members also in the absence of appellant when she has been transferred to Bangalore.Threatening to call the policeThe case of respondent as stated in the petition is that the appellant came from Bangalore to Delhi in February, 1999 for a short visit.On 9th February, 1999, the appellant started fighting with respondent alleging that he is having mistress and he is not giving MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 94 of 119 money to the children.When the arguments became heated up, all of a sudden she threatened the respondent that she will call the SHO of the concerned area and will file a false complaint against him so as to make him know that she is a very powerful lady and he has to do all such things what she wants him to do.However, after repeated request of the respondent, the appellant was pacified.Even the elder brother of the appellant had called up Sh.Udai Singh (brother of appellant) at Sonepat to intervene but he informed that he was busy in the meeting.The same averments have been corroborated by the respondent in the affidavit filed by him.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 94 of 119Appellant in her cross-examination admits as correct that Sh.V.K.Sharma and his wife visited but she cannot give any specific reason why they visited in the morning.The fact that V.K.Sharma has visited the house of the parties on 9th February, 1999, does not lead to conclusion that appellant had threatened the respondent to implicate her in 498-A IPC case when the case of the respondent as per averments made in the petition is that the appellant started fighting with him alleging that he is having a mistress and he is not giving money to the children.There is no mention of payment of Rs.2 lacs as demanded by the appellant.Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that even if a fight amongst the parties have MAT App.The allegation made by the respondent in the petition in this regard are that on 12th February, 1999 so as to defame, humiliate and harass him, the appellant went to his office and met with his senior who is the Secretary to the Government of India.To him the appellant narrated the false and frivolous story that respondent is a bad husband, he does not take care of his children, he wants to keep a mistress, and he beats her up.This caused great mental torture to him.Thereafter also, the appellant has come to Delhi on each occasion has humiliated and threatened him that she would meet the senior of respondent and further humiliate him.Respondent in his affidavit has corroborated all the averments which he has made in the petition and MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 102 of 119 has further stated that on 12th February, 1999 appellant met the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Textile, where he was posted as Joint Secretary and complained him that he (respondent) was not a good husband and a good father and was keeping a mistress and represented the Secretary to take action against him.It was an oral complaint made by the appellant to his Secretary and no action was taken on the complaint.MAT App.Nevertheless, the conduct of the appellant in meeting the boss of the respondent, without knowledge or consent of the respondent is a very serious matter and it constitute worse type of cruelty.It shows there was a complete betrayal of the trust between the parties and the appellant had gone to the boss of the respondent to make complaint against his own husband.This was highly deplorable on the part MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 105 of 119 of the appellant.It cannot be expected that between parties, the wife would go to the office of her husband and make complaint to boss of his husband about domestic problems.This appeal has been filed by the appellant(wife) under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short as Act) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15th October, 2007 passed by Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Addl.District Sessions Judge, Delhi.2. Vide the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act for divorce filed on behalf of the respondent-husband.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 2 of 119MAT App.(H) That the appellant came from Bangalore to Delhi in February, 1999 for a short visit.On 09.02.1999, the appellant again started fighting with respondent alleging that he is having a mistress and that he is not giving money to the children.When the argument became heated up, all of sudden she threatened the respondent that she will call the S.H.O. of the concerned area and file a false complaint against him so as to make him know that she is very powerful and he has to do all such things what she wants him to do.However, after repeated requests by the respondent, the appellant was pacified.Even the eldest brother of the respondent had called up Sh.Uday Singh (brother of the appellant) at Sonepat to intervene but he informed that he was busy in a meeting.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 11 of 119 (I) Thereafter on 12.02.1999 so as to defame, humiliate and harass the respondent, the appellant went to the office of the respondent and met his senior, who is the Secretary to the Government of India.To him the appellant narrated a false and frivolous story that the respondent is bad husband, he does not take care of his children, he wants to keep a mistress and he beats her up.This has greatly lowered the respect of the respondent in the office and has caused great mental torture to him.Thereafter also, the appellant has come to Delhi but on each occasion has humiliated and threatened respondent that she would meet the senior of the respondent and further humiliate him.