id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
10,327,930 | Learned counsel for the parties at the outset has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 27-01-2017 passed in MCRC No.374/2017 by which the proceedings in respect of Crime No.269/2016 have been quashed by the learned Single Judge.In another case which was in respect of plot No. F-201 this court in MCRC No.374/2017 vide order dated 27-01-2017 has quashed the criminal proceedings.The order passed by the Coordinate Bench reads as under :-"This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of First Information Report concerning Crime No.269/16 registered at Police Station - Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, with regard to offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.It is found that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner Dinesh Kumar Mathur and four other persons namely, Manoharlal, Ashok, Gopal and Krishna Singh and S.T.No.5017/16 is presently pending before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratlam in this regard.Allegedly, the woman, who had submitted application for mutation was not real Nirmala Bai rather she impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai and after mutation, executed forged power of attorney in favour of the complainant and thus cheated him.The case of the prosecution is that broker Ashok Kumar Dahiya conspired with some lady and officials and employees of Housing Board, Ratlam including the petitioner to carry out mutation of entries with regard to the plot belonging to Ramkishan Sukhdev and that the application for mutation which was submitted by some lady, who impersonated herself as Nirmala Bai.The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he was part of the conspiracy and that he, while permitting mutation of the record in the Housing Board, did not properly verify that the applicant lady was real Nirmala Bai.The charge-sheet has been filed with regard to the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.To constitute an offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, it must be established that a false document was prepared within the meaning of Section 464 of IPC, which runs as under :-Making a false document.Therefore, from the charge-sheet even after accepting all the allegations made therein, the offences alleged against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC are not at all made out.Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.Ch, Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC Page 604, has clearly held that if even after accepting all the allegations and the material with the charge-sheet, necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offence(s) are not available, then it will be in the interest of justice to quash the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M. Cr. C. No.3181/2017 (Dilip Kumar & Anr.State of M. P.) -4- proceedings/charge-sheet else it will result in lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused.In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case for quashment of FIR in Crime No.269/16 P.S.Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Mathur.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for quashment of the proceedings.However, the fact remains that in identical circumstances in respect of identical set of facts a co-ordinate Bench of this court has quashed F.I.R., which was also against the officer of the M.P. Housing Board.Resultantly, the present petition also stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2018.03.05 16:22:17 +05'30' | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
103,280,211 | This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.190 of 2019 on the filehttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.6827 of 2020 of the Inspector of Police, Team XI, Bank Fraud Investigation, CCB II, Chennai 600 007 insofar as the petitioners are concerned.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.190 of 2019 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 34 and 109 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.190 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.23.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.6827 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, Team XI, Bank Fraud Investigation, CCB II, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.6827 of 2020 23.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
10,328,025 | This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.304/17 registered at Police Station Mandleshwar, district Khargone for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N),344 & 506-B IPC and u/s , 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAs per prosecution story between 27.9.17 & 28.9.17 the applicant kidnapped the prosecutrix and committed rape on her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence.The statement of the-2- M.CR.C NO.27436/17 prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded in which she has not made any allegation regarding commission of rape against the applicant.In her statement she has specifically stated that she has gone with the applicant on her own will.As per medical report no internal or external injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix.The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed in the matter, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)C.c as per rules.DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, Kumar postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=297e891894a3c0a72fe336 151e45300982d99410547d92f39d7 Nair bb69ecedcaf7c, cn=Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2018.01.12 00:58:56 -08'00' | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
10,328,205 | Shri Prem Singh Bhadoria, learned counsel, for complainant/Sakal Manorath Pathak.On due consideration, the documents filed on behalf of applicant Deepak Singh @ Phunti Jadon vide Document No.1219 of 2018 are taken on record.Both the M.Cr.Cs have arisen out of one and the same crime number of the same police station, and therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and proposed to be decided by this common order.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.These are the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.1257/17 registered at Police Station Kotwali Morena against them for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506-B of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 12.12.2017, at about 4 a.m complainant Sakal Manorath Pathak lodged the FIR that in the night of 11.12.2017 at -2- about 9.30 p.m near Shevron Hotel Morena, applicants namely Ravi Sharma and Deepak Singh @ Phunti Jadon and four unknown persons assaulted his brother Shailesh Pathak.Applicant Ravi Sharma gave a lathi blow on his head with intention to kill him and applicant Deepak Singh @ Phunti Jadon gave a blow of iron rod on his mouth.Their unknown associates committed marpeet with him with lathis.As a result, his brother Shailesh sustained serious injuries on his person and became unconscious, on the spot.He submits that upon the report of applicant Deepak Singh @ Phunti Jadon, the police registered a cross case at Crime No.1259 of 2017 against the complainant of present case Sakal Manorath Pathak and his brother/injured Shailesh Pathak for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 336 and later added 325 IPC.He submits that injured Shailesh Pathak had been discharged after treatment and that he is presently hale and hearty.He submits that the complainant party and the accused party have been entered into compromise in the present case and the counter case.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge Rks.R. K. SHARMA 2018.02.06 14:36:57 +05'30' | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
103,284,280 | Appellant Balveer is said to have been assaulted by the respondents and for the same they were prosecuted for an offence under Sections 326 read with Section 34, 295 and 506 - II IPC.By the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in Sessions Trial No.170/2010 the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 326 read with Section 34, 294 and 506-II of IPC but they have been convicted for causing simple injury under Section 323 of IPC.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the detailed finding recorded by the Court below so also on considering the medical report with regard to injury sustained by the complainant Balveer (appellant herein), it is clear that on medical examination it was found that the appellant 2 Cr.A. No.1932/2012 Balveer was drunken at the time when the incident took place and the finding is that he instigated the entire fight. | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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. |
1,032,843 | The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appealscan be stated as follows:(i) All the accused persons belonged to K.Karisalkulam within thejurisdiction of the respondent police.On 27.2.2005, the deceased in theinstant case, murdered the younger brother of the first accused.Pursuant tothe charge sheet filed, the case was tried by the Court of Sessions, Tuticorin,in which, he was acquitted.Accused No.6 is Accused No.1's brother's wife.The deceased and PWs.1 to3, who were the residents of Kazhagumalai, came to Karisalkulam on 16.1.2007 andthe deceased was just standing in front of his house at 14.00 hours.At thattime, all the Accused viz., A.1 to A.5 armed with aruvals came along with A.6,with a common object of causing the death of the deceased.In furtherance ofthe common object, A.1 to A.5 and at the instigation of A.6, all of them viz.,A.1 to A.5 indiscriminately attacked the deceased.The entire occurrence waswitnessed by PWs.1 to 3 who are the mother, wife and brother-in-law of thedeceased.He died on the spot.(iii) PW.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a compliantEx.P.1 to PW.17, who was in the Police Station and on the strength of thecomplaint Ex.P.1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.13/2007 underSections 147, 148, 302 r/w 109 of the IPC.Express FIR Ex.P.26 was despatchedto the Court.(iv) On the complaint of A.6, a case came to be registered by the verysame Police Officer in Crime No.14/2007 under Section 324 of the IPC.The FIREx.P.27 was also despatched to the Court.These appellants,stood charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track CourtNo.2, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.234 of 2007 whereby they were found guilty andawarded punishment as follows:-(v) Both the case in Crime Nos.13/2007 and 14/2007 were taken up forinvestigation by the circle of the Inspector of Police PW.18, proceeded to thespot, made an inspection of the place of the occurrence in the presence ofwitnesses and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.The place of occurrence was photographed through PW.10 and photographswere marked as Ex.P.13 (Series).Inquest was conducted on the dead body of thedeceased by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses and theInquest Report was marked as Ex.All the witnesses were examined and thestatements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the place ofoccurrence, the Investigating Officer recovered the bloodstained cement floorpiece MO.9 and unbloodstained cement floor piece MO.10 and other MaterialObjects were recovered under the cover of Mahazar.(vi) Following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to Post Mortem byDoctor PW.11 and he issued a Post-Mortem Certificate which was marked as Ex.P.15wherein he has described that the deceased would appear to have died due toshock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained, prior to 12 to 18 hours.(vii) Pending investigation, on 18.1.2007, A.6 was arrested and she wassent for judicial remand.On 22.1.2007, A.4 was arrested from the Hospitalwhere he was taking treatment.The other accused surrendered before theJudicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil and on an application made by theInvestigating Officer, all of them were given police custody.A.1 gaveconfessional statement and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.6.A.2's admissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.A.3'sadmissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.Equally,A.5's admissible part of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.P.9.Pursuant to the respective confessional statement, each one accused producedone aruval and they were recovered under the cover of respective mahazar.(viii) Accident Register Copy in respect of injury of A.4 was marked asEx.TheObservation Mahazar in the case in Crime No.14/2007 was marked as Ex.Theinvestigator who laid charge sheet in Crime No.13/2007 against these accused,and also a juvenile accused whose case was split up, referred the case in CrimeNo.14/2007 as a mistake of fact.(ix) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed afinal report.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessarycharges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 18 witnesses and relied on 32 Exhibits and 17 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused werequestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of theaccused.DW.1 was examined on the side of the defence and Exs.D.1 to D.6 weremarked.The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either side andon considering the materials available on record, took the view that theprosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts in respect of thecharges levelled and found the accused guilty of the charges and awardedpunishment as referred to above and hence appeals at the instance of theappellants/accused.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the accused/appellants, thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit as follows:-(i) The prosecution has miserably filed to prove its case.It is claimed by the prosecution that thecase was registered at 6.00 p.m., if to be so, there was no impediment forregistering the case which was given by A.6 but it had been purposefully delayedand it was registered at about 10.45 p.m.,(ii) The learned counsel taking the Court through the evidence of PW.1would submit that, admittedly, Ex.It isalso admitted that the son-in-law of PW.1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police whoseassistance was also taken by PW.1 at the time of giving the complaint and thus,it would be quite clear that the legal brain was actually behind drafting of thecomplaint and the complaint was given in order to suit the case and as per thedesire of PW.1, roped the entire family members of the accused in the instantcase.(iii) Admittedly, PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased belonging to Kazhagumalaiand that on the date of occurrence, they had come to the place viz.,Karisalkulam where the occurrence took place and that they were the aggressorsand the fact that they were the aggressors could be seen from the fact that A.4was injured.Accident Register Copy in respect of A.4 was marked as Ex.It was thoroughly false and thus, the prosecutionsuppressed how the injury caused to A.4 that was actually fatal to theprosecution case.(v) The occurrence was taken place at 4.00 p.m., but the case wasregistered in Crime No.13/2007 at about 6.30 p.m but it reached the Court verynext day at 9.00 a.m, and for such huge delay, the prosecution had noexplanation.According to the constable who took the FIR, he proceeded tohand over the same to the Judicial Magistrate at Sankarankoil and since he wason leave, he was to take the same to the other Judicial Magistrate and handedover the same.Thus, the explanation tendered through the constable cannot besatisfactory in view of the huge delay that had been caused.It hadbeen provided in such a way to suit the prosecution case and thus, theinvestigation was biased and interested in favour of PW.1 since PW.1 had aPolice Officer as a relative.(vii) Since the Prosecution Witnesses were the aggressors and there was abiased investigation, Ex.Hence, the trial Judge though marshalled the evidence, took a wrong decision andhence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.It is not in controversy that one Balamurugan was done to death in theincident that took place at about 4.00 p.m., on 16.1.007; following theincident, a case in Crime No.13/2007 came to be registered by the respondentpolice and investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer and afterconducting inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.11,who has given his opinion that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhagedue to the injuries sustained.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants/accused, PWs.1 to 3 were examined as eye-witnesses.Accident Register Copy was also marked asEx.P.24 and he was also examined by the very same Doctor.In the absence of the common object, the accused have to be dealt withindividually.Insofar as the injuries noted in the Post-MortemCertificate Ex.The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellantsthat the eye-witnesses and the deceased were the aggressors, in the consideredopinion of the Court, cannot be countenanced.He was acquitted but they were on inimical termsand on the day when they came to the field, the occurrence had taken place.Inthe instant case, it cannot be stated to be an unlawful assembly and the accusedacted in furtherance of the common object of committing the crime.The periodof sentence already undergone by Accused Nos.2 to 6 are directed to be givenset off.It is represented that the Accused Nos.2 to 5 are in jail for more thantwo years.If it is so, the Superintendent of Central Prison concerned isdirected to act accordingly.The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellant/sixthaccused in the case and commit her to the prison to undergo the remaining periodof sentence, if she has not served the sentence as imposed by this Court.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Tirunelveli.2.Inspector of Police, Panavadalichatram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.13/2005)3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High court, Madurai. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
103,287,448 | The appellants are original accused 6 and 7 respectively (“accused 6and 7”, for brevity).Accused-6 is the husband of accused-7 and accused-5is their daughter.The deceased had givenan amount of Rs.71,500/- to Baban Devlate because Baban Devlate hadpromised to give job to his brother-Vijay.Baban Devlate had given acheque of Rs.50,000/- to the deceased and told him that if the job is notgiven, he may deposit the cheque and get the money.Baban Devlate, his wife and children refused togive back the amount.The deceased was, therefore, disturbed.(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the order dated27/03/2012 passed on Criminal Application No. 15/2012 and order dated04/05/2012 passed on Criminal Application (App.) No. 533/2012 in CriminalApplication No. 15/2012 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.As Vijay did not getthe job as promised, the deceased deposited the cheque in the bank.Thecheque was dishonoured.It isfurther stated by the complainant in the complaint that accused-5 Sadhya-wife of the deceased did not want to stay in the matrimonial house.Shewanted the deceased to separate from his parents.Accused 6 and 7 used tothreaten him and tell him that they would ask their daughter to set herselfon fire and then lodge a false complaint against him and members of hisfamily under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).According to the complainant, on 31/12/2011 the deceased had gone toJaulka for duty.No one was in the house except his son Vijay.Accused-5told him that she was unwell and, therefore, she wanted to go to thehospital.She requested Vijay to drop her at her parent’s place atMurtizapur.Accordingly, Vijay dropped her at her parent’s place and cameback.On 04/01/2012 the deceased came back from his duty.He found thataccused-5 had taken away the entire jewellery with her.Due to this thedeceased was extremely disturbed.On 05/01/2012 he left for Jaulka to joinhis duty, however, he did not return.He could not be contacted on phone.Atthe Police Station he came to know that at Chala, which is adjacent toDavha Nalah, the deceased had hanged himself on a tree after consumingpoison.Pursuant to the complaint Crime No. 3/2012 wasregistered against accused 5, 6, 7 and other accused under Sections 306,420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.On 12/01/2012 accused 5, 6 and 7 filed an application foranticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (forshort, “the code”) in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Washim.On 23/01/2012 ad-interim anticipatorybail order was confirmed.Being aggrieved by the said order, thecomplainant preferred an application before the High Court for cancellationof anticipatory bail.By the impugned order learned Single Judge cancelledthe bail order, hence, these appeals by special leave.In his view, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not focus hisattention on the fact that the complainant was being forced to withdraw thecomplaint and that he was being threatened by the accused.He was furtherof the view that since there was an allegation that gold ornaments worthRs.2,50,000/- were stolen by the accused and that the investigation as atnascent stage, the custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary.Learned Single Judge felt that grant of anticipatory bail was an improperexercise of discretion.In the circumstances, he quashed the saidanticipatory bail order.We have heard, at some length, Ms. Anagha S Desai, learned counselappearing for the appellants-accused and learned counsel appearing for theState.The deceased was also stated to be disturbed becauseBaban Devlate had not returned Rs.71,500/-.The allegations that accused-5had taken away gold ornaments, that accused 5, 6 and 7 caused harassment tothe deceased and that the accused had threatened the deceased arefarfetched.Anticipatory bail once granted ought not to have beencancelled in such light manner.Counsel for the State on the other handsupported the impugned order.At this stage, we do not want to express any final opinion on themerits of the case.There is no reference to them in the FIR.Assuming, thesuicide notes to be genuine, we find it prima facie difficult to believethat accused 6 and 7 would threaten their son-in-law that they would asktheir daughter to set herself on fire and then lodge a complaint againsthim, particularly, when admittedly at the relevant time their daughter waspregnant. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,085,926 | The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.10.2003 complainant Om Prakash (PW-1) lodged the FIR to commit loot and murder of his wife Smt. Ashadevi by unknown persons.It is said that he had gone to Mahoba for some work of Gram Panchayat alongwith one Mahendra Singh Yadav.While he left the home, his wife, children and his servant Vimal (present appellant) were at home.When he was coming back in the evening at 7.00 pm, Manoj Mishra and Mahipat Tiwari met and told somebody had murdered his wife whereupon he 2 alongwith them reached at home and saw his wife lying dead on floor.It is also seen that there was electric wire rounded on her neck and bleeding from her mouth.When he saw the almirah of the room, Rs.34,800/- cash and 16 items of jewelery of his wife having value of approximately Rs.1,25,000/- were missing.It is said in the FIR, the half lunch was prepared, however, the incident may be of about 1.00 pm.In case the articles would recover, he will identify them, with the said description, the report was lodged by the complainant alongwith Mahendra Singh Yadav.(26/05/2017) Per: J.K. Maheshwari, J This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.10.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Naogaon, district Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 12/2004 convicting the appellant for the charge under Section 302, 394 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be called IPC in short) and directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ten years for remaining two charges with fine of Rs.1000/- for each charges and with default stipulation.The police completed the investigation and on the next day the accused/appellant was arrested.Upon interrogation, he disclosed about the looted articles, which were seized on his information.On completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the competent Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The trial court framed the charge under Section 302, 394 and Section 449 of the IPC.The accused abjured his guilt and demanded for trial putting his defence of false implication because the complainant was having doubt on the character of deceased and also taken the insurance policy in her name, however, to get the insurance claim, complainant himself committed murder of his wife.Learned trial court relied upon the statement of Om Prakash (PW-1), who had last seen the accused at his home alongwith his wife and children while he was going to Mahoba, PW-2 Manoj Kumar Mishra, who informed the complainant regarding death of his wife, Autopsy Surgeon Dr. J.P. Tiwari who performed the autopsy alongwith his team accompanied by Dr. K.P. Tripathi and Dr. R.K. Khare and proved the postmortem report Ex.P/23 and the statement of Investigating Officer G.L. Singh (PW-14).The trial court also relied upon the testimony of Radhika Prasad (PW-4), witness of the seizure of knife, Dhanendra Kumar Vyas (PW-4), witness of seizure of articles and K.L. Kori (PW-8) who conducted 3 the test identification parade of the property on receiving the information from the police.The court has also considered the statement of PW-5 Mohan Singh, who is the witness of the seizure of clothes and Krishnakant (PW-10) taken photos and produced its negatives as per Ex.Considering the statements of the witnesses and looking to all the circumstances finding to prove the commission of offence is recorded convicting the appellant for all the charges and directed to undergo the sentence as described above.Learned counsel representing appellant has strenuously urged, that no iota of evidence to have doubt for commission of the offence was on accused.It is said the FIR may have written after seizure otherwise it was not presumable that complainant/husband may give description of the looted ornaments specifying the individual description with weight.The ornaments seized have not been brought in evidence before the court to prove the seizure and identification thereof in Court.As per the report of the FSL Ex. P/27, 'F' is the undergarment of the accused on which the blood stains were found, but the report do not disclose that the blood is similar to the stains found on the bed-sheet marked as 'E', H3 is petticoat and H4 is the body of deceased.On other articles A, H1, H2, D and G the blood was disintegrated, however, it is opined that even on the articles E, F, H3 and H4 the result is inconclusive.In such circumstances, the prosecution has not proved the commission of offence bringing circumstantial evidence completing the chain.It is urged that said circumstances may be looked into the context of defence of appellant, that complainant was having doubt on the character of the deceased who with intent to take the insurance claim insured her and committed murder, in the backdrop, his earlier wife was also died under the suspicious situation.After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the facts of the case it reveals that complainant Om Prakash (PW-1) lodged the FIR on 15.10.2003 alongwith Mahendra Singh Yadav at 7.30 alleging that he received information at about 6.00 pm while short of 10 kms to Naogaon from Manoj Kumar Mishra regarding commission of murder of his wife at home, however, reached at the place of occurrence, and seen body of his wife lying on the floor.On ascertaining the articles which were looted lodged the FIR at 7.30 pm in the Police Station Naogaon.The first suspicion comes in our mind is the looted ornaments of wife described in the FIR are 16 in number, but the description with weight of looted ornaments may not possibly be known to any of the husband, but with ascertained version in a short-while lodged the FIR.The material brought on record indicates, that appellant was connected due to recovery of those articles.It is not a case of prosecution or of the complainant that complainant was having doubt on the appellant under which he was interrogated.But, on the next fine morning to the date of incident without any basis appellant was picked up by police, and recorded his memo for recovery of looted articles.Nothing is available on record to suspect the residence of the appellant in the house of the complainant, and may commit the loot and murder of Smt. Asha Devi.Thus, looking to the aforesaid facts, arguments 5 advanced by the counsel for the appellant, that after seizure of the ornaments the FIR has been lodged having much substance, however, the first circumstance not proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.The ornaments seized from the appellant though supported by seizure witnesses, and identified by the complainant, but it has not been produced before the court to prove the seizure, and its identification.However, the circumstance connecting the appellant for commission of the offence as brought in the case which may be incriminating against him has not been proved by the prosecution before the court.In absence of bringing the seized property before the court to prove it by seizure witness and its identification the next circumstance has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt.The other incriminating circumstance stands against the appellant is that on his undergarment blood stains were found which co-relate with the FSL report.On perusal of the FLS report, it describes that undergarment of the appellant has been marked as 'F'. 'E' is the bed-sheet, H3 and H4 are the petticoat and the body of the deceased.The report says human blood was found, but in result as opined it is inconclusive.On the other articles seized from the spot, the blood was insufficient and disintegrated.Thus, looking to it, the circumstance which may complete the chain of commission of offence is also not established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it may be observed that while proving the case of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt the possibility explored by the trial court in the impugned judgment in paragraph 20 and 21 proving the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is not in accordance to law.It is not clear that he visited at which place at Mahoba though on ascertainment of the boundaries through NET the boundary of Mahoba starts from three kilometers from Naogaon while the city is about 50 kilometers from one route and 35 kilometers from other route.The complainant came back at 6.00 pm in the evening and when he was 10 kilometers away from his home Manoj Kumar Mishra (PW-2) intimated him about murder of his wife.He stated in his testimony that appellant intimated him in the night at 1.30 AM that wife of complainant got electric shock.The time of incident is in between 8.30 am morning to 6.00 pm and as per the FIR it is about 1.00 pm in the noon.However, the intimation given by Manoj Kumar Mishra (PW-2) of commission of the offence on receiving the information in the night at 1.30 pm prima-facie do not co-relate it to the statement complainant.The witnesses of Naksha Panchnama PW-3-Jugal Kishre Vashishta and PW-4-Radhika Prasad are of not much relevance.The seizure witness of the clothes Mohan Singh (PW-5) which were sent for FSL examination is also of no relevance, because the FSL report is inclusive.Dhanendra Kumar Vyas (PW-6) is the witness of seizure of ornaments alongwith Surya Prakash (PW-7), who may depose the seizure of the looted ornaments if produced before the court to prove the seizure of the same ornaments.Similar is the position of identification of the seized property, but because the looted ornaments were not brought before the court however seizure and identification of the looted ornaments have not been proved in Court.The other witnesses Krishnakant Gubrele (PW-10), Vijay Verma (PW-11) and Lalman (PW-12) relates to seizure of certain clothes, that too is not of much relevance in view of the inconclusive FSL report.The autopsy surgeon Dr. J.P. Tiwari (PW-13) though proved the postmortem 7 report Ex. P/23 proving cause of death, but it would not be sufficient until the commission of murder is proved bringing the circumstances to prove the guilt of charge under Section 302 of IPC, which is conspicuously missing in the present case as described above.In the said context, if the defence put by the accused/appellant is visualized, though denied by the complainant, but looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case it seems relevant in the context.Therefore, as discussed hereinabove, it can safely be concluded that the chain of circumstances to prove either commission of loot of ornaments or murder of Ashadevi has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt bringing cogent evidence however, the finding of conviction and sentence, as directed by the trial court is unsustainable in law.In view of foregoing discussion, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,380,920 | Factual senario according to the prosecution is as follows :Around mid-night of 9.5.1978, dacoity was committed in the house of P.W.I,during which deceased was murdered.Along with accused persons, severalothers numbering 8-9 had forced into the house of Ramai.The othersbelong to the neighbouring village i.e. Gangupura.Four of them wereidentified by Ramai and other witnesses at the spot itself.Though dacoitywas committed, the primary object was to commit murder of the deceasedsince he had once objected the marriage of Tarawati, the sister of accused-Suraj Pal with accused-Babu and this had caused bad blood between the two.Accused-Babu had even lodged the First Information Report against deceasedcharging him with theft soon after his marriage with Tarawati which tookplace despite opposition by the deceased.Accused-Babu and Lala Raminflicted injuries with their respective firearms on the deceased andaccused-Babu stabbed the deceased as a result of which injuries weresustained by him.The informant was sleeping near the main gate of thehouse and was awakened by cries of the deceased and entered the house.Accused-Suraj Pal shot at Ramai with the intention of causing his death.This resulted in gunshot wounds to Ramai who was also beaten by othervictims.JUDGMENT2003 Supp(3) SCR 1079The Judgment of the Court was delivered byARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : The four respondents were accused of having causedhomicidal death of Munshi Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),committing dacoity and attempting to commit murder of Ramai (PW-1).Thoughthe IV Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty of several offences andconvicted and sentenced them, the High Court found them innocent by theimpugned judgment and directed their acquittal.Thereafter they decamped with certain properties.Written report(Ex.He was sent to the Public Health Center for medical examinationand the investigating officer reached the village.On completion of the investigation, charge sheetwas placed and accused persons were sent for trial.They pleaded innocence,and false implication.To further the prosecution version 9 witnesses wereexamined.Apart from PW1 who claimed to be eyewitness, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8and PW9 also claimed to be eyewitnesses.But PWs 2, 4, 8 and 9 resiled fromtheir statement during investigation while deposing in court.The TrialCourt found the accused-Babu, Suraj Pal and Lala Ram guilty for offencespunishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 148, Section 323 readwith Section 149, and Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short'IPC').Accused-Natthu was found guilty for offence punishable underSection 302 read with Section 149, 147, Section 323 read with Section 149and Section 395 IPC.Accused-Suraj was acquitted of charge relating to theoffence punishable under Section 307 IPC.They were sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 149 IPC but no custodial sentence was imposed for the rest ofthe offences.The accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court.By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed acquittal.The primaryreason for doing so was that the evidence of Ramai (PW1) could not berelied upon.Widow and daughter of the deceased had not supported theprosecution case.Additionally, it was observed that there was no materialto show as to how the prosecution witness could identify the accusedpersons, as there was great doubt about the source of light.High Courtnoticed that in the site plan, the place where the gaslight was found hadnot been indicated though same was stated by prosecution to be the sourceof light.Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court hasproceeded on mere surmises and conjectures and has not considered theevidence on record.It was specifically stated by the witnesses that theidentification was possible because of the torchlight used by the witnessesand the gaslight.In any event, accused persons are known to the witnessesand, therefore, even with minimal light identification is possible.Theconclusions were termed to be arbitrary.In response, learned counsel forthe accused-respondent submitted that the evidence was elaborately scannedby the High Court and it was noted about the improbability of identifyingthe accused persons.Further the prosecution verson is rendered unreliableparticularly when the widow and the daughter did not support theprosecution version.A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment goes toshow that its approach was rather casual and no effort was made to analysethe evidence.It is to be noted that the High Court did not examine theevidence of PWs 1 and 3 with the required care.Great emphasis was laid bythe High Court on the fact that in the site plan place where gaslilght wasfound had not been indicated.The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that omission toindicate the location gaslight in the site plan was fatal. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,093,517 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 1.7.2014 relating to Crime No.361/14 registered at Police Station Chourai, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.There was no relation of the applicants with the deceased so that the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.According to the allegations that the deceased Jileram had outrage the modesty of the applicant No.1 and therefore, a Panchayat was called and in that Panchayat, the deceased was declared hostile and he was directed to deposit some fine.Thereafter, it is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the deceased by slippers and shoes and therefore, he committed suicide.The allegations made against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of the IPC and therefore, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicants.They are unnecessarily kept in the custody.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,093,573 | This is first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 sh of the Cr.P.C., who has been arrested on 03/05/2018 in connection with Crime No.163/2004 registered at Police Station Bargi, District e ad Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 336, 452, 506/34 of IPC.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for rt compliance.ou C.C. on payment of usual charges.C h (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) ig JUDGE H Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2018.06.20 16:48:37 +05'30' as | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,097,896 | In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station- Basoda Shahar, District- Vidisha in connection with Crime No.651/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 21/10/2019, when co- accused Rajkumar was passing through the agricultural field of Shivraj (deceased) driving a Tractor, then complainant and Shivraj stopped him.At that time, some altercation took place between the applicant alongwith co-accused and complainant.On that, applicant inflicted lathi blow on the head of Shivraj, due to which, Shivraj fell down on the ground and become unconscious.Thereafter, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR \ M.Cr.The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking before the concerned court that he will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,381,001 | 100 from Ramjee Sharma and also obtained a wrist watch from Ramjee Sharma.It is not clear why the wrist watch was handed over by Ramjee Sharma to the applicant.ORDER Seth, J.The applicant, Harish Chandra, has been convicted of an offence under Section 419, Penal Code, on the following facts found by the Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, which have not been disputed before me.He met Deonath Tewari, the station master of that railway station and represented to him that he was Marketing Inspector, that Lalganj and Deogaon were within his circle and that he could help the station master in getting cloth.He also suggested that he was going that way and would like to hand over the cloth if the station master sent a man with him.Believing these representations the station master called a pointsman, named Ramjee Sharma, and handed over Bs. 100 to the pointsman with the direction that that sum might be given to the applicant on receipt of cloth.Another person, named Jaggan, who was working as a pointsman in the same railway station, believing in the representations made by the applicant banded over a sum of Rs. 9 to the applicant in order to get cloth.The applicant along with Ramjee Sharma boarded an ekka and reached the Shop of one Raghunandan at Deogaon.The applicant then told Ramjee Sharma that if he also entered the shop of Raghunandan, he would not get the cloth.On this representation he obtained the sum of Bs.Possibly it was due to some farther representation made by the applicant to Ramjee Sharma and a desire on the part of Ramjee Sharma to get some cloth for himself also.The applicant disappeared with the money and the watch received by him and Ramjee Sharma, in spite of efforts, could not get hold of him.On these facts the applicant was convicted by the trying Magistrate under Sections 419 and 420, Penal Code, both.On appeal his conviction under Section 419, Penal Code, was maintained, but his conviction under Section 420, Penal Code, was set aside on the ground that he had already been convicted under Section 419, Penal Code.100 from him.In my opinion, therefore, the applicant by deceiving Deonath Tewari, fraudulently induced him to deliver a sum of Bs.100 to Ramjee Sharma. | ['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,110,902 | The same has attained finality.As per prosecution story, on 19.01.2009, the deceased Kamlesh went to his in-laws with his uncle Hazarilal, brother Mukesh situated at village Sandavata.Due to some dispute regarding bringing his wife back to his house, deceased brother- in-law Jitendra slapped him and father-in-law assaulted Kamlesh with a hammer, due to which Kamlesh fell down and blood was oozing.Hazarilal and Mukesh ran away from the spot.Thereafter, Mukesh tried to contact his uncle Gangaram but, unable to contact him and they went to village Boda and narrated the whole incident to Gangaram and others.The injured Kamlesh was taken to Chhapiheda Hospital by the Police, whereafter primary treatment and looking to his serious conduct as per High Court of Madhya Pradesh 2 Cr.Appeal No.1272/2010 (Bhagirath s/o Devilal Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.,) exhibit P/11, he was referred to Rajgarh, and further to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where on 20.01.2009, he died during the treatment.This Criminal Appeal at the instance of convict, Bhagirath under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.139/2009 by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur (M.P.).The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of IPC and thereby sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause.The appellant has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 302/34, however, the State has not preferred any appeal against such acquittal.On the basis of information given by one Ms. Sandhya Prajapati, initially marg was registered at crime No.0/09 and the same was duly registered as FIR at crime No.12/09 at Police Station Chhapiheda in respect of alleged incident dated 19/01/2009 for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC against the accused/appellant.The investigation was carried out.Spot map was prepared vide exhibit P/8, The injured was sent for medical treatment to Primary Health Centre, Chhapiheda.The MLC Dr. Kailash Narayan Bilware (P.W.8) found the following injury:(i) Stab wound with bleeding one margin shape and other lacerated 2 cm x 2 cm x 4 cm at the (not clear) 3 rd and 4th rib of left side of chest by sharp weapon within 24 hours.After symptomatic and (not clear); referred to District Hopsital, Rajgarh.Looking to his serious condition, he was further referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.During the course of treatment on 20/01/2009 the injured died.On the basis of Marg No.0/28/09 (exhibit P/15), the FIR (exhibit P/19) at crime No.36/09 was registered at Police Station Chhapiheda against the appellant on 06.02.2009 for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC.Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (P.W.7) conducted post mortem (exhibit P/9) and short report vide exhibit P/10 has found various High Court of Madhya Pradesh 3 Cr.Appeal No.1272/2010 (Bhagirath s/o Devilal Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.,) injuries and opined that death was caused due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury.Injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object.Duration of death is within 24 hours of the post mortem.The Sessions Judge while carefully analyzing the evidence of eye-witness has found that there is consistency in the statements of P.W.2 Mukesh, P.W.9 Hazarilal and P.W.13 Mahesh.On account of overwhelming evidence of occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused/appellant, naksha panchnama, seizure memo, spot map, etc., [exhibits P/2, P/7, P/8], MLC report (exhibit P/11), post mortem report (exhibit P/9), post mortem short report (exhibit P/10) and evidence of MLC Dr. Kailash Narayan Bilware (P.W.8) & Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (P.W.7) as well as the FSL reports (exhibits P/22 & 23), the trial Court has concluded that the accused/Bhagirath caused injury by hammer resulting into death of the deceased, Kamlesh.Accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the appellant while criticizing the judgment has raised three-fold contention, firstly; there was delay in lodging the FIR, secondly; there was no explanation forthcoming for the injuries caused on the accused and thirdly; the Sessions Judge has committed grave illegality having relied upon the evidence led by cited eye-witness, i.e.,P.W.2 Mukesh, P.W.9 Hazarilal and P.W.13 Mahesh being thickly related with the deceased, Kamlesh while concluding that the appellant committed murder of the deceased.An alternative submission has also been put-forth by the learned counsel that the accused and deceased closely related and since the incident occurred all of sudden on account of some petty issue and the appellant was not having any intention to kill the deceased, and therefore, at the most the case would rest High Court of Madhya Pradesh 4 Cr.Appeal No.1272/2010 (Bhagirath s/o Devilal Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.,) under the ambit of Section 304 Part - II IPC.The appellant in jail since 04/10/2010 and has undergone about eight and half years of the sentence including the period he was in jail during trial from 12/02/2009 to 20/04/2009 (02 months 07 days), there is no previous criminal conduct of the appellant, the appellant was in service as Lineman and aged about 50 years at the time of incident, hence, his future will be spoiled in the midst of harden criminals inside the jail and, therefore, prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor and the learne counsel for the objector/complainant have supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited.The injuries on the person of the accused have not been duly proved.We shall now advert ourselves to the alternate submission put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant.It is borne out from the testimony of the eye-witness and other attending circumstances that the incident had occurred all of a sudden on account of some petty dispute of taking away his wife by the deceased from his in-laws house.The hammer used in the commission of the offence and gave a single blow on the head of the deceased in the heat of passion as a result he fell down and succumbed to the injuries during treatment.Appeal No.1272/2010 (Bhagirath s/o Devilal Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.,) 300 IPC are found proved in the instant case.Thus, according to us,the appellant was not having any intention to kill the deceased and it appears that the incident was occurred all of a sudden in the heat of passion.There was no pre-meditation and pre-plan to kill the deceased and therefore, at the most the present case would rest under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, because there was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased but, he was having knowledge that by his act, the deceased may die.Thus, we accordingly hold that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, Therefore, we hereby alter the conviction of the appellant from section 302 to section 304 Part-II IPC.With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced by trial Court referred hereinabove.No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution.The appellant has remained in the custody for about eight and half years.The alleged incident took place on 19/01/2009, i.e., about ten years back.As such, the ends of justice shall be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal in part.The conviction and sentence of the appellant, Bhagirath are substituted from section 302 to section 304 Part-II IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of deposit of fine he has to undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment.Since appellant has already undergone about eight and half years of sentence, he is sentenced to the period already undergone in the jail custody.The amount of fine, if not, deposited earlier be deposited within a period of two months from today, in default thereof, the defaulting clause will come into play.The appellant, Bhagirath is in custody, he is set at liberty High Court of Madhya Pradesh 6 Cr.Appeal No.1272/2010 (Bhagirath s/o Devilal Prajapati Vs.The Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment immediately along with the record to trial Court, for necessary compliance. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,114,081 | 1 .2018 owed b.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 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,114,251 | Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was registered after four days of the incident on 23.02.2019 against the applicant for the alleged act of enticement of his daughter.The girl was eventually recovered on 23.02.2019 itself and the victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. self explanatory whereby she has stated that there was no sexual assault was made by the applicant upon he by the applicant.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into account the age of the girl and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Sarfaraz @ Chhote @ Sahil be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 63 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
138,114,996 | were forcibly trying to draw overhead lines over her residential house.When the petitioner objected, she and her family members were assaulted and were also threatened of dire consequences.The petitioner, accordingly, lodged a complaint before the respondent no.3 on 13th of June, 2018 but the police authorities did not take any steps.The learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that previously there was a dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents and on the basis of the complaint lodged, the police authorities initiated a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to 2 ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility.Subsequent thereto, a further complaint was lodged by the petitioner which has been treated as F.I.R and Shyampur Police Station Case No.352 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018 under Section 447/ 325/ 354B/ 379/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code has already been registered and investigation is in progress.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,876,136 | 1 7 13.02.2019 AB Court 28 C.R.M. 1074 of 2019 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chanditala P.S. Case No.528 of 2018 dated 3.12.2018 under Sections 143 341/448/427/323/325/307/354B/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Bivas Dolui & Others ...Petitioners.Mr. Sanjib Mitra ...for the Petitioners.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations which involve infliction of grievous injury on some of the victims who were hospitalized and in view of the predominant role played by petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the alleged crime, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.The prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner nos.1 and 2 is, accordingly, rejected.However, in view of the extent of complicity of the petitioner nos.3 to 7 in the alleged crime, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.Presence of Investigating Officer is noted and dispensed with.The application for anticipatory bail is partly allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 | ['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,738,858 | Most of the facts in this appeal are not in dispute.The accused was residing at village Kawadgaon within the jurisdiction of Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station in Kaji Taluka of Beed District along with his wife named Vatsalabai (since deceased) and four children, the eldest of them being a girl named Chaya (P.W. 8).Their house was situated in Maharwada locality of the village and Rukminibai, who is the mother of the accused, was residing separately but near his house.Rukminibai used to work as an agricultural labourer for earning her livelihood.The deceased Vatsalabai also used to work on wages in the fields since prior to the date of incident.For some time prior to the date of incident, the accused was not doing any work and consequently there used to be dispute between the accused and his wife.According to the story of the prosecution, on the date of incident, which was 12th December, 1980, Vatsalabai had gone to work in the field of Baliram.The accused went to the field Baliram some time in the noon and told his wife that she should come to the house since her brother had come.Vatsalabai, therefore, came to the back to the house along with the accused.The accused then asked Vatsalabai to give him food, but she expressed her inability to do so since there was no grain in the house.The accused then asked Vatsalabai to go to the house of his mother and procure the grain from her, but Vatsalabai refused to do so.This enraged the accused, who dragged Vatsalabai into the house and felled her down on the ground.He then picked up a knife and caused injury to the neck of Vatsalabai with that knife.The woman died instantaneously.The accused on seeing the death of his wife pierced the same knife in his stomach which resulted in serious injury and he also fell down on the ground.This was noticed by the girl Chaya who was playing along with her brothers near the house.When she saw that her parents were lying in a pool of blood, she immediately rushed to her grandmother Rukminibai and told her that the accused had injured her mother as also herself.Rukminibai then returned to the house and she was raising shouts while coming in the house of the accused.One Govindrao (P.W. 5), who was sitting near the Maruti temple followed Rukminibai to the house of the accused on hearing her shouts and he saw that Vatsalabai was dead but the accused was alive, although his intestines had come out of the injury.On his request the injury on the stomach of the accused was bandaged by Rukminibai.The accused heard this talk and he asked Govindrao to save him after telling him that he had inflicted injuries to his wife and also to himself.Govindrao then asked one Yeshwanta to inform the Police Patil, but the latter was not present in the house.Shivaji Pawar (P.W. 3), who is the brother of Police Patil, was returning from his field and when he learnt that the accused had caused injury to himself and also to his wife, he went to the house of the accused to make inquiry.Head constable attached to Bansarola outpost managed to send this complaint to the Police Station at Yusuf Wadgaon.In the meanwhile, as per instruction from the Police, Shivaji put the accused in a bullock cart and brought him to Bansarola Outpost.He was then referred the Medical Officer since it was a serious injury.Dr. Deshmukh (P.W. 1) referred the accused to the Medical College Hospital at Ambajogai where he was examined by Dr. Laulkar (P.W. 4).The accused was then referred to the surgeon for operation and necessary operation was performed on him and he was in hospital for some days.JUDGMENT G.M. Khandekar, J.The investigation was taken over by P.S.I. Gazi Mohammed (P.W. 12), who then went to the spot and drew the inquest report about the death of Vatsalabai.The dead body was then sent to the Medical Officer for autopsy and the knife was seized at the spot at the time of Panchnama.After completing the investigation, the police put up a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate.First class at Karj for offences mentioned in paragraph 1 above.The learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand his trial in the Sessions Court at Beed.The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge for offence under sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, to which he pleaded both guilty.He however, conceded that Vatsalabai was working in the field of Baliram, that he had gone to the field of Baliram to call her, that Vatsalabai returned to the house along with him and that he had asked her to give food to him which she was unable to do.He also did not dispute that the injury to his stomach was inflicted by him.He, however, claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case so far as murder of his wife was concerned.The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all in the lower Court to prove its charge, out of whom Chaya (P.W. 8), a girl aged about 10 years, was the only eye-witness to the incident.Rukminibai (P.W. 2).Govindrao (P.W. 5) and Vithal (P.W. 6) were examined on the point of extra-judicial confession of the accused.Dr. Deshmukh (P. W. 1) held autopsy on the corpse of Vatsalabai and he referred the accused to the Medical College Hospital at Ambajogai.On considering all this evidence on record, the learned Session Judge found the prosecution story proved and accordingly convicted the accused in respect of both the offences and sentences him to various terms of imprisonment as mentioned in paragraph 1 above.As observed above, Chaya was an eye-witness to the incident and three witnesses have spoken in respect of the extra-judicial confessions of the accused.This evidence was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge.S.C. Bora, learned Counsel for the appellant, did not dispute before us, in view of the evidence mentioned above, that the appellant, was responsible for the death of his wife.He only challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and asserted before us that this was a case falling within the ambit of section 304, part II of the Indian Penal Code, since there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause murder of his wife.The evidence shows that the accused had called his wife from the field though under a wrong pretext, but he had done so in order to ask her to provide food to him.When he was told by the deceased that there was no grain in the house, the accused asked her to bring some grain from the house of his mother, but she declined to do so.It is at this stage that the accused got annoyed with his wife and he dragged her inside the house, felled her down on the ground, sat on her chest and cut her neck.There is no dispute about the injury, which is found on the person of the deceased, as also the fact that the she met a homicidal death.Shri Bora, learned Counsel for the appellant, streneously argued before us that in the circumstances mentioned above, the accused could not have intended to cause an injury to trachea and thereby to cause the death of his wife.He also canvassed before us that the accused himself felt repented when he saw that suddenly death of his wife had occurred and by way of repentance, he pierced the knife in his stomach.In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, , which was relied upon by Shri Bora on behalf of the appellant, the accused had given a blow with a dagger which landed in epigastrum area and the victim succumbed to the injury. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,738,910 | (a) PW-1 Settu is the cousin brother of the deceased Shankarand they belong to a village called Nayakaneri.PW-2 Settu is also a relationto the deceased, who belongs to the village called Virupachipuram.(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 19.9.1994 night,PW-1 and the deceased went in a two-wheeler TVS 50 moped, to Vellore with anintention to witness a movie.The theatre was full by the time they reachedand hence they could not get tickets.Thereafter, they went to the hotel ofPW-8 Easwaran at 9.45 p.m. to take their dinner.By the time they come out,it was 10.00 p.m. The deceased started the two-wheeler and before he couldproceed, all the three appellants/ accused and one Ramesh (who diedsubsequently) came near and switched off the moped.Then A-1 demanded fromthe deceased Shankar to pay mamool of Rs.5,000/- and for which the deceasedreplied that he is not having money and that he would pay him the next day.Then the accused asked the deceased and PW-1 to follow them.The deceased'stwowheeler was driven by accused Suresh, in which the deceased and PW-1 sat.In the other two-wheeler, the other three accused came.Then all of themproceeded to a mango thope near T.K.M.College.(c) After reaching there also A-1 demanded the deceased to payRs.5,000/- and deceased expressed his inability to pay.All the four accusedencircled the deceased and PW-1. A-1 beat the deceased with log on the rightshoulder and left leg; A-2 and A-3 beat the deceased on the back.When PW-1attempted to save the deceased, A-1 and another accused Ramesh beat him on hisright hand elbow and right leg; the accused Ramesh beat on the right leg; andA-1 on the head.All the accused thereafter encircled the deceased and beathim and this episode went on nearly for half an hour.A-1 then cut thedeceased with a knife on the back side of both the legs and on the back sideof the head.The deceased fainted and fell down.(d) PW-1 then tried to take the deceased in his moped, buthowever, he could not.The deceased was then made to lie on the floor.PW-1proceeded to a place called Paraimedu and informed PW-2 and again proceeded toNayakaneri along with PW-3 and informed the mother of the deceased.Thereafter Pws.1 and 3 went to the hospital at Vellore when he came to knowthat the deceased had already been admitted there and in a dangerouscondition.(e) PW-15 Dr.The Doctor admittedthe deceased in MS-II ward and gave him treatment.P-8 is the woundcertificate issued by PW-15 Doctor.In the said certificate, the Doctor notedfive injuries, out of which four are lacerations and one fracture on the leftforearm.The Doctor foundhim conscious and well oriented.(g) The deceased Shankar was then shifted to C.M.C. Hospital,where he died.Thereafter the deceased was brought back to the GovernmentPentland Hospital.(h) PW-21 was the Head Constable at the relevant time attachedto Vellore South Police Station.At about 3.00 a.m. on 20.9.1994, hereceived an intimation from the Government Pentland Hospital and immediatelyhe proceeded there.He found that the deceased was unconscious and hence nostatement was recorded from him.Subsequently at 5.30 a.m. he receivedanother intimation about the admission of PW-1 and he went to the hospitalagain and recorded the statement of PW-1 between 5.40 and 6.20 a.m andobtained his signature therein.PW-21 came back to the police station and onthe basis of the said complaint Ex.P-1, he registered crime No.1087 of 1994under Section 302, 325 and 3 23 I.P.C. and prepared printed F.I.R. Ex.P-21 along with Ex.P-1 was sent to the Judicial Magistrate and copies tohis superiors.(i) PW-23 Inspector of Police was at the relevant timeattached to Vellore North Police Station and was in additional charge of SouthPolice Station as well.On 20.9.1994 at about 7.30 a.m., when he was in theNorth Police Station, received information by telephone and proceeded to theSouth Police Station and obtained copy of express F.I.R. Then he rushed tothe Government Hospital along with the photographer and reached there at about8.15 a.m. The Photographs of the body of the deceased was taken in differentangles.He held inquest over the body of the deceased between 8.30 a.m and11.30 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-26 inquestreport.Thereafter, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements.TheInvestigating Officer then proceeded to the scene of occurrence and afterinspecting the same, prepared Ex.P-2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-27 sketch inthe presence of witnesses.At the scene of occurrence, he seized bloodstained banian MO-7, blood stained Logs Mos.1 and 2, Ordinary log MO-3 andanother log MO-4, blood stained earth MO-8 and ordinary earth MO-9 underEx.P-3 Mahazar in the presence of witnesses.Then he formed a special squadto trace the accused.He sent necessary requisition to the Doctor to conductpost mortem.