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 11 of 119It is further stated that the appellant has left no stone unturned in ruining the life of the respondent and has perpetrated acts of cruelty as stated above and it has become impossible for respondent to live MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 12 of 119 with the appellant.The respondent has not in any manner condoned the cruelty.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 12 of 119The divorce petition was contested by the appellant before the trial court.Appellant in her written statement took certain preliminary objections, namely, that the petition filed is legally not maintainable since the same is not in accordance with the rules framed under the Act.It is also stated that the petition is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Act as respondent never filed petition immediately when as alleged the appellant has treated him with cruelty.On merits, the factum of marriage has been admitted.It also admitted that two sons were born out of the wedlock.The appellant denied all the allegations made by the respondent in the petition and stated that the marriage between the parties has gone through a MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 13 of 119 normal wear and tear, over a period of 24 years and the appellant feels that there is nothing wrong with her marriage with the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 13 of 119Misunderstandings and tensions are not unknown to the married couples and should be occasioned for correction rather than excuses for dissolution.Both the parties are at Delhi and situation can still be retrieved.It was the respondent who encouraged the appellant to join IPS.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 15 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 15 of 119It is denied by the appellant that she got herself transferred to Bangalore on 16th November, 1998 but in fact the transfer was in accordance of the policy of the Government and she has been posted back to Delhi on 5th April, 2000 and has been living peacefully with the respondent under the same roof.Even while posted in Bangalore, she was visiting Delhi quite often to be with the family and she would like to continue living with the respondent and be known as his wife.No.90/2007 Page 16 of 119 question of matrimonial life of the parties to have greatly deteriorated as alleged by the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 16 of 119The appellant is devoted as a wife, is conscious of her duties, considers herself open to criticism and correction and wants to work on problems rather than make them a cause to snap ties.Further, she has contributed equally towards the purchase of residential flat in Delhi and a plot at Greater Noida as well as towards the purchase of other households items like A/C, Washing Machine, Computer etc. and other households items.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 20 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 21 of 119It has not been denied by the appellant that the wife of Sh.I.S.Mehra also expired on 12th October, MAT App.The appellant got Vertika admitted in a music college in Saket and paid her fees etc. She also took her for swimming at Talkatora Indoor Stadium.For treatment of depression, Vertika was also taken to the MAT App.The appellant has also denied in her written statement that she kept a room under her lock in the accommodation allotted in the name of respondent.In fact, the appellant was transferred to Bangalore as part of exigencies of service and the exigencies of service has again brought her to Delhi.Bangalore was her only temporary address and her permanent address continues to be at Delhi and is the same as that of the respondent.It is denied that on 9th February, 1999, she had any fight with the respondent or she has ever threatened to file a false complaint against him.Besides this, the respondent even threatened his sons (Kanak and Vaibhav) to make their mother (appellant herein) leave the premises failing which the respondent would call the police.In the replication filed by the respondent, he has controverted the allegations made by the appellant.No.90/2007 Page 30 of 119The respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs.The sanctity attached to the relationship of husband and wife and the near inseparability of this relationship is the foundation of the Dharma of Hindu social life.Notwithstanding the conduct of the respondent, the appellant does not desire any release from her husband.There is sanctity in a Hindu marriage and if that sanctity is not preserved by those who are well educated and well placed in life the only spot on earth called India where the remnants of Hindu way of life exists will melt away to oblivion.It is also contended that the appellant wants to keep the marriage intact while respondent wants to break it.Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to each incident of cruelty and has discussed the evidence with regard thereto, which shall be dealt with later on, herein under.The marriage between the parties have broken down irretrievably and marriage cannot be said to be alive, as since 1998 there has been no cohabitation.No.90/2007 Page 50 of 119The respondent / husband examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit, PW2 Sh.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 51 of 119Misbehaviour, ill-treatment etc. of appellant towards respondent and his family members:Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.11.1978 and as per averments made in the petition, their matrimonial life went on well for about 10-11 years.Whenever, father or brother or relative of the respondent came to visit him, appellant would ill-treat them and fight with the respondent, as to why they were there and they should leave immediately.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 52 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 52 of 119No date, time etc. of any such incident has been mentioned in the pleading.As stated above, the appellant would pick up a fight with respondent and humiliate, insult and abuse the respondent in front of the children.The best evidence to prove these allegations would have been the children, who in this case are sons, born on 02.02.1981 and 27.11.0982 respectively.The recording of evidence in this case started in year 2002 and by that time, both the sons have become major and as such they would have been best person to depose about these allegations made by the respondent in his petition.For reasons best known, the respondent has not examined either of his son to prove this fact that appellant would pick up a fight with him and humiliate, insult and abuse him in front of the children.As far as humiliation, insult and abuse in front of the relatives of the respondent is concerned, the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 53 of 119 respondent has examined PW4 S.S.Mehra, his elder brother on this point beside, himself.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 53 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 55 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 55 of 119He denied that the gifts were given by the appellant to Urmila and her husband.He further stated that he had brought the gift, but do not remember what were the gifts given to Urmila and her husband.In his cross-examination, respondent admits that on the next day, Urmila and her in-laws went to their house happily.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 56 of 119On the other hand, appellant claimed that she had given expensive gifts to them.No.90/2007 Page 57 of 119 admits that photographs of the party were also taken and this occasion was celebrated with bottle of champagne.Moreover, respondent also admits in his cross-examination that on the next day, Ms. Urmila and her-in-law went to their house happily.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 57 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 58 of 119In his cross-examination, respondent stated that;"I came to know about the death of my brother at 5 p.m. when I came to house on 29.10.93 from duty.No.90/2007 Page 61 of 119As per version of PW4/S.S. Mehra, the appellant agreed for the dead body to be brought at Ashoka Road after intervention of her parents but her mother was not given any suggestion that the appellant has MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 62 of 119 objected to the dead body being brought to the Ashoka Road residence.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 62 of 119On the other hand, appellant readily and willingly provided all the possible assistance for making all MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 64 of 119 necessary arrangements required for the purpose.These acts of appellant in any manner cannot be said to be "cruel acts".MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 64 of 119"Ill-treatment to the children of the deceased brother of respondent".No.90/2007 Page 70 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 73 of 119Vertika denied the suggestions that she left the house due to the board exams of the children of parties.She further admits that even today, some of her belongings are lying at Chankyapuri residence and keys of almirah are with her.There is nothing on record to show that brother of Vertika namely Vivek who was staying in Hostel at Ghaziabad was ever ill-treated by the appellant, though he had been visiting the parties, frequently quite often on weekends.Nor Vivek has appeared in the witness MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 74 of 119 box to depose about ill-treatment given to him by appellant.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 74 of 119As far as ill-treatment to Vertika is concerned, except for oral testimony of Vertika that she was asked by the appellant not to cry on the death of her parents, there is no other incident of ill-treatment.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 76 of 119No prudent person will if she/he had been abused, ridiculed by another person would like to stay even for a single minute in that persons house.So, from the entire evidence on record, it stands clearly established that appellant never ill-treated the children of the deceased brother of the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 78 of 119In his examination-in-chief, respondent has stated that in October, 1995, the appellant specifically told him that she cannot stand his father and he should be taken away out of the house.Even otherwise, during the period, his father was staying with him, the appellant misbehaved, insulted and humiliated him.So, inference has to be drawn against respondent on this count.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 84 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 84 of 119Moreover, respondent in his cross-examination has also admitted that after appellant left for Bangalore his father came to live with him.No.90/2007 Page 85 of 119In his affidavit, the respondent has corroborated these averments made in the petition.On the other hand, case of the appellant is that on 16th November, 1998, she was transferred to Bangalore.She never got herself transferred to Bangalore but in fact the transfer was in accordance with the policy of the Government and subsequently she was posted back to Delhi on 5th April, 2000 and even since then has been living peacefully with respondent under the same roof.Even while posted at Bangalore, she was visiting Delhi quite often to be with the family and there has never been any complaint MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 86 of 119 either on the part of respondent or herself during their previous posting from one place to another.