(j) PW-16 Dr.Baskaran was, at the relevant time, working inGovernment Pentland Hospital, Vellore.Stomach contained semi digested rice material.Liver, spleen, kidney normal.Skull: Sub apomeuratic haemotoma left parieto occipital region with massivesubdural haematoma left parieto occipital region.Spine: Normal.Hyoid Bone normal."The Doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemotoma and due to head injury to both lungs and death would have occurred 8to 12 hours prior to post mortem.(k) On 23.9.1994 evening at about 5.00 p.m. the InvestigatingOfficer arrested A-3 near Bagayam bus stand.On arrest A-3 gave a voluntaryconfession statement and offered to produce the blood stained cloth and theadmissible portion of the said statement is marked as Ex.The admissibleportion has been marked as Ex.At about 8.15 p.m. on 28.9.1994, A-1took the police party and witnesses to his house and produced MO-5 Scooter TVJ8404 and also MO-6 knife and the same were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-29.On 30.9.1994 at about 6.30 a.m. A-2 by name Ramesh @ Burma Ramesh wasarrested in Shashtri Nagar in Swaminathapuram.The appellants/accused are acquittedof all the charges framed against them.The appellants/accused are directedto be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in connection withsome other case.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Vellore(Crime No.1087 of 1994)The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District.The District Collector, Vellore.The Director General of Police, Madras.The above three appellants/accused faced trial in S.C.No.5 of1998 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore.Charges 1, 2 and5 under Sections 341, 364 and 324 respectively are against all theappellants/accused.The prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses,marked Exs.P-1 to P-30 and produced Mos.1 to 15 in its endeavour to establishits case.The learned Sessions Judge found A-1 to A-3 guilty under Section341 and 364 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo one month AND three yearsR.I. AND imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- each; A-1 was found guilty under Section324 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. AND Lifeimprisonment AND imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-; A-2 and A-3 found guilty underSection 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonmentAND imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.Pursuant to the requisition Ex.P-12received from the Inspector of Police, he commenced post mortem at about 3.45p.m.P-13 is the post mortem certificate issued by him.Inthe said certificate, the Doctor had noted various injuries so also what hefound on internal examination.We extract the relevant portion from the saidcertificate hereunder,"External Injuries:A lacerated wound 4 x 2 cm x bone depth fracture left leg.A lacerated wound right leg 4 x 2 x bone depthA lacerated wound left parietal bone 4 x 4 x bone depth.Fracture forearm left contusion 4 x 4 cm.A lacerated wound right upper arm 1 cm x 1 x 1 cm.Internal ExaminationThoraxFracture rib 3 to 6 right side with haemo thorax 300 M.L. with laceration oflung.Fracture rib 3 to 7 left side with haemo thorax 200 ml with lacerationlung.Abdomen: No haemo (n.c.).The accusedthen took the police party and witnesses and produced Mo-12 full hand shirtand the same was seized under mahazar Ex.P-7 in the presence of witnesses.On28.9.1994, at about 4.30 p.m. the accused Ramesh and A-1 were arrested nearthe foothill at Sivaramapuram.A-1 on arrest gave a voluntary confessionstatement and offered to produce the Scooter as well as knife.(l) The Investigating Officer then sent necessary requisitionto the Court to send the material objects for necessary chemical analysis.(m) PW-24 Inspector of Police succeeded PW-23 and continuedthe investigation.PW-24 examined witnesses including Doctors and recordedtheir statement.Ex.P-25 is the serologist's report.When questioned under Section 313 of Code of CriminalProcedure, all the appellants/accused flatly denied having taken part in thecommission of crime.According to them, they have been falsely implicated inthe case and that they are innocent.That the deceased died of homicidal violence is amplyclear from the medical evidence placed before the Court.The Doctor has deposedbefore the Court that pursuant to the requisition Ex.TheDoctor noted as many as five external injuries, out of which four arelacerated wounds.The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear tohave died of shock and haemotoma and due to head injury so also injuries toboth legs and the death would have occurred about 8 to 12 hours prior to postmortem.The Doctor has further testified that the fracture of ribs on bothsides and corresponding lungs could have been caused by beating on the saiddead person with weapons like Mos.1 to 4 and that all the injuries are antemortem.In the cross examination only one question was put to the Doctor toelicit that there was no injury on the spine and on the back of the deceased.The case of the prosecution as spoken to by PW-1 is to theeffect that the deceased is his cousin brother and on the fateful day, theywent to Vellore in TVS 50 in the night with a view to witness a movie (secondshow) and by the time they reached the theatre, all the tickets were sold outand that thereafter they went to a hotel, had dinner and by the time they cameout, it was 10.00 p.m. He has further testified that all the three appellantsalong with one Ramesh came there and A-1 demanded from the deceased a sum ofRs.5,000/- by way of mamool and for which the deceased replied that he has nomoney at that time and he would pay the same the next day.The further caseis that the accused Suresh started the vehicle of the deceased and thedeceased and PW-1 were asked to sit behind him.The appellants/ accused camein their two-wheeler.All of them went to a mango thope near T.K.M.Collegeand after reaching there, again A-1 demanded Rs.5,000/- from the deceased andwhen the deceased expressed his inability, encircled both the deceased andPW-1 and the deceased was attacked by the accused with logs.When PW-1 wentto prevent them, he was also attacked.After beating with log, the deceasedwas also attacked with knife on both sides of the neck so also on the head.The deceased fell down unconscious and the accused left the place leaving thelogs, but however taking the knife.Thereafter, PW-1 tried to take thedeceased in his two wheeler but he could not do so.Then he made the deceasedlie down on the floor and went to Paraimedu and told PW-2 about the occurrenceand thereafter went to Nayakaneri along with PW-3 to inform the mother of thedeceased.After so informing, both of them went back to the hospital wherethe deceased was admitted and to PW-21 Head Constable, who came to thehospital, a complaint was given.The deceased, who was admitted already, diedshortly thereafter.While PW-2 would state that PW-1 had only toldhim that himself and deceased were beaten by four unknown persons, PW-3 hasdeposed that PW-1 had told him about the attack but he did not mention thename of the assailants.Pws.2 and 3 thus, have not supported the prosecutioncase and they have been treated as hostile witnesses.Among the materialobjects seized, only the cloths of the deceased and blood stained earth thatwas taken from the scene of occurrence were found to contain human blood 'A'group.Now, the question for consideration iswhether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.Coming to the present case, according to PW-1, after thebrutal attack by the accused, he tried to take the deceased in his twowheeler,but he could not succeed.Aperusal of the same would further show that PW-1 was conscious and welloriented.PW-1 later on was examined at the hospital by PW-21 HeadConstable attached to South Police Station, Vellore and a statement wasrecorded between 5.40 a.m. and 6.20 a.m., that is to say, about one hourafter PW-15 Doctor treated him.The statement has been marked as Ex. P-1.In the said statement, he has mentioned the names of all the four accused.Itis not known as to how PW-1 could mention the names of all the accused toPW-21, when just one hour before he had told the Doctor that the assault wasby four unknown persons.Further, in the cross examination, PW-1 hasanswered that he told the Doctor that he was beaten by only known persons.PW-15 Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore certainly could nothave any reason or motive to mention wrongly.We also examined Ex.P-10 and wefind the entire certificate had been written by the Doctor himself.Thus,there is material contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 himself as to whetherhe was attacked by known persons or unknown persons.In the said complaint, which is theearliest statement, PW-1 has mentioned clearly about the various overt acts bythe accused.In the said complaint, he has stated that in the mango thopealso A-1 asked the deceased to give money and the deceased expressed hisinability to pay the money and thereupon A-1 threatened him with a knife.Further recital in Ex.P-1 is to the effect that each of the accused tooksticks that were available on the ground and that A-1 beat the deceased on theright shoulder and on the right hand; Ramesh beat the deceased on the leftshoulder and right hand; the other Ramesh and Babu beat the deceased on theback and thereafter, all of them encircled and beat him indiscriminately.PW-1 went there to prevent the deceased, when the former was attacked on theleft elbow, right hand, left shoulder and right side of the head.Finally,A-1 stabbed the deceased on the back side of the head and again cut thedeceased on both the legs and the deceased fell down.Thus, according toPW-1, the accused apart from attacking the deceased with sticks all over thebody, A-1 attacked the deceased thrice with knife.The said weapon was seized under mahazar Ex.P-29 wherein the weapon hasbeen described.As per the description, the total length of the knife is 56cms.and the blade porti mentioned as 43 cms.The deceased was first seen byPW-15 Doctor and the original wound certificate has been marked as Ex.Inthe said certificate, it could be seen that the Doctor has noted fourlacerated wounds and one fracture on the left forearm.P-13 is the original post mortem certificate.In the said certificate also the Doctor has noted only those five injuries.PW-15 Doctor in the cross examination has clearly stated that there was noinjury on the back of the head.The absenceof cut injuries on the back of head so also on both the legs of the deceased,would belie the prosecution version that the deceased was attacked by A-1 withweapon like MO-6 knife.In fact, the two attesting witnesses, who have signedthe recovery mahazar relating to MO-6, have turned hostile.Thus, theprosecution version relating to the overt acts by the accused does not seem tobe acceptable.The case of the prosecution is that first the deceasedwas taken to the hospital by PW-2 and others in an auto-rickshaw and theyreached at 2.30 a.m. and Pws.1 and 3 went to inform the mother of thedeceased and they could come to the hospital only at 4.30 a.m. This versionof the prosecution does not appear to be true for the following reason.PW-9is the Driver of the auto-rickshaw.Of course, he has turned hostile.But ifwe look at the cross examination by the State, a suggestion has been put tohim that he told the Police at the time of investigation that he took both,the deceased and PW-1 to the hospital at the same time to the hospital.Wecannot ignore this piece of evidence available before the Court.A serioussuspicion arises in the mind of the Court and it is very likely that PW-1 andthe deceased went to the hospital by 2.30 a.m. in the morning and that hasbeen suppressed before the Court.The Doctor saw the deceased at 2.30 a.m. and he wassemi-conscious at that time as could be seen from the certificate.In thesaid certificate it is mentioned as follows, "... Accompanied by Settu 25/M for report at to certain injury saidto have been caused on 20.9.1994 and alleged to have been seen with injury anddelirious stage at 2.00 a.m. on 20.9.1994 mango field, college road,Sankaranpalayam, Vellore."The deceased was taken to the hospital by Settu as could be noted from thecertificate.PW-1 has clearly deposed in his cross examination that heinformed PW-2 Settu about the attack by the accused,"bts;is (v) nrl;Ltplk; ngha; vjphpfs; 4 ngUk; r';fiu jhf;fpaij brhd; nd;;."According to PW-1, it was only thereafter PW-2 went to the scene of occurrenceand the deceased was taken to the hospital.If that is so, PW-1 would haveonly told the Doctor that he was attacked by four known persons.Ex.P-8 Woundcertificate mentions, "Alleged to have been seen", which would suggest thatnobody saw the attack on the deceased.Probably a doubt arises that it wasonly because of that in Ex.P-8 it is not mentioned as to whether the deceasedwas attacked by known persons or unknown persons.This is yet another doubtarises in the mind of the Court, for which we do not find any answer.Coming to the remaining piece of evidence viz., theevidence of PW-7, we are considering it only to reject it.This witness hasstated that at about 11.00 p.m. on the fateful day, when he was near thePonniamman Koil, the accused were standing and talking to the effect that whenthe deceased was demanded money by A-1, he refused to pay and that he was cut.According to the prosecution, it was all the accused, who caused the murder ofthe deceased and when that being so, where is the question of their talking toeach other.This court can understand that all the four of them told somebodyelse that they have finished off the deceased.This we have no hesitation todescribe this witness as a total lier.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.Theconviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Vellore by his Judgment dated 29.12.2000 inS.C.No.5 of 1998 are hereby set aside.The Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,895,378 | (Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The petitioner is the detenu viz., Narayanan @ Undiyal Narayanan @ Thellanthi Narayanan, S/o.Kochuraman, aged about 70 years.The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 09.07.2019 under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as “Goonda”.Challenging the same, the petititoner/detenu is before this Court in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.We have also perused the records carefully.2/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.791 of 20193.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 24.07.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz., Narayanan @ Undiyal Narayanan @ Thellanthi Narayanan came to the adverse notice in the following five cases:-Name of the Police Station Section of Law No. and Crime No.Manavalakurichi Police 457 and 380 IPC Station Cr.No.11 of 2017Eraniel Police Station Cr.No. 457 and 380 IPC 256 of 2017 3 Puthukadai Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.87/2019 4 Karungal Police Station 379 IPC Cr.No.146/2019 5 Karungal Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Cr.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention raised a ground that the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority, the Government as well as to the Advisory Board.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has accepted this ground 4/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.791 of 2019 that the detaining authority has failed to forward the representation made to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board.Under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the detenu is having a right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the Advisory Board, but his valuable right of making a representation has been deprived of in this case.Hence, on this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order in P.D.NO.26/2019 dated 24.07.2019 is quashed.The detenu, namely Narayanan @ Undiyal Narayanan @ Thellanthi Narayanan, aged about 70 years, S/o.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.6/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.791 of 2019 P.N.PRAKASH J AND B.PUGALENDHI, J RR Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.791 of 2019 Dated: 19.03.2020 7/7http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,898,582 | By the judgment and order impugned, the Learned Trial Court convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and to imprisonment for seven 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month for offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 19-04-2008 one Brij Behari Shaw lodged a missing diary before the officer-in-charge, Bhawanipore Police Station to the effect that his son Abhisekh Shaw aged about 11 years and a student of class VII in Adarsh Hindi High School at Ramgarh, Kolkata went to school at about 12:00 noon for his examination and after appearing for his examination, did not return home.At about 10:20 PM, the complainant's neighbour Pritam Singh received a phone call asking him to call Chanda Shaw, the elder daughter of the complainant and when Chanda took the call, she was informed over telephone that her brother would return home the next morning in lieu of some ransom.On 20.04.2008, the missing diary was treated as First Information Report and Bhowanipore Police Station Case No. 101/2008 was registered under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC).The investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and another namely Subodh Maity after completion of investigation, under Section 364A/120B of the IPC.Charge was framed against the four accused persons under Section 364A/120B of the IPC and upon the substance of accusation being read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Upon consideration of the entire material on record as well as argument canvassed on behalf of the accused persons and the State, the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 27-08-2013 and 29-08-2013 acquitted accused Subodh Maity from the offence alleged and convicted the petitioners.The petitioners preferred three separate appeals against the said judgment and order before this Court and in disposing of the said appeals, a co-ordinate bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court for recording statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment and to take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence already available on record in addition to the statement of the appellants recorded in course of such examination.In compliance with the said judgment, the Learned Trial Court recorded statement of the petitioners under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in addition to the statement already on record and proceeded to write out a fresh judgment dated 17-08-2017 and 18-08-2017, convicting the appellants.The appellants reiterated the exercise of coming up in the present appeal against the said judgment before this Court and in the course of hearing the appeals, this Court observed as follows:- "It is trite law that the trial Court while conducting the proceeding upon remand ought to scrupulously comply with the directions given by the appellate court.This having not been done in the present case, we are of the opinion that further questions with regard to the demand of ransom money over telephone for releasing P.W. 2 and holding out threats to cause death of P.W. 2 in case of non-payment of ransom money ought to have been placed to 5 the appellants during their examination." This court directed the trial Judge to hold further examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the aforesaid issues and place the same before this Court for adjudication of the appeals.Accordingly such questions were put to the accused while examining them further under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the records were placed before this court for adjudication.It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the case requires to be remanded back to the trial court for a third time as the Trial Court failed to afford any option to the appellants while examining them under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to adducing evidence in support of their defence.Upon such option being given by this court to the appellants, learned advocate submits that the appellants do not intend to adduce such evidence.Therefore, scope for further examination of the appellants on that score does not arise.It is further submitted by the appellants that the ransom call allegedly made by the appellants was not proved by calling for the call details with regard to the telephone number which transpired in course of investigation.It is a fact that seizure and verification of the relevant call register would have come to the aid of the prosecution in establishing the ransom call.However, the evidence of the de facto complainant (P.W.1), the victim boy (P.W.2), Gopal Das (P.W.3), Chanda Shaw (P.W.4) and Chandan Singh (P.W.5) which has passed the test of rigorous cross-examination depicts a clear and unambiguous picture regarding the demand and payment of the ransom amount.These witnesses unanimously stated that the kidnappers demanded ransom for release of the victim boy over telephone.The victim's sister was informed about the ransom on 6 19.04.2008 and on the following day an amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded through a phone call received by Chandan Singh.The ransom amount was carried to the kidnappers by the de facto complainant and Gopal Das, following which victim Abhishek Shaw returned home.Therefore, omission to seize or produce the call register can be termed as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency which does not strike at the root of the prosecution case, moreso, as demand and payment of ransom have been substantiated by the evidence on record.The entire prosecution case cannot be diluted on such count.Thirdly, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellants who collected the ransom amount were seen from the top of the bridge by the de facto complainant and Gopal Das and it is improbable that such miscreants could be identified by them.It is evident from the record that the de facto complainant identified appellants Anil Kumar Jha and Raj Kumar Rabi Das as the persons who received the ransom.Gopal Das also identified all the appellants as the alleged miscreants who kidnapped the child on the relevant date.A portion of the ransom was recovered from the possession of Anil Kumar Jha and Manash Dey.So there remains not an iota of doubt with regard to the identification of the appellants who collected the ransom.The State supported the judgment impugned and submitted that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment impugned does not suffer from illegality or irregularity.The earlier appeals preferred by the appellants before the co-ordinate bench of this court were disposed of and the order of conviction and sentence were set aside partially to the extent of examination of the appellants with regard to demand of ransom over telephone, holding threats to cause death of P.W.2 in case of non-payment of the amount and partial recovery of ransom money.The remaining portion of the judgment which forms the entire body of the judgment was affirmed as is implicit in the judgment itself.In compliance with the direction of this Court, the appellants were examined further under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and no new stance was taken by the appellants in course of such examination which calls for further deliberation upon the legal as well as factual aspects of the case reflected in the earlier judgment of this Court.The factual scenario of the case rests on the evidence of the victim boy himself as well as other witnesses.The victim Abhishek Shaw who was a 12 year old boy and a student of Class VII at the relevant time stated that while returning from his school after 3:00 PM, he was taken by a boy in a motorcycle towards Hazra under a bridge where he was handed over to another boy who took him near Rahul Hotel at Hazra.The earlier boy with the motor bike came there with another boy and the boy with the motor bike left the place.The victim was taken to a room by the other two boys in a taxi and confined there.In the next morning, the victim was shifted to another place where he was allowed to speak to his uncle Uttam Shaw over mobile phone handed over to him and the miscreants also demanded ransom through the phone for his release.P.W. 2 further contended that two of the boys went to collect the ransom and the 3rd boy remained with him.On receipt of a call about 3:45 PM in his mobile phone, the 3rd miscreant 8 boarded the victim in a bus and allowed him to go home.The victim admittedly did not raise any alarm when he was being taken through public places.But the court should not lose sight of the fact that the victim was a 12 year old boy who, according to his statement, did not avail a bus alone earlier and also did not find any person on the road who was known to him.There is serious doubt as to whether the victim realized that he had been kidnapped or the consequences thereof.So it was not unlikely that the victim chose to remain silent out of ignorance or fear and such conduct of the victim can under no circumstances be held to be abnormal and the entire case made out by the prosecution cannot be brushed aside on that score.P.W. 1 who is the father of the victim and the de facto complainant of the case lodged missing diary at about 9:30 PM on 19.04.2008 which was registered as an FIR on the following day.On receipt of ransom call by his daughter Chanda on the same day and a similar call by his neighbour Chandan Singh on the following day demanding Rs.50,000/- for release of the victim, P.W. 1 arranged for the money and went to Bally Bridge through Shyambazar and Dunlop with his nephew P.W. 3 (Gopal Das) in a hired taxi.Chandan Singh received another phone call in presence of P.W. 2 and spoke to the victim over telephone and thereafter the ransom amount was thrown down from the bridge as per instruction of the miscreants and was seen to be collected by persons standing below.The victim boy was released from the clutches of the kidnappers and reached home.P.W. 3 spoke in tune with P.W. 1 and narrated the entire incident.The evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 is also in conformity with the prosecution 9 case.In fact, the evidence of all the material witnesses withstood the rigours of cross-examination and consideration of their evidence as a whole lead to the irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants.The appellants were identified as the alleged miscreants by the de facto complainant and P.W. 3 (Gopal Das).Judgment and order dated 17.08.2017 and 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 5th Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas South is affirmed.Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.I agree. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,903,721 | sm CRAN 2211 of 2016 With CRA 19 of 2016 In re: Naphe Singh . .. Appellant.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 43 03.08.2016 sm Allowed CRM No. 6096 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.07.2016 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.613 of 2015 dated 28.11.2015 under sections 447/325/326/307/354A/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Abdul Mannan Molla .. Petitioner.Sandipan Ganguly Mr.Sumanta Das ... for the petitioner Mr.Atif Ahmed Siddiqui ..for the State.2 Ms.Asraf Mandal... for the de facto complainant.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for about 47 days.Such fact has not been disputed by the learned advocate for the State.We have gone through the case diary and find no reason to take a different stand.Having regard to above, this application for bail stands allowed on parity.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia at Tehatta upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further condition that after release, he shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Tehatta Sub- Division except for the purpose of attending the court's proceedings and shall report to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police 3 station, where he shall reside after release, thrice in every week, until further order.We also make it clear that before release, the petitioner shall furnish his address, where he shall reside after release, both to the court below as well as to the Investigating Officer of the case.It be noted that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant points out that the accused persons, who were granted bail in connection with CRM No.2122 of 2016 were directed not to enter within the jurisdiction of Tehatta police station.They have not only disobeyed such condition and entered the place, but at the same time, they are threatening the witnesses with dire consequences, if they dare to depose against them in the trial.Since the same does not relate to the present petitioner in this application for bail, we have nothing to do.However, the petitioner shall have the liberty to take steps against those accused persons in accordance with law.Accordingly, this application is disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 4 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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. |
173,907,682 | None for the complainant.Case diary is available.This criminal appeal for grant of bail has been filed Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (In short 'Act 1989') against the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by Special Judge, Gwalior in B.A.No.33/2018 by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been rejected.The appellant has been arrested on 05.02.2018 in connection with crime No.422/2017 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506/34, 324, 325, 326 and Section 195-A of IPC and Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that earlier the police had filed the charge-sheet under Section 326 of IPC but the Trial Court by its order dated 23.05.2018 has not framed the charge under Section 326 of IPC but framed the charge under Section 325 (two counts) of IPC.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge bj/-BARKHA JHA 2018.06.18 17:09:10 +05'30' | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,908 | The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein.This letter was written from Vellore where the petitioner resides to his daughter at Madras.ORDER Somasundaram, J.The accused is the petitioner herein.The petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2328 of 1948 on the file of the Special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore.There were some misunderstandings between her husband and her father over some money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as he has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband.He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he was arranging to send new shoes.On this, the complainant's husband as her power-of-attorney agent, has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has filed this revision petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that prima facie the contents of his letter to his daughter would not constitute an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. | ['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,909,486 | (17.03.2017) The applicants have challenged the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.133/2016, whereby the charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 450 & 506 (Part-2) of Indian Penal Code, have been framed against the applicants.The facts leading to filing of the instant revision are that on 22.10.2015 at around 11:00 AM on the eve of Nav Durga Festival, a bhandara was organized by the complainant Naresh Chaurasia in front of his house, and for the said purpose, a water tanker was called from the Nagar Panchayat.On the same day, the applicant Prakash Soni and his brother Vinod Soni removed the support of the water tanker and removed it by falling.They by using filthy language abused the-( 2 )-R.No.745/2016 complainant, stating that how he dared to put the water tanker in front of their shop.At that moment the public intervened and the complainant also asked the applicant Prakash Soni that why he is creating obstruction in a religious work, they left from there.On the next day, at around 11:00 A.M., the applicant Prakash Soni armed with sword and Vinod Soni armed with Axe alongwith other accused persons came to the place where the religious programme was going on.As soon as they came there, they bursted the halogen light of the tent.Complainant Manish Chaurasia who was standing outside along with his daughter went inside the house, that juncture, Prakash Soni having sword and Vinod Soni with Axe alongwith other accused persons entered their house and assaulted the complainant and his wife with kicks and fists.When the complainant made an attempt to escape, he was caught hold by Prakash Soni and bitten on the left side of his shoulder.He also slapped on the right cheek of the complainant, thereby he sustained injury near his right eye.When two other persons i.e. Mahendra and Anand came to save them, Vinod Soni struck with opposite part of Axe thereby breaking the lower two teeth.The applicant has also assaulted Mahendra by kicks and fists and threaten that if the complainant would ever come near them, they will kill him.On the basis of the said complaint, an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.166/2015 has been registered at Police Station Billau, District Gwalior under Sections-( 3 )-R.No.745/2016 147, 148, 294, 323/149, 427, 452 and 506 IPC.After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Court.The trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned above against the applicants.The framing of charge under Section 326 IPC is subject matter to challenge before this Court.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents available on record.As per M.L.C report of Manisha, no injury was found on her body.The complainant Naresh sustained two circular marks caused by teeth bite on his back and one contusion on his right eye.These injuries appear to be simple in nature.From the perusal of MLC report of Anand, it is found that his lower inner teeth was-( 4 )-However, looking to the injury of Anand, the ingredients under Section 326 IPC are not satisfied.At the most, the charge under Section 325 IPC is made out against the accused Vinod.Taking view of the matter, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent it frames charges under Sections 326 and 450 of IPC against the applicants. | ['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,919,957 | 377/2014 registered against him with the non-applicant no. 1- PoliceStation for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294 and 506 of::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:21 ::: 2 apl-83-15j.odtthe Indian Penal Code be quashed.This Criminal Application was calledout for hearing on 23.11.2020 in the morning session on which date ShriR. J. Shinde, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ms. K. S. Joshi,learned A.P.P. were heard.After hearing the learned Advocate for theapplicant and learned A.P.P., it was pronounced that the CriminalApplication was allowed and the reasons were to follow during the courseof the day.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:21 :::At about 1.30 p.m. on that day, Shri V. M. Patre, learnedAdvocate for the non-applicant no. 2- informant had mentioned that hecould not remain present at the time of hearing of the CriminalApplication as he was before other Court and requested for grant ofhearing.He had asked Shri R. J. Shinde, learned Advocate for theapplicant and Ms. K. S. Joshi, learned A.P.P. and mentioned at 2.30 p.m.Accordingly, the matter was mentioned at 2.30 p.m. and the learnedAdvocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. shown willingness to arguethe matter.Accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing.After thematter was argued for sometime, it was pointed out that the non-applicant no. 2- victim had suffered dislocation of three middle finger ofhis left hand.The learned A.P.P. had submitted that she was not havingall the relevant papers with her and requested for time and accordinglythe matter was kept for 26.11.2020 i.e. today.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:21 :::Shri T. A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. has pointed out that pursisdated 25.11.2020 is filed and along with it copies of medical papers,which show that left ring finger of the non-applicant no. 2 was dislocated.Learned Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2 has also emphasized on thefact that his finger was dislocated because of assault of the applicant.Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed.The Trial Court is requested toexpedite the trial and dispose it within six months from today.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2020 02:17:21 ::: | ['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. |
1,739,225 | The present common judgment will dispose of the above four connected appeals.All the accused/Appellants were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC; the Appellant Savita, in addition, was convicted under Section 203 IPC.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receipt of DD No. 38A at about 2:24 AM on the night intervening of 02-03.12.1994, SI Sardar Singh reached at H. No.29/156, West Patel Nagar and found Manoj Girotra (the deceased) son of Jagdish Rai lying on the floor in a pool of blood in the first floor drawing room; blood was scattered on the floor, on the pillow and bed sheet.There were number of knife blows on the deceased's body.The bedroom almirahs were open, empty jewellery boxes were also lying on the ground.SI Sardar Singh recorded the statement of the wife of deceased Manoj (hereafter "Savita") who was present at the spot.She disclosed that she along with her husband was watching the film "Burning Train" on TV and at about 1:30 AM, after the film got over they were conversing in their room on the first floor.Someone knocked the door; Manoj opened the door and three persons armed with knives entered the premises.One of them held a knife at the deceased's neck and took him to the drawing room.Another person held the knife at her neck and demanded the almirah keys; the third man took out gold ornaments from the almirah.All of them were to leave, but the man holding the knife to her, tried to tease her; he tore her clothes.When her husband Manoj protested, he was given knife blows at many places on his Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 2 body by the intruders.As a result, Manoj fell down and all the three intruders fled from the spot.She raised alarm and her father-in-law's cousin Mahender Lal and others from the locality went upstairs.It was alleged that after initial investigation, SI Sardar Singh found no clue in the case.He handed over investigation to Inspector Rajbir Singh, of Special Investigation Branch who found suspicious activities on the part of Savita and her family guru Swami Rameshwaranand Giri (hereafter "the swami").On 13.09.1995 the swami was arrested and one letter written by him to Savita was seized from him, addressed to her as his lover and wife.Accused Raj Kumar and Jagdish Lal were also arrested and on 17.09.1995 accused Ravi Chauhan and Ashutosh Banerjee were arrested.Accused Om Prakash @ Omi could not be arrested by the police and was declared as proclaimed offender.It was alleged that the swami was interrogated; he disclosed being very close to the family of Saudagarmal Sethi, Savita's father and in the year 1994 when he was ill, he remained in their house and had a physical relationship with Savita.Savita's marriage was solemnized on 10.10.1994 with Manoj and the swami blessed the couple.After the marriage, according to the prosecution, the swami and Savita kept on meeting each other, and in one such meeting, they conspired to kill Manoj and asked for assistance from one devotee accused Raj Kumar.He arranged for the killers; the swami paid `40,000/- to the killers.On 15.11.1994 accused Raj Kumar took his co-accused Ravi Chauhan on his motor cycle No.DIW 1149 to Patel Nagar and according to the plan, Savita along with her husband Manoj went to Hanuman Mandir on their scooter.Accused Raj Kumar and Ravi Chauhan started chasing them.On reaching Shankar Road, near the petrol pump, Savita dropped her slipper intentionally, ensuring that the scooter stopped and alighted from it to retrieve the slipper.Raj Kumar stopped his motorcycle at some distance; accused Ravi Chauhan fired at Manoj with a country made pistol.Manoj was injured on the back of the shoulder.Accused Ravi Chauhan hid himself in the bushes and accused Raj Kumar fled on his motorcycle.The swami was in his car bearing No. DL 4C A7094 and he took Ravi Chauhan in his car.It was further alleged that on 30.11.1994 the swami came to Delhi from Rishikesh in his car, which was driven by Makhan Lal, and at about 12/12:30 PM reached Patel Nagar.Leaving Makhan Lal in the car at some distance, he visited Savita's house and remained there till 2:30/3:00 AM, and they hatched another plan to kill Manoj, according to which, on the night of 02.12.1994 the swami, in his car (driven by accused Raj Kumar) reached his (Raj Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 3 Kumar's) factory at Nariana and took accused Om Prakash @ Omi and Ashutosh Banerjee @ Pappu who were armed with knives.All of them went to the Savita's house, at West Patel Nagar.Leaving Raj Kumar in the car, the swami, Omi and Pappu went to the first floor of Savita's house, the door of which had, as per previous plan, been left open, (since Savita was waiting for the other accused).Upon their reaching the premises, she switched off the bedroom light and took the co-accused to the drawing room where the deceased was sleeping on the diwan.All the three accused showered knife blows on the body of Manoj, and when he tried to protest.The swami caught Manoj's foot with his hands, and on receiving knife blows, he fell down from the bed and died.The swami sent accused Omi and Pappu downstairs and when he saw that Manoj was not dead, he gave another knife blow to him; after satisfying himself that Manoj had died, and in order to give the incident the shape of dacoity, he took Savita's ornaments from the almirah and scattered the empty boxes on the bed and also tore Savita's nighty.He gave some ornaments to accused Omi and Pappu and left them at Nariana.The prosecution also alleged that after committing the murder, the swami, with his driver Makhan Lal left for Rishikesh.On reaching, the swami threw the knife in the bushes behind his Ashram.He kept the ornaments in his almirah and after washing the clothes which, he was wearing at the time of incident, hid them.He attended Manoj's cremation ceremony and lived for some days in the Ashram of his Gurubhai Devendranand Giri at Bahadurgah, Makhan Lal got introduced the swami, to the accused Jagdish Lal Sharma who introduced himself as Inspector from the CBI and he with the help of Makhan Lal started extorting the swami.After recording the telephonic conversation in audio cassettes between Makhan lal and Jagdish Lal Sharma, they both were arrested.The swami is alleged to have led to recovery of the knife used in the incident and the jewellery taken away from Savita's house.The envelope was addressed to "Savita", and was handed over when PW-21 was sitting with her lady friends.PW-37 initially stated that he had seized the letter PW-37/R; he however, later clarified that he did not do so.The prosecution filed charges in the Court.Makhan Lal and Jagdish Lal Sharma were remanded for their trial to the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 22.12.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi as the offences alleged against them were only under section 176/202/384/419, IPC which were exclusively triable by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Charges under Section 302/120B IPC were framed against all the accused persons on 04.05.1999, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.Hence the trial commenced against them.The swami, and Ashutosh Banerjee were separately charged for Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 4 offence under section 404 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act. Accused Ravi Chauhan was also separately charged for offence under Section 307 and 404 IPC.Similarly accused Om Prakash was also separately charged for offence under Section 404 IPC.Accused Savita was separately charged for offence under section 203 IPC.All accused entered the plea of not guilty to their separate charges and claimed a trial.The prosecution relied on the evidence of 48 witnesses to establish the charges framed against the accused.Since its case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, it was sought to be proved by evidence in that regard.(1) Proximity between Savita and the swami, for a long time, before the former's marriage to the deceased, during which they developed intimacy;(2) Conspiracy hatched by the swami and Savita, to have Manoj murdered.The first step towards this, was the incident of 15.11.1994, when the deceased was shot at while driving a scooter, and injured at the back.The attempt was on his life, but was unsuccessful.The prosecution alleged that Savita prevailed on other family members to refrain from reporting the incident to the police.(3) Planning, by the swami and Savita, prior to the incident, whereby the former visited the latter, on late 30th November, 1994, and hatched a conspiracy.He stayed with her till the early hours of the next morning.(4) Involvement of other co-accused, and the swami, in the murderous attack which took place on the night of 02-03.12.1994, on Manoj, which resulted in his death, and the later cover-up by them, to give the impression of a robbery and looting of jewellery.Savita aided the co-accused, by ensuring that the first floor door was left unlocked, to facilitate the crime.(5) Attempt by Savita to hide the previous incident, of 15.11.1994, when reporting the matter to the police.The police did not have any concrete clue, and the investigating officer changed.(6) Interception of telephonic conversation between the swami and Jagdish, and other conversation, leading to recovery of letter from Rama Bajaj, the arrest of swami, his disclosure statement, leading to recovery of the murder weapon, and jewellery looted from the premises, on the date of incident, and the subsequent arrest of other co-accused, including Savita.The trial court convicted the four appellants, holding that the prosecution was able to prove all the circumstances, which pointed to their guilt and involvement in the murder of the Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 5 deceased.It was held that Savita's conduct and role in successfully ensuring that the previous attempt at the life of the deceased, which occurred on 15.11.1994, stood established.It also found that the version given by Savita about the manner in which the incident took place, when allegedly the assailants entered the first floor, of the premises, started to rob jewellery, and upon being challenged by Manoj, when one of them sought to molest her, by raining knife blows on him, was falsified by the circumstantial evidence.In this regard, the trial court took into consideration the evidence such as to say that the couple had a strained marital relationship, the nature of injuries which led to the death of Manoj, the fact that there was no forcible entry into the house at 1:30 AM, in the morning, the statements of PW-15 about how the outside door was unlocked, the telephonic conversations which the swami had, leading to recovery of a letter, PW-37/R, the interrogation and detention of swami, the disclosure statement made by him, leading to recovery of jewellery articles, their identification by PW-3 (Manoj's father), the arrest and disclosure statements of Ravi Chauhan and Ashutosh, all proved the circumstances conclusively and unerringly to the guilt of the four appellants.The trial court accordingly recorded their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, and also recorded the acquittal of Ravi Chauhan, in respect of the charge under Section 307 IPC.It convicted Savita under Section 203 IPC, and acquitted the accused charged for the offence under Section 404, IPC.Appellants' argumentsIn the circumstances, the charge of conspiracy had to be established with strong and cogent evidence.It is submitted, primarily by Savita's counsel, in this regard that the evidence put forward against her was her alleged reluctance in reporting the matter to the police, and convincing the other family members against such reporting.It was urged, here, that PW-1, the deceased's mother had deposed on this aspect, and her testimony was unreliable, since she contradicted herself on this issue.Counsel further argued that the trial court completely misdirected itself, in selectively appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and applying itself to the examination-in-chief, completely ignoring the entire depositions, which included the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused/appellants.Not only did she materially contradict herself in these three statements, in the form of omissions, and improvements, but later contradicted herself, as well as other witnesses during the trial.It is argued that indeed, if this witness and the other relatives of the deceased had suspected Savita and the swami, there was no reason, why this should not have been voiced by them when the police recorded the statements, on these separate dates.Furthermore, the voluntary manner in which Savita gave the deceased's articles of clothing, to facilitate investigation into the previous incident, falsified the prosecution argument that she suppressed the previous incident deliberately.On this aspect, it was contended that a statement, or omission of an accused, (on any aspect relating to an offence), who was the informant reporting the crime, and recorded as part of the FIR, is inadmissible, as against the said accused, as hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.For Crl.The prosecution version that she had kept the outer door unlocked, and the gate to the first floor, based on the sketch placed on the record, could not be believed.It was submitted in this regard that the trial court disbelieved the immediate statement or version of Savita, and drew its conclusions based on shaky facts, which were not proved.Counsel submitted that PW-15's evidence pointed to the street door being open, at the time of the incident and that the premises had a second floor tenant, who was not examined.It was also argued that the prosecution did not have any cogent evidence, or even theory to back its story about Savita having kept the first floor door open, to facilitate the intruders' entry into the premises.Such evidence was tenuous to establish any connection between the Appellant Savita and the Swami.The letter was allegedly written by the swami.P.C. about depositing the jewellery items.Learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence on record showed that the IO and the police party, which is alleged to have gone to Haridwar for investigation, did not use any official police vehicle; no authorization too was proved to have been given by any superior officer, for the said investigation.However, submitted learned counsel, none of its witnesses were able to give any details of particulars about the factory such as its name proprietor and so on.In these circumstances the vague allegation of the witnesses that the arrest was made at a particular address in a gatta (cardboard) factory could not be believed.He further stated that the alleged recovery of jewellery from the place of arrest is falsified by PW-29 admitting that his previous statement nowhere reflected that such articles were sealed - a fact which he sought to improve upon, and introduce for the first time in the prosecution testimony.The dagger allegedly seized from him could not be linked with the offence, according to the serological report.In the circumstances, there was nothing to link him with any alleged conspiracy, the origin of which was not proved.In the circumstances, the recovery of articles, and their linkage with the crime had not been proved.Therefore, the prosecution, without filing an appeal, could not rely on the said alleged circumstances relating to the discovery of jewellery articles that were allegedly looted.This meant that the jewellery was unconnected with the crime; the trial court directed its confiscation to the state.PW-29 also deposed that the building from where the arrest was made, consisted of several tenements, where families resided.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 17 swami knew each other before the former's marriage, and were on intimate terms, the relationship being more than a guru and his disciple.The evidence on record, particularly of the deceased's family members, showed that this association continued even after marriage, as Savita used to hold long telephonic conversations with the swami.In the intervening night of 2/3rd December, 1994, according to plan, Savita had kept the outer entry door of the first floor open, to facilitate easy access to the assailants, who were let in by her.The evidence pointed to there being no forcible entry; the assailants, including the swami, walked to where Manoj was sleeping, and mercilessly stabbed him, at various places, mostly in the neck, resulting in fatal injuries.The police, therefore, visited him at Rishikesh; after his interrogation, statements were recorded.This led to recoveries, as well as the search and seizure of letters, etc. from the house of PW-21 and the appellant Savita; she too was arrested.The other conspirators were arrested later, and recoveries were effected pursuant to their statements.Elaborating, the learned APP submitted that PW-1 had mentioned in the statement recorded on 11th February, 1995 about Savita's involvement in the offence.She had also deposed about Savita not willing to have cohabit with Manoj and further her testifying that the couple slept separately, since Savita used to frequently give the pretext of ill health.The learned APP submitted that in her statement to the Police, as the first informant, as well as the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Savita stated that on the fateful night, three persons had entered the house and on the door being opened by Manoj, dragged him to the inner room, looted the jewellery and tried to molest her, on which he (deceased Manoj) resisted, which resulted in his murderous attack and his subsequent death.As far as the latter were concerned, the facts emerging from the depositions of PW-15, who was called out from the ground floor by Savita and who corroborated that what was told to him by her, is material.It was further submitted that the conspiracy hatched by Savita with the Swami was proved by the reading of the depositions of PW-1, PW-3, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-18, which brought out the following sequence:i) That the Swami was known to Savita and her family before her marriage was solemnized with Manoj.ii) That even after the marriage, Savita used to frequently receive and attend to calls made by the Swami.iii) Savita and Manoj had gone to honeymoon after the marriage to Simla but returned earlier than the schedule.iv) The deceased and Savita used to live on the first floor of the premises.PW-1 the deceased's mother and her husband PW-3 also used to reside there, however since PW-3 was posted in Agra, she (PW-1) had joined him there and was also not in the premises on the first floor on the day when the crime occurred.It was further stated that at 8:30 PM on the fateful evening of Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 20 02.12.1994 itself PW-18 had clearly heard the appellant Savita stating on telephone "Aaj Raat ko kam ho jana chahiye".It was argued that photographs Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW-17/B clearly showed that the stab wounds and the manner in which Manoj's body was lying pointed to a pre-planned attack.If this was compared with Ex. PW-35/C the un-scaled map and if one kept in mind that the cuts in the towel, which was seized, corresponded with the stab wounds even on the deceased's neck and shoulders, there were strong and irrefutable circumstantial evidence pointing out to pre-mediated and calculated attack upon Manoj and not an assault at the spur of moment by alleging robbery, as stated by the appellant Savita.Furthermore, stated learned APP that a khase (thick covering used while sleeping) entangled between the legs of the deceased was an additional factor that pointed out to a homicidal attack on a sleeping Manoj and not to his being dragged to the outer room and then attack, as alleged by Savita.It was next argued that pursuant to the statements of the swami, Savita's premises were searched, and seizure of Ex. PW-37/E-1 to E-28 and Ex. PW-39/B, letters addressed by him (the swami) to her, were made.These letters did not show an ordinary guru- shishya relationship, but that the swami had a deep and earthly emotional attachment and love for Savita, which he used to express unrestrainedly.The testimony of PW-31 established that the said letter was handed over to him, by the swami, with specific instructions to deliver it to PW-21 (from whose premises ultimately the letter was recovered).Although PW-21 spoke about recovery and seizure of the envelope, she clearly mentioned about a letter; PW-45 deposed that PW- 37/R was recovered from that envelop.Therefore, all the material, connecting PW-37/R with the swami, had, in substance been put to the Appellant Savita; the error in posing a wrong query that the letter had been recovered from her premises, in no manner caused her prejudice.I. The incident of 15.11.1994The first circumstance put forward by the prosecution in this case was the incident of 15.11.1994 in which an attempt was made on the life of Manoj.The prosecution had alleged that Manoj, while on the way to Connaught Place, was shot at and had sustained injuries.This witness stated that PW-15 had mentioned about the incident.Yet, PW-15 does not mention having told PW-35 about the previous attack on Manoj, in his deposition.PW-3 sought to build on the prosecution story by stating that Savita was reluctant to hand over Manoj's clothes - a statement clearly contradicted by the documentary evidence, as well as PW-35, who does not mention any such obstruction, in his testimony.The Court, therefore, holds that the trial court fell into error in considering the first information report and the omission by Savita to report the previous incident, as an incriminating suspicious circumstance against her.The attack on Manoj and prosecution evidence that Savita's description was falseThe prosecution had relied on Ex. PW-35/C, a sketch prepared by PW-35, who had reached the spot soon after the occurrence.In addition, the prosecution relied on a scaled sketch, drawn on 04.01.1995, by the draftsman, Balbir Singh.This map sets out the various points in detail, pinpointing the topography of the first floor of the premises in question, the different rooms, the point where the attack took place, where the various furniture pieces were kept, etc. These two documents, as well as photographs, proved by PW-17, and the Crl.Great emphasis was given to the statement of PW-15 - he had deposed that when Savita called him out, saying "Pitaji upar aao, Dekho na inko kya ho gaya" after the attack, he rushed to the first floor, which was locked from outside.The evidence of PW-1 and PW-15 indicates that the ground floor of the premises were occupied by the latter (PW-15's) family; PW-1, PW-3, deceased Manoj and Savita lived on the first floor.PW-1 and PW-3, resided at that time in Agra, where PW-3 was posted on duty.This detailed scaled sketch contains particulars such as the precise points where the furniture was placed, where the assailants entered from and went to, where the attack took place, and the jewellery was looted.There is of course a reference to another outer door, in PW-15's deposition.However, he also admitted that the first floor could be accessed from the main ground floor staircase.PW-15 stated that the wooden outer door on the first floor was 3 feet high, and that a wall abuts that gate, which can be jumped by anyone.His evidence also is that the entry for the first and second floor, from the street level, is through a common door, and a common staircase.The evidence discussed about the first floor topography of the premises, though lengthy, is to show that the prosecution did not allege any specific route alleged to have been used by Manoj's assailants on the fateful day.No photographs of the premises, or the stairs, have been placed on record.No clear cut plan showing how the assailants entered, according to the prosecution, and how Savita facilitated the attack has been argued.The prosecution apparently did not argue about the location of the body, and the nature of injuries found on it, to submit that the attack was a preplanned and calculated one (as is argued here, based on the cuts found on the neck, the towel used to staunch the blood, the pillow, and also the location of the khes, on Manoj).The Trial court also did not put the relevant queries, as regards these circumstances.This witness also stated that he too harboured some suspicions about Savita's involvement.However, he was confronted with his previous statement, recorded by the police, on 25.12.1994, where no such suspicion had been recorded.As regards PW-15, though he deposed in his examination-in-chief, about Savita's alleged unnatural behaviour and suspicions about her involvement, he was confronted with the previous statement made to the police, where such allegations had been noted.They also deposed that the swami had attended the death ceremony of Manoj, and was also there when his asthi were consigned to the Holy Ganges.These witnesses also deposed having gone to his Ashram at Hardwar, with Savita, and that she spent a long time talking to him, and even remained closeted alone with him.Further, the prosecution case was that the swami had met Savita on 30.11.1994, in the evening, and tried Crl.PW-18 deposed that when Manoj and his sister were watching television on the night of 02.12.1994, Savita was on the phone, distinctly saying that "Aj raat ko kaam ho jana chahiye" to someone.61. PW-1 was, in her cross-examination confronted with her previous statements, where she had not mentioned about the swami frequently trying to talk to Savita on telephone, or that the family had gone to Hardwar, and stayed there, after Manoj's death, for immersing his ashes.She was also confronted with her previous statement, where it was not mentioned that Savita and the swami were closeted together for some time, by themselves, when in Hardwar.In the first three statements, he did not mention about the swami spending a lot of time, talking to Savita at Rishikesh; he was confronted with these, when he deposed in Court.Likewise, in the first three statements, there was no mention that the swami suggested that money had to be given or spent, to save Savita, who was then allegedly suspected by the police, soon after Manoj's death.This allegation was recorded for the first time, in the last statement made to the police on 01.08.1995; the witness was confronted with his previous statements.PW-3, however, has not mentioned about any telephonic conversations between Savita and the swami.This witness also stated that he had mentioned this to other family members; however, PW-1 and PW-15 or even PW-3 do not corroborate his testimony, on this score.It was argued, in addition to the evidence discussed above, that a cumulative reading of the testimonies of PW-16, PW-13, PW-30, PW-31 and PW-34 (though some of them had been declared hostile, and cross-examined by the prosecution) revealed that soon before the incident of 02/03.12.1994, the swami and Savita had met, in house of PW-34, (where they were normally in the habit of holding trysts and meetings, on a one to one basis) and that PW-13 was asked by the swami not to reveal this if questioned by the police.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 3463. PW-16 had deposed that Savita returned late from school, around 4:30 PM, (where she used to work) and told her that she had visited PW-20, a colleague.She further deposed that when PW-20 was asked about this, after Manoj's death, she stated that Savita had never visited her (PW-20's) place.As opposed to this, PW-20, in her deposition, admitted that Savita was a colleague, and had not visited her.She also stated that no one asked or verified this fact form her at the time of performance of the death rites of Manoj, when she had visited to condole with Savita.PW-13 Ramesh Kumar deposed about his acquaintanceship with the swami and that on 06.09.1995 the swami asked him to reach Rishikesh, which he did the next day.The swami, whom PW-13 met in his Ashram, asked him (PW-13) to help his follower who was in trouble and that one driver, namely, Makhan Singh was blackmailing his follower.The swami also asked PW-13 to help him (the swami) and tell the police, in case of any inquiry by them, that he had visited PW-13 on 30.11.1994, at 26/14, East Patel Nagar, which was factually incorrect.PW-33 was cited as a witness; the prosecution sought permission to cross-examine her, which was granted.She used to live in Tagore Garden; she denied the suggestion that frequently, the swami and Savita used to meet each other, and that at times, Savita used to stay overnight in her place, with the swami.She was confronted with her previous statement, made to the police, to the contrary.She was cited as a witness, because in the previous statement recorded to the police, she had allegedly stated that Savita had visited her place (PW-34's) place and met the swami.She was confronted with this statement, which she denied; She also denied having told the police, in any previous statement that Savita used to meet the swami at times, in a third floor room, in the witnesses's house, which was kept aside for the swami's room.She confirmed about her knowing Raj Kumar, who had been accused for the offence of attempted murder, but was acquitted of the charge, in the impugned judgment.PW-20 categorically denied having conversed with anyone in Savita's family, including PW-16, although the latter stated that she had talked with her, and obtained the information about Savita not visiting her.So far as the clandestine meetings on 30.11.1994 or 01.12.1994, the two eyewitnesses - alleged to have seen these, and have first- hand knowledge of the incident, are concerned, -turned hostile.This circumstance is pressed as Crl.However, those two witnesses have not supported the prosecution story at all.They are also not witnesses to any other proven circumstances.Also, the prosecution has not brought on record any objective evidence or deposition showing that the swami was in Delhi, and in the vicinity of the premises, where the offence occurred, at around 30.11.1994 and for the next few days.The testimony of PW-13 no doubt results in some suspicion about the swami, and his relationship with Savita.However, that alone, in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the Section 161 statements of PW-33 or PW-34 or lead the Court to take into account such statements, and discard as untrue their sworn testimony before the Court, to the contrary.It would now be necessary to examine the letters recovered from Savita, being Ex. PW-37/E-1 to E-28 and Ex. PW-39/B. The first document is a 28 page long letter, addressed by the swami to Savita.Both letters are written with intensity, and contain advise to Savita, about the transience of life, immortality of the soul, inevitability of destiny and fickleness of the mind, which is attached to objects, contexts and people.The swami emphasized that a guru is a spiritual guide, whose objective is to help and educate the disciple to achieve peace and understanding.The swami mentions about previous saints, who were able to achieve what they set out to acquire, despite several barriers and obstacles put in their paths.Exhibiting at times a depth of feeling and intensity that is normally not seen between a guru and shishya, the letters do not show anything incriminating against Savita and the Swami.PW-37 mentioned, in his deposition, that these letters were seized pursuant to Savita's disclosure statement.These letters, in the opinion of the Court only show that the swami felt very concerned about the mental unhappiness, and trauma, which Savita apparently experienced, and which he tried to minimize with the help of his advice (to her).The next letter is Ex. PW-37/R. The prosecution relied heavily on this, to say that Savita and the swami had an intimate and illicit relationship, which, taken together with several trysts between each other, constituted a motive for conspiracy and murder of Manoj.PW-21, Rama Bajaj, deposed that sometime in 1995, one Swami, Gajanand, connected with her guru, (the Appellant-swami in this case) had handed over an closed envelop to her and asked it to be handed over to Savita.This envelop was taken, subsequently by the police, who went outside, and later returned, asked her to sign, in acknowledgement of handing over the envelope.She therefore, proved the memo Ex. PW-21/A, the seizure memo in respect of the Crl.PW-45 Rajbir, the last IO in the case, deposed having recovered Ex. PW-37/R under memo Ex. PW-21/A. Now, Ex. PW-21/A mentions an envelope, as well as some letter in it.However, it does not identify the letter as a two page document, such as Ex. PW-37/R. In her evidence, PW-21 merely stated that the envelope was recovered from her possession; she did not say that Ex. PW-37/R was taken out of it; she does not also identify it.Her signatures are not found on Ex. PW-37/R. To compound these complications, the Trial Court's question to Savita, under Section 313, was that Ex. PW-37/R was recovered on 13.09.1995 from her possession.The swami's statement under Section 313 was, however, that Ex. PW-37/R was forcibly procured from him, after his arrest.The prosecution alleged - through PW-26 that pursuant to authorization from the DCP, a police party went to Rishikesh, and on the basis of the authorization, kept a surveillance over the conversations from the swami's end, over telephone.According to the prosecution, and deposition of PW-26 jewellery is alleged to have been recovered from the premises of the swami, Ravi Chauhan and Asutosh.It is alleged that pursuant to statement of Ravi Chauhan, eight rings were recovered from E-396, First floor, JJ Colony, Inder Puri, New Delhi through Memo Ex. PW26/C. Ashutosh was arrested at the pointing out of Ravi Chauhan and his disclosure statement Ex. PW26/D led to recovery of six pairs of ear tops, one pair of ear rings, one pair of jhumka weighing 46 gms by Memo Ex. PW26/E. PW27 Const.It is alleged that when the police party visited and questioned the swami, who opened a steel almirah and took out a red coloured potli containing eight gold bangles, two gold karas, one gold chain, one mangal sutra and a necklace, which were taken into possession by Memo Ex. PW37/N.PW36 Shri Paramjit Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts deposed that on 04.11.1995 an application for the TIP of the case property was marked to him and the TIP was fixed for 10.11.1995 by his endorsement Ex.PW36/C. He gave certificate regarding the correctness of the proceedings was given to the IO by endorsement Ex.PW-36/E.76. PW-3 claimed to have purchased the jewellery.He testified that jewellery was bought for Savita, from R.R. Jewllers.The witness PW-3 however, is general and unspecific in his evidence on this aspect.The second aspect is that he states that Crl.786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 41 particulars about the jewellery were obtained from Savita.This contradicts the prosecution story about Savita's conduct.The second aspect is that PW-1, Manoj's mother, expressed unawareness of the jewellery and particulars looted.The latter mentioned that jewellery was purchased from R.R. Jewellers.The prosecution's failure to produce it, also improbabilizes the recovery and identification of the jewellery produced in Court, and relied as another incriminating circumstance.77. PW-26 and PW-37 deposed having witnessed recovery of one knife each upon the disclosure statements of Asutosh and the swami.These weapons were sent for forensic examination; however, the report did not reveal anything incriminating against either appellant.These weapons were also recovered pursuant to disclosure statements, and witnessed only by the police.Now, even though the law is clear that there is no invariable rule that recoveries should be testified by independent witnesses, what is noteworthy in this case is that the investigation had reached a dead end, and clues were gathered 10 months later.The places where recoveries of weapons effected, were not isolated.It was possible for the prosecution, by way of precaution and as a prudent measure, to associate members of the public, as witnesses to these recoveries.Not doing so has undermined the prosecution.Involvement of Ravi Chauhan and AsutoshThe earlier discussion of prosecution evidence has shown that apart from the disclosure statement of the swami, and the alleged recovery of articles, there is nothing to connect these two accused appellants, with the crime. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