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 86 of 119Further, it has been stated by the appellant in her affidavit that respondent was posted to Lakshadeep since 2001 but he continued to remain residing with her in the same house and kept visiting the matrimonial home every now and then.Appellant in her affidavit also stated that she never in order to demoralize and harass the respondent got herself posted to Bangalore but she would have preferred not to go but she was compelled to obey government orders.In fact she took the elder son Kanak with her to Bangalore.The trial court in the impugned order has held that the circumstances of this case suggest that it was a managed transfer.Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed this finding of the trial court that it was a managed transfer.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 87 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 87 of 119It has also alleged by the respondent in the divorce petition that the matrimonial life went on well after the marriage for another 10-11 years.From 1990 to 1998 the parties have been residing together, that is, for two years at Arunchal Pradesh and thereafter continued staying together for six years at Delhi, till the appellant was transferred to Bangalore.Though the relation between the parties became worse from 1990 onwards as per respondents MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 88 of 119 allegation, even then for 8 long years the parties stayed together and there is nothing on record to show that during these 8 years, that is, from 1990 till 1998, appellant made any attempt to get herself transferred to any other place, other than the place of posting of the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 88 of 119The mere fact that the appellant did not oppose the transfer or did not make any written representation for transfer to Bangalore, does not show that the appellant has managed her transfer to Bangalore.On the other hand, it appears that the transfer to Bangalore even if it was managed, it was for the welfare of the family because the elder son Kanak was taken by the appellant to Bangalore and if the transfer was managed one, then it is not clear as to how the appellant got back again posted in Delhi in a period of less than 1 years, that is, by 5th April, 2000 when MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 89 of 119 usually the transfers are effected for at least a period of three years.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 89 of 119Respondent in his cross-examination has stated that his son, was living in Bangalore with his mother (the appellant) who was posted there at that time.The fact that Kanak son of the parties was staying in Bangalore and he had remained there for three years, so there was nothing wrong if the appellant also got her posted at Bangalore and in that process she looked after her son who was studying in Bangalore.Moreover if the appellant had managed her transfer then why not any other city, except Bangalore.The fact that she was transferred to Bangalore goes on to show that it was for the welfare of the elder son of the parties and it cannot be said that there was anything wrong, even if the appellant has got herself transferred to Bangalore.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 90 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 90 of 119The fact that appellant was transferred back to Delhi in April, 2000 while her son stayed in the Bangalore till 2001, goes on to show that to stay at Bangalore was not in the hand of the appellant and appellant had to obey the transfer order passed by her department.Moreover, as per appellants case the respondent was posted to Lakshadweep Island since 2001, so can it be said that respondent also managed his transfer to Lakshadweep.When both husband and wife are in high posts in civil service, it is not possible for the government to accommodate both husband and wife, every time at one place.No.90/2007 Page 91 of 119The respective case of the parties on this issue is that, the appellant has locked the master bed room when she was transferred to Bangalore and nobody could use this room whereas, the appellant has denied this fact and has stated that she never locked this room.When there is oath vs. oath with regard to a particular fact then it becomes difficult to distinguish as to which person is telling truth and which person is telli ng lie.In these circumstances, the Court has to look for some independent evidence or corroborative material.Respondent in his examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of institution of the civil suit MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 92 of 119 No.247/99, the portion of point A, the bed room Ex.PW-1/DB was locked by the respondent when she was posted to Bangalore and remaining portion was utilized by her as and when she came to Delhi.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 92 of 119Neither in the petition nor in the affidavit of the respondent, there is a whisper about PW-2 V.K.Sharma or his wife, having been present at the time of this incident or the respondent having telephoned Sh.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 95 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 95 of 119PW-2 V.K.Sharma in his affidavit regarding incident dated 9th February, 1999 has stated as under;"That in the morning of 9.2.1999, I got a telephone call from Shri K.S.Mehra informing me that Smt.Vimla Mehra was in a very bad mood following some trivial incident and that she had called the police to book him under Section 498A IPC.I rushed to their residence along with my wife and we were shocked to see that Smt.Vimla Mehra was shouting at the top of her voiced and threatening him i.e. Shri K.S.Mehra and all his relatives that she would send them all to jail.I along with my wife pleaded with her that she should not take such a drastic step on such a trivial incident but to no avail.My wife then fell at her feet and with folded hands requested her to cool down.After lot of persuasion she cooled down only on one condition that Shri K.S.Mehra pay her Rs.2 lacs which