173,924,375 | applicant by judgment and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Akola in Sessions Trial No.140/2014 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2019 04:22:12 :::bail on he executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.(vi) The applicant shall remain personally present before this Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal.The application is disposed of.JUDGEkahale ::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2019 04:22:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2019 04:22:12 ::: | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
83,882,966 | Abetment of suicide.(Sunday) at about 6-00 p.m. the victim committed suicide.Sensing a foul play, a complaint was lodged with the police.After hearing of both sides, learned Trial Court framed charge under sections 498A/306 of IPC against the accused person.The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him when the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including Court witness while none was examined on the side of the defence.However, the accused person was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and reply given by the accused person at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment.Now, the point for consideration is if the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not.Sections 498A and 306 of IPC read as follows :"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - (1) Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."The learned Counsel for the appellant amongst others contended interalia on the following points:d) The marriage was a out come of a love affair and initially the couple had a peaceful and smooth marital life during the first year but subsequently the alleged bickering developed;Regarding the conversion of sentence, learned Counsel of the State did not seriously challenge and left the matter upto the discretion of the Court.To appreciate the case from a better angle, some relevant pieces of evidence are required to be jot down here.It is true in a case of 498A of IPC the infliction of torture has to be proved as a plinth on which the edifice of the case is to be raised.To bring home the charge under section 306 of the IPC the ingredients should be such that there shall be a continuous harassment in the form of 'goading', 'prompting', 'provocating', 'instigating' or so pushing the victim to such a stage that finding no other alternative, she will have to commit suicide.Of course, regarding the infliction of torture there are pieces of evidence which cannot be thrown away as the same has come down not only from the mouth of the relation witnesses only but also from other witnesses.At the same time also it has come in the record that the husband after one year of marriage was locked in extramarital relationship with one Laxmi Adak over which the deceased raised vociferous protest only to have the ignominy of being tortured in a continuous manner to push the victim to the path of throwing away her life.The Doctor's evidence played a vital role here.In 313 examination I find that the accused Susanta Pramanik was 37 years old in 2008 i.e. now he is around 42 years.It has emerged from the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the State that by this time including remission period according to Jail Code and pre-trial investigation detention the appellant is about 5 (five) years.Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of. | ['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. |
8,391,925 | 2.There are totally four accused in this case.3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The first accused in this case applied for a loan of Rs.1,85,000/-, torun a Wooden Match Lathe Works, before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operativeBank (TAICO Bank), Sattur Branch.The third accused was working as Branch Manager in TAICO Bank.The second accused is said to be the manufacturer of the machineries of the same.P.W.12 is the Bank Inspector of TAICOBank, Sattur, who speaks about Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.12 regarding sanctioning of loan to the first accused.He says that based on the report submitted by P.W.14, he came to know about the irregularities committed in the Bank.P.W.17 is the Revenue Inspector, who speaks about the property owned by the fourth accused.P.W.18 speaks about the certificate given in his companyname in favour of the first accused and he denied her signature foundtherein.P.W.19 is the Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 377(1) of the Code of CriminalProcedure praying to set aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No.18 of 2002,dated 15.04.2005, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar, byallowing the appeal by imposing maximum punishment against the first accused.Challenging the order of acquittal against the accused 2 and 3, passedin C.C.No.18 of 2002, dated 15.04.2005, by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.2, Virudhunagar, Crl.A(MD)No.324 of 2005 has been filed and seekingenhancement of sentence for the first accused, Crl.A(MD)No.431 of 2005 hasbeen filed by the State.In respect of thesecond accused, the case was split up and a separate trial was conducted, inwhich, he was convicted.The first accused stood charged forthe offence under Sections 406, 471 and 120(b) IPC.The Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 15.04.2005, convicted thefirst accused for the offence under Sections 406 and 471 read with 120(b) IPCand sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court andalso imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonmentfor six months, for each charge.The accused 3 and 4 were acquitted from allthe charges.Challenging the order of acquittal passed against the accused 3and 4, Crl.A(MD)No.324 of 2005 has been filed and seeking enhancement of sentence in respect of the first accused, Crl.A(MD)No.431 of 2005 has beenfiled by the State.The fourth accused stands as surety to thefirst accused to apply for the loan.On receipt of the application, thethird accused has sanctioned the loan to the first accused, as per therecommendation of the District Industrial Centre.Then, the loan amount hasbeen disbursed to the second accused, the manufacturer of the machineries ofthe industry for supply of machineries.The third accused has also given acertificate to the effect that the entire work has been completed and entireloan amount has been disbursed.Subsequently, on enquiry, it is found thatthe first accused did not purchase the machineries from the second accusedand the second accused also did not supply any materials to the first accusedand the accused 1 and 2 forged documents and they fraudulently obtained theloan amount and the third accused, who is the Branch Manager of TAICO Bank, also conspired with them and disbursed the loan amount.Thereafter, anenquiry was conducted by P.W.3, the Co-operative Sub Registrar and based on the discrete enquiry, he has come to a conclusion that industry was not atall started by the first accused and no machineries were supplied by thesecond accused.In the above circumstances based on the complaint given by P.W.1/Special Officer of TAICO Bank, P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, hasregistered a case in Crime No.1 of 1999, for the offence under Sections 406,420 IPC and Section 162 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.Then, he conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses.After completion of investigation, he filed a final report.4.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, they denied the charges.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 20witnesses and exhibited 40 documents.5.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the Special Officer of Tamil NaduCo-operative Societies Bank.He speaks about the filing of the complaint.P.W.2, is the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sattur.Hesays that they have not received any application from the first accused forgetting service connection to establish an industry.P.W.3 is the BranchManager of TAICO Bank.According to him, he was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he conducted enquiry and based on the discrete enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner committed forgery and without establishing any industry,received the loan amount from the Bank.P.W.4 is the owner of PalaniappaLathe Works.According to him, he has not given any quotation to the firstaccused.P.W.5, is the owner of Senthilkumar Engineering Works.According to him, he has not given any Experience Certificate to the first accused.P.W.6 is the Chairman of the Screening Committee.He says that he has recommended for granting of loan to the first accused.P.W.7 is the thenAssistant Engineer, who recommended for granting loan.P.W.8 is the Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, who speaks about the account maintained by the second accused.P.W.9 is the owner of another Match Factory.He has given acertificate to the first accused.P.W.10, is working as in-charge Managerof TAICO Bank.He speaks about the letter sent by him to the authorities.P.W.11 is the Commercial Tax Officer, who says that there is no commercialtax registration by the first accused.P.W.13 is an electrician, who says that there isno industry in the address mentioned by the second accused in that area.P.W.14 is the Special Officer of TAICO Bank, who speaks about the sanctioningof loan to the first accused under Ex.P.W.15 is another Special Officerof TAICO Bank.P.1,complaint and conducted enquiry and filed a final report.P.W.20, is theEnquiry Officer, who conducted domestic enquiry against the third accused andhold that the charges were proved.6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On the side of theaccused, the fourth accused has been examined as D.W.1 and three documents were marked.7.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquittedthe accused 3 and 4 from all the charges and convicted the first accused asmentioned in the first paragraph of the Judgment.Challenging the order ofacquittal passed in respect of accused 3 and 4 as well as seeking enhancementof sentence in respect of the first accused, the prosecution has filed theseCriminal Appeals.8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theappellant in both the appeals, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents in both the appeals and I have also perused the recordscarefully.9.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused applied forloan and the second accused is said to be the supplier of machineries and thethird accused is the Branch Manager of the TAICO Bank, who disbursed the loan amount to the the first accused.The fourth accused stands surety for thefirst accused, for the purpose of obtaining loan.The allegation is that thefirst accused has not started any industry after obtaining loan and thesecond accused has also received the entire loan amount, without supplyingany machineries and the third accused without verifying the correctness andgenuineness of the accused 1 and 2 has also disbursed the loan amount.So far as the fourth accused is concerned, he stands only as surety, for thepurpose of obtaining loan.10.The Trial Court, after considering all the materials available onrecord, has come to a conclusion that the first accused has committed offenceand accordingly convicted him under Sections 406 and 471 read with 120(b)IPC.So far as the second accused is concerned, the case has been split upand a separate trial has been conducted and he has been convicted for thecharges.So far as the third accused is concerned, he is only the BranchManager of TAICO Bank.He has sanctioned the loan based on the recommendation of the higher authorities.P.3 is the letter sent by theIndustrial Cooperative Officer/Branch Manager, recommending the loan andbased on that recommendation, only the Screening Committee has passed a resolution under Ex.Based on Ex.P.14 recommendation, the third accused has sanctioned the loan and only on the request made by the first accused,the loan amount has been disbursed to the second accused, who is said to bethe manufacturer of machineries.Subsequently, on enquiry, the thirdaccused found that there is no machinery and he has also sent a letter underEx.P.22, informing the authorities about the missing of machineries and alsodirected them to foreclose the loan.11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theappellant/complainant would contend that as per Ex.P.9, the Branch Manager has stated that he recommended for release of the loan amount, as he hasinspected and found the machineries have been erected, but no machinerieshave been erected and therefore he has also conspired with the accused 1 and2 and committed the offence.12.From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Trial Court hascome to a conclusion that absolutely there is no evidence for conspiracy andthe materials available on record also show that only based on therecommendation of the higher authorities, loan has been sanctioned andEx.P.22 also proved that the the third accused has acted genuinely andrecommended to foreclose the loan.So far as the fourth accused isconcerned, he only stands as a surety to the first accused for obtainingloan.13.In an appeal/revision against acquittal, there is double presumptionin favour of the accused.Firstly, the presumption of innocence is availableto him and the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system isthat every person accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to beinnocent, unless his guilt is proved by a competent Court of law.Secondly,if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of hisinnocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.Even if tworeasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, theAppellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded bythe Trial Court.Hence, I find no perversity in the Judgment passed by the TrialCourt in respect of the accused 3 and 4 and the appeal filed inCrl.A(MD)No.324 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed.15.So far as Criminal Appeal(MD)No.431 of 2005 is concerned, the TrialCourt convicted the first accused for the offence under Sections 406 and 471read with 120(b) IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till therising of the Court and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, toundergo simple imprisonment for six months, for each offence.The firstaccused has not started any industry after obtaining loan and the thirdaccused sent a letter under Ex.P.22, informing the authorities about themissing of machineries and also directed them to foreclose the loan.Hence,the charges under Sections 406 and 471 read with 120(b) IPC against the firstaccused have been proved by the prosecution.Now, coming to the quantum of punishment, considering the gravity of offence and also considering the lapseof time, as the first accused has been convicted in the year 2005, I aminclined to modify the sentence and accordingly the first accused issentenced to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court and imposed afine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a periodof four weeks, for each offence.16.In the result, (i)Criminal Appeal(MD)No.324 of 2005 is dismissed andthe order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Virudhunagar in C.C.No.18 of 2002, in respect of the respondents/accused 3and 4, dated 15.04.2005, is confirmed.(ii)Criminal Appeal(MD)No.431 of 2005 is partly allowed and thesentence imposed on the respondent/first accused by the Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Virudhunagar in C.C.No.18 of 2002, dated 15.04.2005 is modified tothe effect that the respondent/ first accused is sentenced to undergoimprisonment till the raising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-,in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks, foreach offence.1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar.2.The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W.C.I.D., Virudhunagar.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
839,247 | ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J.The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated May 22, 1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No. 131/88, convicting him under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-.The prosecution story in brief is :On 1-5-1987 at about 6.30 a.m. while the victim Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) was going on foot towards the house of Shyamlal Sahu, the sole accused/appellant intercepted him in front of the house of Ajab Singh and caused an injury on the back of his neck with a deadly weapon 'Farsa'.Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) raised an out cry and fell down.Witnesses Thakurdas (P.W. 5), Prem Narayan (P.W. 3) and one Rajesh on hearing the out cry of Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) went to the place of incident and rescued him from the appellant.Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) lodged the report at about 8.45 a.m. at Police Station, Bareilly, District Raisen.After usual investigation the police filed the the charge-sheet against the appellant Kamal Singh for offence under Sections 307, 341 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant abjured his guilt and in defense stated that he has been falsely implicated because of enmity.In the Trial Court the prosecution examined Bahadursingh (P.W. 1), Subhashchand (P.W. 2), Prem Narayan (P.W. 3), Hari Prasad (P.W.4), Thakur Das (P.W. 5), Munne Khan (P.W. 6), Dr. N.K. Palod (P.W. 7), Girish Bohare (P.W. 8) and A.J. Khan (P.W. 9).In defence the appellant did not examine any witness.The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307, 341 and 506-11 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-.The appellant being aggrieved by this has filed the present appeal.Shri Subodh Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that from the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable because there are material contradictions in the evidence of Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) and the seizure of the weapon 'Farsa' from the appellant has not been proved.On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment of the Trial Court.While appreciating the rival contentions of both the parties I find that the evidence of Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) is consistent with the First Information Report (Ex. P-3) lodged immediately by him.Mere absence of name of Rajesh Kumar who along with Prem Narayan (P.W. 3) and Thakur Das (P.W. 5) had rescued him in his evidence in the Court will not make his evidence un-trustworthy.Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) has deposed that on 1-5-1987 at about 6.30 a.m. while he was going on foot towards the house of Shyamlal Sahu, appellant intercepted him in front of the house of Ajab Singh and caused an injury on the back of his neck by Farsa.On his out cry Thakur Das (P.W. 5) and Prem Narayan (P.W. 3) came and rescued him.His evidence has been duly corroborated by the eye-witnesses Thakur Das (P.W. 5) and Prem Narayan (P.W. 3).Their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of Dr. N.K. Palod (P.W. 7) who has stated that the injury on the back side of his neck was 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2", regular margin caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.Thus, there is ample evidence to establish the charge against the appellant that he caused injury on the back of the neck of Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) with a 'Farsa'.True it is that the witnesses Subhashchand (P.W. 2), and Munne Khan (P.W. 6) did not support the prosecution case regarding seizure of 'Farsa' and turned hostile but looking to the clinching eye-witnesses account about inflicting the injury by the appellant on the back of neck by Farsa to Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) the prosecution case can not be discarded.Thus from the evidence available on record, it has been duly proved that the appellant caused an injury on the back of the neck of Hari Prasad (P.W. 4) by sharp edged weapon 'Farsa'.Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld.As regards the question of sentence, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant is a young person and there is nothing on record to show that he is a habitual offender and in such circumstances no useful purpose would be served in sending him to back jail after the lapse of more than thirteen years and prayed for grant of probation.Considering the submission with regard to sentence, in my opinion the appellant is entitled to be released on probation instead of being sending him to jail.The appellant be released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year from today on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, Raisen.During this period if any offence is committed by the appellant he will be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded by the Trial Court.Under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, I direct that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation to complainant Hari Prasad within a period of three months from today.The said amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be deposited by the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisen which shall be paid to the complainant Hari Prasad.In the result the appeal is partly allowed. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
83,927,077 | Saswata (Allowed).C.R.M. 7498 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.2019 in connection with Dadpur P. S. Case No. 76 of 2019 dated 10.06.2019 under Section 447 / 323 / 354B / 379 / 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Anuk Bagish ... Petitioner.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner viz., Anuk Bagish shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further order and the 2 petitioner shall appear before the trial court and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,282,227 | No.1/State.None for respondent No.2 Heard on bail application.Case has been perused.This is first bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Private Complaint No.2124/2013 registered and pending in the Court of JMFC, Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323 and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the case of the present applicant is akin to the case of other co-accused, namely, Harimohan who has been benefited by granting anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 04.09.2014 in Misc.C.No.3848/14, therefore, claiming the same benefit, it is prayed that the present application may be allowed on the same set of facts and circumstances.Learned P.L. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid position.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the claim of parity, which is not disputed by the other side, and since it is a case of private complaint, but without commenting on the merits of the case, application is allowed.It is directed that on or before 27-11-2014 applicant shall surrender before the trial Court and thereafter on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one Mcrc.10222.2014 Sugreev Singh Vs.solvent surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, he be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 437(2) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,283,632 | Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, Chhatar Singh was the village Sarpanch of village Guraiya.On 12th October 2002 at about 8:00 a.m., he went to Satnam Singh's house.While returning home, the appellants obstructed and abused him.They threatened to kill him.They were armed with Lathi and Katarna.They assaulted Chhatar Singh.He received injuries on his head and hands.Dropadi mother of appellant Mangal brought a bottle of acid, which was poured by the appellant Mangal on the head of Chhatar Singh.Surendra Dubey, Harisingh Thakur, Mahendra Thakur, Kunwar Singh etc. reached the spot to rescue Chhatar Singh.They brought him to the District Hospital, Sagar.(22.02.2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.Both the appeals have been filed by the accused persons being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 24.01.2007 passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.26/2003, therefore, are being decided by this common judgment.By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and 2 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 sentenced as under:-2 Cr. A. No.442/2007Dehatinalishi was lodged by Chhatar Singh (since deceased).Thereafter, he was referred to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal for further treatment.He died on 18th October, 2002 at about 2:15 p.m. On the intimation from Hamidiya Hospital Bhopal, merg has been registered.After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.3 Cr. A. No.442/2007After committal of the case, charges under Sections 148, 341, 302 in alternate Sections 302/149 of the IPC have been framed against the appellants.They abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.Learned trial Court convicted the appellants for committing the murder of Chhatar Singh by deadly weapons in furtherance of their common object.The appellants were sentenced as mentioned above.The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that only interested witnesses have supported the prosecution case.Their testimony are contradictory with the medical evidence.There was no eye-witness of the incident.The appellants were falsely implicated by the complainant party because of their enmity.Therefore, the appellants have prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and they be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at lenght and perused the record.Murder trial herein, dying declaration was credible and corroborated by other evidence.Hence, conviction of appellant-accused stands confirmed."Hence, contention of learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-Prosecution examined Mahendra (PW-1), Delan (PW-6), Lakhan Singh (PW-8), Geeta Bai (PW-10), Lane Singh (PW-11) and 5 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 Hari Singh (PW-21) as eye-witnesses of the incident.Geeta Bai (PW-5 Cr. A. No.442/2007She only deposed that she heard hue and cry from Ram Singh's house then she reached on the spot.She found that her husband was lying in injured condition and the appellants 14 in number were running away from the spot, which establish that she saw some appellants on the spot after the incident.Her husband was injured.Chhatar Singh told her the whole incident.Geeta Bai (PW-10) also stated that Hari Singh, Mahendra, Lane Singh, Surendra and some other persons reached the spot.They brought her husband to the hospital.He also supported the presence of Hari Singh, Surendra Kumar, Lakhan on the scene of crime.It is the settled law that dying declaration can form sole basis of conviction without corroboration, when it is voluntary, true, and reliable free from suspicious circumstances recorded in accordance with the practice and principle as stated by the Supreme Court in cases of Pawan Kumar Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780, Sukanti Moharan Vs.State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 163, Raju Devade Vs.State of Maharashtra, (2016) 11 SCC 673 and Krishan Vs.It is important to note that the accused persons namely Munna @ Bhagwan Singh, Gokal Singh, Jahar Singh, Bharat Singh, Kailash Singh and Halke were acquitted by the trial Court.Hence, 6 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 learned counsel for the appellants has contended that on the same set of evidence, the appellants are also entitled to get benefit of doubt.We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants.In criminal trial, the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) would not be applicable.6 Cr. A. No.442/2007Mahendra Singh (PW-1) in para 6 of his cross-examination deposed that he brought Chhatar Singh to Surkhi Hospital and thereafter, Police reached there.He specifically denied that at that time, Chhatar Singh was not in a condition to speak properly or to give dying declaration.The version of Mahendra Singh (PW-1) is also corroborated by Lakhan Singh (PW-8) and Lane Singh (PW-11).However, some witnesses turned hostile but they partly supported the prosecution story.Hence, their testimony can be used for the corroboration of prosecution case.As held by the Supreme Court in cases of Charandas Swami Vs.State of Gujrat and others, (2017) 7 SCC 177, Rajendra Vs.State (2009), 13 SCC 480 and Govindappa and Ors.Hari Singh (PW-21) saw the deceased in injured condition just after the incident.He also saw Mahendra and Surendra were present there.Their evidence cannot be totally ignored or discarded.We find that the aforesaid witnesses have established that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants.Inspector R.P. Tiwari (PW23) corroborated the testimony of Geeta Bai (PW-10), Mahendra (PW-1) and Surendra (PW-7).He stated that he received an information from the villagers that Chhatar 7 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 Singh was assaulted by some persons therefore, he proceeded to village Guraiya.Meanwhile deceased Chhatar Singh was brought to CHC Surkhi, thereafter, referred to the District Hospital, Sagar then, R.P. Tiwari (PW-23) reached there.On his request, Dr. R.K. Jain (PW-7 Cr. A. No.442/20072) examined Chhatar Singh and found the following injuries on his body:-According to Dr. R.K. Jain, Chhatar Singh was complaining about low vision in his eyes.He was in critical condition but conscious.Dr. R.K. Jain found that his left side of face, left side of forearm about 20 cm.x 6 cm.with blackening in burned condition.Further, he found that blackening was present due to burns on right side of the neck, right shoulder, back portion of neck and upper portion of back.All the injuries were caused to the deceased due to acid.During postmortem, his physical condition is also corroborated by Dr. B.K. Athwal (PW-12).He opined that the deceased died due to 8 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 failure of cardio respiratory system because of complication from burn injuries caused to him.Nature of injuries are homicidal in nature and sufficient to cause his death in ordinarily course.Except the burn injuries, other injuries may be caused by hard and blunt object.In his cross-examination, he also deposed that the deceased was able to speak to record his dying declaration.A dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence, neither extra strong or weak, and can be acted upon without corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable.In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that 9 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 the trial Court has rightly relied on the dying declaration of the deceased.All the evidence corroborated the facts of dying declaration of deceased.9 Cr. A. No.442/2007The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has no application in India and the witness cannot be branded as a liar.In case this maxim is applied in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop.Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, truth is the main.Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well.See also.Suchcha Singh Vs.State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3617 and Raja @ Rajinderv Vs.State of Haryayan."Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that role of every appellant is different.Therefore, the provision of Section 34 of the IPC is not attributed in this case.Particularly, all the eye- 10 Cr. A. No.442/200710 Cr. A. No.442/2007Cr.A. No.931/2007 witnesses deposed against Mangal only, therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.In this regard, we have considered the testimony of eye-witnesses Mahendra (PW-1).He has clearly deposed that all the appellants came altogether on the spot.They were armed with deadly weapons.The appellant Mangal assaulted with Sang (a sharp weapon).Appellant Kallu assaulted with Lathi and appellant Amol (now absconded) assaulted with Katarna (a sharp cutting object).The appellant Mangal inflicted blow of Sang on the hands of deceased and appellant Kallu inflicted Lathi blow on the deceased.Accused Dropadi (mother of appellant Mangal) provoked them to pour acid on the deceased.A bottle of acid was in her hand and she shouted to pour on the deceased, then appellant Mangal poured acid on the body of deceased.Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away together from the spot.In earlier paragraphs, the injuries of the deceased were mentioned by us.11 Cr. A. No.442/200711 Cr. A. No.442/2007Cr.A. No.931/2007 In the case of Kara Bhai (supra), eye-witnesses go to show that accused No.1 and accused No.2, who had jointly gone to the house of deceased and had called him out and had taken him away immediately.Thereafter, the incident had taken place in course of which both the accused persons had attacked the deceased with knives.The common intention however, may develop on the spot after the offenders gathered there.The eye-witnesses have not stated about active participation of appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh.The prosecution has succeeded in burdening the conviction against the said appellants for commission of offence under Section 34 of the IPC.But learned trial Court has convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC and further for Section 148 of the IPC.There are three accused persons, liable to be convicted in this case.12 Cr. A. No.442/2007Section 141 of the IPC defines unlawful assembly "An assembly of five or more persons.There is nothing on record to show that the appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh had played any role in the alleged incident.Even a prior meeting of minds that they came with Mangal and others and simultaneously attacked Chhatar Singh and they had same intention to kill him and all the injuries were caused by accused/appellant Mangal, Kallu and Dropadi.They would be liable for the injuries caused to the deceased.But the appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh could not be vicariously liable for the act of other appellants namely Mangal, Kallu and Dropadi.Therefore, we find that the appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh are not liable to be convicted for committing the murder of Chhatar Singh.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No.442/2007 filed by the appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh is hereby allowed.The impugned judgment against the said appellants is set aside.They are acquitted from the charges under 13 Cr. A. No.442/2007 Cr.A. No.931/2007 Sections 302, 302/149, 148 and 341 of the IPC.13 Cr. A. No.442/2007The appellants Babu, Jagdish Singh, Firtu @ Imrat Singh and Bhagat Singh are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged.If fine amount is deposited by the said appellants, the same will be refunded to them.The said appellants are acquitted from the charges under Sections 148, 149 of the IPC.If fine is deposited for offence under Section 148 of the IPC, the same be refunded to them. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,285,458 | Rajan Saha (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11 arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC.By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC.Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the Crl.A.No.673/2012 Page 1 of 5 complainant Smt.Seema Sharma and her family members of cash and gold/silver ornaments using deadly weapons.Daily Diary (DD) No.22 (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded at 01.05 P.M. at Police Station Dabri regarding the incident.The investigation was assigned to SI Narender Singh who with Const.Amar Singh went to the spot.After recording complainant-Seema Sharma's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) he lodged First Information Report.Efforts were made to find out the culprits but in vain.On 31.08.2008 SI Narender Singh received DD No.111-B (Ex.It was further informed that Rajan Saha had made a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the decoity in question.When he declined to participate in the TIP proceedings, he was taken on remand.TSR mini door for `2,10,000/- and Hunk motorcycle for `59,000/- purchased out of the booty in the name of his brother-in-law Manoj was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement.The looted mobile phone bearing IMEI No.359945000295694 of make-Fly with sim No.9910211900 was also Crl.A.No.673/2012 Page 2 of 5 recovered from him.It is informed that the appellant has suffered heart attacks twice in jail and was treated in Crl.A.No.673/2012 Page 4 of 5 DDU hospital and G.B. Pant hospital.He has aged mother who is also suffering from heart ailments.During appeal, report was called at the time of consideration of suspension of sentence and it was informed that the mother of the appellant was referred for heart problem to AIIMS by the doctor.The appellant has no criminal past history/antecedents and was the first offender.A.No.673/2012 Page 5 of 5He disclosed the names of the associates and it led to the apprehension of Mohd.Shakil, Mohd.Vakil, Zaved @ Mukesh and Guddu.They were also arrested and recoveries were effected at their instance.During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them for committing offences under Sections 395/397/412 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Vide order dated 07.08.2009, the appellant and his associates were charged under Sections 395/412/397/34 IPC.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove the charges.In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.Rajan Saha examined his brother-in-law Manoj Kumar as DW-1 in defence.On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted all of them under Section 395/34 IPC.The appellant, Aziz, Shakil and Vakil were also convicted under 412 IPC.They were, however, acquitted under Section 397 IPC and the State did not challenged the said acquittal.It is unclear if other convicts Mohd.Jahangir Khan, Mohd.Shakil and Mohd. Aziz have challenged their conviction.A.No.673/2012 Page 3 of 5A.No.673/2012 Page 1 of 5A.No.673/2012 Page 2 of 5A.No.673/2012 Page 3 of 5During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant-Rajan Saha has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction.He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a previous convict.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.Since the appellant-Rajan Saha has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 395/412 IPC and accepts it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the statements of PW-1 (Seema Sharma), PW-2 (Rajbala) and PW-3 (Noor Alam), inmates of the house, who identified him as one of the assailants coupled with recovery of robbed articles at his instance, his conviction is affirmed.The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395/412 IPC.Though the assailants were armed with deadly weapons, no physical harm was caused to any of the inmates.Considering these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to seven years each under Sections 395 and 412 IPC.Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 25,000/-each under both the heads would be three months each.A.No.673/2012 Page 4 of 5The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.M.B.No.960/2013 also stands disposed of.Trial Court record be sent back immediately.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 23, 2014/sa Crl.A.No.673/2012 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,282,918 | The plaintiff also alleged that he has been possessing the said rooms for the last 60 years by paying rent to the landlord defendant No. 1, It was further alleged that the defendant No. 1 filed T.S. No. 51 of 1980 against the plaintiff for his eviction from the tenanted premises and the plaintiff entered appearance in the said suit through his advocate Sri Arabinda Ghoshal.Said Sri Arabindo Ghoshal (advocate) has been made defendant No. 2 in the instant suit.Since appearance, the plaintiff handed over rents month by month to his advocate the defendant No. 2 for depositing the same in the Court as per the instruction of the defendant No. 2 and the rent for each month was handed over to the defendant No. 2 before 15th of next month.The plaintiff was assured every time by the defendant No. 2 that all his rents were being deposited in the Court and he did not have to worry about the case.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Mitra, J.This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated March 16, 1998 and May 2, 1998 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 232 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah, affirming the judgment and decree dated June 29, 1993 and July 12, 1993 passed in Title Suit No. 232 of 1983 by the learned Munsif, 5th Court, Howrah.The back drop under which this appeal has been preferred is inter alia as follows:One Bhabani Charan Nandy originally filed T.S. No. 51 of 1980 against one Batokrishna Mitra praying for his eviction from the suit property.The said Title Suit No. 51 of 1980 was decreed ex parte.An application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed but that application was also dismissed.Bhabani Charan Nandy being the landlord also filed a suit being T.S. No. 40 of 1984 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for recovery of khas possession of the suit property.Both the suits T.S. 232 of 1983 and T.S. 40 of 1984 were heard analogously.The plaintiffs case in T.S. No. 232 of 1983 is that he is a monthly premises tenant in respect of the suit property in holding No. 1, Baba Kumar Kar Lane, P.S. Mali Pachghora, District: Howrah, at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- according to English Calendar month, under the defendant No. 1 Bhabani Charan Nandy.The plaintiff all along relied on defendant No. 2 and he always contacted with his advocate the defendant No. 2 for knowing the result of the suit and its proceedings.The plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1956 was heard on 07.01.1982 and it was allowed and the plaintiff was directed by the learned Court to deposit the sum of Rs. 780/- in thirteen equal instalments and the plaintiff deposited the aforesaid sum with the defendant No. 2 for depositing the same in the Court but the defendant No. 2 did not deposit the said sum in the Court and as a result of which the plaintiffs defence against delivery of possession in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 was struck-off and ultimately the suit was heard ex-parte.That the plaintiff had no knowledge of all these proceedings.He was told by the defendant No. 2 that the date will be communicated to him by post card.The plaintiff further submitted that thereafter the plaintiff was never informed about the position of the said suit and its proceedings by the defendant No. 2 on 27th September, 1983 when the bailiff from the Court came to the suit properly to give delivery of possession of the suit property to the defendant No. 1 and he came to know about the fate of the case.The plaintiff also alleged in the plaint that he was astonished to see the presence of the bailiff and he was puzzled and then and there the plaintiff rushed to the Court to contact his advocate the defendant No. 2, to know about the case but the plaintiff could not meet the defendant No. 2 as he was not available at that time and the plaintiff with the help of advocate Tarun Kumar Guha got the records of Title Suit No. 51 of 1980, inspected and he came to know that not a single furthing was deposited on account of rent in the Court on his behalf and as such his defence against delivery of possession was struck off and the ex parte decree has been passed against him.The plaintiff submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit premises for the last.60 years and he has got no other house to live in and he always handed over the rent to the defendant No. 2 for depositing the same in the Court.The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. I managed and manipulated the defendant No. 2 and by gaining over the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 1 got an ex parte deeree in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 against the plaintiff.He also alleged that the defendant No. 2 practised fraud upon the plaintiff by not conducting case properly and sincerely and by not depositing the rent in the Court helped the defendant No. 1 to obtain an ex parte decree and as such serious fraud has been practised upon plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 and the decree in T.S No. 51 of 1980 against the plaintiff is collusive and fraudulent one and is not binding upon the plaintiff and is to be set aside.Hence, the suit is filed against the defendant for declaration that the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 against the plaintiff is collusive and fraudulent one and not binding upon the plaintiff and for the said decree to be set aside and for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises except in accordance with law.The defendant No. 1 to 1(b) contested the suit by filing Written Statement.In the W.S. the defendants stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action and/or right to sue against the defendants.It was further stated that the suit as framed is neither maintainable in law nor in facts.The suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action and non-joinder of necessary or proper parties.The suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit is barred by principles of Estoppel, acquiescence and waiver.The defendants have also alleged in their W.S. that the suit is mala fide, speculative and motivated and has been falsely made on false grounds to overcome the effect of the decree passed in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 by changing his title from Moitra and Mitra.Naba Kumar Kar Lane at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English Calendar month under the defendant No. 1, he was always an habitual defaulter and could not pay rent in time.In reply to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the plaint it was submitted that the plaintiff having failed to pay rent since the month of October 1976, as well as for causing damages to the suit holding, these defendants were constrained to file ejectment suit against the plaintiff being T.S. No. 51 of 1980, after proper service of notice on him and the defendant of that suit, in the said suit filed two applications one under Section 17(2) and another application under Section 17(2A)(b) and during hearing the defendant of that suit submitted falsely that the rent is due from January 1980, but he had not deposited any current rent as provided under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It has been alleged by these defendants in the Written Statement in paragraph 14 that the statement regarding handing over rent month by month to his advocate, defendant No. 2 for depositing the same in the Court as per his instruction and/or the rent in each month was handed over to the defendant No. 2 before the 15th of the next month are not correct and invented for the purposes of the suit.It was submitted that it was the duty and the responsibility of the plaintiff to see the challan showing deposit of rent in the learned Court and he cannot shark his responsibility by making false statement.The defendants in paragraph 15 of the Written Statement denied the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the plaint being not correct and alleged the same as invented for the purposes of the suit.The alleged statement of assurance by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff will not save the plaintiff from being treated as defaulter.He remained without depositing a single farthing in the learned Court and almost in every date of hearing the plaintiff did not turn up in Court and filed adjournment petition on false and frivolous grounds.The defendants denied that the plaintiffs (defendant in that suit) application was heard on 17.01.1982 and/or the plaintiff (defendant therein) was directed by the learned Court to deposit the amount of Rs. 780/- in 13 (thirteen) equal instalments and/or the plaintiff (defendant therein) deposited the aforesaid sum with the defendant No. 2 herein for depositing the same in the Court and/or the defendant No. 2 herein did not deposit the said sum and as a result plaintiffs defence against delivery of possession was struck off in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 and/or the suit was heard ex parte and/or the plaintiff (defendant in that suit) had no knowledge of all these proceeding.The defendants submitted that on 17.01.1982 the plaintiff of this suit (defendant therein) filed a petition for adjournment in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 on the ground stated therein.Neither the plaintiff nor the learned advocate was present for moving the application and/or for hearing and the learned Court was pleased to reject the application by order No. 18 dated 17.01.1982 as the plaintiff of this suit (defendant therein) never turned up at that date of hearing and asked the parties to get ready at once.But the defendant of that suit that is the defendant of 51 of 1980 was absent on call and the learned Court waited upto 2.45 p.m. and at last the learned Court being sympathetic towards the defendant of that suit in considering his petition under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) allowed him an opportunity to liquidate the arrear by paying the same in 13 (thirteen) equal Instalment @ Rs. 60/- per month and the plaintiff was further directed to go on depositing amount equivalent to monthly rent month by month.Defendant in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 (plaintiff herein) did not care to be present in Court on that date also and the suit was heard ex parte.These defendants on 10.08.1983 filed on application for execution of the said decree and the plaintiff (defendant in T.S. No. 51 of 1980) getting scent of the execution case, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree.But knowing fully well that he has not deposited any amount in the Court and in case he prays for stay of the execution case he will be asked to deposit the entire amount as such he got the said petition under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure to go by default.In paragraph 17 of the W.S. the defendant herein stated that the statements made in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the plaint are not correct, motivated and invented for the purposes of his false and harassing suit.The defendant denied that on 24.08.1983, the plaintiff (defendant therein) came to know on enquiry about his case from defendant No. 2 and/or signed written paper and/or he was told that an application was required to be filed in the suit for setting aside the ex parte decree, as the suit was heard ex parte due to not taking steps fixed for hearing and/or the plaintiff relying on the defendant No. 2 signed those papers and/or he was told that the date will be communicated to him by post card.The defendant further denied that the plaintiff (defendant therein) was not informed about the position of the said suit and it's proceedings, by defendant No. 2 his advocate, till 17.09.1983, when the bailiff from the Court went to the suit property to give delivery of possession of the suit property in favour of the defendants of this suit namely the plaintiffs of that suit (51 of 1980).The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff knew very well that he has not deposited any single farthing in this Court and not in a position to pay the same and he did not attend the Court on any date of the hearing.It was also alleged by the defendants that inspite of his knowledge that an ex parte decree for eviction has been passed against him due to not taking steps by his advocate as alleged, the story of placing reliance upon him or communicating him the date of the proceeding though changing his name from Butokrishna Moitra to Butokrishna Mitra, is far from his convincing to a man of prudence.It is further submitted by the defendants in this Written Statement that on 16.09.1983 the bailiff from the Court went there and being vehemently resisted at the time from removing the articles from suit holding police men came and with the help of local police got delivery of possession by moving all his belongings and the members of the family from the house in the presence of the local gentlemen.The defendants in the W.S. denied the other allegations of the plaintiff made in paragraph 10 & 11 and alleged that those allegations are false.It was further alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff cannot shark his responsibility only by saying that there was a collusion between his advocate and these defendants.The defendants in their W.S. in paragraph 20 also denied the averments made in paragraph 12 of the plaint and the defendants alleged that those averments are absolutely false.The defendants further denied that the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit property and/or these defendants have not been able to take possession by executing the decree and/or if there is any report of the bailiff stating that he has delivered possession of the suit property to those defendants then that report is a desk work and has been prepared according to the instruction of these defendants, has been falsely alleged.The defendants submitted that the possession was duly delivered by removing the plaintiff and members of the family with all their belongings with the help of police in the presence of local gentleman and the defendant No. 1's son Sidhinath Nandi took delivery of possession by signing the Court papers and the plaintiff at about 10.30 p.m. in the night in the same date with the help of anti social elements got illegal access of the house by forcibly removing the man of those defendants for which false case No. 32 dated 26.09.1988 under Section 448 Indian Penal Code was started and the defendants filed application under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure in the criminal Court being M.P. No. 1682 of 1983 and another suit has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants further submitted that plaintiff having no chance of success has filed this suit on false and frivolous grounds by changing the title of himself as well as that of his father from Moitra to Mitra in order to show that the whole proceeding is not correct.The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs.The plaintiff amended the plaint and against the said amended plaint, the defendants filed additional Written Statement.The defendants also alleged that the original plaintiff had not paid rent to said advocate upto June 1983 as alleged.It was further stated by the defendants that the original plaintiff in his deposition had not disclosed anything about the said alleged letter which was not filed in this suit during his life time.The disputed letter has been filed by the person the substituted plaintiff on the last day of his evidence on 15.05.1992 and that letter has been created for the purpose of this suit, after the death of original plaintiff and as such that letter has no documentary value in the eye of law and it cannot be taken into evidence also.It was submitted by the defendants in their additional Written Statement that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced and will not suffer loss as alleged.But on the other hand these defendants have been seriously prejudiced and have suffered irreparable losses and injury for the said created document.The defendants herein being the plaintiff has also filed T.S. No. 40 of .1984 against the plaintiffs herein making them defendants therein in that suit.In the said suit No. 40 of 1984 the defendants herein being the landlords prayed for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge heard the said two Suits T.S. No. 232 of the 1983 and T.S. No. 40 of 1984 analogously and for the purpose of hearing following issues were framed:-T.S. No. 232 of 19831. Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue?Is the suit maintainable in its present form?Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?To what other relief or reliefs plaintiff is entitled?T.S. No. 40 of 19841. Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue?Is the suit maintainable in its present form?Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?To what other relief or reliefs plaintiff is entitled?As the above two suits were heard analogously, the issue of both the suits being same were taken up together and argued accordingly by the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court below is based on surmise and conjectures.The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff has filed a separate suit being T.S. No. 56 of 2000 which is still pending before the learned trial Judge.In the suit the parties herein are the parties there.The said revisional application was taken up for hearing on 24.09.1998 by one Hon'ble single Judge of this High Court and the said revisional application was allowed and the judgment and order passed in Title Appeal No. 233 of 1993 was set aside.In the said revisional application the Hon'ble single Judge of this High Court also observed that as a result of setting aside the Appellate Court's decree and order, the decree of the trial Court passed in T.S. No. 40 of 1984 stands good.The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that thereafter on behalf of the appellant recalling application was filed in C.O. No. 1032 of 1998 for recalling the order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Hon'ble single Judge setting aside the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No. 433 of 1993 and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court at Howrah in T.S. No. 40 of 1984 and the said recalling application was also rejected by order dated 18.11.1999 passed by another Hon'ble single Judge of this High Court.The learned counsel further submitted that even if the application for recalling the order dated 24.09.1998 passed in C.O. No. 1032 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein was also rejected.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of this respondent being T.S. No. 51 of 1980 was decreed against the plaintiff/appellant whose predecessor-in-interest Botokrishna Moitra was the defendant here.The appellant being the defendant there filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that also ended in dismissal, Then the appellant being, plaintiff filed T.S. No. 232 of 1983 making an allegations of fraud against their learned advocate Sri Arabindo Ghoshal and making Sri Arabindo Ghoshal defendant No. 2 therein.It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Sri Ghoshal adduced evidence as DW 6 and he also admitted that the defendant in T.S, No. 51 of 1980 Botokrishna Moitra (presently deceased) told him that he has been dispossessed and in that view of the matter the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed T.S. No. 232 of 1983 and decreed the suit for recovery of possession filed by the respondent herein and rightly directed eviction of the tenant and rightly observed that the said tenant Botokrishna Moitra was a trespasser after the decree passed in T.S. 40 of 1984 was executed.