he had borrowed from her in case he wanted his freedom and that in case he did not pay the money by that evening should would send him to jail.I, therefore, helped him by arranging Rs.50,000/- which I collected from several of my friends and Shri K.S.Mehra paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by evening and we all heaved a sigh of relief."MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 96 of 119Another witness examined by the respondent on this point is his brother PW-4 S.S.Mehra who in his affidavit has stated about the incident of 9th February , 1999 as under;"That my brother Shri K.S.Mehra informed me on 9.2.1999 that he had to give a sum of Rs.2 lacs to his wife as she was shouting at him that unless he paid her the money she would call the police and get Section 498A IPC invoked.He requested me to arrange the money from somewhere so that he could get his freedom.I could manage to collect Rs.50,000/- and send the money with my son Ajay Mehra to my brother on the same day with a heavy heart that such a day should come when a wife demanded money from the husband in lieu of his freedom."The appellant has denied the incident of 9th February, 1999 in its totality.In the petition as well as in the affidavit of the respondent, there is no mention of the fact that unless and until respondent pays Rs.2 lacs to the appellant she will not cool down and would not call the police.This story of Rs.2 lacs has been introduced by the MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 97 of 119 witnesses of the respondent in their affidavit as well as by the respondent himself in his cross-examination.This story of Rs.2 lacs as demanded by the appellant was nowhere pleaded at all by the respondent.So any evidence which is beyond pleadings cannot be looked into and as such there is no reason for this Court to waste time on this story of Rs.2 lacs as put forward by respondents witnesses.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 97 of 119Another interesting aspect is that respondent in his petition or in his affidavit nowhere states that he made a telephonic call on 9th February, 1999 to PW-2 V.K.Sharma informing him that the appellant is in a very bad mood and had threatened that she will call the SHO of the concerned area and will file false complaints against him.PW-2 V.K.Sharma has gone out of the way to support the respondent as he states in his affidavit that;MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 98 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 98 of 119"Sh.K.S.Mehra informed him that Smt.Vimla Mehra was in a very bad mood following some trivial incident and she had called the police to book him under Section 498-A IPC."It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant had called the police to book him under Section 498-A IPC.On the other hand, the case of the respondent himself is, that the appellant threatened him that she will call the SHO of the concerned area and will file a false complaint against himAnother interesting aspect is with regard to the statement of PW-4 S.S.Mehra who states that respondent informed him on 9th February, 1999 that he had to give sum of Rs.2 lacs to his wife and she was shouting on him that unless he paid her the money, she would call the police and get Section 498A IPC invoked and the respondent requested him to arrange the money from somewhere so that he can get his freedom.PW-4 states that he could manage to collect MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 99 of 119 Rs.50,000/- and sent the money with his son Ajay Mehra to his brother on the same day.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 99 of 119This story put forward by PW-4 S.S.Mehra about the receiving telephonic call from his brother and that respondent had to pay Rs.2 lacs to the appellant and PW-4 sent Rs.50,000/- through his son Ajay Mehra, has nowhere been pleaded either in the petition or in the affidavit by the respondent.On the other hand, respondent in his affidavit clearly states that "after his repeated request, the appellant was pacified." In the petition, there is no mention of Rs. 2 lacs as demanded by the appellant or sending of Rs. 50,000/- by the elder brother through his son to the respondent.So, the respondent as well as his two witnesses with regard to incident dated 9th February, 1999 have given different version and each one had put forward his story, which are beyond pleadings.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 100 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 100 of 119The facts remains that the PW-2 V.K.Sharma and his wife has visited the house of the parties on 9th February, 1999 and this fact has been admitted by the appellant also.No.90/2007 Page 101 of 119 taken place on 9th February, 1999, this incident cannot be taken to be a cruel act on the part of the appellant.Making complaint to the superior of the respondentMAT App.No.90/2007 Page 101 of 119No.90/2007 Page 102 of 119On the other hand, the appellant in para 19 of her affidavit by way of evidence filed on record has denied all the averments.However, in para 20 of the affidavit the appellant admits that she took appointment from the Secretary to the Government of India.The relevant portion of the para 20 of the affidavit of the appellant reads as under;"That I say that I took appointment from the Secterary to Govt. not to humiliate the latter as I care for the Petitioner and is solicitous of his well being.It was merely to use the intervention to sort out the differences as I was and still MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 103 of 119 remain desperately keen to save my marriage.The tension did ease thereafter.The Petitioner even promised to help me financially whenever the Respondent was in difficulty.Out life looked bright and sunny even at that time."MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 103 of 119In her cross-examination, the