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant appeal should be dismissed with costs.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court below accepted the appellant as not a trespasser and in that view the respondent is not entitled to relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court below as well as the trial Court suffers from perversity and that apart the learned Appellate Court below did not also scrutinise the evidence and/or the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and as such both the substantial question of law are in favour of the appellant and the appeal should be allowed with imposition of costs on the respondent.33. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.Considered their submissions in respect of the substantial questions of law formulated, considered the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in the light of the evidence on record.Let me first have a look into the back ground of this instant second appeal inasmuch as the case herein has got a chequered history.The tenant defendant appears in the said suit through one learned advocate Sri Arobindo Ghoshal.Thereafter, the tenant defendant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside, the ex parte decree and that application also ended in dismissal.Thereafter, the tenant filed Title Suit No. 232 of 1983 praying for a declaration that the decree passed in T.S. 51 of 1980 is not binding upon the tenant and also with prayer for restraining the landlord from taking possession of the suit property.The landlord filed T.S. No. 40 of 1984 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises.At this juncture two facts need be recorded, original tenant Boto Krishna Moitra and subsequently Bhabani Charan Nandi both expired during the course of proceedings and their heirs were substituted under orders of the Courts.The point of dispute which arise was on the basis of the claim and rival claim made by the landlords and the tenants.Now, it is to be decided as to whether the Appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the tenants were not trespassers or the decree has been passed in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 was not executed or the learned trial Judge came to a wrong conclusion in so far as the possession of the tenants is concerned.The defendants received summons, appeared in the matter through Sri Arobindo Ghoshal, advocate, but did not comply with the order passed by the trial Court in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 deciding the applications under Section 17(1) and 17(2)(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned trial Judge fixed the arrear of rent and directed payment in the said order through instalment, but the order was not complied with.No deposit was made the defence was struck off and ultimately the suit was heard ex parte.The suit property was identified by Siddhi Nandi, son of decree-holder." Sri Arobindo Ghoshal, the learned advocate of the defendant also adduced evidence as DW 6 and in cross-examination he said "I have heard only about the taking possession from Boto Krishna Babu.It also appeared from the evidence of the process server that when judgment-debtor obstructed the process-server, then the decree holder, process-server with Malipachghora Police Station and police party came there and in presence of the police party peaceful possession was delivered and writ was duly executed Kashinath Banerjee, the driver of the landlord/plaintiff in T.S. No. 51 of 1980 adduced evidence and said that the defendant in that case with the help of some anti-social elements forcibly entered into the suit property and removed him from the house. | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,282,962 | The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.The brief facts of the case, as unfolded during the course of trial through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, are as follows :(i) A-1 and A-2 and the deceased were friends.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased.Both A-1 and the deceased were also related to P.W.2. A-1 and A-2 were having illicit intimacy with P.W.2, Sampoornam.Therefore, there were strained feelings between A-1, A-2 and the deceased.(ii) On 29.06.2000, while P.W.1, father of the deceased, was working in his field, he had seen A-1 and A-2 were proceeding along with deceased from P.W.2's house.Thereafter, the deceased had not returned to the house.Therefore, P.W.1 enquired A-1 and A-2 about the whereabouts of his son, the deceased, for that A-1 and A-2 informed him that they went to Ponneri and as no bus was available, they came in a tempo to Thirupathur and from Thirupathur, the deceased Padmanathan went to Hosur after getting Rs.200/- from them.It is further informed by A-1 and A-2 that the deceased told them that he was going to meet his brother, Govindan.P.W.10 advised him to go and find out from the house of his son, Govindan at Hosur and thereafter P.W.1 went to Hosur and his son Govindan informed that the deceased had not come to his house.Thereafter, P.W.1 informed P.W.10 that the deceased used to go to the house of P.W.2 frequently and P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.2 along with P.W.10 and one Raj Gounder.On enquiry, P.W.2 informed them that the deceased had not come to her house.P.W.2 informed that A-1 and A-2 had taken the deceased on 29.06.2000 at 10.00 a.m. from her house.When P.W.1 started to give a report, P.W.10, in turn, directed the accused to search and find the deceased. A-1 and A-2 agreed to search and bring the deceased on or before 15.07.2000, but they have not produced the deceased on that day.(iii) P.W.1 went to Vaniyambadi police station along with his another son, P.W.5, and gave a report, Ex.P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.455 of 2000 for the offence of man missing.P.13 is the Express First Information Report.(iv) P.W.14 took up investigation and examined the witnesses including P.W.5 and others.Thereafter, he searched for the accused.On the same day, i.e. on 17.07.2000, he arrested A-1 at Kalandira bus stop in the presence of witnesses.In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A-1, he recovered M.O.6, a tin containing poison, under Ex.Thereafter, A-1 took P.W.14 and others to the scene of occurrence, namely, Jaloripallam at Yelagiri Hills and they found burnt skeleton.P.W.14 prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 and the Rough Sketch, Ex.It is also pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has not stated to the police during the investigation that he has seen the deceased going along with A-1 and A-2 in person and such version was given by P.W.1 only for the first time before the Court.As far as P.W.2 is concerned, it is stated by her in the chief examination that the deceased left along with A-1 and A-2 on 29.06.2000 and thereafter, the deceased had not returned back and A-1 and A-2 returned back to their house.2. - do thro" The Principal Sessions Judge, Thirupattur.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupattur,4. - do thro" The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.The District Collector, Vellore.(Judgment of the court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.) The State has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 26.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thirupathur, Vellore District, made in S.C.No.242 of 2001 acquitting the respondents, namely, A-1 and A-2, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 IPC.2. P.W.1, in this case, has preferred a Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.420 of 2005 challenging the judgment of acquittal.The charge against the respondents, namely, A-1 and A-2 is that A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased, Padmanathan, on his head with wooden log with the intention of causing the death and thereby liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC, in pursuance of the above said occurrence, A-1 and A-2, with a view to screen the offence and to escape from the punishment, set fire to the body of the deceased and thereby they are punishable for the offence under Section 201 IPC.He held inquest on the skeleton.P.16 is the inquest report.He sent the Skeleton for post-mortem.(v) The Doctor, P.W.7, examined the skeleton on 18.07.2000 at 12.40 p.m. and found the following appearance of the bones :O/E : Skull, Jaw Bones, both upper limb bones vertebral column with some ribs attached to it both lower limbs bones, pelvis and tuft of hair seen.Skull : Fractured over the lower part of the Right parietal region.Fissured type of fracture.Right upper incisor and canine teeth are absent.Upper left premolar tooth absent.Lower incisor and right lower premolar teeth absent.Ribs : Nos.1 to 5 ribs are present on both sides other ribs absent.Right leg bone : Tibia is found missing from its lower 1/3 skull, lower jaw bone.The Doctor opined that the deceased died of head injury and multiple fractures.P.8 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.Etc. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.P.W.14, altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC.P.17 is the altered First Information Report.P.W.14, thereafter, sent the case records to Yelagiri Police Station.(vii) The investigation was taken over by one Inspector, Gunaseelan and as he was not well, P.W.16, another Inspector, was examined.At 2.00 p.m., on the same day, he arrested A-2 in the presence of witnesses.A-2 produced a photograph which was taken along with the deceased.He sent the skeleton for chemical examination through the Court.After examining all the remaining witnesses and after receiving the post-mortem certification, Ex.P.8, Anthro report, Ex.P.9, and after completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both the accused denied each and every circumstances as contrary to the facts and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case.Both the accused have not chosen to examine any witnesses on their side.The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by assigning various reasons.In the light of the above principles of law regarding the circumstantial evidence as well as appeal against acquittal, we shall scrutinize the materials available on record and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused.The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquitting the accused :(i) Motive, alleged by the prosecution is to the effect that A-1, A-2 were having illicit relationship with P.W.2 and P.W.2 also developed intimacy with the deceased.Therefore, A-1 and A-2 were on inimical terms with the deceased.It is pertinent to be noted that admittedly as per the version of P.W.2 only after a week, P.W.1 brought the Village President and one Raji Gounder and enquired her about the whereabouts of the deceased.Added to this infirmity, namely, the delay in enquiring P.W.2 by P.W.1 and others, P.W.2 has also categorically admitted that she has not stated about seeing that the deceased was going along with A-1 and A-2 at the time of examination by the police as well as by the Judicial Magistrate.Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of last seen theory.The other recovery said to have been made by the investigating officer, P.W.14, is also highly doubtful.It is claimed by the investigating officer, P.W.14, that he has recovered, apart from other material objects, the burnt lungi, M.O.4, ashes from the burnt plants.It is the prosecution version that the body was burnt and as such the recovery of M.O.1, bloodstained shirt which was found to be intact raises serious doubt about the entire recovery made by the investigating officer in this case.Apart from the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, we are also constrained to state that the conduct of the accused is also relevant to be taken into consideration.It is the categorical version of P.W.1, father of the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.10, Village Headman that A-1 and A-2 were very much present after the occurrence and they were not absconding and such conduct of the accused shows their innocence.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thirupattur.The Inspector of Police, Yelagiri Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,283,022 | (Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J) Challenging the order of detention, the wife of the detenu has filed thepetition.The detenu was detained by the first respondent District Collector byhis detention order Cr.M.P.No.32/2009, dated 07.12.2009, under the provisions ofthe Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terminghim as a "Goonda".Further, there must be satisfactory and acceptable materials onrecord to enable the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that thereis real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bailapplication.We perused the materials carefully and meticulously and absolutely,there is no material for the detaining authority to arrive at the subjectivesatisfaction.So, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detainingauthority is not correct.Hence, the order of detention is liable to be setaside on this ground.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order ofdetention in Cr.M.P.No.32/2009 dated 07.12.2009, passed by the first respondentis quashed.1.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Karur District, Karur.2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,306,588 | I. The application is hereby allowed.The applicant Siddheshwar Ankush Tonde be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 50 of 2019 registered with Dharur Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under sections 354-A, 354-D, 323, 341, 504, 506 of IPC and under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on his furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions :-a] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 04:48:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 04:48:27 :::d) The applicant shall not indulge himself in any similar activities in future.The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 04:48:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 04:48:27 ::: | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,308,722 | ( 17/11/2011) Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction passed by Special Judge, Mandla in special case no. 71/98 vide impugned judgment dated 31/08/98 whereby being convicted u/s 354 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and u/s 323 of IPC fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer RI for 3 months is imposed on appellant.Further, being convicted u/s 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further RI for 3 months.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The case in brief is that complainant PW-2 Nanas Bai, a member of Baiga community on 1/03/98 lodged FIR Ex.P-2 in P.S. Mougaon to the effect that on 28/02/98 when she was alone in the house appellant came to her house, caught her and thrown on the barandah and tired to outrage her modesty.She started crying immediately her husband Sonu who was working nearby the filed came there on which appellant ran away from the spot.After due investigation, charge sheet was filed.Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that prosecution has not filed any caste certificate of the complainant Nanas Bai as well as of appellant hence it cannot be said prosecutrix was a member of scheduled tribes community.In this regard, complainant Nanas Bai has very specifically stated in para 1 of cross examination that she belongs to Baiga community and the aforesaid fact is corroborated by PW-4 Maya Das as well as admitted by appellant in answer to the question no.2 of accused statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The said fact is not challenged by the accused in cross examination.Complainant PW-2 Nanas Bai resident of village Jhurg has stated on oath that on 28/02/98 at about 17.00 hours when she was alone in the house appellant who is also resident of village Jhurg entered in her house and inquired about her husband, when prosecutrix intimated him that she is alone in house appellant thrown her on the ground and caught her hands and pressed her breast.She made hue and cry.Her husband PW-3 Sonu came there and seen this appellant ran away.PW-4 Maya is a hearsay witness.The incident took place at about 17.00 hours and as per FIR, the police station is about 13 kms from the spot therefore, on next day 1/03/98 named FIR Ex.P-2 was lodged by the complainant.Complainant Nanas Bai was sent for medical examination.There is no reason that why a married lady will falsely implicate the appellant.All these cases are related to section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)The defence of false implication is also not trustworthy because prosecutrix is a married lady having 2 children and no married lady on the cost of her prestige will falsely implicate a person without any reason. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,309 | JUDGMENT D.B. Dutta.How the aforesaid proceeding arose may be stated thus :By an order dated 6.2.95 passed in C.O. No. 5437(W) of 1994, Justice Samaresh Banerjea sitting in a single Bench held that the order dated 29th March, 1994 which appeared in the order-sheet of the concerned record of the C.O.5437(W) of 1994 was not at all the order which was actually passed by His Lordship in the said proceeding.His Lordship directed the Registrar, Appellate Side to cause an inquiry to find out as to what was his exact order that was passed on 29th March.The Registrar was directed to find out which particular court officer had taken the dictation of the order in question on the said date and to take out the transcript of that order from the relevant short hand notebook.In pursuance of that direction the Registrar submitted his report along with the relevant transcript taken out from the relevant shorthand note-book and after examining the same, Justice Banerjea by his subsequent order dated 10th February, 1995 passed in C.O.5437(W) of 1994 reiterated his finding that the purported order dated 29th March 1994 was forged and observed that since the matter involves forgery of court record including the signature of the presiding Judge of the court, it required indepth investigation so that whosoever be the person involved in such forgery cannot go unpunished.The petitioner of the present revisional application appeared before Justice Banerjea on 10.2.94 and claimed that he had acted as Special Officer of a school in pursuance of the order dated 29.3.94 of the court passed in C.O.5437(W) of 1994 and that a copy of that order was served upon him by a forwarding letter addressed by Gayatrl Chowdhury, the advocate on record of the writ petitioner.Justice Banerjea by his order dated 10.2.95 placed on record that the present petitioner was never appointed as Special Officer by him.In support of such claim, the petitioner produced before Justice Banerjea a xerox copy of the letter.The said letter was addressed to different authorities who are respondents in the concerned proceeding.The Director, Secondary School Education also submitted before Justice Banerjea that his office did not receive any communication from Gayatri Chowdhury.Gaytri Chowdhury, who was the Advocate on record for the writ petitioner did not appear before justice Banerjea on any of the occasions after she detected the forgery as she was hospitalised due to her serious illness and subsequently expired.In the circumstances, His Lordship considered it difficult to find out who were involved in that forgery.His Lordship was of the view that an investigation should be made by an expert investigating agency to find out the persons involved in the forgery and considering the gravity of the offences.His Lordship by his order dated 27.3.95 directed the DIG of Police, CBI Calcutta to investigate for the purpose of finding out who are the persons responsible for the forgery of the court record and the signature of the presiding Judge of the court and also to submit the report before His Lordship within certain specified time.The Registrar was directed to make all such necessary records available to the investigating agency.By the said order dated 27.3.95, His Lordship also made it clear that the CBI after such investigation would be at liberty to take all action in accordance with law including criminal prosecution against the offenders.His Lordship directed the Registrar to serve a copy of this order on the CBIfor taking necessary action and in pursuance of this direction, the Registrar by his letter dated 5.4.95 forwarded a copy of the order dated 27.3.95 to the CBIfor necessary action.Since the order dated 27.3.95 passed by justice Banerjea disclosed commission of cognizable offences by the present petitioner and others, the CBItreated it as FIR and started a case under section 120B, 420, 467. 471 and 477A of the IPC.After investigation, the CBI submitted its charge-sheet on 30.8.96 against the present petitioner. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
128,309,005 | JUDGMENT A. Alagiriswami, J.The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Army who served in Bangla Desh.Hira, General Officer Commanding, 23 Mountain Division, of which the petitioner was an officer, passed an order directing the revision of the sentence.Thereafter the petitioner was brought before the same Court Martial, as had tried him earlier, and he was asked whether he wanted to address the Court.On receiving a reply in the negative, the Court, after considering the observations of the confirming authority, revoked the earlier sentence which they had imposed on the petitioner and sentenced him to be cashiered and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.The officer who finally confirmed the sentence on the petitioner should also have heard the petitioner.(1) The officer who convened the Summary General Court Martial, which tried the petitioner, was Maj-Gen.The order passed by Maj-Gen.After revision, the proceedings shall be returned to this Headquarters. | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,875,894 | On 18.06.2013, she lodged first information report (FIR) no. 416/2013 with police station Govind Puri under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner (husband).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.1738/2018 Page 1 of 8The parties had also taken the dispute to the family court where pursuant to the counseling, they entered into a settlement on 12.01.2018 in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce, they also having agreed inter alia for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.The petition, thus, has been moved before this Court invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR no. 416/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC of police station Govind Puri.The second respondent on being served with a notice has appeared with counsel.The affidavit sworn on 03.04.2018 had been filed with the petition confirming that she has received Rs. 2 lakhs from the petitioner before the Family Court at the time of recording of her statement on the petition for divorce by mutual consent.She has submitted another affidavit dated 21.01.2019 stating that she has no intention to proceed with the criminal case, the matter having been amicably settled.Proof of her identity in the form of copy of aadhar card has been submitted.At the hearing, both parties have confirmed that they have already moved the Family court by way of two separate petitions, one Crl.The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,882,781 | In para 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 of the bail application respondents No.1 & 2 stated that they are innocent and after the engagement ceremony the applicant's daughter herself informed and requested to the respondents No.1 & 2's son namely Ajay Tiwari, to break the engagement as she wanted to marry someone else and that she had agreed to marry with Ajay Tiwari under compulsion of her family.Respondents No.1 & 2's son Ajay Tiwari 2 M.Cr.C.No.8545 of 2016 after coming to know about the above fact came under serious depression and informed his maternal uncle Laxman Tiwari, who also informed the respondents no. 1 and 2 and thereafter went to the applicant's home with family and informed about the above fact and requested him that when his daughter wanted to marry someone else by canceling engagement why did he want to get her married forcibly.But the applicant assured them to convince his daughter and asked them to continue with the preparation for marriage.Reserved on : 11/07/2018 Delivered on : 17/07/2018 This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 r/w 340 of CrPC for taking action against respondents for stating false facts and filing false affidavit before this Court in M.Cr.Brief facts of the petition are that on the report of applicant police registered Crime No.1322/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against respondents No.1 & 2 and other co- accused persons.The respondent No.1 & 2 filed bail application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail before this court which was registered as M.Cr.It is further stated that just a few days before the marriage on 08/11/2015, complainant Niranjan Pathak called the son of the respondent No.1 & 2 at his home and after returning from there their son was seriously depressed and left home the very same day and is missing since then.The respondents No.1 & 2 lodged complaint about missing of their son in the concerned police station, and the respondents No.1 & 2 are seriously tensed about him.2 M.Cr.C.No.8545 of 20163. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the above allegations are false and respondent no.3 also filed false affidavit in support of above contention.He further submitted that respondent no.3 also wrote his address wrong in the affidavit.So the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193 & 420 of IPC be taken against them.Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that earlier respondent no.1 and 2 had also filed bail application before Sessions Court in which they did not state the aforesaid facts.He further submitted that from the 3 M.Cr.C.No.8545 of 2016 report of the notice sent to the respondent No.3, it appears that respondent No.3 did not reside on that address so it also appears that respondent No.3 filed false affidavit giving his false address and did fraud with the court.3 M.Cr.C.No.8545 of 2016Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that respondents no.1 and 2 have not stated any false facts in their bail application and they had mentioned that facts in the bail application on the basis of information given by their son Ajay Tiwari, who is still missing.They also filed complaint regarding his missing on 10.11.2015 so it cannot be said that respondents No.1 & 2 stated false facts in their bail application.On 15/02/18 respondent no.3 personally appeared before this court and also filed document voter I.D. etc for showing the facts that he resided on given address.Applicant filed a false application against respondents to harass them.So it may be rejected. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
918,868 | The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.1.2003, PSI Maheshkumar Thakur of DCB CID, Mumbai Unit-XII got information that two persons would be coming near Hotel Dayanand, Dahisar Railway Station at about 1.00 p.m. with fake currency notes.He passed on this information to his senior and at about 12.30 p.m. PSI Maheshkumar Thakur and his staff went to Dayanand Hotel in a private vehicle.The vehicle was parked at some distance from the Hotel and they watched for the suspected persons.At about 1.05 p.m., two persons came there.They were as per the description given by the informant.As their movements appeared to be suspicious, the police took them in custody and immediately called two panch witnesses.In presence of the panch witnesses, personal search of both the accused was taken.During the search, 25 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each were found with accused No.1 - Faijan and 10 fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-each were found with accused No.2 - Rafiq.The numbers of all the currency notes seized from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were same.These notes were seized and sealed under a panchnama.They left the campus and went towards Hotel Dayanand in a private Sumo vehicle.The vehicle was parked at some distance.As per their evidence, at about 1.05 p.m., two persons came to that side.One of them went near PCO booth and came back.When they were about to leave that place, PSI Thakur gave signal to his staff and the police immediately took both the suspected persons in custody as they resembled the description given by the informant.Immediately, some police constable called two panch witnesses and in presnce of both the panch witnesses, names of the accused persons were asked while accused No.1 gave his name as Faizan Rizwan Khan and accused No.2 gave his name as Rafiq Madar Khan.Both are said to be residents of Ajmer.During the personal search of accused No.2 - Rafiq, from the left pocket of his shirt, 10 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- each were found.This witness was cross-examined at length.It was suggested that he is running a garage at some distance from the police station without necessary licence and therefore he must be under the influence of police.However, he could not be shattered.Merely because he did not have the licence under the Shops Act, it cannot be said that he was under influence of police.100/- each from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.After that, accused No.1 Faizan led the police party and the panchas to Bandra Hill Road and asked the police to stop the jeep near Regal Boutique shop.PSI Thakur rang the door bell and one person by name Jafar opened the door.PSI disclosed his identity and then police party entered into the room.Accused No.1 Faizan went upto the trial room and told that his bag was kept in that room.He opened the trial room and took out the bag.On inspection of the bag, some clothes, one rubber stamp bearing inscription "Akshay Enterprises", one red stamp pad, paper cutter and one packet were found.On opening the packet, driving licence of accused No.1 - Faizan and 4 genuine currency notes of Rs.1000/- each,3 genuine currency notes of Rs.100/-The appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003, have by this Appeal, challenged their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 489-C and 489-D read with Section 34 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisnment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::After that, PSI Thakur and his staff members took ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 3 both the accused persons and the seized property to the Police Station, where API Dattatray Sankhe recorded FIR of PSI Maheshkumar Thakur.Crime No.17/2003 came to be registered under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D read with section 34 IPC against both the accused.Investigation was done by PSI Maheshkumar Thakur under direct supervision of API Dattatray Sankhe.On the basis of information given by accused No.1, his bag was seized from the Regal Boutique at Bandra and during search of that bag, besides some clothes, Rubber stamp and ink pad, 114 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each were recovered.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::The said notes and other articles were also seized under a panchnama.Later on, on the basis of information given by the accused No.1 a scanning machine was seized from Al-Habib Hotel.The said machine was wrapped, sealed and seized under a panchnama.The fake currency notes seized from both the accused were referred to Security Press and the Security Press report confirmed that the notes were counterfeit.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The trial court framed charges under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 489-D read with Sec. 34 IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty.On behalf of the prosecution, in all seven witnesses were examined.Several documents were also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 4 placed on record.After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Sections 489-C and 489-D read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as stated earlier.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::At the outset, it may be stated that initially, the appeal was filed on behalf of both the accused by Mr. Rajeev Sawant, Advocate.Later on, the accused No.2 made a request from Jail that he may be provided some Advocate by the Legal Aid Authority.When the appeal came up for final hearing, Mr. Rajeev Sawant, Advocate for the appellant no.1 did not turn up.Therefore, on request of this Court, Mr. Mehta agreed to argue the appeal on behalf of accused No.2 also.Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Gajare, APP, for the State.Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the panch witnesses used by the prosecution were not reliable as they were under the influence of police.The whole investigation was carried out by PSI Maheshkumar Thakur, who himself was the complainant.He contended that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 5 PW-6 - Sayyed Gafar Mohd. - Master Tailor of Regal Boutique deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused No.1 was not present when the Boutique was searched and different articles were seized.The evidence of this witness has gone unchallenged by the prosecution.The learned Counsel contends that the evidence of P.W.6 - Sayyed Gafar Mohd. is in conflict with the evidence of PW-1 PSI Maheshkumar Thakur, PW-5 - Ravindra who was the panch witness and PW-7 API Dattatray Sankhe.The learned Counsel contends that if PW-6 Sayyed Gafar Mohd. is to be believed, the seizure of 114 counterfeit notes and other articles from the Boutique was effected in absence of the accused No.1 and therefore, it cannot be held that the discovery was made on the basis of information given by him.He also contends that the Investigating Officer did not check the record of Al-Habib Hotel to verify.He also contended that the prosecution has not examined even the Manager of that Hotel nor the booking register of that Hotel is produced before the Court.He also contended that even if the seizure as per the prosecution case is believed, still at the most, a case under Section 489-C IPC can be made out, but there is no material to establish the case under Section 489-D IPC.The learned APP, on the other hand, contended that evidence on record is sufficient to prove both the charges.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Evidence of PW-1 PSI Maheshkumar Thakur reveals that on 10.1.2003 at about 11 a.m. an informant informed that two persons would be coming with fake currency notes near the Hotel Dayanand, Dahisar Railway Station at 1 p.m. PSI Thakur informed his senior Police Inspector Prashant Deshpande, who arranged other police officers and staff.At about 12.30 p.m., PSI Maheshkumar Thakur and other police officers, including PW-7 API Dattatray Sankhe left their office which is situated within the campus of Dahisar Police Station.As per the evidence of PW-7 API Dattatray Sankhe, before leaving, the Police had obtained necessary sealing material from the police station.In presence of the panch witnesses, firstly ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 7 personal search of accused No.1 - Faizan was taken and from right side pocket of his pant, 25 fake currency notes of denomination of rs.100/- each were found.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::each were found.Besides these articles 114 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- each were also found.All these articles were sealed and seized under a panchnama Ex.11A. Thereafter, accused and the Muddemal property were taken to the office of Unit 12 of DCB CID at Dahisar.This part of the evidence of PSI Maheshkumar Thakur is corroborated by the evidence of PW-5 - Ravindra Chatragade as well as PW-7 API Dattatray Sankhe.9. PW-6 Sayyed Gafar Mohd. who was the Master Tailor at the Regal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 9 Boutique, deposed that on 10.1.1203, the police officer from Crime Branch came to the cutting room of the Regal Boutique where he alone was present.Police asked him whether he knew any person by name Faizan.This witness replied in the affirmative and also informed that said Faizan used to sleep in the said cutting room during night.According to him, police informed him that Faizan was arrested and his baggage from the trial room was to be taken.Accordingly, the police took the bag, searched it and sealed the same.According to him, the cloth bag (Article 8) contained two shirts and two pants (collectively marked Article 9), a cutter, and a poker.According to him, nothing else was found in the bag.He also deposed that Faizan was not brought to his shop by the police.PW-5 Ravindra was cross-examined at length, but his evidence could not be shattered.Nothing has come on record as to why this witness should speak falsely against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::He is working in Dahisar Sunlight Diamond factory and his residential accommodation is in the same factory premises and he was residing there for last six years.The witness appears to be respectable.Nothing has come on record due to which any question could be raised about the credibility of this witness.Taking into consideration the evidence on record, I find that evidence of police ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 10 officers is fully corroborated by the testimony of panch witness PW-5 Ravindra and merely because of certain statements by PW-6, evidence of these witness cannot be discarded or disbelieved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::PW-1 Maheshkumar Thakur deposed that after the discovery at Regal Boutique, on the same day he further interrogated accused No.1 - Faizan and who, in presence of panch witnesses, disclosed that he would show the place where he had kept the scaning machine.After that police and panchas went to Mohamedali Road and from there to Zakeria Masjid where the police vehicle was stopped.Accused No.1 - Faizan took the police and the panchas to Hotel Al-According to PSI Maheshkumar Thakur, Manager of the Hotel came there.The key of the room was with the Manager.He opened the lock and the police party and the accused entered into the room.PSI Maheshkumar deposed that the accused took out a scanning machine lying under a wooden cot.It was bearing the name "Office Jet".It was found wrapped in a piece of cloth.The cloth was opened.According to him, on interrogation, accused N.1 had told that he had kept one machine at Byculla and he would show the same.After recording the memorandum, the police, panchas and the accused were taken to Byculla and then to a hotel in a lane.He showed the room which was locked.The Hotel manager was called and the Manager opened the room.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Under a cot, one machine was found lying in a tied condition.From the evidence of PSI Maheshkumar Thakur, panch witness Madhu Ahir and API Dattatray Sankhe, it appears that when the accused was taken to Al-Habib Hotel, the Manager of the Hotel was called.The key of the Room No.105 was with the manager.On direction given by police, he opened the door and a scanning machine was found lying under the cot and it was seized.Admittedly, it was not the house of the accused.It was necessary for prosecution to prove that the room was in occupation of the accused.If it could be proved, it could be inferred that he was also in possession of the articles lying in the room.PSI Thakur admitted that he did not make any enquiry from the Hotel Manager about occupant of the room.He also did not examine the visitors' register maintained by the Hotel which could indicate as to who was the person who had checked in and was in occupation of the room.No such record was seized.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::According to him, he did not know whether API Dattatray Sankhe had made any investigation on this line.API Sankhe also kept silent in this respect.Neither the Hotel Manager was examined by prosecution as a witness nor the visitors' register maintained by the Hotel was produced before the Court .It is true that normally in hotels whenever the visitor goes out from the room, he has to hand over the key of the room at the reception of that hotel and the keys remain with the Manager.As and when the visitor comes back, he can take the key from the reception and open the door.In the present case, the prosecution has come up with a story that the accused No.1 Faizan used to sleep at Regal Boutique at Bandra and therefore, his clothes and other articles were found in a cloth bag in that Boutique.This could be established by producing the record of the Hotel and by examining the Manager or some other responsible person from the said hotel.However, no investigation was made on this line nor any evidence was produced before the Court to prove that Room No. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 13 105 was in occupation of the accused.When police asked the manager to open the room, he opened with key which was available with him.In absence of any evidence that the accused No.1 was in occupation of that room, it is difficult t believe that the scanning machine,found in that room, was also in his possession.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that the said scanning machine was in possession of the accused, still it is not sufficient to prove that it was being used or could be used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes.PSI Maheshkumar Thakur admitted that he did not even check the machine to find out whether the machine was in working condition.There was no evidence to show that the said machine was ever used for the purpose of counterfeiting the currency notes.No dyes, paper, inks, etc. which could be used for making currency notes could be recovered.According to the prosecution, a paper cutter, a rubber stamp, a red stamp pad and two personal clothes of the accused were seized from the cloth bag found in the Regal Boutique.The clothes were his wearing apparels.The prosecution also examined PW-4 Abdul Gafar Khan to establish that the rubber stamp bearing inscription "Akshay Enterprises" was got ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 14 prepared by accused No.1 from Abdul Gafar.PW-4 Abdul Gafar deposed that on 24.11.2002, a customer had come to his shop and got prepared a rubber stamp bearing inscription "Akshay Enterprises" for which he had paid amount of Rs.45/-, but he did not know if accused No.1 was the same person.Assuming that the said rubber stamp was got prepared by accused No.1 from this witness, it is difficult to understand what the prosecution wanted to prove by establishing the seizure of the rubber stamp.The rubber stamp with inscription "Akshay Enterprises" might be used for some business purpose, but nobody can imagine that such rubber stamp with inscription of" Akshay Enterprises" could be used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes.Red stamp pad and rubber stamp with inscription "Akshay Enterprises" could be for some business purpose.Whether it was used or not is immaterial, but none of these two articles could have been used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes.One paper cutter was found.It could be found at any office or business establishment.However, the trial Court on the basis of some machine, came to conclusion that offence under Sec. 489-D was proved.Even if t is believed that he was in occupation of the room and the scanning machine was with him, still there is nothing to show that scanning machine was meant to be used for the purpose of counterfeiting currency notes.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Later on, 114 notes were seized from the accused No.1 from Regal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 16 Boutique.The covering letter also had a list with description of the notes.The letter dated 10.3.2003 from the Asstt.Later on, the the Investigating Officer API Dattatray Sankhe report from Asstt.Works Manager, Currency Notes Press in response to the requisition referred above.The said report clearly shows that all these 140 notes were counterfeit notes.Thus, it is established that the notes, which were seized from the accused, were counterfeit notes.As they were found in possession of counterfeit notes, offence punishable under Sec. 489-C is proved and they are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the same.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Before concluding, it will be necessary to point out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, recorded the evidence of PW-7 API Sankhe, who proved that the counterfeit notes seized from the accused were referred to the Currency Note Press and he had received the report from the Currency Note ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 17 Press in respect of the said notes.However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge marked the said report as Article 1, as if it was some Muddemal property.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Without that report, the prosecution could never succeed in proving the offence and securing conviction of the accused.As per the definition in Section 3 Evidence Act, the evidence means and includes oral and documentary evidence.means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court."Document"Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.In the present case, the reports from the Assistant Works Manager, Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, were received and they were collectively marked Article 1 by the trial Court.These reports could be admitted in evidence without calling such officer as a witness before the Court.In view of this, the trial Court should have admitted these two reports in the evidence and given exhibit numbers to them.However, the learned Additional sessions Judge did not admit these documents in evidence and did not even give them any exhibit numbers.This report which is one of the most important documentary evidence, was not admitted in evidence inspite of the specific provision in Section 292 and notification issued thereunder and was simply marked Article "A" and it was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 19 treated as a muddemal property like other properties.It may be noted here that initially a lot of search was required to be made in the record and proceedings of the trial Court to find out the said report from Currency Note Press, but the report could not be traced out.Finally, the muddemal property.which was still lying in the muddemal property room of the Sessions Court.These reports be placed with the file of exhibited documents in the case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::The said reports now Exhibits 30 and 31 clearly show that all the 149 notes, which were recovered from the accused persons, were counterfeit notes.Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 both of them committed offence punishable under Section 489-C IPC.Heard the learned Counsel on the point of sentence.The offence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 20 under Section 489-C IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto seven years or with fine or with both.The learned trial Court awarded maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- to both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-C. In fact, the accused No.2 was found in possession of only 10 notes, while accused No.1 was found in possession of 139 notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each.Taking into consideration the quantity of notes found with the accused persons, in my considered opinion, rigorous imprisonment of three years with some fine would be reasonable.Accused No.1 was however granted bail and he was in jail for about three years.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 489-D IPC is hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted of that charge.However, the conviction of both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-C is maintained and the accused No.1 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for six ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: 21 months.Accused No.2 has already undergone the sentence of about seven and half years and, therefore, he is sentenced to the imprisonment which he has already undergone and now he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::Accused No.1 to surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, if any.The observations made in para 15 be circulated amongst all the subordinate courts for their information.(J.H.BHATIA,J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:06:44 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,887,501 | Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself under the aforesaid actions of I.P.C. on 16.06.2019 at 15:32 hours against the applicants with the allegation that she is pursuing L.L.B from Harish Chandra College.The applicants have abused her filthily and assaulted her.There is a substantial improvement and shift in her 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements whereby she has stated that her private organs were tickled and she was abused by the applicants in her room.Learned counsel for the applicant has annexed the injury reports of Shivam Tripathi and Bablu Pathak.There is no explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by the applicants.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicants-Shivam Tripathi and Bablu Pathak, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 26.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Special Judge, Varanasi, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Sumit S | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,895,001 | Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after investigation is complete vide order dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 13881/2018 and second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after material prosecution witnesses are examined vide order dated 27.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE shanu* SHANU RAIKWAR 2018.07.06 18:26:28 +05'30' 11.0.8 | ['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. |
91,896,176 | 1 Impugned order is the order dated 25.09.2003 vide which the order passed on the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and under Order XL of the Code had been reversed.Vide order dated 17.05.2003, the prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking appointment of a receiver had been allowed; further prayer for grant of interim relief had also been afforded to them; the trial Court was of the view that a prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiffs for grant of ad-interim injunction in their favour; pursuant thereto, the management i.e. defendants CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 1 of 8 No. 2 & 4 were restrained from managing the affairs of the society i.e. of defendant No. 1 and a retired Additional District Judge Mr. S.M. Aggarwal had been appointed as receiver to look after the affairs of the defendant No. 1 as also to conduct elections for the said purpose.The impugned order had upset these findings holding that neither a prima-facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of injunction and nor is any ground made out for appointment of a receiver.CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 1 of 83 Written submissions have been filed by the plaintiff.Contention is that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the averments made in the plaint which were to the effect that the affairs of defendant No. 1 society were regularly being managed CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 2 of 8 by defendants No. 2 to 4 where financial irregularities were being committed and the said defendants are liable to render accounts of the society; contention being that the strength of the members of the society had earlier increased immensely from 160 to 500 but now it had been brought down to 51 all of whom are family members of the defendant No. 1 society which is being run at the whims and fancies of its management.Contention being that the impugned order upsetting this finding of the trial court suffers from an infirmity.CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 2 of 8The averments made in the plaint have been perused.Prayer 'b' of the plaint also specifically states that a decree of declaration be CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 3 of 8 passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the action of the defendant in depriving the plaintiffs of their membership by not renewing it be set aside.In the written statement these contentions have been refuted.These facts are also not in dispute and have been noted in the impugned order.The Court had correctly noted that in the main suit there was no prayer made in the plaint that the defendants should be restrained from managing the affairs of the society and as such the relief prayed for by way of interim relief which has not been sought for in the main suit could not have been granted.Impugned order had been passed taking all the aforenoted parameters into account; it suffers from no infirmity.CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 7 of 8CM(M) No. 770/2003 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,896,459 | The petitioner before this Court, Namdev Das Tyagi @ Computer Baba has filed this present writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus.The matter was heard today i.e., on Sunday through video conferencing.The petitioner's contention is that on 08.11.2020, on account of allegation of illegal construction, his Ashram was demolished and he was detained on 08.11.2020 itself along with his disciples.The petitioner's further contention is that his six disciples were released on 09.11.2020, however, he has not been released and no order was passed in the matter.On 11.11.2012, it was informed that some order has been passed earlier in respect of the detention and the revision was disposed of.W.P. No.17786/2020 3Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.W.P. No.17786/2020 4So far as the other criminal cases are concerned, the petitioner shall be free to file a bail application under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the first instance before appropriate forum.The Registry of this Court has informed this Court that in the District Court, a Judicial Officer at the rank of Additional District Judge as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be available tomorrow, and therefore, the petitioner shall be free to submit his bail application in respect of other criminal cases and the bail application of the petitioner shall be decided on the same day in accordance with law.Certified copy, as per rules. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,899,670 | Omveer Singh went to the hospital and collected the MLC, which was produced as Ex. PW-18/A. That document stated that Kusum was taken to the hospital at 10.00 AM.The concerned official, i.e. the Tehsildar was requested to record Kusum's statement.On 06.03.2007, i.e. the same day, PW-1, Yogesh Pal Singh, the Crl.Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State CORAM:JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) %They were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides fine and in default to undergo sentences.The prosecution alleged that in the morning of 06.03.2007, information was received by Police Station Nand Nagri that one Kusum, wife of Sunil (the first appellant in this case) was admitted to G.T.B. Hospital on account of extensive burn injuries.The information was reduced to a D.D. entry (Ex. PW-4/A) at 11.00 AM and assigned for investigation to ASI Bhupinder Singh.The latter, along with another policeman, Ct.A.533/2011 Page 1 concerned Tehsildar recorded the statement of Kusum, marked as Ex. PW-1/A, in the hospital, on which he made the endorsement, Ex. PW-1/B. This was the basis of an FIR registered by the police against the present appellants and co-accused, Amar Singh, who was acquitted after trial.It is alleged that further investigations were conducted and all the accused were arrested.The appellants were charged with committing offences punishable under Sections 302/498A/34 IPC.They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove that the accused were guilty.The material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were PW-1, the Tehsildar; PW-2, the mother of the deceased girl Kusum; PW-3 Sunder, the elder brother, and the PW-5 doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body.PW-7 Ram Lal, father-in-law of the deceased girl Kusum was also examined during the proceedings.After considering the materials on record, the Trial Court concluded that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC had not been proved against the accused, and acquitted them.However, as regards the charge of having committed the murder, the present appellants were held guilty but Sunil's father, Amar Singh, i.e. the father-in- law of the deceased, was acquitted.It is urged on behalf of the appellants that neither the deposition of PW-1, Tehsildar, nor the dying declaration relied in this case, Ex. PW-1/A, clarify whether competent doctors' clearance had been sought and obtained, regarding the fitness and mental capacity of the deceased to record the statement.It is urged that the MLC in this case showed that Kusum was taken to the hospital at 10.00 AM.Undoubtedly, the document (Ex. PW-18/A) showed that she was in a fit mental condition to record a statement.The MLC also revealed that her father-in-law had taken her to the hospital.However, the prosecution did not reveal why her statement was not recorded immediately and she was made to wait for more than 5 hours when ultimately the statement was recorded at 02.30 PM.There was a strong likelihood of the deceased being tutored, which should result in the statement being disbelieved.Learned counsel next submitted that the doctor, who sought to prove the MLC, Ex. PW- 18, did not depose that he had examined Kusum at the time her declaration was recorded nor was any doctor, who examined her, produced during the course of the trial.Although this aspect is not ordinarily considered significant, the prosecution in this case was under a duty to satisfy the Crl.A.533/2011 Page 2 Court that the injured Kusum was indeed in a fit physical and mental condition to coherently record the events which led to the incident.This, submitted counsel, was in view of the unexplained delay between the time she was taken to the hospital and the time when the dying declaration was in fact recorded.The delay was important and the surrounding circumstances had to be explained since there was every possibility of the injured being tutored.It is submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained because on the same evidence which included the dying declaration, the Court rejected the prosecution case in so far as it concerned the offence punishable under Section 498A. In other words, the Court did not believe even the version in the dying declaration with regard to the ill treatment and persistent demands for dowry and various articles made from time to time.Similarly, the statements of the deceased's relatives with regard to the cruelty meted out to her were disbelieved.Having regard to the other suspicious circumstances and the findings vis--vis charge under Sections 498A IPC, the Trial Court ought to have proceeded with caution before concluding that the appellants were guilty.Learned counsel highlighted the sequence of events narrated in the dying declaration: that Kusum had got-up in the morning and after finishing household work, wished to take rest.She had stated about her being beaten up by her husband after which she went to bed.She was woken-up on account of burning and a smell of kerosene.She then realized that it she was ablaze on the bed.Upon hearing her cries, her family members and neighbors went-up and extinguished the fire and she was taken to the hospital in a rickshaw by father-in-law, neighbors and elder sister.It was alleged that Sunil; her mother-in-law and the younger sister-in-law were responsible.Learned counsel urged that the entire story was improbable because concededly, the injured was sleeping and had not seen who had lit the fire.Even if it were assumed that one of the accused was responsible, the prosecution made no efforts to single-out who committed the act.Thus, the Trial Court premised its conclusions on the guilt of the accused on the basis of conjectures and allegations.Learned APP submitted that in this case, the testimonies of PWs-2, 3, 7 and 9 showed that there was a previous history of beating and harassment.Even though the Court did not hold the accused guilty of offence under Section 498A IPC, the Trial Court was justified on the basis of evidence on record to conclude that the guilt for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC had been proved.It is urged that the Trial Court correctly acquitted Amar Singh since he was never named in the dying declaration.A.533/2011 Page 3Kusum got-up early morning and after finishing the household work and wished to rest.Her mother-in-law and husband objected to this.The latter even gave her beatings.She thereafter went to sleep.The next thing she realized was that she had been set on fire.She even smelt kerosene.All these facts were noted by an independent witness, i.e. the Tehsildar PW-1, at the earliest point of time since he was informed about the incident, and requested to reach there only at 01.30 AM.It is urged that the requirement of having to show that the injured was in a fit mental condition to record the statement, had been duly discharged since the MLC, Ex. PW-18/A itself revealed that fact.It is urged that there was no delay in recording the statement and the appellants' submission about the deceased being tutored had no factual basis.At the outset, it would be necessary to notice the reasons which persuaded the Trial Court to acquit all the appellants and the co-accused Amar Singh in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.This is found in the following extract of the impugned judgment:"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX In the instant case though the deceased Kusum in her dying declaration Ex. PW-1/A stated that her mother in law demanded a washing machine but other witnesses examined by the prosecution who are the relatives of the deceased have not stated anything about the demand of washing machine.PW-2 Sumantra mother of deceased stated that the accused demanded TSR.However, on cross examination by the prosecution she stated that they demanded TSR and Rs. 1 lac.PW-3 Sunder, brother of the deceased stated that the accused persons demanded TSR and if TSR was not given then Rs. 1 lac which means that accused were not demanding TSR and Rs. 1 lac both and they demanded Rs. 1 lac only in case TSR was not given.However, in the cross-examination the witness has tried to improve upon, stating that firstly they demanded a three wheeler and thereafter they demanded Rs. 1 lac.He could not tell the date, month and year when such demand was made.PW-7 Sh.Ram Lal father of the deceased stated that the accused were demanding motorcycle.It is baffling that only this witness has stated about the demand of motorcycle.All other witnesses have stated about TSR and Rs. 1 lac.He has further stated that since her (deceased) husband was not working, they demanded an auto rickshaw for his livelihood and his daughter told that they demanded motorcycle.Though the deceased in her dying declaration did not mention even a single word about the demand of motorcycle.PW- 9 Dharmender is the cousin of deceased who stated that since Sunil was unemployed a three wheeler scooter was demanded and Kusum stated in his presence regarding demand of a three wheeler.This is again in contradiction to the dying declaration of Kusum wherein she has not mentioned anything about the demand of three wheeler.The probity of a witness is verified by his consistent and true testimony.The witnesses herein are not consistent.They have not corroborated each other.Rather Crl.A.533/2011 Page 4 there are contradictions and inconsistencies in their statement.It seems that prosecution witnesses being relatives of the deceased in their zest to nail the accused made exaggerations at the time of recording of their statement before the court.Such exaggerations are quite common in these types of witnesses.Since there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there were demands by the accused persons and due to non fulfillment of those demands deceased was subjected to cruelty.In view of the above stated discussion, I am of the view that the accused persons deserves to be acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"On the question of the appellants' guilt under Section 302 IPC, the Trial Court held inter alia that:She has categorically stated in the statement Ex. PW-1/A that on 06.03.07 she was unwell and was taking rest.Her mother in law started wrangling with her and told her that she did not do any work and would take rest all the time.When she told her that she was taking rest only after finishing the house hold chores and that she was feeling unwell, she started shouting and using intemperate language.When she went upstairs, her husband wielded a danda and gave her beatings as a result of which she sustained injuries in both her hands but could not show the same due to bandage.She also got blue marks on her leg due to beating.Her husband left after giving her beating.She started weeping and thereafter fell asleep covering her with a bed sheet.When she woke up due to inflammation, she found her suit burning and there was smell of kerosene oil.She started screaming and her entire body was ablaze.On hearing her cries, her neighbours and her family members came and they extinguished the fire.She was taken to GTB Hospital in a rickshaw by her mother in law, a neighbour and her elder sister in law.She has stated that her husband Sunil, mother in law Bhoora, brother in law Rinku and younger sister in law Neetu are responsible for her burns.She has stated that while she was asleep, they poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze.There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased Kusum had been influenced by any of her relatives to make a false statement.No motive on the part of the deceased to implicate her in-laws has been shown.The truthfulness is deeply embedded in her statement.She has made specific allegations against each of the accused regarding meeting out cruel treatment to her.She has also leveled allegations against her father in law Amar Singh saying that he used to threaten her and tell her that they had fed her enough and now they would not keep her and she should go back to her parental home.Despite having a golden opportunity to ensnare her father in law and to have him in clutches of law.She has not done anything of that sort.She has only inculpated her husband Sunil, mother in law Bhoora, devar Crl.There are inconsistencies and exaggeration in the statement of relatives of the deceased who have been examined as prosecution witnesses.PW-9 Dharmender has exaggerated the incident and tried to improve on his own stating that on the day of incident when the deceased got up in the morning the sound of TV was in high volume.She asked her husband to decrease the volume and on this he asked her to cover her face and sleep and had put a sheet on her face and after sometime they set her on fire.She was held by three persons i.e. Neetu, Rinku, her mother in law and Sunil had put cloth on her.However, he has also stated that father in law of Kusum was at roof when she was set on fire.This witness has also exonerated father in law of deceased Kusum.Though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the statements of other witnesses but it is the duty of the court to ensure that the truth prevails.While appreciating evidence the court has to consider carefully as to why would the deceased implicate all members of the family except one and would let go the real culprit.The statement of PW-1 Sh.Yogesh Pal Singh who recorded the dying declaration is also very crucial and cannot be brushed aside.He was totally an independent witness and there was no reason for him to concoct any false story.Similarly, the statement of PW-20 ASI Bhupinder Singh and PW-21 IO Inspector C.M. Meena are also consistent and corroborate the prosecution case.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXFurther, from the tenor and texture of the dying declaration in the present case it is clearly evident that deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making her statement.Medical report on record also states that she was medically fit.This case solely hinges on the dying declaration of the deceased as she was the only witness of the incident as it took place within the four corners of her matrimonial home.The statement of relatives of the deceased who, to an extent, have exaggerated the incident is to be totally ignored as whatever they have stated is only hearsay.Basically the instant case rest on the dying declaration of the deceased and the medical evidence on record.Though the defence has tried to suggest that it was suicidal.However, they have failed to bring any evidence on record to prove the same.It could not have been accidental as she was not in the kitchen but she was in the room at the time she sustained burn injuries.Since there is no eye witness of the occurrence the statement of deceased has to be taken into consideration.The prosecution case is based on the dying declaration which is an important piece of evidence against the accused.While judging the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the court has to be conscious of the fact that a death connected with dowry takes place inside the house, where outsiders who can be said to be independent witnesses in the traditional sense are not expected to be present.The finding of guilt on the charge of murder has to be recorded on the basis of Crl.A.533/2011 Page 6 circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced." The prosecution has relied on dying declaration and the circumstances while the defence is bare denial.The statement of the deceased in the dying declaration goes to show that kerosene oil was poured on her and she was ignited by her in laws while she was asleep.This statement coupled with medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that it was the case of homicide and all the accused except her father in law set her ablaze while she was asleep.The occurrence took place inside her matrimonial home and no explanation whatsoever has come forth from the accused regarding the occurrence.The evidence in this case, in the form of Ex. PW-18/A, the MLC, shows that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the father in law, Amar Singh.He was acquitted of all charges.In the dying declaration itself, the deceased stated that she was taken to the hospital by her mother in law.These are important circumstances.The MLC was recorded at 10-00 AM; the earliest intimation to the police- given after Kusum was medically attended, was at 11:00 AM.The IO reached the spot.Yet, for inexplicable reasons, no effort was made by the prosecution to record the statement of the injured girl.PW-1 deposed, in his testimony that he was asked to go to the hospital, to record Kusum's statement at 1:30 PM.The prosecution did not attempt to explain this delay.This aspect assumes some importance because the statement was ultimately recorded at 02:20 PM; that formed the basis of the FIR.The parents of the deceased, PW-2 and PW-7 as well as her brother, corroborated the contents, and implicated the accused.They also deposed having gone to the hospital and met the deceased, who narrated the day's events to them.Thus, there is positive evidence establishing that Kusum's parents and brother reached the hospital, when she was alive, and were able to converse with her.However, they did not mention about having been asked to keep away from Kusum.On the other hand, PW-9, a cousin of Kusum, who also went to the hospital, mentioned specifically about the recording of the dying declaration.There is, consequently, every possibility that the police waited for the parents and other relatives of Kusum, to reach the hospital, after which the dying declaration was recorded.The fact that no doctor who actually examined the deceased, at the time she was taken to the hospital, or even around the time when she made her dying declaration, throws more suspicion on the prosecution version.Neither document speaks about smell of kerosene.These, together with the prosecution's inability to pin-point the role of any one accused, in the context of the acquittal of all the accused for the charge under Section 498-A IPC, renders the entire story suspect.The Crl.The appeal, consequently succeeds. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
91,902,057 | Complainant in all Crl.A.(MD)No.249 of 2017 Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar in Crl.Inquest report is Ex.M.Os.5 is Athachi for recovery of twowheeler, M.O.6 for Hero Honda motor cycle.The alteration report is Ex.Athachifor recovery of Omni van is Ex.He examined PWs.1 to 11 and recorded their statements.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet wasfiled, informing commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120(b),341, 109 and 302 IPC.The case was tried in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file ofthe Additional Sessions Judge, Thenkasi.4.Before the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and markedExs.P1 to P33 and 10 Material Objects.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.On questioning u/s.313 Cr.P.C., theaccused denied charges.8.The prosecution case is that pursuant to a conspiracy, A1, A3 to A6,A8 & A9, travelled to the scene using a green colour Omni van, while A2 & A7did so on a two wheeler.The prosecution version is that the deceased wasset upon with iron rods resulting in grievous injuries to his head andthereafter, the accused threw him into the Omni van where he was kicked andbeaten.The postmortem report of the deceased informs the injuries sufferedto the head as follows:"1.A vertical gapping incised like laceration of size 12 x 3 cm xcavity deep over top of head.COMMON PRAYER: These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction dated 07.06.2017 made in S.C.No.68 of2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.!For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, S.C. for Mr.S.Ravi in Crl.A.(MD)No.183 of 2017 Mr.V.Kathirvelu, S.C. for Mr.S.Ravi in Crl.A.(MD)No.217 of 2017 V.Kathirvelu, S.C. for Mr.K.Prabhu in Crl.On 10.05.2011 at 13.00 hours, A1 and A3, came in an Omni van to the scene, a road, attacked the deceased Selvaraj on middle, front andback of his head as also on his right cheek with iron rods, A4 and A5 kickedthe legs of the deceased; A1, A3, A4 and A5 threw the deceased into the Omnivan and kicked his left thigh, right leg and threw him out of the vehiclenear a road.Appellants were tried for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,120(b), 341, 109 and 302 IPC in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of theAdditional Sessions Judge, Thenkasi.PW.7, Sub Inspector of Police, registered a casein Crime No.129 of 2011 on the file of respondent u/s.174 Cr.P.C. The PrintedFirst Information Report is Ex.PW.10, Inspector of Police, taking upinvestigation on 19.05.2011, visited the place of occurrence, preparedEx.P.20 Observation Mahazar and Ex.He conducted inquest on the same day.5.Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, under judgmentdated 07.06.2017, convicted accused for offences u/s. 147, 120B, 341, 148,302 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced A1 to A5 and A8 & A9 to S.I.for 2 months foroffence under Section 147, S.I.for 4 months for offence under Section 148IPC, imprisonment of 1 month for offence under Section 341 IPC imprisonmentfor life and a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to S.I. of 3 months for offence underSection 120B IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- i/d to S.I.of 3 months for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC.A6 & A7 weresentenced to undergo S.I.for 2 months for offence under Section 147 IPC,S.I.for 4 months for offence under Section 148 IPC, S.I.for 1 month foroffence under Section 341 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- i/dto S.I.of 3 months for offence under Section 120B IPC and imprisonment forlife and fine of Rs.500/- i/d S.I.of 3 months for offence under Section 302r/w 109 IPC.A10 were sentenced to undergo S.I.for 2 months for offenceunder Section 147 IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- i/d S.I.of3 months for offence under Section 120B IPC r/w 149 IPC and imprisonment forlife and fine of Rs.500/- i/d S.I. of 3 months for offence under Section 302r/w 109 IPC.There against, the present appeals.6.Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional PublicProsecutor for respondent.Perused the records.7.These appeals succeed for following reasons:The present case is in respect of occurrence, which took place allegedly at1.00 p.m. The husband was the victim.There is an another occurrence ofmurder, which took place allegedly at 1.45 p.m. The wife was the victim.Investigating Officer would admit that P.W.1 was arrayed as an eye witness tothe occurrence of 1.45 pm., in charge sheet in such case.If so, it followsthat in preferring the complaint in this case at 2.30 p.m., P.W.1 necessarilywould have informed also of the occurrence in the other case.Therefore, thepresence of P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.Further,P.W.1 has spoken to having informed Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.7 orally,but P.W.7 would state that a written complaint was given.On dissection.Underlying skull bone foundbroken and through the rent remains brain matter protruded out.2.An oblique gapping incised like laceration of size 5 x 3 cm x cavitydeep over occipital region.On dissection underlying skull bone found brokeand through the rent remains of brain protrueded out.3.An oblique gapping incised like laceration of size 10 x 3 cm x cavitydeep over occipital region.It lies 3 cm below injury No.2 On dissectionunderlying bones found broken and through the rent remains of brain protrudedout.4.A horizontal gapping incised like laceration of size 14 x 3 cm xcavity deep over lower part of occipital region.It lies 2 cm below injuryNo.3 On dissection underlying skull bone found in multiple pieces andremains of brain protruded out."Given such injuries, it is highly improbable, may impossible that thedeceased would have survived to be thrown into the Omni van alive and then bethrashed about.9.P.W.10 Investigating Officer has, in cross, asserted that bloodstrains were present in the Omni van.He has admitted that the court recordswould not reveal that blood strains indeed were found inside the Omnivan.The prosecution's case is rendered all the more doubtful as P.Ws.2 to 5alleged eye witnesses, have turned hostile.10.Recovery of blood stains from within the Omni van would havelent much support to the case of the prosecution that the accused arrived atthe scene using the same.This Court finds highly unbelievable the evidenceof P.W.10 that despite noticing blood strains inside the Omni van, noAthatchi or recovery was effected.Further, the prosecution suggestion ofthe deceased having been thrown into the Omni van used by them to arrive at the occurrence, the absence of blood stainsrenders highly unlikely the usage of the vehicle by the accused andconsequently, the presence of the accused at the scene.11.Considering the glaring infirmities, in the prosecution case, theseappeals succeed and accordingly, they are allowed.The conviction andsentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thenkasi in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on 07.06.2017 are set aside and appellants are acquitted of allcharges.Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.Bail bond(s), if any,executed shall stand cancelled.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Thenkasi.2.The Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosectuor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,660,659 | This is an application for suspension of custodial sentence awarded to the appellant No.3 Halke Raja @ Bhagwat Pratap Singh who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC, 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. He has been directed to undergo R.I. for life for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC.As per prosecution case, appellant in furtherance of common object accompanied Arvind @ Munna Raja and Rajendra @ Rajjan.All the three accused persons armed with gun and after killing Mahesh while they were running away, they also killed Babulal.We have heard rival submissions at length, perused the evidence available on record.The application is also opposed by the State Government by filing written objection.After going through the evidence and considering the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case for suspension of custodial sentence is made out.Accordingly, I.A. No.15686/2017 stands rejected and closed. | ['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. |
30,663,783 | (a) the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)each, to the Cancer Institute (WIA), (Regional Cancer Centre), Adyar, Chennai-600 020 (Bank:Andhra Bank, Madhya Kailash, SB A/c.No.149710011005477) and on such deposit the petitioners 2, 3, 4, and 5 are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)each, before the Superintendent of the concerned prison in which the petitioners have been confined on their release;(b) the petitioners 2, 3 4 and 5 shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lockdown and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(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;http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.8687 of 20205.The Superintendent Sub-Jail, Thiruvannamalai.O.P.No.8687 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2020 for the offence s punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307of I.P.C, in Crime No.1101 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.The case of the prosecution is that one Jayakodi lodged a complaint before the respondent against the petitioners stating that on 23.05.2020 at about 9 PM, the de-facto complainant, her husband and few villagers attempted to stop the 1st accused Raja and his accompanies from committing theft of river sand at Seyyar river, the 1st accused Raja along with 8 others including these 5 petitioners had scolded and attacked the de-facto complainant and her husband, who sustainedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.8687 of 2020 injuries.Hence, the complaint was registered.Further, he would submit that the petitioners were in judicial custody from 24.05.2020 and seek bail for the petitioners.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the 1st accused Raja attacked the de-facto complainant and A2 armed with kuduval and A3 armed with Iron rod, A6 used a stone and A8 used a stick.He would further submit that there are six previous cases pending as against the 1st petitioner and there is no previous cases pending as against the other petitioners.He would further submit that the victims have been discharged from the hospital.The learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw the petition insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned.(d) the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.(e) the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.8687 of 2020(g) the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(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.15.06.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order msrmThe learned Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai.(Dismissal Order)The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam District.( Satisfaction Court)The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,664,336 | 1. Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA, through video conferencing.Though Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the informant is available, he could not directly participate in the hearing held through video conferencing on account of technical issues at his end.However, he consented to and participated in the hearing through his Mobile No. 7081424298 connected through speaker phone.The arguments made by all sides were heard by the others through such arrangement.This arrangement became necessary as the bail application itself was filed on 27.2.2020 and despite repeated orders, hearing could not take place on account of prevailing extreme circumstances arising from the pandemic Covid-19 and the accompanying lockdown.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Satpal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2018, under Sections- 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 307, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.Perused the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof.A written objection of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, State Law Officer, has been placed on record by the office.Considered the same.(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;That report has not been annexed with the bail application.Therefore, he prayed for time."Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 20.5.2020 Prakhar | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,667,386 | Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.150 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC, Police Station-Bhuta, District-Bareilly is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by father of the victim against two persons including the applicant for the alleged act of enticement of her daughter.It is next submitted that though, applicant is named in the FIR but the person with whom, the girl ran away, has been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2019 in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.43843 of 2019 titled as "Nanhe Lal@Umesh Kumar Vs.State of U.P", copy of which has been produced for perusal.In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicant stands on better footing than that of abovesaid co-accused person.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Km.Anita, involved in case crime no.150 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC, Police Station-Bhuta, District-Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE 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 IPC. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,670,922 | The prosecution case was that on 07.6.2002 Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) lodged a complaint to ASI Phool Chand in P.S. Dilshad Garden regarding kidnapping of his father Jai Narayan Aggarwal.In this complaint, he mentioned that he resided with his parents at Model Town.His shop was in Sikriwalan, Delhi and their factory was at B 16/6, Jhilmil Industrial Area.He claimed, that, he had earlier informed the police of a call he had received on the factory telephone, on 31.12.2001, wherein the caller had threatened to kidnap him and had demanded ` 5,00,000/-.In the present instance, he stated that his father, Jai Narayan Aggarwal had left for the house from the factory in his Maruti Car (No. DL 6CD 2817) at around 09.30 PM.Since his father had not reached home even at 10.30 P.M., he had called him on his mobile phone, but the call was not answered.He called his father again, at about 12.30 A.M. but his call was answered by an unknown man who told him that his father was in their custody and their "Bhai" would talk to him in the morning.PW-2 further stated that the informer had warned him that in case the police was informed, the body of Lalaji (his father) would be found in the drain.He suspected that Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 2 his father had been kidnapped by some gang.It was alleged that the kidnappers had demanded ` 15 lakhs for the release of Lalaji.On 13.6.2002, for securing safe release of his father, PW-2 arranged the ransom amount (30 bundles, with hundred notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 in each) and the I.O. and Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) signed on some of the notes in ten of these bundles, and the currency notes in these bundles were then mixed up in the other twenty bundles.The kidnapper did not disclose the exact location where the ransom was to be handed over.The bag containing the ransom amount was given to Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (the uncle of PW-2 who deposed as PW-4), Surender Kumar (the brother-in-law of PW-2 who deposed as PW-9) and Kamal Kant (PW-2's friend who deposed as PW-8) who assumed false identities, and as directed by the kidnappers boarded the Delhi-Saharanpur train and sat in the last bogie of the train.When the train crossed the New Ghaziabad Railway Station they were asked to throw the bag containing the ransom money, which they did.On 14.06.2002, PW-2's father was released.Thereafter the investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector C.S. Rathi.In the course of the investigation, he got the telephone numbers used by the kidnappers for demanding ransom and the addresses, where these telephones were installed were traced.The I.O. also met the victim PW-1 Jai Narayan and obtained descriptions of the kidnappers.The IO, along with his staff, then visited the address from Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 3 where these calls had been made, which turned out to be a house in Khatoli, Muzaffar Nagar (where Telephone No. 73119 was installed).There, they met one Rakesh who told them that Titu@ Mukesh Verma used to receive and make calls from that number to Deepak.They were also told that Deepak was related to Pradhan Ram Naresh.The IO met Pradhan Ram Naresh and enquired about Deepak after disclosing all the facts to him.He admitted that Deepak was his brother-in-law and resided in Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad.Thereafter, the IO along with the staff and the Pradhan reached Deepak's house, where they found him.On seeing the police party, Deepak tried to flee; however, he was nabbed and interrogated.During interrogation, Deepak confessed his involvement in the offence and his disclosure led to recovery of a sum of ` 9,49,500/- which was kept in a black colored suitcase lying in the almirah.The notes were sealed and seized; Deepak was arrested.At his instance, Sukram Pal was caught who led to recovery of a desi katta and two cartridges which were used in the commission of the offence.A sum of ` 9,000/- was also recovered from his possession; it was seized.Sukram Pal and Deepak led the police to Mukesh's house where a scooter was parked.Deepak allegedly revealed that the said scooter was used to receive the ransom amount.The scooter was taken into possession; Mukesh, however was untraceable.Sukram Pal and Deepak also pointed out Rihan's house (No. 112, Devi Dass Mohalla, Khatoli) where Jai Narayan was kept captive, after his abduction.Rihan was not present in the house.However, his wife Samina was there.The police party searched the premises and recovered Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 4 cash of ` 60,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500/-.On 25.06.2002, accused Deepak was interrogated and he revealed that he had deposited ` 9000 in Citi Bank.This money was seized.Learned counsel highlighted that PW-2 had deposed about a threat six months prior to the incident, i.e. 31.12.2001 whereby a call demanding ` 5 lakhs as ransom and a further threat to kidnap had been made-out.The complainant had alerted the police about this fact.The truthfulness of the testimonies of PWs-2 and 19, Inspector Brij Mohan was evident from the fact that Ex. PW-2/B, which is prepared on 13.06.2002, clearly described the currency notes which were marked.Learned counsel submitted that the relative series on the currency notes were noted and countersigned by PW-2 and PW-19. PW-4 deposed having witnessed that 30 packs of cash in denominations of ` 500/- each, totaling ` 15 lakhs had been seen and that the police official, PW-19 had signed on the 10th, 20th and 30th note of each of ten bundles and that ten bundles were then mixed with 20 bundles.The signed currency notes were in 10 bundles.The recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of Deepak, (who was arrested on 20.06.2002) established that several of those signed notes were taken into custody; these were evidenced by the Memo, Ex. PW-12/E. Deepak failed to explain these and merely denied having possessed them, in his reply to the queries put under Section 313 Cr.PC.Learned APP argued that the case was in fact solved after Deepak's arrest since he led to the place where PW-1 had been confined, i.e., Rihan's house.Further, currency notes were seized from that place.They were the subject matter of Ex. PW-12/Q.Learned APP urged here that the these accused were in fact arrested much later on 25.06.2002; they had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings as deposed to by PW-18, who recorded his observations in the documents marked during the trial as Ex. PW-18/A to PW-18/D. It was argued that besides the recoveries made on 20.06.2002 from Rihan's house, aggregating ` 60,000, a further amount of ` 31,000/- was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement, after his arrest.Furthermore, the belt which belonged to the abducted person, PW-1 was also recovered and produced during the trial; it was seized under Memo Ex. PW-11/E.Like in the case of Rihan, Mukesh too was identified by PW-1; he too was arrested on 25.06.2002; his disclosure statement, assisted the police in the recovery of currency notes to the tune of ` 2,69,500/-.These also contained some marked notes; photocopies of all the notes and some of the original notes were produced during the trial.It was urged that during the course of investigation, specimen finger prints of the accused were taken.The specimen print, S-2 (belonging to Mukesh), part of Ex. PW-22/B-3 matched with the specimen of left thumb, designated as Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 12 chance prints Q-2 and marked as S-2 in the report, which was produced as Ex. PW-22/L. Similarly, the chance print developed by the finger print expert, PW-22, i.e. Q-3 was identical with the right thumb mark, S-3 from the finger print specimen of Rihan, according to the report, Ex. PW-22/F and 22/M. These recoveries, coupled with the positive identification by PW-1, of Mukesh and Rihan established beyond reasonable doubt that they were involved in the offence alleged against them.It was submitted that as regards Sukhram Pal, two recoveries of ` 9,000/- and ` 10,000/- (Ex. PW-12/L and Ex. PW-11/C), and the recovery of katta, Ex. PW-12/N proved his involvement.Furthermore, the evidence of PW-1 revealed that Sukhram Pal guarded the premises when the victim was in custody of the abductors.At that time, the callers had threatened to resort to abduction and demanded ` 5 lakhs.On the day of the incident, i.e. on 06.06.2002, the witness was worried since his father did not return at the scheduled time from his factory.At 12.30 AM, he made a telephone call to his father's mobile; it was received by someone else, who stated that his father had been abducted; a ransom demand was made thereafter.PW-1 further deposed having received another call at his residence, later on 07.06.2002, by which the Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 13 caller asked him to arrange ` 25 lakhs.He was thereafter allowed to talk to his father at 10.00 PM that night.Apparently there was a lull after this and on 13.06.2002, PW-2 arranged for ` 15 lakhs and had them marked by the police; PW-4, his uncle, Pramod Kumar supports this statement.After 30 bundles containing ` 500/- denomination notes, aggregating to ` 15 lakhs, (of which 10 bundles were marked and signed by PWs-19 and PW- 2 at serial numbers 10, 20 and 30 of each bundle), all currency bundles were mixed.PWs-4, 8 and 9 went along with the bundles, on the last bogie of the train from Shahdara Railway Station.According to a pre-arranged plan with the abductors, the bundle was thrown near the New Ghaziabad Railway Station.The next day, i.e. on 14.06.2002, PW-1, Jai Narayan was released.The investigation thereafter proceeded and the police traced the calls somewhere to Khatoli in U.P. According to the prosecution version, initially Rakesh and subsequently Pradhan Ram Naresh were questioned; this led to the arrest of Deepak and Sukhram Pal on 20.06.2002 and subsequent arrests on 25.06.2002, of Mukesh and Rihan, and the recoveries alleged in this case.Apart from bald and general denials, these Appellants could not give any reasonable explanation to these incriminating circumstances.Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr. M.Shamikh, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. Nos.1315 & 1383/2011 Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. No.1/2012 Ms. Stuti Gujral, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. 2/2012 Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP on behalf of the State in all the matters.In these appeals, common judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge SC No.15/2009 has been challenged.The Appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine.On the same day Rihan and Mukesh Verma @ Titoo were arrested by the police; they made disclosure statements.On 26.6.2002 at the instance of Mukesh, one charger along with one mobile, a police uniform were recovered from his house.He also assisted in the recovery of ` 2,67,500/- which was taken into possession by the I.O. Sukram Pal assisted in recovery of ` 10,000/- from his house.Rihan's disclosure led to recovery of ` 31,000/- from his house which was also taken into possession.After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 365/364A/34 IPC was filed against the accused before the Trial Court.Upon being charged, the accused claimed that they were not guilty.The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution - which included testimony of 25 public witnesses and the exhibits produced in the case, concluded that the Appellants were guilty as charged, and sentenced them, in the manner described above.Appeals Nos.1315/2011 & 1383/2011, though filed in 2011, involved individuals who were in jail for about 9 years (Deepak and Mukesh); consequently the matters were set down for hearing.At the stage of final hearing, on 03.01.2012 it was noticed that the co-accused, Rihan and Sukhrampal had not preferred appeals.Consequently, the Court directed Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to contact them, and Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 5 ascertain if they wished to file appeal.The DHCLSC did contact them; their appeals were filed, as Crl.At the outset, this Court wishes to record its appreciation and acknowledgement to counsel assigned by the DHCLSC, i.e., Shri.Bhupesh Narula, and Ms. Stuti Gujral (who appeared and argued on behalf of Shri Siddharth Agarwal).They were fully prepared with the matter, and rendered meaningful assistance to the Court and, as shall be seen hereafter, their contribution was invaluable.It was submitted that the two individuals, through whom Deepak's role was ascertained, i.e., Rakesh and Pradhan Ram Naresh, were deliberately not examined during the trial.They could have given valuable information about the role, if at all, played by Deepak, in the episode.It was urged that admittedly, according to PW-1's testimony, two individuals had abducted him; one pointed the katta at him, and later muffled his face with a towel, and the other was in a police uniform.Deepak was not among these two.Furthermore, Deepak was not shown to Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 6 be connected with any of the co-accused.Moreover, though the witness mentioned the currency notes, the prosecution had not proved their seizure, as the originals were not produced in court; only photocopies were relied on.This, according to the counsel was unacceptable, and did not amount to proof of such fact.It was argued that even if it was assumed that Deepak had currency notes which he could not explain or account for, that circumstance, in the absence of positive evidence linking him with the abduction, threat to PW- 1's life, or apprehension of his bodily injury, and in the absence of any Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 7 demand (by Deepak) could not have led the Trial Court to find his guilt for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC, especially when there was no charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.He did not ascribe any special role, i.e. his Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 8 standing guard over him, when he was held captive, after abduction.It was urged in this regard, that the victim had been confined after his abduction for quite some time; had this accused been keeping guard over him, all the while, PW-1 would have named him, or mentioned his role, in the statement recorded during investigation, immediately after he was set free.Such was not the case.Counsel for Rihan also argued that the prosecution version about recovery of ` 91,000/- from him, in two lots was unbelievable.Here, it was argued that none of the notes bore any markings or signatures, as alleged during the trial.The entire conviction hinged on the testimony of PW-1 who could not have identified the appellant, as he saw him fleetingly at night.During the trial, all the accused had refused to participate in the TIP (testified by the concerned Magistrates - PW-18 and 21).However, the victim, PW-1 was able to identify Mukesh and Rihan during the trial, without any difficulty.The role attributed to Mukesh was that he initially Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 14 asked PW-1 to give him a lift till a turning (bend in the road).Mukesh was dressed in a police uniform which too was also seized pursuant to the disclosures made by him after his arrest.Rihan, who too was identified by PW-1, accompanied Mukesh.Both of them had approached PW-1's car.Rihan sat at the back.When the car reached the turning, the accused were asked to get-down; they, however, requested PW-1 to cross the bridge.PW-1 further stated that when the car reached the middle of the bridge, Rihan pointed a country made pistol to his temple and asked him to stop.Jai Narayan snatched the pistol and threw it on the road.Mukesh took out a knife and pointed it at his abdomen and pushed him.Rihan, in the meanwhile, took-out a towel and threw it on Jai Narayan's face.Both of them pulled him out and kept him in the back seat of the car; Mukesh took over the wheel and drove it for about 2-2 hours.It is also stated that Rihan lifted the country made pistol which had been thrown down by Jai Narayan.He further deposed being taken to the accused's house, and identified Rihan's wife as Shamina and his eldest daughter's name as Shibbo.PW-1 could recount all the events which took place when he was in the custody of the abductors.He had led the police to the house where he had been confined.It can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 that he was clear as regards the identification of Mukesh and Rihan.He could identify the family members as well as the location of Rihan's house.Though PW-1 was cross- examined, on the behalf of the accused, nothing significant could be elicited to discredit his testimony.A submission on behalf of Mukesh was that the prosecution could not establish how the investigation in fact commenced.Added to these were two other circumstances, according to counsel, which falsified the prosecution story.Here it was urged that the police witnesses deposed to having having ascertained the call details as well as the ownership of the telephone number and yet omitted to bring that material evidence during trial, on record.Two, the entire story about the currency notes being handed-over to the police for marking on 13.06.2002 and being dropped at a pre-arranged destination on that day itself is unsupported by any objective material.It was urged that no call details were proved, to establish that in fact any of the witnesses, who had boarded the train were contacted at the relevant time, signaling them to throw the bags of Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 16 currency.Furthermore, argued counsel, the easiest thing that the police could have done was to follow the train or try and nab those who tried to pick-up the currency notes.As far as the recoveries from Rihan and Sukh Ram Pal are concerned, the witness who primarily deposed about it is PW 11 HC Anil Kumar.He deposed that on 26.6.2002 accused Mukesh led the police to a house; this led to recovery of a police uniform, Panasonic make mobile phone and a charger.Mukesh's statement also led to the recovery of ` 2,67,500/-.Yet ` 19,000/- was recovered at his behest.He was not a party to any covert or overt act, threatening PW-1; nor was he a party to his abduction and illegal confinement.Their appeals, Crl.A. Nos. 1383/2011 and 2/2012 are consequently dismissed.The conviction of Deepak, is, for the reasons discussed above, modified to one under Section 365/34 IPC read with Section 411 IPC.He is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, for the offence under Section 365/34 IPC. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,670,924 | The police are on notice.(Arindam Sinha, J.) 3He draws the attention on paragraph 12 in the writ petition he submits, petitioner has come to Court with oblique motive.If there are grounds for cancellation of bail, petitioner can bring it to notice of the Court having granted it.He submits further that statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stands recorded.The police have leveled acquisitions under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC.These provisions relate to kidnapping with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person.Accused, in view of concerned police, is a kidnapper with intent who have kept the minor victim confined, secretly and wrongfully.They have thought fit to not include provisions of 2012 Act as acquisitions against private respondent.The police are accepted to act responsibly, without omission far less deliberate omission.With above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. | ['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
30,672,538 | His earlier first application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn and second application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 24.072020 passed in M.Cr.The case of the prosecution against the applicant in short is that the applicant, in public, tried to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix, who was approximately 15 years old at the time of incidence.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 11.02.2020 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has categorically stated that the applicant used to chase her with an ill intention whenever she goes to school or coaching class.He also insulted her on the date of incidence when she was on the way back to her home.2 MCRC-37449-2020 Consequently, this third application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Tanvesh deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE pnm Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.11.24 15:09:12 +05'30' | ['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,837,687 | Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,Panna in S.C. ATRN.As per the prosecution case, on 02.03.2018 at 10 am appellant assaulted complainant Ramphal by knife due to which he sustained grievous injury in his left cheek.During investigation on 23.08.2018 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2018.10.31 16:25:29 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,842,806 | pk CRM No. 3405 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.4.15 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 261/15 dated 30.3.15 under Sections 447/325/307/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Brindaban Mondal & Ors.447/325/307/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
62,851,365 | W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 3 of 21A perusal of the two orders afore-noted shows that the orders are non-stigmatic and are orders of discharge simpliciter.The Prisons Deptt.Respondents of the two writ petitions being WP(C) No.22658-60/2005 and WP(C) No.22669-72/2005 i.e. Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar respectively, were appointed on W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 1 of 21 probation against the temporary post of Warder Prison in Tihar Jail, Delhi vide memorandum dated 23.1.1996 relevant part whereof reads as under:-W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 1 of 21"MEMORANDUM On the recommendation of Staff Selection Board, the undersigned is hereby please to offer to Sh.Satish Kumar a temporary/post of Warder on a pay of `9050/- per month in the scale of `950-20-1150-EB-25-1400 in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.The appointee will also be entitled to draw dearness allowance and other allowance at the rates admissible under the Rule and subject to the conditions laid down in the Rules and Orders governing the grant of such allowances in force from time to time.Other Terms and conditions are as follows:-The appointment will be terminated at any time by one month notice given by the either side viz, the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reasons.The appointing authority, however reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forth with or before expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of a sum of equivalent to pay and allowances for the period of notice or unexpired portion thereof. "A bare perusal of the relevant terms of the memorandum aforesaid reveals that Satish and Naresh were to be on probation for a period of 2 years and within the period the probation their services could be terminated without assigning any reasons.Pursuant to an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 363/366/376 IPC Naresh Kumar and W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 2 of 21 Satish Kumar were arrested on 13.10.96 and were sent to judicial custody along with a third co-accused Jaswant Kumar.W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 2 of 21Information pertaining to Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar being accused of having committed the offence of kidnapping and rape and being arrested and denied bail was received by the jail authorities and the competent authority took a decision that services of Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar should be terminated.Order terminating services of Naresh Kumar reads as under:-In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, 1965, I, R.S.Gupta, I.G.(Prisons) hereby terminate forthwith the services of Sh.Naresh Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Chander, Warder and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates which he was drawing immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.Order terminating service of Satish Kumar reads as under:-In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, 1965, I, R.S.Gupta, I.G.(Prisons) hereby terminate forthwith the services of Sh.Satish Kumar S/o Sh.Danbir Singh, Warder and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates which he was drawing immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.On 10.11.2003 they filed separate representations to the Authority appointing them and requested that in view of they being acquitted at the criminal trial the order terminating their services be revoked and they be re-inducted into service.The representations were rejected by the Appointing Authority and were communicated to them in identical words.We note the rejection communicated vide memorandum dated 4.12.2003 to Naresh Kumar.It reads as under:-Styling it as an Appeal, Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar submitted representations to the Principal Secretary Home, probably for the reason the order of termination and the order rejecting their representations for re-induction in service was passed by the Inspector General Prisons, and the two thought that the Executive Administrative Head of Prisons being the Principal Secretary Home, Government of NCT Delhi could be the Authority to which they could appeal.Vide order dated 22.6.2004 the Secretary Home rejected the representation styled as an Appeal filed by Naresh Kumar.The order reads as under:-W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 4 of 21This concerns an appeal filed by Shri Naresh Kumar, Ex-Warder at Tihar Jail against his termination by an order dated 16.10.1996 of the then I.G. (Prisons), Central Jail Tihar.I had given a personal hearing to the appellant on 21.4.2004 in the course of which he stated that he had been wrongly terminated.He mentioned that his termination was a consequence of a criminal case against him and two others before the court of the Addl.Sessions Judge.The charges against Sh.Naresh Kumar and two others concern the abduction of a lady, with dishonest intentions, and that he had later on raped her.Charges u/s 366/376 IPC have been framed against Sh.Naresh Kumar.He stated that all three had been acquitted by an order dt.16.10.03 of the Addl.The Prisons Deptt.have stated in their comments regarding the appeal filed by Sh.Naresh Kumar, that this termination order is a termination simplicitor without attaching any stigma.The official was then still in temporary service and his services had been terminated as his work was not satisfactory during the period of probation.Naresh Kumars involvement in another criminal case.In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of any ground or reason which could be construed as causing a stigma on Sh.Naresh Kumar.The order reads as under:-This concerns an appeal filed by Sh.Satish Kumar, Ex- Warder, Central Jail Tihar requesting that he may be reinstated to his post at Tihar Jail.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.26/1997 based on a FIR No.26/1996, having been charged u/s 363/366/376 IPC.The complaint against the petitioner and some others was to the effect that they had abducted the complainant, Ms.Savita and outraged her modesty in a conference hall on 12.10.1996 and raped her on the same date at the house of one Jaswant Sharma at Vijay Enclave.After weighing the evidence, the Addl.Sessions Judge had disbelieved the story of Ms.Savita and had acquitted the present petitioner, Sh.During the period of trial the three persons were in judicial custody, and they were ordered to be released.This order of the Addl.It is the contention of the petitioner in his appeal received in this office on 2.1.04 that following W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 6 of 21 his acquittal, he may be restored to his position as a warder in Tihar Jail.W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 6 of 21In this connection he has mentioned that he had earlier requested the Director General (Prisons) for revocation of the termination order dt.16.10.03 by his application dated 10.11.03, to which he had received a reply on 4.12.03 from the Officer Incharge (Vigilance) in the Directorate General of Prisons, rejecting his request for revocation of the termination order dated 16.10.2003 by his application dated 10.11.2003, to which he had received a reply on 4.12.2003 from the Officer Incharge (Vigilance) in the Directorate General of Prisons, rejecting his request for revocation of the termination order pointing out that the case cannot be re-opened after expiry of three months from the date of termination by the Head of Department.I had given the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing on 9.6.2004 and he had availed of the same.During the hearing he had mentioned that his family circumstances were very difficult owing to his financial position and requested for revocation of the termination order.He had also contested the reasons given by the Director General (Prisons) for rejecting his request.This order is strictly in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and it does not make any mention whatsoever of the criminal case which was then pending against the petitioner.In short, the inference one can draw is that his involvement in the criminal case was not the ground for his termination.No such special circumstances exist in this case.I have also considered the comments of the Director General (Prisons) received in this office on 16.2.04 on the appeal filed by the petitioner.It was stated that the order terminating their services were non-stigmatic.The Tribunal has allowed the petitions filed by the respondents.After copiously noting various judgments pertaining to when could the Court lift the veil and look for reasons behind an innocuous order of discharge, but without digesting them, the Tribunal held that the foundation of the order discharging the services of Satish W.P.(C) Nos.22658-60/2005 & 22669/2005 Page 9 of 21 Kumar was his being accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 363/366/376 IPC and thus his services were terminated by way of penalty and the same not being preceded by an inquiry rendered the order liable to be set aside.On the bar of limitation, the Tribunal held that since the appeal filed by Satish Kumar was entertained by the Appellate Authority and rejected vide order dated 22.6.2004, the Original Application filed before the Tribunal within one year thereof was within limitation.Subhash Batra to prove that in the intervening night of 12 th and 13th October 1996, from 12:00 midnight till 6:00 AM he was posted on duty and the witness stated that though posted on duty, Satish was found absent during the night.It be noted that the victim, as per the FIR in question, did not return home when night fell on 12th October 1996 and reached home the next day.As per the victim Naresh Kumar had kidnapped her and had raped her in the house of co-accused Jaswant Sharma in the night and thereafter the other two accused which included Satish Kumar had also raped her.The same was a motive for the action. | ['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,851,691 | 31.08.2017Index :yes/noInternet :yes/nompsTo1.The Inspector of Police,J-11, Kannaki Nagar Police Station,Chennai District.R. SURESH KUMAR, J,mps Crl.R.C.No.1132 of 2017andCrlMP No.10777 of 201731.08.20172.By the said order, the 2nd respondent, having invoked Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the Code), has remanded the petitioner to be in Jail for the remaining days of the bond period i.e., 179 days.On enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner had already involved in a criminal case in Crime No.1506 of 2016 on the file of J-11 Police Station, Chennai, for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of IPC .As he had already been in Jail, pursuant to the arrest made on 09.03.2017, the petitioner was produced before the 2nd respondent, where, the 2nd respondent claimed that, the Prosecution witnesses i.e., the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police as well as a Police Constable and Head Constable attached with the 1st respondent police had given statements against the petitioner.For further enquiry, the petitioner had been directed to produce on the next day.Accordingly, the petitioner was produced on 04.04.2017, on that day, explanation was asked for from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner had refused his involvement in the crime.It is further recorded by the 2nd respondent that, though the petitioner had accepted that he had been in the place of occurrence, but he stated that he did not do anything, involving the said crime.The said order has been passed on 04.04.2017 itself, as against which, the present revision has been filed.8.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.Only on suspicion, he was apprehended on 06.03.2017 and on the basis of his involvement in the said case, i.e., Crime No.1506/2016, the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore, in order to maintain law and order, peace and tranquility in the locality, he had been directed to execute a bond.10.The very next day i.e., on 09.03.2017, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was caught, while he was in possession of 1KG and 100g of Ganja for the purpose of sale.If at all, the statements of the official witnesses are to be accepted by the Executive Magistrate, in order to cross examine the said witnesses, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of engaging a counsel on his own.18.In this regard, I have dealt with a similar circumstances in the case of Selvam @ Selvaraj vs. the Executive Magistrate -cum- Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order, Crime and Traffic), Tiruppur city and another in Crl.RC.No.505 of 2017, dated 03.07.2017 {2017 (3) MLJ (Crl) 430}, wherein, at Paras 45 and 46, I have given the following observations.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.The impugned detention order in M.P.No.3 of 2017 dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adayar, Chennai District, is set aside.The petitioner/accused is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.The bail bond, if any executed by the accused, shall stand cancelled. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,852,311 | Affidavit of service is filed.Let it be kept on record.2015 under Sections 448/323/354B/ 379/506(ii)/114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act is not being conducted in a proper manner.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is, thus, disposed.There will be no order as to costs.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,854,091 | ORAL JUDGMENT :-1. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 5.7.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 ::: 2 CRI WP 534.2007.odt Nanded below Exh.1 in Misc.Criminal Application No.61/2007 and 68/2007 and the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded whereby Criminal Revision Petition No.94/2007 is allowed and Criminal Revision No.99/2007 preferred by the present petitioner dismissed, the petitioner-original complainant has approached this Court by filing present Criminal Writ Petition.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::Brief facts, giving rise to the present Criminal Writ Petition, are as under :-Petitioner-original complainant had filed an application bearing Criminal Application No.211/2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded seeking directions to the Police Station, Nanded to register the crime against accused nos. 1 to 3 (present respondents) and investigate into the matter as per the provisions of Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded by order dated 9.3.2007 directed Rural Police Station, Nanded to make an investigation under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 ::: 3 CRI WP 534.2007.odt treating the complaint to be the F.I.R. and submit final report.Accordingly Crime bearing No. 75 of 2007 came to be registered at Rural Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.Said case is still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::During the course of investigation, the investigating officer while investigating said Crime No. 75 of 2007 seized the machinery I.e two boring machines from the possession of deceased father of respondents no. 2 to 4 herein.The investigating officer seized one bor machine and, so far as another bor machine is concerned, sealed it and kept the same in possession of deceased father of respondents no. 2 to 4 herein.The petitioner-complainant when the crime was under investigation submitted an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded for the temporary custody of the Muddemal Property i.e. ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 ::: 4 CRI WP 534.2007.odt aforesaid boring machines under the provisions of Section 457 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Said application is registered as Misc.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::Furthermore, the legal heirs of deceased Mohd.Ayyub (deceased father of respondents No.2 to 4 herein) also filed an application bearing Misc.Appln No.68/2007 seeking custody of the aforesaid Muddemal Property pending investigation of the Crime.The learned Judge of the Trial Court, after hearing arguments of the both the parties, by common order dated 5.7.2007 passed below Exh.1 in Misc Appln No.61/2007 and Cri.M.A.No.68/2007 rejected both the applications.Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of said Mohd.The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded by impugned order dated 27.8.2007 allowed the Revision petition No. 94/2007 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Ayyub, however, Criminal Revision Application No.99/2007 preferred by the petitioner-::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::Sessions Judge, Nanded has further directed that, interim custody of the both the boring machines seized in Crime No.75/2007 by Police Station, Cidco Gramin be given to the revision petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.94/2007 on furnishing a personal bond and security bond with certain directions.Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/original complainant has filed present Criminal Writ Petition.Initially, interim relief was granted, however, this Court, while issuing Rule by order dated 17.7.2008 vacated the said interim relief.Since, then, the respondents No.2 to 4 herein are in possession of said two boring machines.I do not find any propriety in deciding the applications of the parties to this writ petition after lapse of more than nine years, when said applications came to be filed under the provisions of Section 457 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure pending investigation of the Crime.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::6 CRI WP 534.2007.odtWrit Petition is disposed of.Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:37:55 ::: | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,857,982 | Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Learned lawyer appearing for the defacto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.We have considered the materials on record and we find that there is a domestic strife between the parties and a number of cases are pending inter se.In view of the aforesaid fact and bearing in mind the nature of allegations, we are of the opinion though custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary, movement of the petitioners requires to be restricted in order to instill confidence in the mind of the victim.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,859,200 | The prosecution case is as under:A. That about 20 years ago, one Vellaimmal (PW.17, blind and deaf), daughter of Paulmelie Thevar, got married to one Arumugam and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock.The said Arumugam deserted his wife Vellaimmal and married another lady which resulted in enmity between the two families.Arumugam assaulted Vellaimmal and her family.B. After a gap of about 20 years of the said incident happened in the year 1981, it was alleged that on 30.7.1999, 17 persons including the two appellants unlawfully assembled together with a common object to murder Ramasamy and they came at his house at about 9 P.M. when he was sleeping on a cot outside his house.The accused encircled him and caused indiscriminate cuts over his body using an Aruval which caused instantaneous death.In order to save Ramasamy, his two sons, namely Paulmeli and Vijayasamy intervened and they also got injuries.After committing the offence, accused persons ran away.The matter was reported to the police by one Mr. Setu Raman to Mr. Gandhi (PW.16), the Head Constable of Viracholan Police Station.However, as the incident occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station, the said Setu Raman informed the Inspector of Parthi Banoor Police Station at about 11 P.M. who went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Malliga (PW.1), wife of deceased.The medial end in the front is tapering.Underlying vessels and muscles severed.Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2009, passed by the High Court of Tamil Nadu (Madurai Bench) in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.540 of 2008 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2001 by the Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram by which and whereunder the appellants had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default to undergo further RI for six months.On the basis of the same, an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) in the morning of next day at 7.30 A.M., wherein 17 accused persons including two appellants had been named.The dead body was sent for post-mortem and the two sons of the deceased were medically examined.The accused were taken into custody on different dates and on their disclosure statement, recoveries were made.After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed against 17 accused persons and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2001 acquitted all the accused.C. Aggrieved, the complainant Vijayasamy, son of deceased challenged the said order of acquittal by filing Criminal Revision No.274 of 2004 before the Madras High Court (MD) which was allowed and the Sessions Court was directed to have the trial afresh.D. In a fresh trial, prosecution led the evidence wherein Malliga (PW.1) supported the case of the prosecution.Paulmeli (PW.2), the injured did not support the case and thus was declared hostile.Another injured Vijayasamy, son of deceased was not examined by the prosecution.Thus, relying upon the evidence of Mallinga (PW.1), the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 acquitted all the accused except the appellants Paulmeli (A.5) and Chockaiah (A.7) who were found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them as referred to hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the courts below have committed an error convicting the appellants on the evidence which has been totally disbelieved on the basis of which the other remaining 15 accused stood acquitted.More so, Paulmeli (PW.2), son of deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and another injured son of deceased, Vijayasamy was not examined by the prosecution.There was a complete darkness in the night thus, the question of identifying the appellants does not arise even while Malliga (PW.1) could not identify the appellants in darkness.More so, there had been material discrepancies in respect of the manner and number of injuries caused by the appellants to the deceased.Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.Per contra, Shri M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State, has opposed the appeal contending that the parties are closely related.Therefore, Paulmeli (PW.2) turned hostile, but in the examination-in-chief he has named the appellants and attributed them the overt act in participation of murder of his father.There was sufficient light as per the evidence on record and Mallinga (PW.1) could identify the appellants being closely related and well-known even in the darkness.The discrepancy, if any, in the evidence of the witnesses is insignificant as there was no material discrepancy which go to the root of the cause.More so, in a case where a retrial was conducted, the witnesses could not give the same version after a long lapse of time.If some persons had been acquitted disbelieving the deposition of Malliga (PW.1), that cannot be a ground for acquittal of the appellants.The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.An incised wound of 10 x 4-1/2 x 4cms in front of neck on the right side just below the lower border of the mandible right from the chin to the angle of mandible.The lower skin flab vessels found severed.Blood clots present over the wound.2).An incised wound of 8-1/2 x 4-1/2 x 4cms in the front of the cheek just 3cm above the supra external notch 3cms on the right side midline 5-1/2cm on the left side in the horizontal direction.Trachea found cut.Vessels found severed.The cut ends are regular and smooth.Blood clots seen on the wound.3).An incised wound of 13 x 3-1/2 x 3 cm on the back of neck 3 cm from the midline extending just below the lower border of left mandible upto the chin.4).An incised wound of 15 x 3-1/2 x 2-1/2cms extending from the nose in the midline towards the right side of neck just below the right ear in the oblique direction, medial end of the wound is tampering.Maxillary bone found cut.Blood clots present.5).6).An elliptical stab wound of 6 x 2-1/2 x 8cms.The wound found communicate with the thoracic cavity on the right side in the front of chest just below the right clavicle.7).An elliptical incised wound of 5 x 2 x 1cms on the medial end of left clavicle.An elliptical stab wound of 6 x 2-1/2 x 7-1/2cms on the front of the left chest just below the middle of the left clavicle to 2.5 cm medial to the anterior axillary line.9).An elliptical incised wound of 4 x 1-1/2 x 1-1/2cms on the lateral aspect of right shoulder in A.P. direction.10) An incised wound of 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 1cm on the front of right shoulder in the horizontal direction.11) An incised wound of 6 x 1-1/2 skin depth on the back of right elbow towards the right forearm in vertical direction.12) An incised wound of 6 x 1-1/2 x skin depth on the back of right forearm in horizontal direction.13) An incised wound of 1-1/2 x ½ x 1/2cms on the ulna border of right forearm.14) An incised wound of 10 x 6 cms x bone depth on the dorsal aspect of right hand.The meta carpal bone of right index and middle finger found partially cut and right index finger found missing at the level of metacarpus phelengeal joint.Blood clots found on the wound.15) An incised wound of 3-1/2 X ¼ x bone depth on the dorsal aspect of left ring finger.All the above wounds found with blood clots.”Vijayasamy, the son of the deceased was also injured in the occurrence.He was treated by Dr. Maheswaran (PW.22) and he issued Ex.P.40-Accident Register copy.He found the following injuries:“1) Cut injury back of neck (L) 5 cm x 1 cm skin deep.2) Cut injury back of left supra 7cm x 7cm x 3cm mandible deep.3) Cut injury back of left forearm 4cm x 2cm x skin deep.”On the same day, Dr. Maheswaran (PW.22) examined Paulmeli (PW.2) and he issued Ex.P.39-Accident Register Copy.He found the following injury:“1) Cut injury back left elbow 7” x 5” exposing bone, with skin deep.” M.O.1 is the X-Ray taken for Vijayasamy and M.O.2 is the X-Ray taken for Paulmeli by Dr. Indrani (PW.12), Radiologist.There had been recovery on the disclosure statement of the accused.So far as the present appellants are concerned in their statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Cr.P.C.’), they denied their involvement and did not lead any evidence in their defence.In the instant case, Malliga (PW.1), wife of deceased, in the FIR, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition in the court, had specifically named both the appellants.Even though, she had named other persons also.The appellants had been known to the said witness for a long time as they were closely related.There was sufficient light as per the evidence on record even otherwise there can be no difficulty to recognise so closely related persons even in darkness.The injuries found on the person of the deceased are duly supported by medical evidence as well as got corroborated by the deposition of Malliga (PW.1).The concurrent findings have been recorded by the courts below in this regard.We do not find any force in the submissions advanced by Ms. Khajuria, learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries attributed to the appellants could not be caused by Aruval as the findings recorded by the trial court in this regard is that all injuries may be caused by the attack of Aruval.It has further been held by the trial court that the appellants herein came with Aruval and attacked the deceased indiscriminately causing injuries on the neck, chest and other parts of the body, though, inadvertently, the trial court has mentioned that the injuries found on all over the body, had caused the death.More so, with respect to various issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, questions have not been put to the doctor who conducted the postmortem when he appeared in the witness box.The High Court reappreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that admittedly there was light in the facet of the house and there was also street light illuminating the place of occurrence.The evidence of Kumareshan (PW.19), the wireman of Electricity Board, was examined to prove the fact that at the relevant point of time, the electricity was in supply at the place of occurrence.There is some discrepancy in the statement of Malliga (PW.1) in this regard but she might have not been able to give exact specific account being an illiterate village woman and as the appellants have not been strangers, there could be no difficulty for her to identify the appellants even in the darkness.The Trial Court recorded the finding that the FIR had been lodged promptly.The High Court reappreciated the full particulars as under what circumstance the FIR had been lodged.P.W.14 received the F.I.R. at 2.15 A.M. Since it was night, at 6.00 A.M. he proceeded to the Paramakudi Judicial Magistrate's Court.Since nobody was there he went to the house of Head Clerk of Paramakudi Judicial Magistrate's Court, where he was informed that Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ramanathapuram was the incharge Magistrate.So, he went to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Ramanathapuram.At that time the Judicial Magistrate was conducting cases.and later he gave the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,860 | JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.The appellant's suspicion about the deceased having illicit intimacy with his wife led to serious misunderstanding between them because of which, deceased left his job as the tractor driver.On 12.7.2001 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant and accused Nos. 6 and 7 went in the car of the appellant to the house of the deceased.He was not at home.The appellant and accused Nos. 6 and 7 told deceased Yankanna's mother Yallawwa (PW-10) that they required the services of her son in connection with digging of a borewell in the land of the appellant.When deceased Yankanna returned home within half an hour, he was immediately taken by the appellant and accused Nos. 6 and 7 with them.On that night, deceased- Yankanna did not return home.On the next day, Yallawwa (PW-10) went in search of her son but could not find him.On questioning, the appellant informed PW-10 that he had brought back deceased Yankanna at about 11.00 p.m. on the same night and had left him in the village.Not satisfied with the answer given by the appellant, PW-10 went to accused Nos. 6 and 7 and inquired about the whereabouts of her son but they also did not give any satisfactory answer.Thereafter, PW-10 and her nephew-Kamanna Parameshwar (PW-18) went in search of the deceased Yankanna and in the process, made inquiries in nearby villages namely Dadanatti, Rugi, Chabbi etc. but could not find him.On 21.7.2001, Inspector of Bilagi Police Station (PW- 29) received information that there was a dead body found floating in the Ghataprabha river.Immediately, he rushed to the place and found the dead body of a person near the pump house.The dead body was taken out from the river.It was found that the head and rest of the portion of the body had been severed.The body was highly decomposed and the bones were exposed.The legs of the dead body were found folded and tied with a rope.The body was tied by another rope at the place of neck also.Inspector of police (PW-29) lodged information with regard to the same and the same was registered as Crime No. 91/2001 of Bilagi Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.Thereafter, PW-29 conducted inquest in the presence of PW-1 and 2 and sent for the medical officer to conduct the post mortem examination.Dr. Sabu Satihal, Medical Officer, KIMS, Hubli (PW-21) conducted the post mortem examination.The Medical Officer could not confirm as to whether the body was that of a male or female since the genital portion had been highly decomposed.However, there was underwear found on the body which was taken out and the body was preserved for two days for identification.In the meanwhile, PW-10 along with PW-18 had gone to Kaladgi police station and lodged a complaint on 22.7.2001 inter alia alleging that her son was working as a tractor driver for about 3-4 years with the appellant and about 3 months back, her deceased son left the job on account of some disputes between them.She suspected that there was some dispute between her son and the appellant, accused Nos. 6 and 7 since they were frequently roaming around her house, making inquiries about her son.She made inquiries with her deceased son in that regard who did not respond.She apprehended that the appellant may cause harm to her son.It is further alleged that about 11 days back i.e. on 12.7.2001, herself, the deceased and Lacchavva-wife of the deceased (PW-11) were sitting in their house and at that time the appellant, accused Nos. 6 and 7 came to her and stated that they required her son in connection with digging of a borewell in the land of the appellant.The deceased refused to go but they took her son forcibly and the same was noticed by her neighbours.It was about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, her son did not return to home.She made inquiries with the appellant who stated that he had dropped her son in the village at 11.00 p.m. Other accused also did not give any satisfactory explanation.She suspected that the said three persons might have killed her son.On the basis of the said information a case was registered by sub-Inspector(PW-28), Kaladgi Police Station as Crime No. 50/01 for the offence under Section 364 read with 34 IPC.Intimation of detection of dead body in Ghataprabha river was flashed to the neighbouring police stations and the same was received by Kaladgi police station and in furtherance of the same, PW-10 and PW-11 were taken to the place.PW-10 identified the body as that of her son Yankanna on the basis of the underwear found on the body.Thereafter, her son has not returned.She had searched for her son in neighbouring villages but could not find him.The appellant and accused No. 6 came along with her and also searched for the deceased-Yankanna.Thereafter she and her relatives demanded the appellant to produce the deceased-Yankanna.The police traced the dead body of Yankanna.It was found in Anagwadi river.She specifically states that "I saw the body and his head was chopped off and hands and legs were cut-off and the rope was tied to the body.I saw and identified the underwear (M.O.1) and identified the body as it belongs to my son." she suspected the appellant had committed the murder of her son.She further stated that when she insisted the appellant to produce her son, the appellant told her deceased Yankanna had illicit connection with his wife - Hanamawwa (PW-19) - "because of that he killed my son".In the cross-examination, she stated in categorical terms that at the time of arrival of the appellant at her house, her son Yankanna was not present at home and only half an hour later he returned home and immediately the appellant took him away.Prior to the arrival of the deceased, she and the appellant and PW-11 were present in the house.The appellant took the deceased and went away.She accepted that on receipt of information about floating of a dead body in the Ghataprabha river, she went there and identified the dead body as that of her son.She did not file any complaint to the Bilagi Police Station.In Exhibit P-6 (FIR), it is stated by PW-10 that her deceased son Yankanna left his job about 3 months prior to the date of the incident.It is further stated in the Exhibit P-6 that on 12.7.2001 in the evening she was sitting in her house along with the deceased and his wife-Lacchavva (PW- 11) and that time the appellant, accused Nos. 6 and 7 came to her house and she invited them inside.She did not state that her son was not present when the appellant along with other accused came to her house and her son returned home only after half an hour.In exhibit P-6 there is no mention of her coming to the Ghataprabha river and anything about the identification of the dead body of her son.In her evidence, she stated that she did not claim the dead body of her son nor the police told her to take away the body of the deceased.Looking at M.O.1 first time in the court, she identified the same as underwear of her husband.It is admitted by her in the cross-examination while she was waiting in Bilagi police station, her mother-in-law (PW- 10) went and saw the dead body of her husband and she came and told her that it was the dead body of her husband Yankanna.She did not see the body of her husband.She did not perform the funeral.On that basis he registered the case as Crime No. 91/01 for the offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC and dispatched the first information report to the court at 1430 hours and again proceeded to the spot where the dead body was found.The dead body was taken out of the river.It was in a highly decomposed condition.He summoned the Medical Officer (PW-21) to conduct post mortem examination at the spot and thereafter buried the body there itself.He also says that he got the photos of the body taken prior to 'cremation'.The appellant along with six others was tried by the Court of Sessions for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.Further, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.All sentences were directed to run concurrently.The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment, however, accused Nos. 6 and 7 were acquitted by the High Court of all the charges leveled against them.In this case we are concerned with the sole appellant (Accused No. 1).On 26.7.2001, appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested.As it was revealed that the incident occurred within Kaladgi limits, PW-29 submitted the entire papers on 8.8.2001 to Kaladgi Police Station for further investigation.Police Inspector of Bagalkot police station (PW-26) took up further investigation on 9.8.2001 and filed charge sheet against the appellant and accused Nos. 2 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 354, 302, 201 read with 149 of the IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to establish the case, examined in all 30 witnesses.No witness was examined on behalf of the accused.The learned Sessions Judge found that the materials were not sufficient and no case was made out as against accused Nos. 2 to 5 and consequently, acquitted them of all the charges.The remaining accused namely appellant and Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302, 364, and 201 of the IPC.On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal of accused Nos. 6 and 7 and acquitted them.The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed as against the appellant.We have elaborately heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the State.Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the burden shifted to the appellant to show what happened to the deceased in view of the evidence of PW-10 and PW-11 that he took the deceased and this amounts to requiring the accused to prove his innocence.He pointed out another error committed by the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the appellant with the help of some others (not the other accused who had been acquitted) were responsible for committing the murder of the deceased-Yankanna.The learned Counsel submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.Further contention of the learned Counsel was that assuming that the prosecution has been able to establish the circumstance of being last seen together, namely, the deceased having left with the appellant on 12th July, 2001, that by itself, could not connect the appellant with the commission of crime in the circumstances of the case.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW-10 and 11 which is consistent and the circumstances in which the dead body was found in the river clearly indicated that the dead body had been thrown into Ghataprabha river after committing murder of the person and the identification by PW-10 that the dead body was that of Yankanna, the chain of events is complete and in the absence of any explanation by the appellant, only conclusion to be arrived at is that the appellant was responsible and liable for the murder of the deceased-Yankanna.10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant.She did not attend the funeral of her son.15. PW-11 is none other than the wife of the deceased.She stated in her evidence that about 3 years ago at 8.00 p.m., appellant with two others came to her house and took away her husband with them.Thereafter, her husband did not return home.That after 7-8 days having received the information about a dead body floating in the Ghataprabha river, PW-10 and herself went and saw the dead body and found it to be of her husband.PW-10 filed the complaint to the police.According to her, appellant suspected that her deceased husband had illicit intimacy with his wife because of that, appellant and accused No. 2 took her husband and committed the murder.She further stated in her evidence, it is the police who told her that there was illicit relationship between deceased and Hanamawwa, wife of the appellant.PW-29, Inspector of Police, Bilagi police station stated in his evidence that on receiving information on 21st July, 2001 about floating a dead body at the Northern bank of Ghataprabha river near the pump house, went there and found one unknown dead body was floating in the Ghataprabha river near the pump house.Post mortem examination was conducted at the spot itself by PW-21 between 4.45 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. It is on 24th July, 2001, PW-10 to 12 came to the police station Bilagi and he had shown M.O. 1 (underwear), M.O. 6 (Waist thread) and photos to PW-10 to 12 based on which they identified the dead body as that of Yankanna.He undertook further investigation and arrested the accused.He claims to have made certain recoveries.It is on 8th August, 2001 he made over the case for further investigation to the C.P.I of Bagalkot, Rural Circle through Kaladgi police station.The evidence of PW-10 is full of contradictions apart from being at variance with exhibit P-6 (FIR) lodged by her before the Kaladgi police station and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-29).In the FIR, PW-10 does not say that the deceased-Yankanna was working with the appellant as tractor driver but in her evidence she stated that deceased- Yankanna was working with the appellant.In the first information report she does not say anything about the illicit relationship of deceased-Yankanna and appellant's wife- Hanamawwa(PW-19).She merely stated that there was some dispute between the appellant and the deceased but in evidence, she stated that the appellant told her that deceased-Yanakanna had illicit connection with his wife- Hanamawwa (PW-19) because of that he killed her son.PW-11, Lacchawa-wife of the deceased admitted in her cross-examination that she learnt that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the appellant only when the police told her.She asserted that PW-10 filed a complaint to the police "as we came to know about the illicit relationship between the deceased and Hanamawwa-wife of the appellant through police."They are not trustworthy witnesses.It is doubtful as to how and in what circumstances exhibit P-6 came into existence.If one goes by the contents of exhibit P-6 it becomes clear that she knew nothing about the dead body found in the Ghataprabha river.The question of identifying the dead body as that of her son does not arise.No photographs are marked as material objects.It is difficult to believe that one could identify the highly decomposed and mutilated dead body as that of deceased-Yankanna when the Medical Officer (PW-21) was not even in a position to say whether the dead body was that of a male or female.It is only the Forensic Expert (PW-22) who stated the body as that of a male after examining the bones.PW-10 and 11 assert that dead body was identified by PW-10 even on 21st July, 2001 but PW-29 says that dead body was buried immediately after the post mortem examination.Exhibit P- 6 is obviously got into existence may be after prolonged consultation with the police.The dead body remained unidentified.PW-11's evidence is also not trustworthy.She states, in her evidence, that Bilagi police came in a jeep and informed her and PW-10 that a dead body was found in the river and thereafter, she and PW-10 went to Bilagi police station but she did not see the dead body of her husband.She was waiting in Bilagi police station but PW-10 and her father-in- law went to saw the dead body of her husband.But her father-in-law (PW-12) does not say that he saw the body of his son.Next day they went in police jeep to Kaladagi police station where PW-10 lodged first information report (exhibit P-6).The version given by PW-11 is also highly artificial and cannot be accepted.It is difficult to believe that she did not go to the spot where the body was found.It is doubtful that PW-10 at all had seen the dead body of her son.PW-29, in his evidence, stated that he could not trace the relatives of the dead person since it was highly decomposed and had therefore got buried the body on 21.7.2001 itself.Thus in effect no one identified the body buried on 21.7.2001 as that of Yankanna.Yet another aspect of the matter is that there is no explanation as to why no complaint has been made ever since 12th July, 2001 when Yankanna was forcibly taken away till lodging the first information report on 22nd July, 2001 at 1900 hours.There is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to show that there was motive and that the deceased Yankanna had illicit relationship with Hanamawwa (PW-19) wife of the appellant.Be it noted, PW-19 also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.In this regard, the evidence of PW-11 gains some significance wherein she admitted that the complaint was filed only after they were informed by the police about the illicit relationship of the deceased-Yankanna and Hanamawwa (PW-19).No witness has spoken about the alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and PW-19 except PW-10 and 11 who got the information from the police.Next, we shall refer to the evidence of PW-21 who conducted the post mortem examination.It is in his evidence that the body was highly decomposed, head was missing, both legs were flexed and tied with rope over the abdomen.Hands were missing.Survival bone was exposed, external genitalia was highly decomposed and unable to make out sex organs.He could not make out as to whether the body was of a male or female, age and cause of death, time of death, he accordingly preserved the samples and sent to the Forensic Expert.The Forensic Expert examined as PW-22 stated that he received a sealed box containing bones from PW-21 and on opening the box, he found 8 human bones as mentioned in his report.They were of male body.He admitted that by examining the bones, exact age of the deceased cannot be given.Even the time of death cannot be given exactly.In the light of the evidence available on record, can it be said that the circumstances of last seen together by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the appellant who committed the crime? The High Court took the view that accused Nos. 6 and 7 are entitled to the benefit of doubt though, PW-10 stated in her evidence that the appellant, accused Nos. 6 and 7 took her son Yankanna on the fateful day.No motive was shown with regard to accused Nos. 6 and 7 for their involvement in the crime.It is under those circumstances, the High Court said that the burden shifts to the appellant to show as to what happened to the deceased-Yankanna.In our considered opinion, the High Court committed serious error in arriving at such conclusion.The first information report lodged by PW-10 itself is highly doubtful.PW-10's evidence itself does not reveal any circumstances to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the appellant.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 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', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,863,928 | Bail Application No. 58292 of 2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent perused the paper book.In this appeal the maximum sentence awarded by the court's below is ten years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the impugned judgment and order of the court's below are illegal and perverse.The court's below has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective.It is further submitted that during trial appellant was on bail and they have not misused the liberty of bail.On behalf of the State bail has been opposed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, I find it a fit case for bail.Let appellant, Raju @ Abhishek Tiwari, be released on bail in Sessions Trial No. 16000025 of 2013 (State Vs.Order Date :- 7.4.2017 psd | ['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,867,938 | This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.159/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Bhagwanpura, Bisthan, District Khargone.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Bisthan District Khargone and the deceased was the daughter-in-law of the applicant.In such circumstances, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for her appearance in investigation as and when directed and required.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicant during trial with the condition that when the final report shall be filed, the applicant would furnish fresh bail bond as per this order.Applicant shall ensure that she would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on them.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ns | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,912,059 | (Passed on this 12th day of August, 2014) Per Shantanu Kemkar, J.According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated for the commission of the alleged offence.He submits that the applicant is in custody since 10.05.2014 and that as the trial will take time, the applicant be granted bail.The applicant's bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide order dated 16.07.2014 by observing 2 MCRC No.5798/2014 thus: -"izkIr Mk;jh& dSfQ;r ds voyksyu ls ;g izdV gS fd vkosnu ds fo:) vkj{kh dsUnz la;ksfxrkxat eas Hkk-n-fo- dh /kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468] 471] 120cha ,oa ekU;rk izkIr ijh{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3@4 ds rgr ekeyk vijk/k dzekad 1137@11 ij iathc) jgk gS A Mk;jh& dSfQ;r ds voyksdu ls vkosnu dk ;g vkijkf/kd d`R; gS fd vkosnd us o"kZ 2009 dh ih-,e-Vh- dh ijh{kk eas lgvfHk;qDr dqynhi ls ykHk izkIr dj mls mDr o"kZ dh ih,eVh ijh{kk ikl djkbZ ,oa o"kZ 2010 dh ih,eVh ijh{kk eas vius LFkku ij izkDlhesu ds :i eas ,d vU; O;fDr vuwi dqekj dks cSBk;k] ftlds fd laca/k eas i`Fkd ls vijk/k Fkkuk ';keyk fgYl] Hkksiky ds vi0dz0 44@3-4-10 ij ntZ gqvk A bl rjg vkosnd ,d vH;Lr vijk/kh jgk gksuk izdV gS] ftlus fd ih,eVh tSlh egRoiw.kZ ijh{kk ftlds fd ek/;e ls ;ksX; Nk=ksa dk pquko gksdj Hkfo"; ds MkWDVj rS;kj gksrs gSa] eSa /kka/kyh dj ;ksX; Nk=ksa ds Hkfo"; ls f[kyokM dj muds LFkku ij v;ksX; Nk=ksa dk p;u djkus eas ;ksxnku fn;k A vkosnd dk ;g vkijkf/kd d`R; fuf'pr :i ls dkQh xaHkhj Lo:i dk jgk gS A ekeys eas vHkh vuqla/kku dk;Zokgh tkjh gS A tgka rd vU; fdlh ekeys ds vfHk;qDr dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] [kaMihB Xokfy;j ds }kjk izfrHkwfr ij Lora= fd, tkus dk iz'u gS vkSj ftlds fd laca/k esa vkosnd dh vksj ls lwph eqrkfcd nLrkost ds rgr vkns'k dh tks izfr IkzLrqr dh xbZ gS rks vU; izdj.k eas ikfjr vkns'k dh ;g izfr vkosnd dks ekeys dh mijksDr lexz ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, dksbZ ykHk iznk; ugha djrh gS A ekeys dh bu mijksDr lexz ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vkosnd dk ;g yafcr 3 MCRC No.5798/2014 izfrHkwfr vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA"On the other hand, Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State opposing the bail application has argued that the applicant is a habitual offender.The offence, which has been registered against the applicant, is serious in nature.The applicant is a middleman (agent) and he took Rs.3,70,000/- from co-accused Kuldeep (a student) and provided him a proxy-man (scorer) for clearing the PMT Examination.The said scorer appeared in place of Kuldeep. | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
629,229 | SI Sukhbir Singh had reached the spot accompanied by Constable Bhopal Singh and Constable Suraj Bhan in the said vehicle being driven by Head Constable Amar Singh and he found that Police Control Room Van, which was under the charge of Head Constable Ram Parkash (PW 13) had already arrived and he made query from the injured person lying there, whose name was disclosed by him as Kishan Lal.At that time, PW 2 Subedar Sher Singh was also present and the injured Kishan Lal was stated to have made the statement which was recorded in Urdu and was reproduced in his own words in the Rukka Ex.PW 12/A which was signed by Head Constable Ram Parkash, witness Sher Singh and duly attested by SI Sukhbir Singh.The free translation of the said dying declaration is to the following effect :"That about a month earlier, Sri Ram, real brother of Kishan Lal, had been stabbed and they (Sri Ram and his family) suspected Kishan Lal of being instrumental in that stabbing with a view to take revenge, at about noon time appellant Prem Kumar s/o Sri Ram, accompanied by one Puppy, one Bengali and another person, whose name he did not know, had assaulted him with knives and hockeys at a hillock in New Delhi while Prem with knife and others with hockeys had assaulted him and after putting him in a taxi had thrown him out at that spot and that he was about to die and he should be taken to the hospital immediately."It was recorded in the endorsement made by SI Sukhbir Singh in this dying declaration that Kishan Lal was in lawful pain and was keeping his eyes closed and thus, he was not in a position to sign the said statement.He took steps to send the injured Kishan Lal in the PCR Van and Kishan Lal was admitted in the hospital as per MLC Ex.PW 28/A with the history of having been stabbed and beaten by somebody.He was admitted in the hospital at 4.10 p.m. and at that time he was conscious but was smelling of alcohol.However, he succumbed to his injuries at 4.25 p.m. as per death summary Ex.PW 31/A due to cardio-respiratory arrest.A case under S. 307 read with S. 34 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh as per copy of the FIR Ex.PW 42/C at 4.05 p.m. vide Daily Diary No. 20A. SI Sukhbir Singh also reached the hospital and learnt about the death of the injured Kishan Lal and converted the case from S. 307 IPC to S. 302 IPC and was met by PW 23 Kanhaiya Lal and PW 36 Suraj Parkash, who are residents of the same place as deceased and had come to the hospital on learning about deceased having been taken to the hospital and they accompanied the police in search of Prem Kumar and at about 7 p.m. on the same day Prem Kumar was arrested and his personal search resulted in seizure of one ration card belonging to the deceased and one electricity bill Ex.PE also in the name of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 23/B. Blood-stained shirt Ex.P 1, which was worn by the appellant at that time, was also taken into possession and converted into sealed parcel.This memo was also signed by the said two witnesses.On the following day, in the presence of the same witnesses the appellant was interrogated and he is stated to have made a disclosure statement which was reduced into writing Ex.PW 36/C and in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, relevant portion of which was that he had concealed the dagger, which was used in the occurrence, in the garbage can Dev Nagar and he could point out the same and get it recovered and thereafter he got recovered the dagger from that place of which sketch Ex.PW 36/B was prepared.This appeal has been brought against judgment dated March 26, 1987, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under S. 304, Part I, read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and a subsequent order of the same date sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Facts, in brief, are that on March 13, 1980, some unknown person had given a message to Police Control Room which was recorded in Daily Diary No. 91 at 3.14 p.m. to the effect that some persons in a taxi had thrown out a person on Road No. 53, Near Ayurvedic Hospital Punjabi Bagh and that person appeared to be dead.Earlier to that Rukka was sent through Constable Bhopal Singh for registration of the case.PW 36/A. The appellant had also disclosed about the place of occurrence where the deceased was subjected to stabbing and beating and had led the police party and pointed out the place in the said hillock near Railway Line close to Bhutan Embassy from which place certain broken pieces of bottles of rum and wine, some pieces of cigaratte, and some blood were found and which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 15A. This memo is signed by SI Ram Chander and ASI Ram Saran.At this time, it appeared that public witnesses were not joined.From the place where the injured was found lying in Punjabi Bagh, blood-stained earth, one blood-stained paper and control earth were also taken into possession and converted into sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PF.SI Sukhbir Singh also held the inquest proceedings and had taken into possession the sealed parcel containing the Pajama of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW 14/A. The post-mortem was performed by Dr. Bharat Singh (PW 2) who noticed the following injuries :One incised wound over the right frontal area placed obliquely size 1" into skin deep covered by blood clot.Multiple scattered abrasion on the front neck and upper part of the chest of various sizes and shapes red in colour.Multiple contusion on the lateral size of right arm and forearm, all over wearing in size from 3" x 1" to 2" x 1".Blue red in colour.Contusions on the back of right hand all over, bluish red in colour.5. Contusion with abrasion on right side of chest in an area of 6" x 2", red in colour.Two linear scratches over the right side of abdomen crossing, each other as shown in diagram size was 7" long.Abrased contusion on the right thigh upper front part in an area of 12" x 9" bluish red in colour.Contusion on the front mid part of thigh placed transversely, size 6" x 1" bluish red in colour.One incised wound on the right gluteal area placed transversely size 1" x 1/4" x 1/4".Wound was spindile.One incised wound in front of right thigh lower part size 1" x 1/10" x 1/10".One incised wound on the front of right leg, near the knee joint, size half inch into skin deep.Multiple abrasion with contusion on the front of right leg all over bluish red in colour.Multiple contusion on left leg all over bluish red in colour.One incised wound on the left buttock placed transversely, size 1" x 1/10" x 1/10".Contusion all over left buttock and upper part back of thigh in an area of 18" x 6" bluish red in colour.Multiple abrasion contusion on the back of chest and abdomen, placed in various directions bluish red in colour.Multiple abrasion with contusions all over the outer side of the left arm and forearm, bluish red in colour."The doctor opined that all injuries were anti-mortem and injuries Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11 & 14 were possible by sharp edged weapon and other injuries were possible by blunt object such like lathi or stick, and death was due to severe pain resulting from multiple injuries but injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and he proved his report Ex.PA in this connection.The sample blood of the deceased and the Kurta of the deceased were taken off by the doctor and converted into sealed parcel which were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer.As the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chanakyapuri, the case was got registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri vide copy of the FIR Ex.PH and the further investigation was taken over by SI Lala Ram (PW 41).It appears that the appellant had also pointed out the wine shop from where the bottles of liquor were purchased, and the said pointing out memo is Ex.PW 22/A. Prem Kumar, Gopal, Mohinder Singh @ Pappi and Pranab @ Bengali were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge for offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC.The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that dying declaration given by the deceased Kishan Lal was by itself sufficient to bring home the offence as it was truthful and did not suffer from any infirmities but as identities of other three culprits mentioned in the dying declaration could not be linked with the other three accused, so he acquitted the other three accused while he convicted the appellant on the basis of the said dying declaration alone but also held that there was sufficient evidence proved on the record showing that the appellant had taken the deceased with him on that day at about 10 a.m. and that he had got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. the dagger in question and had also pointed out the place of occurrence and thus, he held him guilty of the offence punishable under S. 304, Part I, read with S. 34 IPC.I may mention here that the case property was also sent to the CFSL and the reports Ex.PW 41/A and PW 41B were received which clearly depicted that the blood of the deceased was of 'B' group which was found on his pajama and Kurta and was also found on the dagger in question.Although Shri I. S. Arora, Advocate, yet when the appeal reached for hearing before me in spite of the fact that the case was adjourned a number of times, counsel for the appellant failed to appear, production warrants of the appellant were issued who appeared before me on December 19, 1988 and requested the court to fix a date for arguments and he would see that his counsel appeared on the next date to argue the matter but in spite of the fact that the case was fixed as per his request, yet his counsel never appeared and again the appellant was summoned and he was brought from Jail on February 22, 1989 and he then requested the court that he was not in a position to engage any counsel as his previous counsel had not appeared to conduct the case and so a counsel at the State expense may be provided to him.I appointed Miss Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate, as amices Curiae at the State expense to argue the matter.She had advanced elaborate arguments in support of the appeal.The Court expresses its gratitude to the counsel for rendering able assistance in the matter.The first attack of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the veracity and the truthfulness of the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased.She has contended that the alleged dying declaration had been recorded in question and answer form by the police and no efforts had been made to get the statement recorded by any Magistrate and the statement had not been also got signed or thumb impressed by the deceased.So, the said statement should not be taken into consideration.She also pointed out that Constable Bhopal Singh, who was present at the time of recording of the dying declaration had not in his statement in court made any reference to any such dying declaration and there appeared many discrepancies in the statement of PW 12 Subedar Sher Singh which also would throw lot of doubt on the veracity of the dying declaration.While narrating the facts it has already been pinpointed that deceased was subjected too many stab injuries and blows given by blunt weapon and had multiple injuries and was almost on the verge of death.It is clearly recorded by SI Sukhbir Singh that deceased was groaning in awful pain and was keeping his eyes closed when he made the dying declaration and the anxiety of the police at that time was to rush him to hospital for giving him medical aid if the same could save the life of the deceased.So, there was very little time available with SI Sukhbir Singh in making any efforts to get any higher officer or Magistrate for getting recorded the dying declaration and he had given good explanation for not getting the signatures or thumb impression of the deceased on the dying declaration as the man was on the verge of death and was not even opening his eyes and was in lot of pain that the deceased could not be made to sign or thumb impress the said dying declaration.As far as Constable Bhopal Singh is concerned, it is true that he accompanied SI Sukhbir Singh to the spot and appeared as PW 7 and had not made any reference to any dying declaration made by the deceased but the fact should not be lost sight of that constable have to perform some job at the spot of keeping the spot of keeping the spot guarded and they might not pay any attention to the investigation being done by the Investigating Officer.No question was put to Constable Bhopal Singh eliciting from him whether he had heard the dying declaration at the spot from the mouth of the deceased.So, the mere fact the constable Bhopal Singh had not made any reference to the dying declaration in his testimony in court does not take away the authenticity from the said dying declaration.As far as Subedar Sher Singh (PW 12) is concerned, he was the first man who have seen the deceased being thrown out of the taxi and his making request to some inmate of Kothi No. 28, Punjabi Bagh, to inform the police and he did state that injured had told that his nephew, one Bangali one Pappi and one other whose name he did not recollect, had caused him injuries.It appears that he had forgotten the name of the said nephew, which was given by the deceased, in his dying declaration.The other discrepancy pointed out in his testimony is that he mentioned that Head Constable Ram Parkash had also reduced into writing the dying declaration but the case of the prosecution is that no such dying declaration was scribed by Head Constable Ram Parkash.It is to be remembered here that it is admitted even by Subedar Sher Sing as also deposed to by Head Constable Ram Parkash that local police had arrived at the spot almost when the Control Room Van had reached.So, it is evident that Head Constable Ram Parkash, who reached a few moments prior to arrival of the local police had perhaps put some questions to the injured and at that moment SI Sukhbir Singh also arrived and the dying declaration was taken down by SI Sukhbir Singh.Subedar Sher Singh categorically admits that he had signed the said dying declaration recorded by the local police.He identified his signatures on Ex.PW 12/A at point 'X'.PW 12 Subedar Sher Singh has been found to be truthful witness by the trial Court for very good reasons.He was frank enough to depose that he could not identify any of the culprits who had gone away in the taxi after throwing out the injured on the road.Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the dying declaration had not been taken by SI Sukhbir Singh in any separate paper and he had at first narrated the facts as to how and in what manner he arrived at the spot and who were the persons whom he found present at the spot and thereafter, he had written the said dying declaration in inverted commas.It is argued that if there was some urgency required in taking down the dying declaration the Investigating Officer would have not proceeded to record the dying declaration in the manner he had recorded.Mere fact that the Investigation after narrating a few facts as to the manner he came to the spot would not, in my opinion, throw any doubt regarding the authenticity or veracity of the dying declaration.It is also pertinent to mention that in the dying declaration except for the name of the appellant and his parentage and his close relationship with the deceased the particulars of other three culprits were not detailed out.If the dying declaration had not been made in a natural manner by the deceased and had been fabricated later on, as is the argument advanced, in consultation with the relations of the deceased, then the vague particulars of other culprits would not have been mentioned in the dying declaration and some specific facts would have been mentioned to identify the other culprits as well.So, the motive given in the dying declaration for the appellant nursing some suspicion about the hand of deceased in that occurrence and taking revenge on that score can be considered to be plausible one.Normally the dying declaration as far as possible should be recorded in question and answer form but mere omission to do so without any further defects in recording the dying declaration would not be sufficient to brush aside the dying declaration.In the present case the dying declaration has been recorded in narrative form but it appears to be in the words uttered by the deceased and the same had been put into inverted commas by SI Sukhbir Singh.As far as other evidence in support of the charge is concerned, PW 1 Jail Singh, who had allegedly seen the occurrence at the spot, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version.PW 10 Shakuntala, widow of the deceased, did support the prosecution case on the point of Prem Kumar appellant coming to the house and asking Kishan Lal to accompany him and the appellant had told Kishan Lal that he had some work with him and Kishan Lal had gone.She had mentioned that she herself was ailing at that time and one neighbour Prem (PW 32) had come to render some assistance in the household work at that time.She had in her police statement mentioned about appellant suspecting her husband of being instrumental in appellant's father being stabbed but she expressed ignorance about these facts and denied having told the police that the appellant had earlier given any threats to her husband for taking any revenge.She had also allegedly told the police that the appellant wanted her husband to give surety for someone and for that purpose the appellant had come to ask her husband to accompany him.She was confronted with the statement recorded under S. 161 of the Criminal P.C. after taking permission of the court but she denied these facts whereas the admitted a particular fact that her husband had gone in the morning at about 10 a.m. with the appellant.To the same effect is the statement of Prem (PW 32) who is an independent witness.She also mentioned that Kishan Lal had taken the ration card with him.PW 11 Gulab Singh, son of the deceased, however, for reasons known to him best did not care to support the prosecution case of his having known that the appellant had taken his father on that day in the morning so that his father could stand surety but he was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he stated that his mother had told him that the appellant had come to the house for taking his father on that morning.It is to be remembered that he is cousin brother of the appellant and he might have been persuaded by some close relations not to give any statement incriminating the appellant for the offence.Be that as it may, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW 32 Prem and PW 10 Shakuntala.Apart from this fact that it is appellant who had taken the deceased in the morning, the recovery of electricity bill in the name of the deceased and the ration card of the deceased from the personal search of the appellant at the time of arrest also renders the statements of Shakuntala and Prem corroboration that it was appellant who had taken the deceased with him so that deceased could furnish some surety.Kanhaiya Lal witness had turned hostile but he admitted his signatures on all material documents and did not give any explanation as to why he signed the documents at the instance of police if nothing had happened in his presence.The other public witness Suraj Parkash (PW 36) had wholly corroborated the prosecution case on all points.Nothing has come out from his cross-examination to show that he had any reason to depose against the appellant.He is not shown to be any relation of the deceased or connected with the deceased's family.He is as much neighbour of the deceased as of the appellant.The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that Suraj Parkash has not in his examination-in-chief narrated the facts given out by the appellant in his disclosure statement.I do not think it makes any difference to the prosecution case.After all the witness did state that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant and he had signed the same and he had got recovered the dagger in question from that particular place.It is also significant to mention that the blood, which was found on the blade of the dagger, was of same human group as the blood of the deceased.This renders further assurance to the prosecution case that the dagger in question was used in committing the offence by the appellant.It is also to be remembered that it is the appellant who in fact pin-pointed the place of occurrence and the broken pieces of liquor bottle and some selfish eatables were recovered from that place and so also the blood stained stone.Hence, from all these facts which stood proved on record beyond any shadow of doubt the Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that it is the appellant along with three other culprits (who remained unknown) that the offence in question was committed.So, I maintain the conviction and the sentences of the appellant and dismiss this appeal.Appeal dismissed. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,925,338 | PW.3 is the brother of the deceased.During February 2004, one Friday morning at about 10.00 a.m, the deceased left his home taking along with him two sheep in order to take them to hospital for giving them injection.As he did not return, PW.1 to 3 searched for him.They came to know that a body was found in Thimirikottai Kattuvalavu .They went there and identified the body, which was in decomposed state.On 08.02.2004, PW.1 went to police station and gave Ex.(ii) PW.14 Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police station received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2004 of Mecheri Police Station under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and prepared Ex.P20-First Information Report and took up the case for investigation and rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P21-Rough Sketch and Ex.P8-Observation Mahazar and took photographs.He held inquest over the body of deceased and prepared Ex.The appellant herein is the accused in S.C.No.3 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and stands convicted for an offence under Section 304 (ii) I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.P24-Inquest Report and recorded statement of witnesses and thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem examination.PW.12Doctor held autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P18-Postmortem certificate and opined that the death had occurred due to head injuries 3 to 5 days prior to the postmortem.PW.14 altered the case into Section 302 IPC and prepared alteration report - Ex.(iii) During investigation as it was revealed that the accused had committed murder on 17.02.2004 at about 17.15 hours, he arrested the accused near Kaligoundanoor bus stop.The accused was produced before PW.13-Tahsildar and he recorded Ex.P19 - confession statement of the accused and obtained signature in Ex.P19 and the admissible portion of the confession statement is Ex.M.Os.9 and 10 blood stained stones were recovered and thereafter, M.Os.11 and 12 blood stained shirt and lungi were also recovered.PW.14 gave requisition to the Judicial Magistrate to record the statement of witnesses P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C and PW.7 - Judicial Magistrate, Mettur, recorded their statements and on completion of investigation, PW.14 laid final report against the accused.(iv) PW.4 deposed before the Court that the accused and the deceased came together with sheep, which were sick, for treatment.PW.5 deposed before the Court that one Friday in the month of 'Thai (ij)', she had seen the deceased and at about 5.30 p.m, the accused and the deceased came together.They have brought the sheep and injection was given to them and thereafter, both of them left and subsequently, she had seen only the accused.On the next day, he has seen only the accused returning back.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied the complicity.On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above.The prosecution case lies on feeble circumstances.The trial Court erroneously relied on Ex.PW.4 did not refer to any day, time and month while deposing that he saw the accused and the deceased together.PW.5 also had not specifically given the date on which she saw the accused and the deceased together.The evidence of PW.6 also should not be accepted, since there was a ganja case pending against him and his statement was recorded by the police 12 days after the First Information Report being registered.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.The deceased, who left his house with sheep and went to the hospital along with the accused, was missing for two days.On 08.02.2004, the body of the deceased was found near the forest area of Thimirikottai.The body was sent for postmortem examination.The evidence of postmortem doctor and Ex.P18 - postmortem certificate established that the deceased died due to head injuries and the death of the deceased was due to homicidal violence.The head was disfigured and asymmetrical, a lacerated injury on right frontal region of scalp with a contusion surrounding it and comminuted fracture of vault and base of skull present.The prosecution relied on the following circumstances to show that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.(i) Ex.(ii) Recovery of M.Os.9 and 10 stones.(iii) Recovery of M.Os.11 and 12 - blood stained clothes of the accused.(iv) The evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 that they have lastly seen the accused and the deceased together.With regard to circumstance No.(ii) is concerned, on the basis of confession given by the accused, M.O.9 big stone and M.O.10 - two small stones were recovered 50 meters away from the scene of occurrence.P10 is the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused.As per the Analysis Report, M.O.10 small stones contained human blood stains with 'B' group.With regard to circumstance No.(iii), though the clothes of the accused have been recovered, as per Serologist Report, blood was not detected.Hence, circumstance No.(iii) cannot be taken against the accused.With regard to circumstance No.(iv), P.Ws.4,5 and 6 have deposed to the extent that they have seen the accused and the deceased together and thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive and only the accused was seen.None of these witnesses had any animosity against the accused and they had no reason to depose falsely.Of course, PW.4 had not given the details about the time, date on which he had seen the accused and the deceased together, but he had deposed in the cross examination that he had seen them during the month of 'Thai (ij)', which correlates with the time of occurrence.PW.5 had stated that he had seen the accused and the deceased together on one Friday during the month of 'Thai (ij)' and also seen them at 5.30 p.m. PW.6, who is a Homeopathy Doctor, had specifically stated that on 06.02.2004, he had seen the accused and the deceased together, but he had seen only the accused returning back at 8.00 p.m. and within two days, the body of the deceased was found.Though the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 established the fact that the deceased was lastly in the company of the accused, the accused has totally denied the said fact but he has not come forward with any explanation.As such circumstance No.(iv) is taken as most crucial circumstance and most incriminating factor against the accused.Of course, while convicting the accused, the trial Court relying on the confession statement of the accused - Ex.P19, convicted the accused only under Section 304(ii) IPC.Even though Ex.Considering the fact that more than 8 (eight) years had elapsed from the date of occurrence and the occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment, the sentence and imprisonment imposed on the accused / appellant by the trial court is modified and reduced for a period of four years rigorous imprisonment.Except the above modification regarding the sentence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the accused/appellant and send him to prison in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station Salem District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.T. SUDANTHIRAM, J.mra Crl.A.No.541 of 2005 | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,929,795 | Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 6.5.2015 relating to crime No.109/2015 registered at Police Station Sanodha, District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC and Section 25 B of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 76 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the co-accused persons that they killed the deceased Raghvendra with fatal weapons.Thereafter, name of the applicant was falsely implicated in the matter.made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.The applicant had no weapon with him at the time of incident and therefore, no offence under Section 25 of Arms Act is made out against the applicant.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.- 3 -This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,937,270 | We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners and for the State. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,938,153 | as per rules.(P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE SS/-Record of the court below be called for.Also heard on I.A.No.24840/2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants (Ghanshyam son of Bhimaji, Sodan Singh son of Bhimaji, Kailash son of Bhimaji, Kalusingh son of Sevaram Choudhary, Malkhan Singh son of Babulal Choudhary, Tufan Singh son of Babu Singh Choudhary, Satish son of Radheshyam Choudhary, Rajesh son of Radheshyam, Radheshyam son of Ambaram Choudhary and Vikram son of Bhimaji), who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC has been sentenced to 1 year RI with fine of Rs.100/- each, under Section 323/149, IPC has been sentenced to undergo for 1 year RI with fine of Rs.100/- each and under Section 325/149, IPC has been sentenced to undergo 4 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- to each of the applicants.With default stipulation.On due consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the short sentence awarded by the trial court and also to the fact that the jail sentence of the appellants have been suspended till 17.2.2018 by the trial court, however, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No.24840/2017, is allowed and it is directed that upon each of the appellants - (Ghanshyam son of Bhimaji, Sodan Singh son of Bhimaji, Kailash son of Bhimaji, Kalusingh son of Sevaram Choudhary, Malkhan Singh son of Babulal Choudhary, Tufan Singh son of Babu Singh Choudhary, Satish son of Radheshyam Choudhary, Rajesh son of Radheshyam, Radheshyam son of Ambaram Choudhary and Vikram son of Bhimaji), furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the applicants shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal and they shall mark their presence before the Registry of this court on 03.5.2018 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
62,941,762 | Remaining offences are bailable.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants for bailable offences.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to crime No.89/2015 registered at Police Station Kesli, District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 34 of IPC.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.It was alleged against the co-accused Pappu that he assaulted the victim Kundan by an axe.The applicants were not aware that the co- accused would assault in such a manner.It is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victim by kicks and fists.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with co-accused.No offence under Sections 307 or 324 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 of IPC.Under such M.Cr.C.No.9541/2015 circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.C.No.9541/2015 desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
163,757,208 | We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed.On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting larg quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck.One of the important object of this Act was to ensure that public at large should get safe and wholesome food.The Act incorporated salient provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and is also based on international legislations, ig instrumentalities and Codex Alimentaries Commission which related to food safety norms.The Act contains detail statements of objects and reasons.The Act defined term 'Adultrant'.It means, any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or substandard, misbranded or would contain extraneous matter (ramnants of raw material, packaging material etc.).The Act also define term 'food'.The food authority would also provide scientific data to the Government in the matter of framing policy relating to foods safety and nutrition.The authority would collect and summarize relevant scientific and technical data relating to food consumption and exposer of individual to risk relating to the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 ::: 15 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::consumption of food prevalence by biological risk etc. It should also collect scientific data in respect of contaminants of food and in respect of risks involved in consumption of food etc. The Act then provided general provisions about articles of food which includes use of food additives and processing aids contaminants, pesticides etc. It also imposes special responsibilities on food business operators.The Act thus provides various methods to provide safe and wholesome food for the society." Therefore, he prohibited manufactures support, distribution or sale of Gutka or Pan Masala, containing either tobacco or necotine or Magnesium Carbonate as ingredients.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that earlier to 2012 in Maharashtra, there were number of business men who were engaged in manufacturing Gutka or Pan Masala containing tobacco etc. These products were sold freely to the members of public earlier.The provisions of the FSS Act, 2006 made provisions for appointment of 'Designated officer' who would be in-charge of Food Safety administration for each district and 'Food Safety Officer'.The Act further provides as to what powers are given to the Food Safety Officer and ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 ::: 17 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::designated Officer.(c) keep it in the safe custody of the food business operator such article of food after taking a sample;and in both cases send the same for analysis to a Food Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken:Provided that where the Food Safety Officer keeps such article in the safe custody of the food business operator, he may require the food business operator to execute a bond for a sum of money equal to the value of such article with one or more sureties as the Food Safety Officer deems fit and the food business operator shall execute the bond accordingly.(2) The Food Safety Officer may enter and inspect any place where the article of food is manufactured, or stored for sale, or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food, or exposed or exhibited for sale and where any adulterant is manufactured or kept, and take samples of such articles of food or adulterant for analysis.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::Procedure relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution.The food Analyst would submit his report as to whether the food was mixed with adulterant etc. In our cases, Gutka/Pan Masala was not sent for food analysis.DATE : 4th March, 2016 JUDGMENT (Per A.V. Nirgude, J.) :-All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 ::: 11 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment.For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative.The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district.He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masala and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (in short, FSS Act, 2006).He further alleged that the petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.The police registered offence vide a Crime No. 70 of 2015 and arrested the petitioner.The petitioner secured bail, but asserted that lodging of complaint and registration of crime for offences punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code was illegal.According to them, the ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 ::: 12 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::On the day of incident, the prohibitory order was in force.It is, therefore, clear that admittedly the petitioners were found to have committed violation of the prohibitory order.(In the case it was found that the petitioner was transporting gunny bags containing Pan-masala pacages and tobacco pouches.Transporting such prohibited committee apparently amounted violation of the prohibitory order and the petitioner was liable for certain penal action.)It ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 ::: 13 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::consolidated the laws relating to food, and for establishing the food, safety and standards authority of India.Said Act was made also for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::The questions that arises then is, whether in such cases Food Safety Officers should have gone to the Police Stations for lodging complaints, and, secondly, whether acts complained amounted to any offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.On careful perusal of provisions of Chapter IX and X of the FSS Act, 2006 and the prohibitory order issued by the Commissioner, it appears to us that contravention of prohibitory order would amount to "failure to comply with directions of Food Safety Officers" as contemplated in S.55, which provided penal action.Section 55 of the FSS Act, 2006, reads as under :-The petitioner and applicants have stored/transported Gutka and Pan Masala in bulk quantity.They knew in most of the cases that the articles would be consumed in the State of Maharashtra.The question is, whether possessing such articles knowing that articles would be consumed in Maharashtra would amount to offence punishable under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal code read as under :-::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:45 :::25 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.- Whoever adulterates any article of food drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.Sale of noxious food or drink.- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."Both these Sections deal with adulteration of article of food.The first question therefore is, whether Gutka or Pan Masala found in possession of the applicant / petitioner were "adulterated food".The Indian Penal Code does not define specifically what is food adulteration.However, we can assume that adulteration of food would mean mixing any material to food which would make the food unsafe and substandard.It reads as under :-In view of all above discussion, we proceed to pass the following order :-O R D E R A) All Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications are allowed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,637,698 | This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 2.12.1997 of a learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 40279 of 1997 filed by the appellant was dismissed.The appellant was a Head Constable.He was prosecuted under Sections 302/504, IPC in Case Crime No. 25 of 1988 and was ultimately convicted by the Sessions Judge (Spl.in S'.JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.The Suptd.of Police, Hamirpur by his order dated 21.6.1994 dismissed the appellant from service on account of his conviction in a criminal case.The writ petition was filed challenging dismissal from service.We have heard Sri K.P. Agrawal for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.At the outset, it may be pointed out that the appellant (writ petitioner) had filed Writ Petition No. 20882 of 1994 challenging the order dated 21.6.1994 by which he has been dismissed from service.This writ petition was dismissed and, thereafter, he preferred Special Appeal No. 766 of 1994 and the said appeal is still pending for hearing.Learned Counsel has submitted that the cause of action for filing second writ petition (W.P. No. 40279/97) has accrued subsequent to the dismissal of earlier writ petition as an order has been passed in favour of the appellant in the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction.The second writ-petition filed by the appellant is, therefore, not at all maintainable.Coming to the merits of the case, the only point urged by learned Counsel for the appellant is that initially the appellant had been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No. 646/94 which had been preferred by him.However, subsequently, the order granting bail was modified by this Court on 3.4.1995 and in view of the modified order, the order dismissing the appellant from service has been rendered illegal.The relevant part of the order dated 3.4.1995, reliance on which is placed by the appellant, reads as under:- | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
163,777,093 | This petition has been filed to call for the records of the final report in P.R.C.No.36 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur Dam, Salem District and quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.O.P.No.15502 of 20202.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 21.08.2019 in H.C.P. No.1130 of 2019 directed one Manonmani, Sub-Inspector of Police not to investigate the matter.Further, the 4th accused also filed petition before this Court in Crl.He further submitted that for the very same occurrence dated 03.06.2019, the petitioners are aggrieved persons and they sustained grievous injuries and as such they lodged a complaint and on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC as against the 2nd respondent and two others.The 1st respondent without following the procedure under the PSO 588(A), mechanically filed the final report only in Crime No.246 of 2019 lodged by the 2nd respondent herein.The FIR registered on the complaint lodged by the petitioners is now kept in cold storage and it is still pending forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Crl.O.P.No.15502 of 2020 investigation.Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.In fact, the injured persons sustained grievous injuries on their leg and as such the major offences under Section 307 has been registered as against the petitioners.He further submitted that the present complaint is no way connected with the earlier FIR registered in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the complaint lodged by the mother of the 4th petitioner herein.Though, the investigation has been transferred in Crime No.235 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent to CBCID, it is nothing to do with the present case.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.5.On a perusal of the charge sheet and also the statements recorded under Section 16 of Cr.P.C. On 03.06.2019, there was quarrel between the petitioners group and the 2nd respondent's group in which the 2nd respondenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Crl.O.P.No.15502 of 2020 and others sustained grievous injuries.Each petitioner has specific overt act against the 2 nd respondent.Further, the Crime No.235 of 2019 was registered for the occurrence for the different set of allegations as against the accused persons.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.7.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 Crl.O.P.No.15502 of 2020 several disputed facts and allowed the petition.A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged.The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.01.10.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order gbi ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.O.P.No.15502 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,637,778 | After half the field had been watered they discovered that the water was not flowing normally.They suspected that it must have been stopped by somebody.Both of them proceeded up stream and found that Jawala had directed the water to his field, though it was the turn of Jaswanpur people to irrigate their fields.Sita Ram protested, and when his protest went unheeded, he tried to block the water channel which had been diverted by Jawala.Jawala then called other persons of the village to his aid including Badri, applicant, and then all of them beat Sita Ram, his uncle Bandi and one Minghani causing simple and grievous injuries to them.ORDER Agarwala, J.This is an application in revision against an order dismissing the applicant's appeal which was directed against the order convicting the applicants under Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. Jawala, applicant, has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 323, I. P. C. Badri, applicant, has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I. P. C. and to a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 323, I.P.C.Sita Ram complainant, of village Jaswanpur, and his uncle Bandi were watering their fields. | ['Section 325 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. |
163,782,455 | Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.42/18 registered at Police Station Baraytha Distt.Sagar for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(I)(N) of IPC and Section 5 (M)/6 of POCSO Act.As per prosecution story that on 28.6.2018 at about 3.30 the prosecutix aged about 16 years and 7 months has disappeared from the house.A missing person's report was lodged by Shivlal Adiwasi, father of the prosecutrix.On that basis offence under Section 363 of IPC has been registered against unknown person.During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 16.7.2018 and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded.She alleged against the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.7.2018 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.The FIR was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, which is against the unknown person.C.C. as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 24/01/2019 03:17:16 | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
163,783,533 | In those circumstances, let there be a stay of all further proceedings in Shyampur Police Station Case No. 9 of 2018 dated 06.01.2018 in connection with Charge-sheet No. 59 of 2018 dated 02.03.2018 for a period of six weeks from date.The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application upon the opposite party through the learned Public Prosecutor, 1 2 High Court, Calcutta and to file affidavit-of-service on the next date of hearing.Let the matter appear under the heading "Contested Application" six weeks hence.Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacating of the order upon notice to the other side.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 2 3 3 4 4 | ['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,331,043 | The deceased in this case was one Mr.Udhaya Kumar.He was functioning as the District Deputy Secretary of a political party for Cuddalore District.A.1 was the Panchayat Board President of Mudikandanallur and he also belongs to the same political party.A.1 did not like the deceased functioning as the District Deputy Secretary of the said political party.The affected workers made complaint to the deceased, as he was a Very Important Person in the village.This further aggravated the enmity between A.1 and the deceased.Some time before the occurrence, there was a temple festival in the Village.Being the President and Head of the village, A.1 had fixed Rs.300/- per family as Kudi Vari (tax) to spend for the temple celebration.The deceased, objected to the same.A.1 was running a sand quarry in the village, illegally.The deceased told that per day, A.1 was gaining Rs.50,000/- from out of the sand quarry and therefore, one day's such income could be spent for the celebration of the festival instead of collecting money from the poor people of the village.This is yet another incident which aggravated the enmity between A.1 and the deceased.3.Some time before the occurrence, one Ms.The deceased questioned the same and took some action against him.Since, the deceased had taken action against his supporter, A.1 got further wield against the deceased.These are all the incidents which are stated by the prosecution as aggravated motive for A.1 to decide to kill the deceased.4.On 06.08.2011, the deceased along with P.W.2 had come to the sand quarry to enquire whether sand was available for his brickyard for manufacturing bricks.After visiting the sand quarry around 11.00 am, the deceased was returning in his motorcycle.P.W.2 was traveling with him as a pillion rider.When they were nearing the place of occurrence, suddenly, all the three accused emerged there.A.1 was having an Aruval and A.2 & A.3 had one iron pipes each.They intercepted the motorcycle and as soon as the deceased stopped the motorcycle, even before he could try to escape, A.1 cut him with all force with Aruval on his neck.A.2 attacked him with iron pipe on his head.A.3 attacked him with iron pipe on his back and on his chest.The deceased in an attempt to escape from the further attacks of the accused, ran into the sand quarry.In the sand quarry, a dipper lorry was found parked.The deceased got into the said lorry and tried to hide.All the three accused claimed atop of the said lorry.A.1 cut the deceased with Aruval on various parts of the body repeatedly and A.2 & A.3 attacked him with iron pipes repeatedly.The deceased died in the lorry itself.Leaving the dead body in the lorry, in a pool of blood, all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.6.P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 2.45 pm on 06.08.2011 and in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness, he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch.He recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar.Then, in the sand quarry also, he recovered the blood stained earth and the sample earth.P.W.11, the Photographer was summoned to the place of occurrence to take photographs.P.15 is the post mortem certificate.She has further opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.8.P.W.10 examined few more witnesses including P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements.On 08.08.2011, P.W.13 had received the message that all the three accused were hiding in Kanyakumari.On 12.08.2011, he reached Kanyakumari and arrested all the three accused who were in the Car bearing registration No.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellants are A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.181 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.The trial Court framed charges against A.1 to A.3 as detailed below:-NoAccusedSection of law1A.1341, 302, 506(ii) I.P.C.,2A.2341, 302, 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C.,3A.3341, 302, 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C.,All the accused denied the above charges framed against them.By judgment dated 29.06.2015, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused as detailed below:-Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1341 I.P.C.,506(ii) I.P.C.,302 I.P.C.,Simple imprisonment for one monthRigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three monthsA.2341 I.P.C.,302 I.P.C.,Simple imprisonment for one monthImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three monthsA.3341 I.P.C.,302 I.P.C.,Simple imprisonment for one monthImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three monthsThe trial Court has ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A.1 to A.3 are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Because of this political rivalry, there was personal enmity between A.1 and the deceased.5.P.W.2 immediately informed about the occurrence to P.W.1, the father of the deceased.P.W.1 immediately rushed to Sozhatharam Police Station which is situated at a distance of 10 kilometers from the place of occurrence and made a complaint at 2.00 pm on 06.08.2011. P.W.8, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police of the said Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.303 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 341 & 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.Accordingly, P.W.11 took photographs at the place of occurrence.Then, P.W.10 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 3.30 pm and 4.45 pm on the same day and forwarded the same for post mortem.7.P.W.12 Dr.Anitha, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 06.08.2011 at 5.15 pm.She found the following injuries:-(1)Lacerated wounds :- Deep lacerated wound measuring 10 x 4 x 1/2 cms extending from above the right ear to occipital region (2)Wound 4x2x1/2 cm right frontal region.(3)Deep wound 8x5x2cm on the right upper occipital region (4)Wound 5x2x1/2 cm above the 3rd wound (5)Deep wound 11x5x2 cm under right temporal parietal (6)Wound 6x3x1cm before the 5th wound (7)Wound 6x4x1cm over left parietal occipital region (8)Deep lacerated wound right side jaw 7x2x2cm from the right side parietal extending to the lower hip (9)Deep wound on the chin extending to the lower neck right side 8x2x4cm drooling the fracture of left mandible right side of fracture of one mandible left side.(10)Deep wound 4 x 2 x 2cm on the right shoulder (11)Deep wound 6 x 4x2cm on the right elbow (12)Parietal wound 8x3x2cm on the right hand entering on the intendiquital space of RA middle finger -c fracture involving the right index, middle & ring fingers (13)Multiple lacerated wound in the left forearm extending the forearm bones and elbow just (14)Wound on the dorsume of the RA foot 4x3x1cm (15)Multiple linear abrasion over the upper chest megreans both right and left chest (16)Abrasion in the ideal side of the left thigh and right knee below knee and right side.On such arrest, in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness, all the three accused gave independent voluntary confessions one after the other.The Car in their possession bearing registration No.TN 03 AB 0308 (M.O.8) was seized by P.W.13, in the presence of the same witnesses.In pursuance of the disclosure statement made, on 13.08.2011, at 11.30 am, A.1 took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced a Omni Car (M.O.9).P.W.13 recovered the same under a mahazar.Then he forwarded all the three accused to Court for judicial remand.After the post mortem was over, P.W.13 had recovered the clothes found on the body of the deceased.He forwarded all the said material objects to Court.On the disclosure statements made by A.1 to A.3, A.1 identified the Aruval (M.O.1) and A.2 & A.3 identified two iron pipes (M.Os.2 & 3).P.W.13 recovered the same under the mahazars.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the three accused.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited, besides 13 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.2, 4 & 5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.2 has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.He has stated that he accompanied the deceased in a motorcycle as a pillion rider and he was present throughout the occurrence.He has further stated that he informed P.W.1, the father of the deceased about the same.P.W.1 has stated about the motive and he has further stated about the complaint made by him on 06.08.2011, upon which, the present case has been registered.P.W.4, in chief examination has fully supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as he has stated about the entire occurrence as an eye witness.But, when he was cross examined after a long time, he has shown hostility and has deposed as though he did not witness the occurrence at all.Therefore, he was treated as hostile.P.W.5 has also not fully supported the case of the prosecution.Though he was not treated as hostile, his evidence is not much useful for the prosecution.P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar, rough sketch, recovery of material objects, blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.W.6, the then Police Constable has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence to the Doctor, for post mortem.P.W.7, the then learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that she recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 4 & 5 and one Mr.Prabakaran, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as requested by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10).P.W.9 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by him on the material objects.According to his opinion, human blood was found on all the material objects including the Aruval (M.O.1) and except the one metal pipe and the earth recovered from the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.12 has spoken about the post mortem conducted by her on the body of the deceased and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.Ws.10 & 13, have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case.11.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any documents on their side.12.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.13.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.14.Admittedly, A.1 was the Panchayt President of Mudikandanallur Village, in which, the deceased was appointed as the District Deputy Secretary.Both of them belong to the same Political Party.There was a political inner party rivalry between A.1 and the deceased.According to P.W.1, A.1 was running a sand quarry and from out of which, he was earning a lot.For the village temple festival, when A.1 fixed Rs.300/- per family, as kudi vari (tax), the deceased objected to the same.He told that A.1 could spend a day's income from the sand quarry, for the said purpose, instead of collecting money from the poor village people.This further aggravated the motive of enmity over the deceased.A.1 had not paid the wages for the workers under the 100 days employment scheme, floated by the Government.This is stated to be yet another incident which intensified the enmity.One Ms.The deceased had taken action against him.It is further aggravated the enmity between A.1 and the deceased.Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, there were very strong enmity between A.1 and the deceased.This fact is not disputed by the defence at all.15.Instead, during cross examination, A.1 had projected a bad picture about the deceased.From P.W.1 during cross examination, the defence has elicited that in the panchayat election, there was a meeting of the villagers held to decide about the election.In that, the deceased offered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the village temple and in consideration of the same, the deceased shall be put up as the unanimous candidate in the election.A.1 objected to the same and, he said that in such an event, he would give Rs.5,00,000/- for the village temple.According to the defence, this incident gave raise to a strong enmity between A.1 and the deceased.It has been further elicited that the deceased had sold away a minor girl to one person from Andhra Pradesh at Tambaram for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.A.1 intervened, rescued and restored the minor girl to her parents.According to the defence, this is yet another enmity between them.It has also been suggested to P.W.1 that the deceased was an accused in a case of car theft in which, he was arrested and appearing before the Police regularly, in pursuance of the condition imposed by the Court, while granting bail.Thus, according to the defence, there were so many other instances which aggravated the enmity between A.1 and the deceased.Thus, it is the admitted case of the accused that there were strong enmity between A.1 and the deceased.At the same time, after all, motive is always a double edged weapon and on that score, we cannot rush to the conclusion that it was these accused who killed the deceased.We only say at this juncture that the prosecution has proved the motive.16.P.W.2 is a prime eye witness to the occurrence.According to him, he went along with the deceased in his motorcycle to the sand quarry, where the deceased wanted to know whether sand was available for his brickyard for manufacturing bricks.After seeing the same, in the motorcycle they came out of the quarry and they were proceeding on the bank of the river.It was at that time, according to him, all the three accused emerged suddenly, A.1 armed with Aruval and others two armed with iron pipes.A.1 cut the deceased on his neck, hand and lower jaw.A.2 attacked him with iron pipe on his head and A.3 attacked him with iron pipe on his chest.The deceased ran into sand quarry, in an attempt to escape.A dipper lorry was parked there.The deceased climbed on to the cabin of the lorry.The accused were also got into the said Lorry and A.1 cut the deceased on various parts of his body with Aruval and A.2 & A.3 attacked him with iron pipes repeatedly and as a result, the deceased died instantaneously.Thus, according to P.W.2, all these three accused caused the death of the deceased and they criminally intimidated him and the others who were present at the scene of occurrence.Immediately, he informed P.W.1 about the occurrence.Prudence requires that the evidence of such interested witness should be closely scrutinized.In this case, we do not find any reason to doubt the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence.The reason for his presence at the place of occurrence has been spoken by P.W.2 inasmuch as he has stated that he went along with the deceased to the sand quarry, in the motorcycle, as a pillion rider.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is not in a position to point out any infirmity in the evidence of P.W.2 so as to create doubt in his evidence.But, he was not cross examined by the defence counsel on the same day.Though, this witness has been cross examined at length, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants was not able to point out any material on record, so as to doubt the credibility of this witness.19.Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.4, who is yet another eye witness, he has stated that when he was sitting in the lorry along with one Mr.Prabakaran, in the sand quarry at Munikondanallur Shanthi Nagar i.e., the place of occurrence, around 11.00 am on 06.08.2011, the deceased, P.W.2 had come to the place of occurrence to know whether sand was available.After enquiry, when the deceased was driving the motorcycle and P.W.2 was sitting as a pillion rider and moving towards the bank of the river, P.W.4 could see these three accused suddenly emerging and intercepting the deceased.He has further stated that all the three accused attacked the deceased.A.1 attacked the deceased with Aruval and A.2 & A.3 had attacked him with iron pipes.The deceased ran into the sand quarry and got into the dipper lorry bearing registration No.A.2 & A.3 got into the said lorry and attacked the deceased and dragged him out.When the head was dragged out of the said lorry, A.1 cut the deceased repeatedly on his neck and various parts of the body.After leaving the dead body in the lorry, all the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.Thus, when P.W.4 was examined in chief on 27.06.2014, he gave the fullest account of the entire occurrence.His statement was recorded by P.W.7, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as requested by the Investigating Officer (P.W.10).In that statement also, he had narrated the entire occurrence as an eye witness.Thus, what was stated by P.W.4 in his chief examination has been duly corroborated by his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.4 has further stated that he went along with the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) to Kanyakumari, where all the three accused were arrested on being identified by him.He has further stated about the recovery of Car bearing registration No.TN 02 AB 0308 and he has also spoken about the confession statement made by all the three accused and the consequential recoveries of Omni Van (M.O.9), Aruval (M.O.1) and the Iron Pipes (M.Os.2 & 3).However, the said witness was cross examined by the defence counsel only on 24.09.2014 i.e., after three months from the date of his chief examination.20.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that this witness during cross examination has stated that he did not know as to how the occurrence had taken place and he came to know about the occurrence only later.The defence Counsel did not even assign any reason as to why he did not cross examine the said witness on the same day.Thereafter, on the petition filed by the accused, P.W.4 was recalled for the purpose of cross examination.Accordingly, on 24.09.2013, i.e., after three months, he was recalled and cross examined.During such cross examination, for many questions hurled by the defence counsel, he simply nodded his head in favour of the accused.When an important question was raised by the defence counsel about the occurrence, he answered that he did not know about the occurrence personally and he came to know about the same only later.He has further stated that he was given a piece of paper by the Police in writing and asked to memorise the contents of the same and to repeat the same when the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded.Thus, when he was cross examined after three months, this witness has shown a complete hostility, in an attempt to nullify his evidence in chief examination.He has further stated that even P.W.2 was not present at the place of occurrence.Rightly, the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial had sought permission to the Court to cross examine him by treating him as hostile witness.22.From the narration of the above facts, it is crystal clear that obviously, with a view to win over the said witness, the accused did not cross examine this witness on the day when he was examined in chief.If really, the accused had any genuine cause preventing his counsel from cross examining the said witness then that would have been stated to the Court and cross examination would have been deferred, in such an event.But, the learned Sessions Judge, has recorded that though the defence counsel was present in Court, on the day when the said witness was examined in chief, he was not directed to cross examine the witness.This would give an inference that the accused had instructed his counsel to gain time without cross examining the said witness, on the same day, so that, they could win over the said witness.Accordingly, after three months, he had shown complete hostility.This would only go to show that in the interregnum period, this witness was won over by the accused and that is the reason why P.W.4 has shown hostility.23.Further, when a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded from P.W.4, he had stated that he witnessed the entire occurrence as an eye witness.This statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., should be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to corroborate his evidence in chief examination, given in Court.This accordingly, corroborates the eye witness account of this witness in chief examination.Had it been true that the Police had given him a prepared statement and wanted him to memorise the same and then to tell the same to Court, nothing would have prevented him from informing the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned while he recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Similarly, nothing would have prevented him from making a complaint to the Police or to the higher authorities completing that he ws forced by the Police to give false evidence.The very fact that he did not do so would go to prove that he was truthful only when he was examined in chief and thereafter only, he was won over by the accused.Therefore, considering the evidence of this witness in chief examination, which is corroborated by his earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we hold that his evidence, duly corroborated the eye witness account of P.W.2 goes to prove that these three accused alone had caused the death of the deceased.Though this witness, in the beginning of the chief examination has narrated the entire occurrence as though, he witnessed the entire occurrence, at the fag end of his evidence, he had deposed that he came to know about the occurrence only later.This witness was also not cross examined by the defence on the same day.Neither the Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial treated him as hostile nor did he re-examine the said witness for the reasons best known to him.The defence Counsel did not even assign any reason as to why he did not cross examine the said witness on the same day.Thereafter, on a petition filed by the accused, P.W.5 was recalled for the purpose of cross examination.Accordingly, on 28.08.2014, i.e., after two months, he was recalled and cross examined.During cross examination, he has made several statements which are in favour of the accused.27.But, we find no force in the said argument at all.It is not on record as to what is the distance between the Police Station and the house of the learned Judicial Magistrate.The test is, dehors delay, whether the evidence of eye witness inspires the confidence of the Court.28.The recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused which contain human blood will also be yet another circumstance against the accused.The medical evidence duly corroborates the eye witness account.30.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only minimum punishment which also does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal.31.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,333,088 | The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioners Md. Sabir Ahmed For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 169 of 2013 dated 24.07.2013 under sections 147/148/149/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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. |
169,334,590 | It is further submitted that statement of prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court, she did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.Charge-sheet has been filed.The applicant is in custody since 23.02.2019 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant abducted a minor girl and committed rape with her, so he should not be released on bail.C. No. 39163/2019 (Satya Prakash @ Kallu Vs.State of M.P..) 2 has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,335,283 | Dated: November 18, 2016 ...ORAL JUDGMENT :-Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-Respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate bearing Criminal Case no.946/2002 against the present petitioners for having committed an offence punishable u/s 500 read with section 34 of IPC.The petitioners are working in a weekly named and styled as "Chitralekha" published in Marathi and ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 ::: 3 Cri wp 428.2007.odt Gujrathi languages.Petitioners are working in the said weekly "Chitralekha" in different capacities.On 1.7.2002 one article was published in a weekly Chitralekha focusing on Pandurang Shastri Aathvale who was head of Svadhyaya Parivar.Learned J.M.F.C. Hadgaon by considering the allegations made in the complaint issued a show cause notice to the applicants-original accused directing them to appear before the court on 30.9.2002 to explain as to why process should not be issued against them.By filing this petition, applicants thus challenged said show cause notice on various grounds.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 :::This petition was filed before the Principal Seat at Bombay and it was transferred to this Bench as Hadgaon is situated in Nanded District.After transfer, notices were issued to the petitioners however, they failed to appear in the present criminal writ petition even though notices were accepted by said weekly ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 ::: 4 Cri wp 428.2007.odt Chitralekha on their behalf.::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2016 00:37:57 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,335,491 | We are, in this case, concerned with the legality of the order passedby the Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast Case,Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (for short ‘CBI’) under Section 216 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for addition of the charges punishable underSection 302 and other charges under the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)and the Explosives Act read with Section 120-B IPC and also under Section3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (forshort ‘TADA Act’).The city of Mumbai and its surrounding areas witnessed a series ofbomb blasts on 12.3.1993, whereby 257 persons were killed, 713 persons gotinjured and extensive damage to properties worth approximately Rs.27crores was caused.The State Police registered 27 criminal cases.On4.11.1993, a single charge-sheet was filed in the Designated Court against189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown as absconding.Investigationfrom the State Police was transferred to CBI on 19.11.1993 and the CBIregistered Case Crime No. RC 1 (S)/93/STF/BB.During the course of investigation, the involvement of therespondent accused, by name Karimullah Osan Khan, was disclosed and effortswere made to arrest him.The Designated Court issued proclamation againsthim and, on 5.8.1994, he was declared as a proclaimed offender.Later,the Designated Court, on 8.9.1994, issued warrant of arrest against him.The Designated Court framed a common charge of criminal conspiracy on10.4.1995 against all the accused persons present before the Court and alsoagainst the absconding accused persons, including the respondent - accusedNo.193 and all other unknown persons, under the following Sections:“1. Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120(B) of IPC r/w section 3(2) (i) (ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and r/w Section 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of IPC.The Designated Court then issued an order dated 19.6.1995 for examinationof the witnesses, including the absconding accused no.193, in accordancewith the provisions contained in Section 299 CrPC.Respondent accused No. 193, who was absconding was, later, arrestedin Mumbai on 22.8.2008, and was remanded to the police custody and furtherinvestigation was carried on.During further investigation, the respondentaccused made a confession which was recorded under Section 15 of the TADAAct, wherein he had admitted his role in the criminal conspiracy, for whichthe above mentioned common charges had been framed.On completion ofinvestigation, a supplementary charge-sheet dated 17.11.2008 was filedagainst the respondent accused for offence of criminal conspiracy as wellas the offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA Act and lists ofadditional witnesses and additional documents were enclosed along with thesupplementary charge-sheet.On 1.1.2009, the Designated Court framedcharge of conspiracy against the respondent accused under Section 120-B IPCread with Section 3(3) of TADA Act but, it is the statement of CBI, thatinadvertently the original charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 3(2)of TADA Act read with Section 120-B IPC and other offences applicable werenot mentioned.On 3.2.2009, the evidence was closed by the CBI and on6.2.2009, the statement of the respondent accused was recorded.CBI, asalready indicated, filed an application on 26.2.2009 under Section 216 CrPCfor alteration of charge by addition of the charges punishable underSection 302 IPC and other charges under the IPC and the Explosives Act readwith Section 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) of the TADA Act. The DesignatedCourt, on 28.4.2009, rejected the application filed by the CBI, againstwhich this appeal has been preferred.The Designated Court framed the following points while examining theapplication preferred by the CBI:A) Is there any evidence existing on record to add further charges against the accused for agreeing to commit the terrorist acts by use of explosive substances at various places in Mumbai and for that purpose bringing the arms to Indian shore in furtherance of the implementation of the criminal conspiracy? B) Is there any evidence on record to add charges of causing death and attempt to cause death, injuries to human bodies and loss to properties during commission of terrorist acts by use of explosive substances?C) Whether the charges as alleged deserve to be altered and added as prayed?In support of the application, CBI highlighted the following grounds:1) Conspiracy was hatched to cause communal disturbance and destabilizing the Government.Huge quantity of arms and ammunitions was smuggled into India by the accused persons and used at different places in Mumbai.2) The Designated Court framed charges for conspiracy on 10.4.1995 against the accused persons who were present before it at that time, as well as against the respondent accused whose involvement was disclosed and charge was also framed against him, being absconding accused.4) The prosecution adduced evidence to show that the respondent was deeply involved in the criminal conspiracy which was hatched by the accused persons to commit various terrorist activities and the respondent accused actively participated in the said criminal conspiracy.5) Mohd. Usman, who was an approver, was examined for charge punishable under Section 120-B IPC and the said witness identified the respondent and also narrated his role in landing of arms by other co-accused for the prime accused Tiger Memon.6) The accused also aided the main accused twice in the landing operations and also in smuggling of various arms and ammunitions in Mumbai.Further, the respondent had also confessed about his participation in landing arms and also about his fleeing to Pakistan to escape from clutches of law.b) The charge could not be framed against absconding Respondent.On 19.6.1995, the Designated Court permitted examination ofwitnesses, in which the respondent’s name was also recorded but, since hewas absconding, he could not be examined. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,342,083 | dsk H.C.P(MD)No.76 of 2019 16.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner herein and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 04.01.2019 passed by the second respondent, branding him as a Goonda under the provisions of Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 04.01.2019, passed by the second respondent herein, would disclose that the detenu, viz., Anju alias Manikandan came to the adverse notice in the following ten cases:-http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 H.C.P(MD)No.76 of 2019 Name of the Police Station and Crime Sl.No. Sections of Law No.Elathur Police Station379 IPC Cr.No.94 of 2017 Elathur Police Station379 IPC Cr.The detenu was arrested on 02.12.2018 in connection with the ground case and thereafter his formal arrest was effected in all adverse cases.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind has rightly clamped the order of detention and prays for dismissal of this petition.6.This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 H.C.P(MD)No.76 of 20197.As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the orders granting bail in similar cases would disclose that the concerned petitioner/ accused did not have any wherewithal, whereas in the case on hand, according to the detaining authority, there are ten adverse cases pending against the detenu and out which, the detenu did not file bail applications in respect of adverse case Nos.9 and 10 and the detaining authority has failed to advert to the said facts and therefore, the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority there is real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in the activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and order is vitiated and hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.Consequently, the detenu, namely, Anju alias Manikandan, son of Maduraiveeran, aged about 27 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.76 of 2019 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,693,422 | The prosecution case as disclosed in recovery memo dated 25.1.2003 of 13.45 hrs lodged at P.S. Kunda by Paramhans Mishra, Inspector In-charge, P.S. Kotwali Kunda that he along with informant and other police officials raided the house of Udai Pratap Singh for execution of warrant of arrest in crime No. 55/1993 under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act pending before Special Judge, Allahabad.They entered through main gate and went inside the Raj Mahal premises where they found Shri Kesri Nandan, advocate, who told them that he is an advocate for civil cases of Uday Pratap Singh.They found Uday Pratap Singh present in Raj Mahal where he was standing with one piece of AK 56 rife with black colour belt hanging on his right shoulder.In the rifle, there was triangular sign on the butt with 56 written in between it, then something was written in Chinese language and the number was printed 1600232 and the weapon was in perfect condition and on his shoulder there was a bag with three pieces of magazines of AK 56 rifle.On the western direction of the Raj Mahal Bhadri, at 200 mtrs from the western wall at the mango gardens of Uday Pratap Singh, the police discovered freshly dug mud.After digging 3 ft deep with length of 5 ft and width of 4 ft they discovered three polythene green bags and they also found (i) one DBBL gun (ii) another DBBL gun .12 boreIt was alleged that these persons kept the huge arms and ammunition including AK-56/AK-47 in their house and whoever speaks against them meet the same fate.It was also alleged that they propose to take some action against Chief Minister Mayawati.4 to 7 Inst.Machinery for manufacturing ammunition.IIIFire-arms other than those in categories I, II and IV, namely :Ammunition for fire-arms other than those in categories I, II and IV, namely :(a) Revolvers and pistols.Ammunition for fire-arms of cate-gory III (a).(b) Breech- loading rifles other than .22 bore rifles mentioned in category III (c) below.Ammunition for fire-arms of cate-gory III (b).(c) 22 bore (low velocity) rifles using rimfire cartridges, breech-loading smooth-bore guns and air-rifles.Ammunition for fire-arms of cate-gory III (c).(d) Air-guns and muzzle-loading guns.Ammunition for fire-arms of cate-gory III(d).J U D G M E N T(with SLP(Crl) No. 1521/2004, T.P.(Crl) Nos. 82-84/2004 & Crl.A. 1511/2005 @ SLP (Crl) No. 5609/2004)A.K. MATHUR, J.All these cases are inter-related and common arguments were raised, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.Writ Petition Nos 132-134/2003 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is directed against the withdrawal of the POTA order by the State Government dated 29th August 2003 against accused Udai Pratap Singh, Raghuraj Pratap Singh @ Raja Bhaiya & Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gapalji.The Union of India was also permitted to be impleaded as a party-respondent.In SLP (Crl) 5609 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the POTA Review Committee dated 30.4.2004 under Section 60 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 'the POTA').Leave granted.In SLP (Crl) 1521 of 2004, the High Court order dated 24.2.2004 was challenged whereby accused Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji was granted bail in case No.10 of 2003, under Section 3/4 of POTA, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, U.P. on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, designated court, Kanpur.Aggrieved this order, the present petition was filed by the appellant.After unloading the AK 56 rifle they found 36 bullets.When he was asked to produce the licence, he could not show anything nor was he ready to tell them how he had acquired all these items.It is further alleged that when they entered into his bed room they found (i) 25 bullets of .75, .65 bores (ii) 16 bullets of 400 NITRO(iii) 1 bullet of .577 bore (iv) 3 other old rusted bullets which were not able to read (v) 12 bullets of .405 (vi) 35 bullets of 77 mm(vii) 35 bullets which are old, rusted and not readable.After that they found a square wooden box yellow colored polythene bag which contained in it about 200 gms of explosive chips and in gray colour polythene bag there was some suspicious black power.In a white cotton bag there was blue colour polythene which contained near about 400 gms suspicious brown colour powder.In the same bed room in another corner 55 bullets .605 bore and 22 bullets of .22, two pieces of Motorola wireless set.They further raided the mango gardens of Uday Pratap Singh from two clues given by Bhole Tewari.These huge catchy of arms were recovered on the raid by the police on 25/26th January 2003 and, therefore, an order under POTA was passed against all the three accused namely, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, Udai Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji by the State Government.All this recovery of arms, ammunition and other weapons were detailed in the order.It was also disclosed that a conspiracy was hatched by Uday Pratap Singh to cause a massacre and/or to create terror after killing some VIPs.In this order it was mentioned that statement of one Shri Rajendra Yadav was recorded on 30.2.2003 wherein he stated that Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji have brought AK-47 (56) rifle and given it to Udai Pratap Singh.It was also mentioned in the order that the said AK-56 rifle was brought by Raghuraj Pratap Singh in presence of Akshay Pratap Singh and was given to Shri Udai Pratap Singh.The petitioner has given details of the large number of criminal cases pending against these persons.After this order was passed by the State Government against the accused persons political events took a turn.A new regime came in power.Ammunition for fire-arms of cate-The Review Committee put a complete gloss over possession of the explosive substance, that it is not a hazardous or capable of mass destruction because of its low intensity.Secondly, the Review Committee has also has entered into the merit of the matter that accused persons Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya, Udai Pratap Singh and Akshay Pratap Singh alias Gopalji cannot be connected with the recovery of these catchy of arms.The Review Committee has traveled beyond its scope, the sufficiency of evidence cannot be gone into by the Review Committee.These accused persons were charged under Section 3(3) read with Section 4By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad releasing Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji on bail.Since the bail has already been granted and he was in detention for a long time, we do not propose to interfere with the bail order, but observation made by the learned Judges in the order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to our finding.Writ Petition (Crl) 132-134 of 2003This petition is filed against the order passed by the State Government dated 29.8.2003 whereby public prosecutor was directed to withdraw the POTA cases against the accused persons.An application was moved by public prosecutor for withdrawal of theses cases before Special Judge, though no order was passed permitting withdrawal of these cases.Transfer Petition No.82-84 of 2004This petition relates to transfer of the cases from State of U.P. to any other court under Section 406 Cr.P.C. 1993 in criminal case No.3/2003 in crime case No.10/03 under Sections 3 & 4 of POTA Act titled as State vs Udai Pratap Singh, Raghu Raj Pratap Singh @ Raja Bhaiya and Akshya Pratap Singh @ Gopalji pending before the Designated Court under POTA at Kanpur to the Designated Court under POTA at Delhi or before any other Special Judge at Delhi.Likewise, crime case Nos. 113/2002 and 209/2002 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 titled as State vs Udai Pratap Singh, Raghu Raj Pratap Singh @ Raja Bhaiya and Akshya Pratap Singh @ Gopalji pending in the court of Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad, U.P. to the court of Special Judge at Delhi or to any other court at Delhi.But no affidavit was filed by the respondents though they were made a party to the petition.We failed to understand why the affidavit has not been filed by respondents themselves.Chief Justice nominate any Special Judge to try these cases. | ['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,693,448 | The village .. Khiryajhansi is situated within the boundary of the State of Madhya Pradesh and is at a distance of about 1 1/2 to 2 furlongs from river Pahui, which is the dividing boundary between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh.In village Khiryajhansi, the respondents Bhagwandas, Ganeshi.The respondents Kripa- ram is the son of Sheoram who has agricultural lands in this village.The respondent Ramsingh is the village Choukidar and is the son of the respondent Chhiman.The prosecution case is this.On 16-5-1965 on receipt of information, A- S. I. Laxmansingh (P.W. 5) in the company of headconstable Govind Prasad (P.W. 1), Babulal (P.W. 2) and Chand-drabhansingh (P.W. 3) reached the Kha-rivaghat of Pahuj river.At about 4.30 A. M. from the side of the village Khiri-yajhansi, nine bullock-carts, each following the other, carrying wheat bags, arrived into the sandy bed of the Pahu.i river.A. S. I. Laxmansingh (P; W, 5) detained the bullock carts after surrounding them.Two respondents, Jodha Karan Singh and Ramsingh, seeing the raiding party, escaped and in spite of pursuit were not apprehended.Other respondents were apprehended then and there.One bullock cart belonged to .Ramcharan, another to respondent Bha-gwandas, third to respondent Atarsingh in which respondent Ganeshi was sitting, fourth to Ramdas in which Ramsahai, Phulan Dulaiya and Kriparam were sitting.In the fifth cart, which belonged to respondent Chhima.n, Ramsingh was sitting.The sixth cart belonged to respondent Muratsingh in which Jodha Karan Singh was sitting and the seventh and eighth carts belonged to respondent Chapla and Mansharam respectively.Respondent Ramdas was driving the cart in which besides him, Ramsahai, Phulan Dulaiya and Kriparam were sitting.Respondent Chhiman was driving the cart in which his son Ramsingh was sitting who had escaped.In the cart driven by Muratsingh, besides him.Jodha Karan Singh was also sitting but he too had escaped.The bullock carts with the grain were seized vide seizure memos.The respondent Ramsingh abjured his guilt and stated that he had gone to bring his sister at the house of Harnarayan at village Kalyan Kumharra.He denied that he had escaped from the Pahu.i river bed.The respondent Chhiman stated that the grain was being taken from village Khumharra to Chirgaon for sale and he was apprehended at village Kumharra.The respondent Bhagwandas stated that the grain seized from him belonged to Patel Ganeshlal and his cart was detained at village Kumharra.He was taking the grain from village Kumharra to Chirgaon for sale.The respondents Ganeshi stated that he had cultivation in village Sorai.The respondent Chapla also stated that he was detained at village Kumharra from where he was taking the grain to Chiraon for sale.The respondent, Ramsahai stated that he had come to his relation and on return was apprehended at village Kumharra.The respondent Atarsingh stated that he had illwill with Chandra-bhansingh (P.W. 2).He had only gone to see the apprehended carts at village Kumharra.Chandrabhan Singh told the Sub Inspector that he was the son oi Ganeshi and at his instance, he was apprehended.The respondent Kriparam stated that he was taking the grain of his own cultivation from village Kumharra to village Chirgaon for sale and was apprehended at village Kumharra.In our case, the boundary village of Khirvajhansi was left behind and was at a distance of about li or 2 furlongs.From the boundary river Pahuj.Respondent Ramsingh is the son of respondent Chiman.It is, therefore, apparent that some of the ccupants of the carts were related to other respondents who were moving in a body towards Uttar Pradesh border.JUDGMENT N.C. Dwivedi, J.In this appeal, the State of Madhya Pradesh has challenged the order of acquittal of the thirteen respondents, Muratsingh.Jodha Karan Singh, Bhagwandas, Chhiman, Ramsingh, Ramdas, Ramsahai.Phulan Dulaya, Kriparam Atarsingh, Ganeshi, Mansha-ram and Chapla.The respondent Atar-singh is the son of the respondent Ganeshi.For the purposes of Inter-zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1964, the State of Madhya Pradesh constituted one zone, No. Ill, while the State of Uttar Pradesh constituted another zone, No. II, as per, scheme.The bullock carts with the grain were heading towards Chirgaon (U. P.) but the respondents had no permit to export wheat outside the zone of Madhya Pradesh.The respondent Jodha Karan Singh denied that he was with the apprehended bullock carts and stated that on the date of the occurrence, he had gone to the house of Sundersingh Mukhiya of village Dhan.The respondent Muratsingh stated that the grain was being taken from village Kumharra to Chirgaon for sale.Respondent Mansharam stated that he and others were taking the grain from village Kumharra where the police personnel detained their bullock carts.The respondents Ramsingh and Jodha Karan Singh were not with them.He further stated that the police did not apprehend the bullock carts of Chhaliya, Bhaduwa, Kuliya, Sarju and others.He and respondent Bhagwandas were taking the Grain to Chirgaon for sale but the police apprehended them at village Kumharra.Atarsingh,' his son, was with him.The respondent Ramdas stated that the grain belonged to him which he was taking from village Kumharra to village Chirgaon for sale and he was apprehended at village Kumharra.The respondent Phulan Dulaiya stated that she was taking grain of her own cultivation and was apprehended at Kumharra.The Magistrate, after scrutinising the prosecution evidence recorded the following findings:(a) That the respondents had no licence for exporting wheat;(b) That the respondents Ramshingh and Jodhakaran Singh were with the carts and had escaped;(c) That the respondents had the intention to cross-over to the boundary of Uttar Pradesh;(d) That the respondents could not be said to have exported or attempted to export because they had not crossed the zone and as good citizens, they might have changed their minds not to violate the law of the land and unless they crossed the boundary of Madhya Pradesh, offence of export or attempt to export could not be inferred.The State of Madhya Pradesh, in this appeal, have challenged the above findings.In order to appreciate the above observations, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case.In this case, the truck carrying 75 bags of paddy was stopped at Samolkha Barrier which was 32 miles from Delhi.It was also not in dispute that the Delhi-Punjab boundary was at the relevant point of time, at about 18th mile from Delhi.Nine carts one after another "loaded with wheat entered the river bed and were heading towards Uttar Pradesh border.They did not stop of their own accord and but for the intervention by the raiding party, they would have completed their act of crossing the boundary river e. g. entering the Uttar Pradesh border.In these circumstances, their act was in dangerous proximity to success and but for the intervention, they would have proceeded further and thus achieved their goal of reaching the Uttar Pradesh border.The respondents did not explain how they were in the bed of Pahuj river with their bullock carts poised for move towards the Uttar Pradesh border.On the other hand, their defence that they were apprehended at village Kumharra was found false and their intention, as is clear from their own statements, was to take the grain for sale to village Chirgaon.In these circumstances, the conclusion was irresistible that the respondents had the determination to move forward but for the unexpected intervention by the raiding party.The steps, in loading their carts with grain from village Khiri-vajhansi.then yoking their bullocks then driving their carts for a distance of about two furlongs and then reaching the sandy portion of the boundary river and then proceeding towards the Uttar Pradesh border, taken by the respondents clearly indicated that they were directed towards the end i, e. the export of wheat to the other zone.It was observed:Since the carts were seized after they had crossed the river bank into the river-bed itself, while nearing the border between the two States and although the carts were on this side within the State, they were seized while proceeding towards the boundary and it can hardly be denied that the seizure was effected while the accused were attempting to export the wheat from one zone to another.It was contended before us that there is no evidence that Ramsingh and Jodhakaran Singh were in the carts or that they had absconded.In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the trial Court, after discussing the prosecution evidence concluded that the presence of the accused Jodha Karan Singh and Ramsingh was conclusively established.The evidence of Chandrabhansingh (P.W. 3) is pertinent because he stated that he knew all the persons because they were living in nearby village and he had disclosed the names of all the accused persons before the Sub-Inspector (paragraph 7).Babulal (P.W. 2) stated that he knew the names of some of the respondents which he had disclosed.Govind Prasad (P.W. 1) stated that he knew the respondents by and some of them were fully known to him.He identified the respondent Ramsingh by name and face (paragraph 7).He saw Rarosingh and Jodhakaran Singh running away pursued by a constable."Ramsingh's father Chiman disclosed his name and Jodhakaran Singh's name was disclosed by Muratsingh in whose cart he was trayelling.There is thus definite prosecution evidence that Ramsingh and Jodhakaran Singh were in the carts and escaped after the raiding party surrounded the carts.We agree with the lower court's conclusion on this point.The respondents Ramsingh and Jodhakaransingh pleaded alibi but led no evidence to prove their defence."Their presence in the carts is sufficiently established- Their running away at the sight of the raiding party indicated their guilty conduct.It was contended that the respondents stood charged for exporting .grain and, therefore, they cannot be -convicted for attempt to export it.The words of.the charge were "found exporting wheat without any valid permit".This would cover an attempt to export.Even otherwise, if there is a charge for the substantive offence, a conviction can be legally recorded for an attempt to commit that offence Under Section 238 (2a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It was then contended that persons who had simply occupied the carts cannot be held liable for the contravention of the Order.The carts left Khiriyajhansi at an unusual hour.4.30 A, M. All the carts- were going in one direction and close to each other.The husband of respondent Phulan Dulaya is Netsingh who has cultivation in village Khiriyajhansi.The respondent Bhagwandas admitted that the grain belonging to respondent Ganeshi was in his cart which was being taKen to Chir-gaon for sale.He also admitted that the respondent Atarsingh, his son, was also with him.The respondent Ramdas admitted that the grain belonged to him.The respondent Jodhakaran Singh appears to be a relation of the respondent Muratsingh.The presence of the respondents in the bullock carts at that unusual hour of the morning could not be accidental.In the absence of explanation how unconnected persons, together were going in one direction, the inference will be that all of them were intentionally going in the carts with one common view, i. e. exporting grain to Uttar Pradesh.Relying on the State of Gujarat v. D. Pande which held that the statement Under Section 342 of' the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be split into various parts and accept a portion and reject the rest, the statement has to be accepted wholly or not rely on it, it was urged that whatever statements the respondents made Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be taken into account.The prosecution case was that the respondents were caught in the sandy bed of the river Pahuj in attempting to export wheat into the territory of Uttar Pradesh.About this, there was no admission.But an alternate case was stated that they were taking the grain from village Kumharra in Uttar Pradesh to the grain market Chirgoan in Uttar Pradesh.In the aforesaid case (A.I.R. 1971 SC 866 (supra)) the complaint was that the accused No. 1 withdrew certain sums from the trust fund, a fact admitted by him, but with the qualification that withdrawals were made from Hathu Khata, a Khata opened by him and his ancestors and he had put back that amount.The guilt of accused No. 1 was sought to be established on the aforesaid admission and, therefore, it was observed that the entire statement had to be taken as a whole.1964,.As for the conviction of the respondents for contravantion of Section 4 of the Order it has been brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate that under similar circumstances two of the accused were adjudged guilty in 1969 Jab LJ 172 : (A.I.R. 1969 Madh Pra 96) (supra).Shri J. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, however, argued that since the movement was within the same village the respondents are entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in Clause (iii) of Section 6 of the Order.The conviction and sentences of the respondents on one count alone will meet the ends of justice.With regard to the sentence, the prosecution was launched in the year 1965 and about more than six years have since then elapsed. | ['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
169,351,009 | Applicants No. 2 and 3 are in-laws whereas applicant No. 4 is her brother-in-law.According to complainant, after marriage she joined the company of husband in the joint family comprising in-laws and brother-in-law at Dhule.The husband - Nitin was employed as Doctor in Civil Hospital, Dhule.The first informant was also used to accompany with husband - Nitin for medical practice.The complainant begotten one son Priyansh five months old during wedlock from husband.It has been alleged that initially for about a month of marriage, husband and other inmates behaved with her in proper manner.But, thereafter, her mother-in-law used to tease her on flimsy reasons.Her husband also mentally and physically tortured her after being instigated by the mother-in-law.There was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for installing sprinkle equipments-in::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 ::: 3 960-CriA-954-19 agricultural land.When the complainant disclosed to her husband about demand of Rs.50,000/- on the part of her mother-in-law, that time her husband took her to matrimonial home at Dhule, but her ordeals were continued.Her husband also placed demand of money of Rs. 10,00,000/- to establish new hospital.They gave threat of abortion, in case, she did not bring money from her parents.There were beating and abusing to the complainant by her husband and in-laws.In the month of August-2017, the complainant came to her parents home and at that time, she was asked to bring Rs.10,00,000/- for hospital purpose.There were endeavour to give understanding to the husband and in-laws of complainant.The parents gave assurance to make necessary arrangements for money.Thereafter, the complainant was allowed for cohabitation with husband at matrimonial home.It has been alleged that on 30-11-2019, her brother-in-law Girish Deore returned from Landon (U.K.) and he instigated the husband and her-in-laws that she should not be allowed for cohabitation till satisfaction of the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-.Eventually, the mother-in-law took out a gold ornaments from her person and driven her out of the house.The complainant came to the parents home and since then she is residing at their mercy.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K.SONAWANE, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::2 960-CriA-954-19The applicants preferred present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeking relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report ("FIR") bearing No. 103 of 2018 registered at Bhadgaon Police Station, Taluqa Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and criminal proceeding bearing RCC No. 05 of 2019 initiated pursuant to aforesaid FIR.The prosecution case in short compass is that, first informant Neha W/o Nitin Deore on 12-08-2018 visited to the Police of Bhadgaon Police Station and filed the report that her marriage was solemnized on 16-05-2017 with applicant No. 1- Nitin Deore.At last, she approached to the Police and filed report for penal action against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Bhadgaon Police Station District Jalgaon registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses acquainted::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 ::: 4 960-CriA-954-19 with the facts of the case.He collected relevant documents of matrimonial dispute between the spouses.After competition of procedural formalities, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet bearing RCC No. 05 of 2019, which is pending before the learned Magistrate at Bhadgaon.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.There were no unlawful demand of money.According to learned counsel, the complainant was not interested in cohabiting with applicant-husband.She used to pick up the quarrels with husband and other inmates of matrimonial home.She was insisting for separate residence.She was reluctant to perform her domestic obligation like cooking etc. The complainant-wife used to give threat of suicide to her husband and other members of matrimonial home.The applicant-husband in order to avoid untoward incident started residing separately with wife from his parents.But, there were no improvement in her behaviour.Learned counsel further submits that since March, 2017 applicant No. 4-Girish Deore employed in the company located at U.K. The learned counsel produced the documents of Employment Agreement as well as Pass-port and Visa etc. on record.Learned counsel for the applicants contended that during the relevant period, the PW 4- Girish Deore was not available at the matrimonial home for cruelty to the complainant.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for cruelty as::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 ::: 5 960-CriA-954-19 contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC.All the allegations are general and sweeping in nature.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-first informant opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of applicants and submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of complainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of applicants.There was unlawful demand of money from the applicants for establishment of Hospital.we have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the relevant documents produced on record as well as factual aspects of the matter.Therefore, we expressed that this Court is not inclined to nod in favour of applicants No. 1 to 3 for grant of relief in their favour.Eventually, learned counsel for applicants No. 1 to 3 seeks leave to withdraw the proceeding to their extent.Accordingly, leave was granted and application to the extent of applicants No.1 to 3 came to be disposed off as withdrawn.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::6 960-CriA-954-19In regard to the allegations made against applicant No. 4, we find that during crucial period of co-habitation of complainant with husband, the applicant No. 4 was not available at matrimonial home of complainant.He was employed in the Company located at UK.The entire allegations about cruelty are against husband and in- laws.There was reference that applicant No. 4 instigated for mental and physical torture to the complainant, but all aspersion against the applicant No. 4 are vague, and general in nature.There was no specific instance or participation of applicant No. 4 in the alleged act of cruelty was mentioned for adverse inference about his involvement into the crime.In supplementary statement, the complainant made allegation that her brother-in-law applicant No. 4-Girish Deore on 30-11-2017 returned to Dhule from Landon, at that time, he stated that when complainant did not bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents, why she was allowed for cohabitation and because of his instigation her husband and in-laws mentally and physically tortured her for demand of money.We find that this sort of allegations are totally omnibus and general in nature.There were no allegations that applicant No. 4 himself placed unlawful demand to the complainant and her parents for the sake of his brother applicant - Nitin etc.9. Be that as it may, there are no specific allegations attributing overtact of applicant No. 4 about maltreatment and harassment to the complainant-wife.There were no particulars given in the FIR for his participation into the crime.The circumstances demonstrate::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 ::: 7 960-CriA-954-19 that, it would difficult for the prosecution to establish the charges against applicant No. 4 for the allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant against him.It would cause injustice to him, in case, he is compelled to face agony of the trial.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicant No. 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 :::ORDER i. The Criminal Application is partly allowed.Application in respect of applicants No. 1 to 3 stands disposed of as withdrawn.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 07:41:18 ::: | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,507,163 | 1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 28.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 respectively wherein the appellant Salim @ Akram @ Santosh stands convicted under Sections 397/307/34 of the IPC.The maximum sentence which has been awarded to him is RI 7 years for his conviction both under Sections 397 as also 307 of the IPC.For his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and for his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act he has been sentenced to further undergo RI for 3 years.All the sentences would run concurrently.Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been granted to the appellant.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 1 of 52 The version of the prosecution was that on 02.05.2010 at about 5.50 pm an information regarding the firing of a bullet on a person had been received.The complainant Saurab Aggarwal examined as PW3 had got his complaint registered which was to the effect that after shopping when he was going on his motorcycle to Karol Bagh to drop his friend Vidhi Verma to her house, a motorcycle black in colour, on which two persons were sitting came in front of him.Pillion rider snatched the red coloured purse and tried to flee.PW3 chased them.The pillion rider showed him a pistol and asked him to return back but when PW3 continued to chase them, the pillion rider fired from his pistol.On reaching Shiv Murti Shamshan Ghat the motorcyclists stopped their motorcycle and changed their positions.Constable Azadveer who was on patrol duty examined as PW-5 was informed of the same.Out of the two assailants, Salim @ Akarm @ Santosh was caught but the other person managed to flee.PW-5 Constable Azadveer was the person who had offered help to the complainant; he had been shot on his left leg; PW-6 Constable Vijay Bahadur had removed the injured to the Hospital for his medical examination.The injuries suffered by PW-5 were opined to be grievous.4 On the basis of the aforenoted evidence led by the prosecution the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 2 of 55 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has undergone incarceration for about 5 years and 8 months.The offence under Section 397 of the IPC is not made out.It is pointed out that the version of PW3 clearly shows that "who was the offender" in terms of section 397 IPC was not known to the complainant; whether it was the present appellant Salim @ Akram @ Santosh or whether it was the accomplice who had managed to flee away.It has not been proved by the prosecution till the end.Appeal No. 491/2002 decided on 05.09.2007 the appellant is entitled to a benefit of doubt and his conviction under section 397 of the IPC be impounded.6 Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted.7 Record shows that PW3 has described the incident in detail though who used the weapon has not been answered but PW3 in the first part of his version has stated that the accused had at the point of the pistol snatched the purse containing Rs. 2500 but who was that person, whether it was the present appellant or whether it was the accomplice who tried to flee away has not been answered.In another part of his version he has also stated that the accused persons had changed their positions at Shamshan Ghat.The appellant who was caught, is the person who had used the pistol or not has not been fully answered by the prosecution.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 3 of 5 entitled to a benefit on this count.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 3 of 5" Offender" refers to only culprit who actually used deadly weapon.There was a bullet injury on his left leg .It was a single injury.Accordingly, the sentence already suffered by the appellant be treated as the sentence imposed upon him for his conviction both under Sections 392 and 307 of the IPC.Sentence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act remains unaltered.Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has already Crl.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 4 of 5 been granted to the appellant by the Trial Court.Appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 4 of 5Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.INDERMEET KAUR, J th SEPTEMBER 17 , 2015 gb Crl.Appeal No.219/2013 Page 5 of 5Appeal No.219/2013 Page 5 of 5 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', '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. |
168,508,990 | That above said case is fixed today, i.e. 22.08.2008 for judgment.SP, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar (PW-5) against 8 accused persons and one Vinod Sachdeva stating inter-alia that her father Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 8 of 14 Nemchand was under the employment of Indian Agriculture Farm and she has two brothers and one elder sister.It was further stated in the report that in the month of April, 1996 when she was going to her house, accused persons encircled her and took her forcibly to the house of accused Shivmuni who was Chowkidar and when she tried to make hue and cry she was beaten by them and she was offered water and after drinking water she felt giddy and thereafter, she was raped by accused Dhruvendra Singh and rest accused persons were flirting with her and when she came to her senses they told her that what had happened and in case she would tell this incident to anybody, her brothers would be killed.Thereafter, she came to her house.M.C.438/09 Page 11 of 14 she deposed that on reaching House No. 2451, Sector 38C, Chandigarh, when she did not find parents of accused-Lalit Gupta present in the house, she told accused- Lalit Gupta that she would return to her home.She also told him that he had defrauded her.The prosecution did not produce any medical evidence to show that he consumed liquor when accused-appellant was available for such test as he was alleged to have been arrested immediately after the incident at the place of occurrence.The prosecutrix had changed her version from time to time.She began with alleging commission of the offence of rape by all the accused who faced trial, whereas in her deposition before the court she stated that only Karam Chand and Ashok Kumar had committed rape on her.The statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence to reach to the conclusion that the accused-appellant was present at the place of incident right from the very beginning to infer any pre- concert of the appellant with other accused persons to commit Crl.On 08.10.03, I alongwith my younger sister Preeti were going to our school Sarvodya Kanya Vidyala, Rani Khera, Delhi.I was studying in 11th standard and Preeti was studying in 7th standard.At about 7:45 am when I reached near the gate of our school a white Maruti car stopped near us.This order shall dispose of aforementioned revision petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners who are already facing charges under Section 363/366A/376/34 IPC in Sessions Case No.294/2007 registered vide FIR No.244/2003 of P.s.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2008 whereby the learned ASJ on an application moved by the prosecution also framed a charge against him as well as the other co-accused persons under Section 376(2)(g) of Crl.REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 1 of 14 the Indian Penal Code (IPC).REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 1 of 14It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage when this application was moved by the prosecution the case had reached at the stage of pronouncement of judgment inasmuch as not only the prosecution evidence had been closed and the statement of all the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) of the petitioner had been recorded.As a matter of fact, Manoj, one of the co-accused also produced two witnesses in his defence and closed his defence evidence on 15.05.2008 and thereafter the case was listed for hearing final arguments in this case.It has been submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the allegation made by prosecutrix in her statement made to the police on 08.10.2003, which is also the basis of registration of the FIR in question.In her statement the prosecutrix had alleged that on 08.10.2003 she was kidnapped by the three accused persons, namely, Manoj, S/o Sh.Jeevan Sharma and the two petitioners from outside her school, she was dropped back by the accused persons at the same place from where she was kidnapped, and that the three accused took her to a farm house at village Bijwasan, Delhi, where accused Manoj after bolting the room from inside, committed rape on her person, whereas the petitioners remained standing outside that room.Initially a challan was filed against the petitioners and Manoj by the police only under Section 363/366A/34 IPC.But, after the statement of PW1 was recorded, charge under Section 376 IPC was also slapped.However, it is only on 20.09.2008 that the charge under Crl.REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.The said application is reproduced hereunder:-REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 2 of 14That charge u/s 363/366/34 IPC was framed against accused Manoj, Jitender and Mukesh, separate charge u/s 109/376/34 IPC was framed against Jitender and Mukesh and a separate charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Manoj on 29.04.2004 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.But in the facts and circumstances and evidence on record offence u/s 376(2)(g) IPC is made out against accused persons.It is prayed that said amendment in the charge may kindly be allowed and Amended charge be framed.(Addl.PP for State.) 22.08.2008"The application was opposed by the petitioners but vide order dated 11.09.2008, the trial Court added charges under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC against all the three accused persons in addition to other charges and took them in judicial custody.However, now the petitioners are on bail as they were already on bail before amendment of charge.Vide impugned order the trial Court, while framing the charge contained under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC by observed that:"Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, the prosecutrix appeared as PW1 and she has categorically stated that 3 boys came in a car in Crl.REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 3 of 14 which she was taken while she was on her way to school.She identified all the accused persons in the Court, she has even stated that accused Manoj and one of the boy who was sitting next to the driver seat had got down from the car and had taken her forcibly inside the car and accused Manoj has kept his hand on her mouth.From there they had taken her to a farm house where accused Manoj took took her inside a room in the farm house and bolted the door from inside.She further stated that other two accused persons kept standing outside when she was raped by accused Manoj.She has further stated that accused Pradhan @ Jitender had forcibly took her photographs.Thereafter she was dropped by them outside her school.REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 3 of 14The car in question in which the prosecutrix was abducted was driven by Mukesh while Pradhan @ Jitender, the present accused got out from the car and forcibly dragged her in the car.Manoj put his hand on her mouth while Manoj drove the car and then after reaching at the farm house Manoj committed rape on the prosecutrix while Jitender, and Mukesh stood outside the room.On 6.10.1997 at about 4.10 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW-6) daughter of Nemchand (PW-4) lodged a report Ex.P/9 before Kan Singh, Dy.It was further stated in the report that whenever she went to school, all accused persons used to take her to the house of accused appellant Shivmuni and all accused persons Nos.1 to 8 used to commit rape on her and this process remained continued for many times.REV.P. 07/2009 & Crl.M.C.438/09 Page 8 of 14When we have the direct evidence of PW.6--the brother of the deceased, the bald statement attributed to the deceased in an apparent bid to rope in the appellant in addition to the other accused cannot be given much weight.The evidence of PW.6 [Rajbir] is to the effect that his sister was at a distance of about 300 yards having started from the house one or two minutes earlier to his departure that she was picked up from the street and that he noticed her being taken inside the Baithak of Ram Karan and as he came near the Baithak, he found that the doors were closed.PW.6 then says that he jumped the wall and went inside the Baithak.On this, accused-Ashok dragged her inside the house and at the instance of Inderjit Singh, Pardeep Kumar and Karam Chand came to the house.Accused had also brought one person by name Bitu.Accused-Karam Chand caught hold of her and raped her and, thereafter Ashok caught hold of her and committed rape against her wish.She stated that Pardeep, Lalit and one other person Bitu were taking liquor in the kitchen.If we believe the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant (Pardeep Kumar) was present at the spot right from the very beginning along with other accused persons, Explanation 1 to Section 376(2) would be attracted as it can be safely inferred that all the accused persons acted in concert with a common intention to commit rape even if all the accused person have not actually committed rape.Although there has been some probability of the accused-appellant's presence at the place of the commission of offence as he was apprehended from a place nearby the spot of occurrence with the other accused persons, namely, Lalit Gupta and Karam Chand, but mere presence at such place is insufficient to show that there was a prior concert or meeting of mind or plan formed suddenly at the time of commission of offence by the accused-appellant with the other accused persons for the commission of rape on the prosecutrix.M.C.438/09 Page 11 of 14There were three boys in a car.One of them was our neighbor Manoj.All the three boys are accused present in Court.One boy who was sitting next to the driver seat and Manoj present in the Court got down from the car and forcibly took me inside the car.I raised the alarm and Manoj kept his hand on my mouth and he also put his other hand on my neck.Thereafter they took me to a farm house at village Brijwasan.Accused Manoj took me to a room in the farm house.He bolted the door from inside.The other two accused persons present in the Court kept standing outside.He asked me to remove my clothes.I refused to remove my clothes.He threatened to call my in laws in that room and my relationship will be broken.Accused Manoj removed my clothes forcibly.Thereafter he put me on the bed which was lying in the room and forcibly committed rape upon me.Thereafter, accused Pradhan had forcibly had clicked my photographs.Accused Manoj threatened me that in case I disclose this incident to anyone my photographs will be shown a wedding day to my in laws.Thereafter they again took me in the same car.MOOL CHAND GARG, J. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,512,372 | (Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.K3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime No.696/2013302 IPCThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K3 Aminjikarai Police Station in Crime No.1596/2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the detention order, in the similar case relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.1640/2011, bail was granted to the accused therein by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10992/2011 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC; whereas, in the instant case, the detenu, in the first adverse case was involved in an grave offence under Section 302 IPC and in the ground case, he was involved in offences under Sections 336, 427, 307 & 506(ii) IPC.The offences for which the accused in the said similar case was arrested and remanded to judicial custody is entirely different from the present one and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.No.1596.2013, he has moved a bail application for K3 Aminjikarai Police Station Cr.Again, he has moved a bail application for K3 Aminjikarai Police Station Cr. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,685,174 | The place of occurrence is village Piprahiya, which lies five kms to the south of the Police Station, Pailani.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19-8-1982 around 8.00 a.m. deceased-Raj Bahadur Singh accompanied by his mother P.W. 2 Smt. Surswatia was going to the well lying at about 55 paces to the south west of his house to take bath.He was two paces ahead of his mother.When he had settled hardly a distance of 15 paces from his house it is said that the respondent along with one Angad (since absconding) reached there and on the extortion of respondent-Ram Singh, Ram Singh himself and Angad opened fired on the deceased rest of the respondents too followed the suit.The shots fired by Angad hit the deceased and he fell down.The mother of the deceased who was a few steps behind him rushed to his rescue, but she too sustained bullet injury.Her cry attracted her husband P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh, P.W. 3 Man Singh alias Kallu Singh, her grand son and one Ramdeo Singh, who were sitting on the Chabutra to the north west of the house of the informant P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh.Some other persons of the village two were also attracted on the scene of the incident on hearing the cries, whereupon the accused retrated from the scene of incident firing indiscriminately.After the incident P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh got the written report* of the occurrence scribed by Ramdeo Singh and proceeded to the Police Station Pailani where he made over the written F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 there on the basis of which a case at crime No. 81 under Sections 147/148/149/302/307, I.P.C. was registered against the respondents and one Angad.Sub-Inspector Sri Lakhan Led, who at the time of registration of the case was present at the Police Station took up the investigation of the case and proceeded to the spot.He prepared inquest report and after sealing the dead body sent it to District Head Quarter, Banda through Constable Shiv Narain P.W. 6 for its post-mortem examination.According to the Doctor Vikash Chandra P.W. 5 the deceased was aged about 40 years.He was stout built.Rigor mortis had passed off from upper limbs and was present over lower limbs.Eyes and mouth were closed.Blisters were present at several places.Skin had pealed off at several place and abdomen was distended.JUDGMENT Y.R. Tripathi, J.This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-9-1985 passed by Sri Tirtha Raj, Ilnd Addl.Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. Nos. 10 and 511 of 1984 whereby the learned trial Court haying given the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused has acquitted them of the charges under Sections 148, 302, I.P.G. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C.Faeceal matter present at end opening.No discharge was found from ear, nostril or mouth/ He found the following ante-mortem injuries :--i) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm.x 1 cm.x bone deep over lateral aspect (paper torn) left side 4 cm.below the left ear, 0.5 cm.below the mandible, Margins inverted Direction medially horizontal towards Rt.No Charring or tatooing present.ii) Gun shot of exit 1.25 cm.x 1.25 x communicates with injury No. (1) over lateral aspect of neck on Rt side 6 cm below the Rt.ear margin everted.iii) Contusion 6 cm.x 5 cm.over Ant aspect of chest on Rt.Side just above the Rt clavicle.iv) Contusion 14 cm.x 8 cm.over Ant aspect of chest on "Rt side 4 cm lat to Rt nipple at 9.0' clock position.v) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm.x 1 cm.x chest cavity deeps over Ant.Aspect of chest on left side 1 cm.above the Lt nipple at 2.0' clock position.Margins inverted Direction Downwards medially towards Rt wound present in between the 4th and 5th Rib.No charring or tatooing present.vi).Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm.x 1 cm.x cavity deep over Ant.Aspect of Abd 12 cms.from umblicus.12 cm.from left Iliac crust.Margins inverted.Direction Backwards, horizontal towards right side.No charring or tatooing present.vii) Gun shot wond of exit 1.25 cm.x 1.25 cm.x communicate with Injury No. (5) over back of Rt side of chest 12 cms.from lower angle Rt scapula from middle, Margins everted.According to him the deceased had died about 1 1/2 days before due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the ante-mortem Injuries.It appears that P.W. 2 Surswatia, who had also received an injury in the incident was also referred to Banda for her medical examination where P.W. 4 Dr. Sidhdarth, who was then posted in Sadar Hospital at Banda medically examined her at 9.50 p.m. on the very day of the incident.He found a gun shot wound of entry 0.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.x muscle deep on root of nose in between both eye-brows.According to him margins of the injury were lacerated and inverted with abraded collar.He found no blackening, charring or tatooing.Her kept the injury under observation and advised x-ray of the skull.According to him the injury was 1/2 day old and had been caused by fire arm.The police of Police Station Pailani after usual investigation presented a charge-sheet against the respondents and accused-Angad, who at the time of presentation of the charge-sheet was absconding.The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, I.P.C. 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. against the respondents-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.The learned trial Court after taking the evidence and hearing the parties found that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond doubt and it accordingly giving the respondents-accused benefit of doubt acquitted them, dissatisfied from which the Government has preferred these appeals.We have heard learned A.G.A. and learned defence counsel at length and have gone through the materials on record.It has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that the learned trial Court has recorded the acquittal on flimsy and untenable grounds.The learned defence counsel on the other hand defended the order of acquittal.From the perusal of the record, it would appear that three witnesses of fact have been produced by the prosecution to support of its case.These witnesses include P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh, father of the deceased, P.W. 2 Smt. Surswatia.mother of the deceased and P.W, 3 Man Singh alias Kallu, son of the deceased.All these witnesses are highly inimical and interested.Though some other persons are also said to have witnessed the occurrence, but no independent witness has been examined.From the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh, it would be borne out that prior to this incident Chhattrapal and Dharmpal, who were family members of the respondents-accused had been murdered in which he alongwith his deceased son Raj Bahadur other son Ranjeet and several others were accused and they all had been convicted and an appeal against their conviction is pending in the High Court.In some other criminal case also family members of both the parties were involved in one or the other way.Thus there is bad blood between the parties from before the incident.The non-production of the independent witnesses, therefore, cannot easily be lost sight of in this case, more so when some other persons of the village are said to have reached on the place of occurrence and seen the incident.Much emphasis has been laid on the evidence of P.W. 2 Smt. Surswatia on the ground that she too received injury in the incident and her presence on the spot is proved beyond doubt.It would be found that P.W. 4 Dr. Sidhdarth, who happened to medically examine her has stated his inability to state as to whether or not her Injury was superficial Dr. Sidhdarth had also advised x-ray of her injury, but no x-ray was taken or produced before him for his opinion.In Ext. Ka 2 Chhithi Majroobi, with which P.W. 2 Smt. Surswatia had been referred to the medical officer, no mention of the place of her injury has been made creating a serious doubt about her having received any such injury at all.The Investigating Officer also did not record her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It is alsonot digestible that the deceased would have been accompanied by P.W. 2 Surswatia while going to the well to take bath as the ladies generally like bath in privacy.All the prosecution witnesses besides being highly partisan inimical and interested have also made irreconcilable contradictions on material points which render their evidence incredible.The defence, it would be found, has also seriously challenged the place of occurrence and the manner and fashion of the Incident.From the evidence of P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh it is borne out that certain injuries of the deceased had profusely bled and the blood had also spattered on the ground where the deceased had fallen down after sustaining injuries, but no blood was found by the Investigating Officer though he visited the spot on the very day only after a few hours of the occurrence.A futile attempt has been made by the prosecution to explain the absence of blood on the spot by bringing the evidence that it had rained heavily after the incident but the evidence shows that the dead body of the deceased remained lying on the spot even when it was raining.Surprising enough neither any mud was found on the dead body nor it was found wet by the Investigating Officer at the time of preparation of the inquest report.Then, there is also evidence that the respondents-accused while retreating from the spot had fire indiscriminately and some of the shots fired by them had also hit the walls.It is also in evidence that some empty cartridges and pellets had also been collected by the Investigating Officer from the spot, but they were not produced before the trial Court.The manner of incident also be-comes doubtful in so far as despite the presence of informant and some of his family members nearby the place of occurrence, no shot was aimed at them.All the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution case go a long way to make the prosecution case with respect to the place of occurrence and manner and fashion of incident highly doubtful.It is also pertinent to point out that though the Investigating Officer has been stated to have proceeded to the spot after lodging of the F.I.R. by P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh, but the crime number and other particulars of the F.I.R. have not been given in the inquest report and the places of such particulars have been left blank suggesting an inference that probably the F.I.R. had not been taken down by the time the inquest report was prepared.Thus on consideration of entire materials on record, we find that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and the evidence led in the case falls short of proving the guilt of the accused to the extent of judicial certitude.In our opinion, therefore, the learned trial Court on proper appraisal of the evidence has for valid and cogent reasons recorded the acquittal of the respondents giving them benefit of the doubt and the conclusions arrived at by it do not warrant any interference in this appeal.This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,520,187 | Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 1 of 10On receipt of the information, ASI M.S. Yadav of the aforesaid police station, along with other police officials, reached the police picket, Bajgera, where ASI Om Prakash handed over to him two boys namely Narender and Sonam and stated that country made pistol had been recovered from them.The complainant - Sabban Khan was also present there and his statement was recorded by ASI M.S. Yadav, The complainant told him that on the aforesaid day, at about 2 pm, he was working in a call centre and after dropping the staff members at Madanpur Khadhar, when he was going towards Mehrauli and stopped at red light at about 4 pm, two boys entered his vehicle and requested him to drop them a little away from the said spot.Thereafter, those boys got his vehicle stopped in a dark place and asked him to move to the rear seat.When he refused, those boys pointed out country made pistol on him and threatened to kill him in case he did not sit silently.Being scared, he shifted to the rear seat.The hands of the complainant were then tied and he was thrown on the floor of the vehicle between rear seat and the front seat.One of the boys sat near him whereas the other boy started driving the vehicle.At one place, the vehicle was stopped by the police for the purpose of checking.Both the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 392/397/365/506/34 of Indian Penal Code.The charges against them were, however, framed under Section 392/34 and Section 397 as well as under Section 364 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.Since they pleaded not guilty to the charges, as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution.No witness was examined in defence.The appellants - Sonam and Narender were separately charge-sheeted under Section 25 of Arms Act after two separate FIRs being FIR No.47/2008 and 48/2008 were registered against them.Vide order dated 23.08.2010, the appellant - Narender was convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act and vide Order on Sentence dated 28.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo SI for one month in default.Similar sentence is stated to have been awarded to Sonam after his conviction in the case registered vide FIR No.46/2010, but no appeal has been preferred by him, against his conviction.In the case under Arms Act, the prosecution examined complainant - Sabban Khan, ASI Om Prakash and Constable Sugna Ram.The prosecution also examined some more witnesses, one of them being ASI Dalip Singh, who went to the spot on receipt of information lodged by ASI Om Prakash Yadav and the appellants - Sonam and Narender were handed over to them along Crl.One loaded country made pistol each was recovered from them was also seized by this witness.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 3 of 10PW1 - Ms. Shalini Singh is the police officer who accorded sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act and for prosecution of the appellant - Narender whereas PW3 - Mr. K.C. Varshney is the Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, who examined the country made pistol as well as the cartridge recovered from the appellant - Narender sent to FSL by the Investigating Officer and opined that the country made pistol sent to him was a fire am from which test fire was conducted successfully.He also reported that the cartridge sent to him was a live cartridge which was test fired through the country made pistol sent to him, which he test fired through the country made pistol.After dropping the staff members at Madanpur Khadar, when he reached the red light of Badarpur-Mehrauli Road and stopped the car there on account of red light, both the accused, who were standing at the red light, requested him to drop them upto Khanpur.He declined their request.Thereafter, accused Narender opened the left side door of the Qualis, whereupon he allowed them to take lift up to Khanpur.The other accused occupied the back seat of the Qualis.Just before Khanpur, the accused persons asked him to keep the Qualis on the side.The moment he stopped the Qualis on the side, accused Sonam smashed the wire of the Crl.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 4 of 10 wireless set installed in the Qualis and rounded it on his neck.When, due to fear, he tried to open the door, accused Narender pointed out country made pistol on him.Thereafter, he was thrown on the floor of the vehicle and both the accused pointed out country made pistol at him.Accused Sonam threatened to kill him with the country made pistol.At about 3 pm, when the vehicle reached Bijwasan red light, a police check post was noticed by him.On seeing the police officer, he started shouting, whereupon the appellants tried to run away but were overpowered.PW4 - Constable Sugna Ram, inter alia, stated that on 08.03.2008, he along with ASI Om Prakash and two Home Guard constables was on vehicle checking duty at Bajgera Picket, Main Najafgarh Road.At about 3 pm, one Qualis vehicle bearing registration number HR 38 HT 6812 coming from the site of Bajgera, was signaled to stop.When the Crl.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 2 of 10 complainant raised alarm, those boys got down and tried to ran away, but were apprehended by the police officers.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 2 of 10Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 3 of 10 with the Qualis vehicle.They were taken to Police Station Kapashera where one country made pistol each from both of them was recovered.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 4 of 10He, inter alia, stated that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by him from Veer Singh Chauhan and Sabban Khan was the driver on the aforesaid vehicle.When the vehicle stopped, one person inside the vehicle shouted.The accused who were sitting in the vehicle tried to escape, but were apprehended by them.He further stated that one country made pistol each was recovered from the accused Narender and Sonam.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 5 of 10Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 5 of 10PW5 - ASI Om Prakash has corroborated the deposition of PW4 - Constable Sugna Ram with respect to stopping the aforesaid vehicle at the check post, apprehending the appellants when they came out of the vehicle on alarm being raised by the complainant and one country made pistol each had been recovered from them.In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.Vide impugned judgment dated 23.08.2010, the appellants were convicted under Section 392/397/364 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.Vide impugned order on sentence dated 28.08.2010, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten year each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each or to undergo SI for three months each in default under Section 392/397 of IPC.Identical substantive sentence was awarded to them under Section 364 of IPC.They were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each or to undergo SI for six months each in default under the aforesaid section.They were further sentenced to undergo RI for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each or to undergo SI for one month each in default under Section 506 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof.Being aggrieved from their conviction and sentence awarded to them, they are before this Court by way of these appeals.I do not see any reason to disbelieve the complainant - Sabban Khan.There can be no reason for him to make false allegations of his kidnapping Crl.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 6 of 10 and robbery of the vehicle which he was driving.No material discrepancy I the deposition of the complainant - Sabban Khan has been pointed out.The deposition of the complainant finds full corporation from PW4 - Constable Sugna Ram, PW5 - ASI Om Prakash, in whose presence the appellants came out of the vehicle and were apprehended.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 6 of 10This is not the case of the appellants that though they had taken the lift in the vehicle, they did not abduct the complainant and did not take the vehicle from his possession.The appellants have been apprehended on the spot, while coming out of the vehicle and trying to run away.It was incumbent upon them to explain as to how they had got inside the vehicle and why they had tried to run away when the vehicle was stopped at the check post.They, however, did not make any attempt to explain the aforesaid act on their part.Since the country made pistol recovered from the appellant - Narender, when examined in FSL was to be the firm arm and cartridges recovered from him was found to be live cartridges, he has rightly been convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act and for carrying a fire arm at a public place.The appellants - Narender and Sonam, abducted the complainant by taking him, from the place he was tied till the place the appellants were arrested by the police by use of force against him.The appellants, therefore, abducted the complainant within the meaning of Section 362 of IPC.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 7 of 10 However, abduction alone is not punishable under the Penal Code.Section 364 of IPC under which the appellants have been convicted refers to abduction of any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of or put in danger of being murdered.No such intention, however, can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.AS per the prosecution case, the complainant was in the custody of the appellants for about 12 hours.Despite that no attempt was made to commit his murder and in fact, there is no evidence of physical injuries having been caused to him.Therefore, it would be difficult to sustain their conviction under Section 364 of IPC.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 7 of 10Learned APP submits that the appellants ought to be convicted under Section 365 of IPC which punishes the abduction with intention to cause the abductee to be secretly and wrongfully confined.However, no such intention can be inferred against the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case.Therefore, they have rightly been convicted under Section 392 of IPC.It has come in evidence that both of them were armed with country made pistols.The pistols were recovered from them when they were Crl.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 8 of 10 arrested by the police.When examined in the laboratory, the pistols were found to be fire arm and the cartridges were found to be live.Therefore, Section 397 of IPC has been rightly applied to both of them.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 8 of 10Since the complainant was threatened to be killed, while in the vehicle, the charge under Section 506 Part II of IPC also stood proved against the appellants and they have been rightly convicted for the said charge.For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 397 and 506 Part II/34 of IPC as well as the conviction of the appellant Narender under Section 25 of the Arms Act is maintained.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 392/397 of IPC is reduced from ten years each to seven years each.The remaining sentences, however, shall remain unaltered.In default of payment of fine, imposed under Section 392/397 of IPC, the appellants shall undergo SI for one month each whereas in default of payment of fine imposed under Section 506 of IPC, they shall undergo SI for 15 days each.The appellants shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC.The sentence awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently and they shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 427 of Cr.PC in the sense that the sentence awarded under Section 25 of Arms Act, shall also run concurrently along with sentences awarded under Section 392/397/34 and 506 of IPC.The separate sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 397 of IPC is, however, set aside.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 9 of 10Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 9 of 10All the appeals stand disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.Trial court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order.Appeal Nos.1291,1292&1523 of 2010 Page 10 of 10 | ['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,521,631 | C. No.9536/2016 23.06.2016 Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. R.S. Shukla, learned P.L. for the State.According to case of the prosecution, father of a young girl studying in school, registered an FIR to the effect that the applicant herein along with co-accused Santosh Soni is said to have attempted to take away his minor daughter from his lawful custody, as the co- accused Santosh Soni was interested in his daughter and pressuring her to marry him.On 23-5-16 Santosh Soni and the applicant herein, are said to have accosted the prosecutrix and forced her to get on the motorcycle which was being driven by the applicant herein.When the motorcycle crossed a short distance, upon hearing shout of the daughter of the complainant, people ran towards them at which point of time, the applicant herein is said to have lost control over the motorcycle, as a result of which, all three fell down.Thereafter, case was registered against the applicant herein and the co- accused person.If so advised, he can move afresh after examination of the complainant and his daughter before the trial Court.The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. | ['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,608,309 | [1] WP-23456-2018 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh WP-23456-2018 (RAMESHWAR PRASAD KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS.) Jabalpur; Dated: 11-01-2019 Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for the State.The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2017, passed by District Magistrate, Narsinghpur by which order of externment for a period of one year has been passed against the petitioner.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (for short "Adhiniyam of 1990") before the Commissioner.By order dated 14.08.2018, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.Hence this petition before this Court.He has been punished in five cases.The case was registered by the District Magistrate and notice was issued to the petitioner.The petitioner filed reply by submitting that the has been falsely implicated in various excise cases.Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and that too has been dismissed by the Magistrate.Hence, the present petition before this Court.Out of one year, petitioner has already served about 10 months period, therefore the impugned order be quashed.Learned Government Advocate opposed the arguments advanced by the petitioner by submitting that there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner.As per the report of the Superintendent of Police, he is continuously found involved in the sale of illegal liqour and fine was imposed.Hence, the impugned order has rightly been passed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. | ['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,617,867 | AccusedConviction u/sSentenceA-1302 IPCLife Imprisonment and Fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d Six months R.I.A-2 to A-4302 r/w 109 IPCLife Imprisonment and Fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d Six months R.I.The case of the Prosecution in short is as follows:(a) The Public Toilet in the Village in which the accused and the victims hail was being maintained by Mother Theresa Self-Help Group, in which Kavitha (PW-6) was an active Member.On 3.8.2009 around 3.00 p.m., Madhaiyan (A-1) used the toilet and found it to be ill-maintained.He abused Kavitha (PW-6) and the other women-folk - Sonia (PW-1), Mallika and Sumathy, who were there in choicest epithets.When the women questioned him, he started further abusing them and called Kavitha (PW-6) a whore in vernacular, which escalated the altercation.Nothing happened immediately thereafter.(b) Around 8.00 p.m. on 3.8.2009 when Sonia (PW-1), her father Vijayan (PW-2), her uncle Vaiyapuri (PW-3), sister Kirthika (PW-4) were there in a group in front of their house, Madhaiyan (A-1), whose house is one house next to that of Sonia (PW-1), came to her house and exhorted Vaiyapuri (PW-3) to control the tongue of Sonia, lest they should face the consequences.(c) According to the Prosecution, a wordy duel ensued, in which Madhaiyan (A-1) pushed Vaiyapuri (PW-3) on the ground, seeing which the deceased Kanagaraj, brother of Sonia (PW-1) and Son of Vijayan (PW-2) intervened and questioned Madhaiyan (A-1).At that juncture, Jagadeesh (A-2), brother of Madhaiyan (A-1), Saminathan (A-3), son of Jagadeesh and their relative Saravanan (A-4) also joined the fray and when tempers ran high, it is alleged that A-1 to A-4 pulled Kanagaraj towards the house of Madhaiyan (A-1) and Madhaiyan rushed into his house and returned with a knife, seeing which A-2 to A-4 instigated A-1 to kill Kanagaraj, pursuant to which Madhaiyan (A-1) stabbed Kanagaraj on his chest, and thereafter all the four accused ran away.(d) At 8.30 p.m. on 3.8.2009, deceased Kanagaraj was taken to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam in the Auto-rickshaw of Nizamudeen (PW-7), where Dr.Seralathan (PW-12) examined him and made necessary entries in the Accident Register, copy of which is marked as Ex.Kanagaraj was alive at the time of admission in the Hospital and within a few minutes he succumbed to the injury and was declared dead, and the body was sent to the mortuary.(e) On the complaint (Ex.P-1) lodged by Sonia (PW-1), Manoharan (PW-16), Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Mettupalayam Police Station Crime No.1051 of 2009 at 9.30 p.m. on 3.8.2009 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC against all the four accused.The printed FIR (Ex.P-9) and the complaint (Ex.P-1) were received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.00 p.m. on the same day.It appears that around that time the house of the Madhaiyan (A-1) was attacked by the deceased party.(f) Mani (PW-20), Inspector of Police took up investigation of the case and went to the scene of occurrence.Investigating Officer (PW-20) prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P-27) in the presence of Rengaraj (PW-8) and Suresh (not examined).From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (PW-20) seized Soil with and without blood stains (MO-2 and MO-3 respectively) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-3).He went to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and conducted inquest over the body of Kanagaraj and the Inquest report was marked as Ex.(g) On request, Dr.Narayanasamy (PW-14) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Kanagaraj and in his evidence and Post Mortem report (Ex.P-7), PW-14 has noted one stab injury in the lower chest measuring 5x2x7 cm.As to the cause of death he opined that 'the deceased would have died of shock and heamorrhage due to injury to vital organ, namely the heart, 12-24 hours before autopsy'.(h) After postmortem, the body was handed over to Manikandan (PW-15), Head Constable, who also collected the blood stained clothes worn by the deceased viz., blood stained Shirt and Lungi (MO-6 and MO-7 respectively).Thereafter the body was handed over to relatives.(i) On 6.8.2009 around 7.00 a.m., the Investigating Officer (PW-20) arrested Madhaiyan (A-1), Jagdeesh (A-2), Saminathan (A-3) and Saravanan (A-4) and recorded the confession statements of A-1, A-2 and A-4 in the presence of Manivannan (PW-17) and Basha @ Sikandar Basha (PW-19).Based on the disclosure made by Madhaiyan (A-1), the Investigating Officer (PW-20) recovered the knife (MO-1) and the clothes said to have been worn by A-1 at the time of occurrence viz., Blood stained half-hand Shirt (MO-9) and blood stained Lungi (MO-10) and also a nylon bag (MO-8), in which the said items were kept, under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-24) in the presence of Manivannan (PW-17) and Basha @ Sikandar Basha (PW-19).On the information provided by Jagadeesh (A-2), PW-20 recovered the clothes worn by him viz., blood stained blue colour Lungi (MO-11) and blood stained full-hand Shirt (MO-12) in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-25).On showing of A-4, PW-20 recovered the cloths said to have been worn by him viz., blood stained full-hand shirt (MO-13) and green colour Lungi (MO-14) in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-26).(j) The clothes worn by the deceased, knife, clothes worn by the accused and the soil samples were despatched to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department through Court for examination and report.(k) Saminathan (A-3) had an injury on his head and therefore he was referred under Police Escort to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam , where Dr.Vishnupriya (PW-13) examined him and noted a cut injury measuring 2 x 1 cm on the parietal region of the scalp.In her evidence and Accident Report (Ex.P-5), PW-13 has stated that, "Alleged to have been hit in his home by the door on 3.8.2009 at about 9.00 p.m."(l) All the arrested accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand.The said reports disclose the presence of human blood in the knife (MO-1) and the clothes that were worn by the accused and in the clothes worn by the deceased.But the grouping test was inconclusive, except insofar as the shirt (MO-7) and Lungi (MO-8), that were allegedly worn by Saravanan (A-4), which shows the presence of human blood 'O' group.P.N.PRAKASH, J.The Appellants herein/accused were tried in S.C.No.45 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No.I), Coimbatore, and were convicted and sentenced as follows:(n) The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Velmurugan (PW-9), Municipality Electrician and Renganathan (PW-10), staff of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to show that the street lights were burning and there was no power cut at the time of the incident.(o) The Investigating Officer (PW-20) examined the experts and other witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the Final Report against all the four accused for offences under Section 302, 302 r/w 109 and 506(ii) IPC, before the jurisdictional Magistrate.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the following charges were framed:Charge No.1 : U/s 302 IPC against A-1 U/s 302 r/w 109 IPC against A-2 to A-4Charge No.2 : U/s 506(ii) IPC against A-3When questioned about the charges, the accused pleaded "Not Guilty".To prove the charges, Prosecution examined 20 witnesses; marked 28 exhibits; and produced 14 material objects.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances against them, they took a specific stand that A-2 and A-4 were not in the scene of occurrence, and A-1 and A-3 were assaulted by the family members of the deceased in the fight that ensued in and around the said date and time and at that time, Vinod (PW-5) attempted to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), but unfortunately Kanagaraj (deceased) intervened and bore the brunt of the attack.On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined; 9 exhibits were marked; and two material objects were produced.After hearing both sides and analyzing the materials on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging which the accused have preferred this appeal.We have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/accused and Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.From the evidence on record it is limpid that the members of two families in the same street were pitted against each other and each have given their own version of the incident.The interse relationship of PW-1 to PW-5 and A-1 to A-4 has already been set out above.The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 appears to be cogent and almost parrot-like, which does raise little suspicion in our mind, which we will discuss later.Sonia (PW-1) has spoken to about the incident that took place near the toilet in the afternoon of the fateful day, in which Madhaiyan (A-1) foul-mouthed Kavitha (PW-6) and the other women in cuss words.Kavitha (PW-6), who was called an harlot in vernacular by Madhaiyan (A-1), corroborated the evidence of Sonia (PW-1) in respect of the afternoon incident.It is but natural that the women-folk did not take it lying low, and they retaliated in the same vein.This incident must have been simmering in the mind of both parties, leading to its external manifestation in the evening.Coming to the incident that allegedly took place at 8.15 p.m., Sonia (PW-1) stated that while they were all standing near the house and talking, Madhaiyan (A-1) came to the place and warned Vaiyapuri (PW-3) and asked him to rein-in Sonia (PW-1).This evidence of Sonia was corroborated by her father Vijayan (PW-2), her uncle Vaiyapuri (PW-3), her sister Kirthika (PW-4) and her brother Vinod (PW-5).In the cross-examination of Vijayan (PW-2) and Vaiyapuri (PW-3), they candidly admitted that a scuffle ensued between both sides.It is also the evidence of PW-1 to 4 that A-2 to A-4 joined the fray.It is their further evidence that Kanagaraj, the deceased intervened as a Pacifist, but was pulled by A-1 to A-4 towards the house of A-1, which fact is seriously disputed by the accused.According to the accused, the deceased and his cohorts forcibly pulled Madhaiyan out of his house and attacked him.At that time when Vinod (PW-5) attempted to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj intervened and suffered the stab injury.This is the line of cross-examination adopted by the accused to all the ocular witnesses, as well in the written submissions given under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence also examined Shanmugam (DW-2) to support this version.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that Shanmugam (DW-2) also lives in the same area and his presence has been spoken to by Nizamudeen (PW-7), Auto Driver, who has deposed that Kanagaraj was taken to the hospital in his auto-rickshaw, accompanied by Prakash (PW-11) and Shanmugam (DW-2).But Dr.Shanmugam (DW-2) has stated that he was an eye witness to the incident and around 8 p.m. PWs-1 to 5 were abusing Madhaiyan (A-1).After saying so, in the next breath Shanmugam (DW-2) has stated that Vinod (PW-5), Prathap and Vaiyapuri (PW-3) went inside Madhaiyan's house and physically pulled him out and attacked.Thus, even in the chief examination there appears to be an inherent contradiction in the evidence of Shanmugam (DW-2).He further stated that when Vinod (PW-5) went to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj (deceased) tried to prevent and suffered injury.We are aware of the legal proposition that the evidence of a defence witness requires equal treatment as that of the Prosecution witness during appraisal by the Court (See: State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, 2000 AIR SCW 1798).What defies credulity in the defence version is the manner in which Kanagaraj was allegedly stabbed by his own brother Vinod (PW-5), if seen in the light of the injury suffered by him.In this case, the deceased suffered one piercing stab injury measuring 5x2x7 cms on his chest and the weapon has caused an injury measuring 2x1x2 cm in the heart.It is too large a pill for us to swallow that an intervenor in a scuffle, will receive such a massive injury, and therefore we are not able to accept the defence version predicated via cross examination suggestions, written submission under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and evidence of Shanmugam (DW-2).Now we have to analyze the evidence of the alleged ocular witnesses viz., PW-1 to PW-5 bearing in mind that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus will not apply to our jurisprudence.According to these witnesses, the quarrel started near their house and after Vaiyapuri (PW-3) was pushed down, Kanagaraj intervened and he was pulled by A-1 to A-4 upto the house of Madhaiyan (A-1).Until then, admittedly none of the accused were armed.It is the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that Madhaiyan (A-1) suddenly rushed into his house, returned with a knife and attacked Kanagaraj, at which time A-2 to A-4 incited A-1 to stab him.N.Manoharan, learned Counsel brought a very clinching piece of material to our notice to shake the veracity of the witnesses that the incident had taken place near the house of Madhaiyan (A-1).He pointed out to us that Dr.Seralathan (PW-12) who examined Kanagaraj and made entries in the Accident Register (Ex.P-4 - original Accident Register), has noted, "Alleged to have stabbed by a known person with knife at Kanagaraj's residence at 8.15 p.m."Of course, a mere entry by the Doctor in the Accident Register by itself cannot have the effect of dislodging the evidence of eye witnesses.It is seen that the defence has summoned Dr.Seralathan (PW-12) once again as defence witness and examined him as DW-1, which procedure, we are afraid, may not be correct, for, they could have summoned him by invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross examination.The defence had also summoned the accident register from the Hospital and through Dr.Seralathan (DW-1), marked the duplicate as Ex.D-2 and the triplicate as Ex.In the duplicate, the following endorsement is found, "alleged to have been stabbed by a known person with knife"The words, "at Kanagaraj's residence at 8.15 p.m." found in the original Accident Register (Ex.P-4) are missing in the duplicate copy of Accident Register (Ex.D-2).It is incumbent to prepare the accident register in triplicate by inserting carbon paper.Had that been done, all the three copies would have had the same wordings.Bearing this in mind, we next proceed to analyze the injury sustained by Saminathan (A-3).According to the Prosecution, Saminathan (A-3) had suffered an injury on the head when he dashed against the door in his house on 3.8.2009 around 9.00 p.m. To prove this fact, the Prosecution examined Dr.Vishnupriya (PW-13) of the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, before whom Saminathan (A-3) was produced by Rengasamy Head Constable (not examined) at 8.20 p.m. on 6.8.2009 after arrest.In the cross examination she admitted that the said injury could also be caused, had he been attacked with an iron pipe.It is the case of the defence that in the fracas that ensued, Saminathan (A-3) was assaulted by the other party with an iron pipe.To this extent, the defence has probablized their theory that there was a free fight on the fateful night between the two parties, in which Saminathan (A-3) was attacked by the opposite group.The Police have admittedly produced him before Dr.Vishnupriya (PW-13) for treatment, and the records have also been filed.We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the version of the Police that Saminathan sustained head injury when he banged his head on the door of his house.It transpires that immediately after the attack on the deceased Kanagaraj, the Complainant party had ransacked the house of Madhaiyan (A-1) in connection with which the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.1052 of 2009 against Vinod (PW-5) and others.This has been spoken to by the Investigating Officer (PW-20) himself.By conflating and piecing together the facts proved by the Prosecution and the defence, we have no hesitation in our mind to infer that, pursuant to the altercation that took place between Madhaiyan (A-1) and the women-folk in the afternoon of 3.8.2009, a quarrel appears to have ensued between the complainant and accused parties in the evening and at that time the accused were not armed.When the whole thing went beyond control, Madhaiyan (A-1) appears to have rushed to his house, fetched a knife and stabbed the deceased Kanagaraj.To come to this inference, we believe the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, who have all stated that during the fight, Madhaiyan (A-1) went inside the house and brought a knife.Though we are not able to agree with the version of the alleged ocular witnesses that all the accused had pulled Kanagaraj from the house of A-1 and while A-2 to A-4 were holding the deceased, Madhaiyan (A-1) stabbed him, yet we accept their evidence to the extent that Madhaiyan (A-1) was initially not armed and during the fight he went inside his house and fetched the knife.Similarly, the version of the defence that when Vinod (PW-5) came to attack Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj intervened and received the stab injury is little difficult for us to digest.N.Manoharan, learned Counsel submitted that even according to the prosecution the deceased died because of single stab injury and the case will not fall under Section 302 IPC.In support of this he relied on the judgment in Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu ((1984) 2 SCC 133).There appears to be no pre-meditation and it was committed in a heat of passion amidst the free fight, thereby falling within the 4th exception of Section 300 IPC.In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed against Jagadeesh (A-2), Saminathan (A-3) and Saravanan (A-4) are set aside and they are all set at liberty, unless not required in any other case.The conviction and sentence imposed on Madhaiyan (A-1) are set aside and A-1 is convicted under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
Subsets and Splits