appellant states that it is correct that she met Shyamal Ghosh, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Textile, that is, the boss of respondent officially.However, she has denied that she told Shyamal Ghosh that respondent is a bad father and debouch.Appellant in her affidavit has stated that she sought the intervention of respondents Secretary to sort out the differences.Appellant has nowhere stated in her statement, as to what were the differences between the parties.So in view of the admission made by the appellant, it stands clearly established that she took appointment from the Secretary to the Government of India, who was admittedly the boss of the respondent.MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 104 of 119MAT App.No.90/2007 Page 104 of 119When appellant has admittedly met the Secretary to Govt. of India and has sought his intervention to sort out the difference between the parties, then the best witness with regard to the complaint made against the respondent was his Secretary.Since, appellant had met him first, so it was for the appellant to have examined this witness in support of her version.However, for reasons best known to appellant, she has not examined this independent witness to prove her version and as such inference should be drawn against her.No.90/2007 Page 118 of 119The appeal filed by the appellant stand dismissed.Parties are left to bear their own costs. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
33,372,197 | This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323, 341, 326B and 506/34 of the IPC in connection with Crime No.67/2016 registered at Police Station Surkhi, District Sagar.The complainant and victim have filed affidavits which were directed to be verified.Thus, considering the verification report and the affidavits filed by the complainant and victim, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on bail.On due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it proper to grant bail to the applicants namely Anil and Kapil.They be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of JMFC concerned or CJM for their appearance in the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during the trial.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,327,407 | The instructions received by Mr. Ali, learned advocate for the State from the Inspector-in-Charge, Bidhannagar (North) Police Station reveal that the investigation of Bidhannagar (North) P.S. Case No.299 dated 22.10.2011 under Sections 498A/506/34, Indian Penal Code has been entrusted to the Detective Department, Bidhannagar for further investigation and that some time would be required to complete the same. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,032,744 | This is the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 15.3.2010 passed bythe Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Azamgarh, in Criminal Case No. 1720 of 2008, State Vs. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
103,275,330 | 2.The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed degree in Bachelor of Computer Applications course in Kaleeswari College.He belongs to schedule caste community and he fell in love with one J.Anusiya, aged about 20 years, residing in the same locality who belonged to a dominant community.Their relationship was opposed by the parents of the said J.Anusiya and thereby, the parents of the said J.Anusiya have harassed the petitioner.However, they have eloped and they got married at Murugan Temple situated at Thiruthangal.On the next day, the petitioner along with his wife had visited his uncle to disclose the marriage and his uncle had produced them before the police officials attached to Peraiyur Police Station.Despite the petitioner informing the police officials that both of them are majors and are legally eligible to get married, the police officials attached to the Peraiyur Police Station without heeding theirhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 words, called the parents of the J.Anusiya to the Police Station and they got signature from the said J.Anusiya in a blank white sheet and handed over the custody of the said J.Anusiya to her parents and sent her along with her parents and thereafter, on 11.12.2019, J.Anusiya came back to the petitioner's house and both of them again surrendered before the Virudhunagar West Police Station.The police officials attached to the Virudhunagar West Police Station, conducted an enquiry and they also called the family members of the said J.Anusiya and once again the said J.Anusiya was handed over to her parents.3.Further it is submitted that since both of them belong to different communities, the petitioner apprehended that his wife J.Anusiya would be killed in the name of “Honour Killing”.Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the first and second respondents to give appropriate security to his wife and also give police protection to him and his family members.Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking police protection.4.When the matter was listed on 10.12.2019, one Mr.J.Jayakumaran, learned counsel appeared before this Court onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 behalf of the third respondent, even without any notice being sent to the third respondent.He submitted that the girl is staying with her parents on her own volition and there was no marriage at all.She informed that she got married to the petitioner on 06.11.2019 at Murugan Temple situated at Thiruthangal out of her own will.Further, fearing disturbance from her parents, she along with the petitioner and his uncle had surrendered before the Peraiyur Police Station on 07.11.2019 and had sought for protection.Whereas the Peraiyur Police had called her parents and after enquiry, they had compelled her to go along with her parents.Thereafter, once again, she had come to the petitioner's house on 11.12.2019 and once again, they had appeared before the Virudhunagar West Police Station and the police officials attached to the Virudhunagar West Police Station had also enquired and once again, her family members had taken her from the police station against her will.She also informed that she had completed her Diploma in Electricalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Engineering and that her parents are holding her certificates and her computer.55.2.5 The initial inquiry regarding the complaint received from the couple (bachelor- bachelorette or a young married couple) or upon receiving information from an independent source that the relationship/marriage of such couple is opposed by their family members/local community/Khaps shall be entrusted by the District Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police to an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.He shall conduct a preliminary inquiry and ascertain the authenticity, nature and gravity of threat perception.On being satisfied as to the authenticity of such threats, he shall immediately submit a report to the Superintendent of Police in not later than one week.55.2.6 The District Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such report, shall direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police incharge of the concerned sub-division to cause to register an F.I.R. against the persons threatening the couple(s) and, if necessary, invoke Section 151 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall personally supervise the progress of investigation and ensure that the same is completed and taken to its logical end with promptitude.In the course of investigation, the concerned persons shall be booked without any exception including the members who have participated in the assembly.If the involvement of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 members of Khap Panchayat comes to the fore, they shall also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or abetment, as the case may be.55.3.3.The State Governments shall create Special Cells in every District comprising of the Superintendent of Police, the District Social Welfare Officer and District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer to receive petitions/complaints of harassment of and threat to couples of inter-caste marriage.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 55.3.4.These Special Cells shall create a 24 hour helpline to receive and register such complaints and to provide necessary assistance/advice and protection to the couple.12.It is made clear that the petitioner and the said J.Anusiya are majors and capable adults who have taken decision on their own choice.They belong to different communities.A duty is cast on the police authorities to ensure the safety of the couples and give protection.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the official respondents to provide adequate Police protection for the petitioner and his family members for leading a peaceful life based on his representation dated 02.12.2019 made through the official website of the respondents.5.At the same time, the second respondent also produced the file containing letter stated to be written by said J.Anusiya, wherein it was stated that since she was reprimanded by her parents for chatting in phone and watching TV for long hours, she left home without informing anybody to the petitioner's house and later coming to know that she was being searched by the police, she was produced by the uncle and mother of the petitioner before Thiruthangal Police Station and that she is going back with her mother on her own accord.6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the girl J.Anusiya had made a video call to the mobile phone of the petitioner, wherein she had stated that she has been kept under illegal detention against her will by her parents and that they are making arrangements to get her married to some other person against her wishes and he displayed the recording of the video call in the open Court with the permission of the Court.In the video call, the said J.Anusiya had stated that she had been detainedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 against her wish by her parents and that they are taking steps to get her married to some one else.7.This Court, entertaining suspicion with regard to the letter produced by the second respondent, directed the second respondent to produce the victim girl before this Court today.8.The matter was taken up for hearing today at 2.15 p.m at the chamber.This Court enquired the said the victim J.Anusiya.She expressed her desire and willingness to go along with the petitioner, whom she had married.The victim J.Anusiya also informed this Court that while she was enquired in the police station, she was compelled by the officials belonging to her community to leave the boy and go along with her parents.9.This Court also entertains doubt with the documents that have been produced by the Thiruthangal Police.The Police officials attached to the Peraiyur Police Station without conducting proper enquiry and without understanding the consequences, had handed over the custody of the girl to the parents.Only thereafter, on 08.11.2019, a complaint has been obtained from the mother of the said J.Anusiya.The said J.Anusiya has made serious allegations against certain police officials belonging to Peraiyur and Thiruthangal Police Station.The Deputy Inspector General, Madurai Range is directed to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the erring officials.13.With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.11.12.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gns/skn Note: Issue order copy on 25.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 12 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., gns/skn1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18458 of 2019 | ['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits