id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,686,219 | In the common affidavit filed in support of all the abovewrit petitions, the petitioners who are alleged to be the members of the `Journalists Action Group', a body constituted voluntarily by a majority ofJournalists in Chennai for ventilating the grievances of the Journalistsfraternity, would submit that with the avowed object of protecting theinterests of the Journalists, the general public and the Constitutionallyguaranteed freedom of press and expression, when the petitioners were coveringthe procession organised by a Political Party on 12.8.2001, for no apparentreason but evidently to intimidate and frighten the Journalists and force themto abandon the coverage of procession, the Police Officers and their men andwomen under the control and supervision of respondents 1 and 2, directed andconducted the savage, wanton and indiscriminate assault on the journalists.Prior to assessing the events encircling the episode dated12.8.2001, the petitioners in their attempt to give a glimpse of the state ofaffairs that was prevalent in the State of Tamil Nadu after the advent of theA.I.A.D.M.K. Party to power in the State, would submit that a hostileatmosphere prevailed in between the D.M.K. and A.I.A. D.M.K. parties andthe Government, under the impression that the press was hostile to them,adopted a confrontationist attitude towards the media and the media persons,the first incident being on 27.6.2001 when a T.V. Reporter was arrested andremanded to custody for covering the activities of a D.M.K. Leader atVillupuram and as a protest, journalists numbering 150 courted arrest atChennai on 29.6.2001 resulting in the release of the arrested journalistMr.G.Suresh on bail at the instance of the State Government.The nextincident cited was on 30.6.2001 when the former Chief Minister of Tamil NaduMr.M. Karunanidhi was arrested and remanded to judicial custody which thejournalists could not cover because of obstruction caused by the police andthe Government.The main incident occurred on 12.8.2001, when theopposition DMK party conducted a procession against `Police Atrocities', themedia was engaged in covering the events and at about 7.30 pm.Index: YesInternet: YesRaoTo1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,Home Deprtment,Fort St.2.The Director General of Police,Kamaraj Salai,Chennai.3.The Regional Director,Central Bureau of Investigation,Rajaji Bhavan,Besant Nagar,Chennai.on 12.8.2001 ,a savage attack was launched on the journalists in order to force them abandonthe coverage near Marina, which according to the Fact Finding Committeeconsisting of a group of eight journalists, was a deliberate and pre-plannedattempt by the Police to silence the journalists and keep them under fearpsychosis; that the purpose was to destroy and obliterate the first-handevidence – visual footage and contemporaneous notes of the journalistscollected on the spot – so that damaging the evidence of the police complicityin a mob attack on the rally would not come to light.Craving leave to filethe materials and reports submitted by the Fact Finding Committee, thepetitioners would assert that since their very complaint is against the policeand the State, there is hardly any chance for the petitioners to get a fairinvestigation done followed by institution of criminal proceedings against themiscreants including seeking compensation for the victims.Regarding the Enquiry Commission constituted by the StateGovernment as per the Press Release of 17.8.2001, the petitioners would statethat the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952, can hardly do any justice to theaffected parties that it cannot enforce the Constitution or the Laws of theLand or punish respondents 1 and 2 if they are found to have violated theConstitution and the Laws; that it is rather a well-known tactic of the StateGovernment to postpone and dilute the grievance of the complainants like thepetitioners which need to be addressed and redressed expeditiously and nofruitful solution will ensure by setting the law on motion after a long delay;that though the report of the Fact Finding Committee was submitted to hisExcellency the Governor and the Chief Secretary of the Government of TamilNadu by the journalist organisation viz. the Madras Union of Journalists,Chennai Press Club and the Madras Reporters Guild as on 8.9.2001, no actionhas been taken by the Government till date and therefore an impartial inquiry,investigation and prosecution particularly by CBI is quite necessary in thiscase.On such averments, the petitioners would pray for the reliefs extractedsupra.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first andsecond respondents respectively the Government of Tamil Nadu and the DirectorGeneral of Police, they would submit that the DMK party, to protest againstthe arrest of Mr.M.Karunanidhi, took out a procession on 1 2.8.2001 fromLittle Mount to the Marina Beach, Chennai and throughout, the processionistswere unruly, violent, provocative and abusive of the Police in general, theChief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the City Police Commissioner in particularwith vulgar slogans in filthy language; that the Police Personnel andjournalists were attacked and public and private properties were damagedenroute; that Mr.Mohan, Videographer of "Asian News International" lodged acomplaint to the effect that when himself with his Assistant Mr.Kalidas andReporter Mahalakshmi were covering the procession at Saidapet, a group ofprocessionists attacked them saying that they are from "Jaya TV" and damagedtheir instruments and a case in J1 Saidapet Police Station in Cr.No.14 08/2001u/secs.147,148,341,323,324,427 and 506(ii) IPC was registered andinvestigation was taken-up; that in spite of the unruly behaviour by the DMKparty cadres, the police personnel maintained utmost restraint all along theroute and when the last part of the procession crossed the office of theDirector General of Police, at about 19 hours, the unruly party cadres refusedto move and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and indulged inviolent acts of vandalism; that they violently moved towards the office of theDirector General of Police with a view to damage the office and harm thepolice personnel and they were chased away by the police party; that aftersometimes, they regrouped with lethal weapons, knives, iron pipes etc. andstarted attacking the police to enter into the office of the Director Generalof Police assaulting the police personnel causing grievous injuries to them,even snatching the wireless set from the Inspector Selvaraj besides brutallyassaulting the Sub Inspector of Police Mathijohn severing his fingers byaruval, besides setting on fire the motor cycle belonging to the public andthe police out-post near Gandhi Statue causing damage to police booths, policevehicles and Central media and in the assault, the general public and thepolice men on duty were also attacked; that after due warnings, the policetried to disperse the crowd using water canons but in vain and hence theteargas was used to disperse the mob which too became ineffective and hencelathicharge was resorted to, which also did not prove to be effective toprevent further danger to lives and properties of police personnel on duty andthe general public and as the last resort, the police opened fire usingplastic bullets and dispersed the crowd in which five persons received plasticbullet injuries and many police personnel got injured and admitted in varioushospitals; that a case in X-crime No.5 42/2001 u/secs.147,148,323,324,326,307,335 and 435 r/w.120-B IPC and Sections 2 and 3 of Tamil NaduPrevention of Public Properties Damages Act was registered and 63 accused werearrested.The further case of the respondents is that in the meleenear the office of the Director General of Police, a few journalists were alsoinjured who alleged that they were assaulted by the Police personnel but theydid not prefer any written complaint on that day; that the Joint Commissionerof Police (North) Mr.C.Sylendra Babu,IPS was instructed to conduct a personalenquiry and accordingly he sent notices to the injured journalists and othersto appear before and give details of the assault so that the persons whoassaulted them could be identified and appropriate action taken but they didnot appear.However, on 18.8.2001, Selvi B.Jayasree, TV journalist attachedto "TV Today" lodged a complaint stating that on 12.8.2001 evening when shewent to cover the procession, some unknown policemen assaulted her, snatchedher camera and broke it; that on this complaint, a case in Chennai City CrimeBranch X-Cr.No.554/2001 was registered u/sec.341,323 and 427 IPC and was takenup for investigation; that further Mr.Pudur Saravanan @ Parthasarathy,photographer attached to `Kumudam' magazine and five others also lodgedsimilar complaints and they are being investigated in the above said crimenumber since the allegation in their complaints revealed that the allegedincidents took place in the course of the said transaction of the case in CCBX-Cr.The further averments of the counter affidavit are thatcondemning arrest of `Sun TV' reporter Mr.Suresh in Villupuram and demandingthe withdrawal of case against him and to protect freedom of press, about 150press persons led by Mr.V.Rangachari assembled on 29.6.2001 FN near StateGuest House, Chepauk, Chennai and they were arrested when they attempted toproceed towards the Secretariat in violation of the Regulatory orders in forceand they were removed to G1 Vepery Police Station and released in the evening;that following the representation of the office bearers of Madras Union ofJournalists to the Honourable Chief Minister on 19.7.2001 to withdraw thecases registered against the journalists and as per the orders of theHonourable Chief Minister, further action in the case was dropped.The counter affidavit would deny that journalists wereattacked in order to force them to abandon the coverage in front of the officeof the Director General of Police and that it is equally incorrect to statethat no proper action was taken on the complaints of journalists; that furthercomplaints of Pudur Saravanan @ Parthasarathy of ` Kumudam' weekly, N.Vivek of`Junior Vikatan', V.Valayapathi and Muthu Ganesh Pandi of `Dina Malar' andMurthy of `The Hindu' and Munish Dhanani of `Zee Telefilm' were subsequentlyreceived and are being investigated in the case registered in Chennai CityCrime Branch X-Crime No.554/2001; that in the enquiry held by Mr.C.SylendraBabu,IPS, Joint Commissioner of Police (North Zone), Greater Chennai, thoughcalled 13 press persons for enquiry, only Mr.Murthy, Senior Videographer of`The Hindu' appeared and gave statement on 6.9.2001 and none other turned-up;that 112 police personnel who performed their duties on 12 .8.2001 in front ofthe office of the Director General of Police appeared for an identificationparade on 25.9.2001, but none of the press persons turned-up for theidentification of the police personnel who are said to have assaulted them on12.8.2001; that the Madras Union of Journalists, Madras Reporters Guild andChennai Press Club in their letter dated 25.9.2001 expressed thatidentification is not necessary and that their members were not willing toparticipate in the parade; that it is ascertained that some of the presspersons who were covering the incidents were beaten-up by the angry crowd andsome of them were caught in between when the crowd was being dispersedresorting to lathicharge; that the injured press persons entered the office ofthe Director General of Police, who were provided with first-aid by seniorofficers on duty and made arrangements for getting admitted at varioushospitals; that it is false and without evidence to allege that the presspersons were targeted by police and their cameras were damaged, but it isquite possible that some of the press persons were caught between the violentprocessionists and police and they might have sustained injuries besidesgetting their cameras damaged.The counter affidavit would further contend that the FactFinding Committee of the Press Council of India, which had enquired the mediapersons and the police officials, sent a report to the Government which foundcertain objectionable, unwarranted, transgressing terms of the Committee; thatthe Press Council has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in commenting theChief Minister in comparing her with the former Chief MinisterMr.M.Karunanidhi forgetting the purpose to enquire into the alleged policeexcesses against the media persons and hence the said report cannot be reliedon.The counter affidavit would also vehemently deny as falsethe allegation that the police personnel aided by antisocial elementspre-planned the attack in order to frighten the journalists and prevent themfrom discharging their duties; that in fact the police took the journalistsinside the office of the Director General of Police, rendered first aid andsent them to the hospital; that it is not correct to state that journalistswill not get a fair investigation in the complaints lodged by them; that theGovernment have issued orders in G. O.Ms.No.960 Public (Law and Order-F)Department, dated 16.8.2001 for the constitution of a Commission of Inquirywith the Honourable Mr. Justice K.S.Bakthavathsalam, retired Judge of theHigh Court as the single Member to enquire into the violence erupted duringD.M.K. Procession and the alleged attack on the journalists on 12.8.2001 andthe said Commission of Enquiry has started functioning, the report of which isawaited and action will be taken based on the Commission's report; that whileso, the vague allegations that no fruitful solution will ensure by setting thelaw on motion particularly in a case for assault on journalists would bedenied besides stating that there had been delay in lodging the complaint withthe police authorities.The last phase of the counter affidavit would sum-up thatthe incident of the alleged attack on journalists does not fall under any ofthe categories of cases that CBI can take-up for investigation which is meantfor dealing with cases relating to employees of Central Government/CentralPublic Undertakings, offences involving the interests of Government of India,important economic offences, breaches of central laws whose enforcement ismainly concerned with Government of India, organised crime or crime byprofessional criminals having ramifications in several states, cases havinginter-state and international ramifications involving several officialagencies and the incident of alleged attack on journalists does not fit intoany of these categories; that when a case has been registered regarding theincident of alleged attack on journalists which is under investigation,especially when a commission of inquiry has also been appointed, there isabsolutely no necessity for an enquiry by the CBI.Ultimately stating that the relief of compensation cannotbe considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writpetitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts, the counteraffidavit would seek to dismiss the above writ petitions with costs sincebeing wholly unsustainable in law.In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of thepetitioners, besides generally denying the allegations under averments of thecounter affidavit, the petitioners would explain the delay in lodging thecomplaint on 18.8.2001 stating that they were attending on the injuredjournalists numbering about 12 and for not attending the enquiry held by theJoint Commissioner of Police (North Chennai) in spite of receipt of thenotices by some journalists, the petitioners would submit that they did nothave faith in the probe being conducted by the police who themselves wereinvolved in the attack on the journalists.Denying the allegations thatbefore the State Guest House that they attempted to violate the regularlyorders and march towards the Secretariat, the petitioners would submit thatthey only attempted to take out a procession to the secretariat in a peacefulmanner pertaining to which no case was registered but the Union of Journalistsonly sought for withdrawal of cases registered against a group of journalists,who staged a spontaneous road-roko agitation on Kamarajar Salai outside theSecretariat on 28.6.2001 when the Chief Minister refused to accept amemorandum seeking the release of Sun TV reporter, sparked off by thehigh-handed behaviour of the security personnel at the secretariat.Revealing that the report of the Fact Finding Committeeconstituted by the Press Council of India mentions about a particular TVCorrespondent having not been allowed to perform his duties on the date ofarrest of Mr.M.Karunanidhi, regarding the assault dated 12.8.2002 at Marina,the petitioners would state that they have video footage to prove that thejournalists were attacked by the police besides the acceptance of the DeputyCommissioner of Police Mr.Prabhakaran before the Fact Finding Committee thathe had some media persons removed for their own safety from near the CBCIDheadquarters.Regarding the boycott of the identification parade, thereply affidavit would state that the three journalists organisations came tothe conclusion that since the parade and enquiry was to be conducted by anOfficer of the TN Police, who are the main suspects in the case, no fairout-come would be possible; that secondly, the day after the attack, the ChiefMinister had gone on record saying that the injured media persons were notbeaten-up by police, but they were caught between the violent DMK men and thePolice and got injured in the melee and hence they did not expect fair enquiryto take place and hence the decision to boycott the identification parade;that instead of providing the first-aid and help for hospitalisation, thepolice kept them in forced confinement inside the DGP's office for a longtime; that the injured reached the hospital on their own accord with the helpprovided by the professional colleagues and their respective offices.It would further be stated that the Fact FindingCommittee constituted by the journalists bodies found evidence in the form ofvideo footage showing the police conniving with anti-social elements to attackthe DMK processionists with swords and sticks; that only screening theevidence, the journalists were beaten-up and their cameras were damaged by thepolice which has been mentioned in the report of the Fact Finding Committee;that as decided by the three journalists organisations, they boycotted theJustice Baktavatsalam Commission.Ultimately submitting that the journalists did not havefaith in the commission of enquiry as well as in the investigation conductedby the police and hence they have been demanding a probe by an independentinvestigation agency and further submitting that in several cases, theHonourable Supreme Court and the High Courts have ordered compensation for thegross violation of the fundamental and legal rights and due to unprovokedattack and the injuries sustained by them, the State is in legal obligation toaward compensation to victims, the petitioners would pray for the reliefsextracted supra.During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioners would submit that all the above writ petitions havebeen filed by the journalists praying to (1)direct the respondents to registerF.I.R. before R.3, to direct R.3 to investigate and prosecute any and everyperson found to have violated the constitution and the laws by ordering andconducting a savage assault on journalists covering the procession on12.8.2001 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation to thejournalists who suffered injuries to their persons and damage to theirproperties consequent upon the assault; that there was a change of Governmentin Tamil Nadu in May, 2001 and the AIADMK party which was installed in theGovernment, adopting the confrontationist attitude towards the media and themedia persons, caused the arrest of a TV reporter on 27.6.2002 for he wascovering the activities of an erstwhile Minister of the DMK party and remandedhim to judicial custody and at the protest of the journalists, he was forcedto be released on bail after a couple of days; that again on 30.6.2001, whenthe former Chief Minister Mr.Karunanidhi was arrested, because of theobstructive actions of the police and the Government, the journalists couldnot cover the said incident and while such being the state of affairsprevalent, the subject matter of all the above writ petitions occurred on12.8.2001 when the DMK party tookout a procession from Little Mount to Marina,the independent journalists were wearing badges with TV and picture camerasand a large number of people were brutally attacked causing injuries on them;that the accused party is the State Government and the Police; that the PressCouncil of India, a statutory body, sent a Fact Finding Committee and sent thereport to the State Government clearly revealing the attack orchestrated onthe journalists but the state Government from August, 2001 to June 2002 didnot initiate any action nor did it evince any interest in investigating thematters, but on 17.9.2001, the State Government appointed an EnquiryCommission under the Commission of Enquiries Act to inquire into theallegations; that the Enquiry Commission cannot be a substitute forinvestigation and it could only submit its recommendations which is notbinding on anyone; that in the circumstances, a criminal case should beregistered and investigated by an independent agency; that the AdditionalSecretary to Government submits that all the allegations of police excessesare false and at this juncture the learned senior counsel would pose aquestion that when the first and second respondents have concluded that theallegations of the petitioners are false, how to allow them to investigateinto the matter?Resuming the arguments, the learned senior counsel wouldquestion that if the Government is not pre-judged, it should have filed acounter in an unbiased and impartial manner but what is alleged in para No.7of the counter affidavit would be falsified by the averments in Para No.9 ofthe same counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that "five persons receivedplastic bullet injuries in this incident.Police personnel were admitted tovarious hospitals.GEORGE,MADRAS-9 AND 3 OTHERS)The circumstances available on record prima facie show that effort has beenmade to protect and shield the guilty officers of the police who are allegedto have perpetrated the barbaric offence of murdering Gopi Ram by beating andtorturing.The appellant has been crying hoarse to get the investigation doneby an independent authority but none responded to her complaint.In reply, the learned Advocate General of Tamil Naduappearing on behalf of the first and second respondents, besides advancing hisoral arguments, would also make written submissions, the sum and substance ofwhich is that when the complaint was received against the police personnel,immediate action was taken by Joint Commissioner, against whom no mala fide isattributed, who was instructed to conduct a personal enquiry and accordinglyhe sent notices to the injured journalists and others to appear before him andfurnish the details so that the persons who assaulted the journalists would beidentified and appropriate action initiated, but they did not choose to appearbefore the said Officer for an enquiry; that on a complaint received on1`8.8.2001 from Selvi B.Jayashree, attached to "T.V.Today", a case in ChennaiCity Crime Branch X-Cr.No.554/2001 under Sections 341,323 and 427 of the IPCwas registered and taken-up for investigation; that similarly, Pudur Saravanan@ Parthasarathy photographer of `Kumudam' magazine and five others lodgedsimilar complaints and they have also been investigated in the same crimenumber since they were alleged to have taken place in the course of the sametransaction.The learned Advocate General would further submit thatwhen the 13 persons who are alleged to have been assaulted were called, theyrefused to participate in the identification parade wherein all the 1 12police personnel who performed the duty on 12.8.2001 were made available foridentification; that the reason given by the petitioners for non-participationin the reply stating that the identification parade was unnecessary since thesame was available in video and clipping could not be the answer; that it isnot their case that the video and the other materials have been handed over tothe investigation by the police officials; that the statement ofMr.At this juncture, the learned AdvocateGeneral would also appeal to the petitioners to place the materials availablewith them viz. the video and the clippings before the Commission to establishthe case particularly, when it is admitted by the petitioner that suchmaterials are available with them and assist the Commission for effectiveenquiry and report.On such arguments, the learned Advocate General would ultimatelypray to dismiss all the above writ petitions.The second incident alleged to have been served as themotive for the Tamil Nadu Government and the Tamil Nadu State Police men andwomen to turn hostile or to have nurtured a grudge against the journalists soas to unleash violence in a deliberate and orchestrated manner on 12.8.2001,is that on 30.6.2001 when the former Chief Minister Mr.Karunanidhi wasarrested on a case registered for charges of corruption and remanded tocustody, the journalists are said to have been obstructed by the police andthe Government from covering the said incident truthfully and comprehensively.Therefore, at this stage, it is safe to concludethat the case of the petitioners, citing these two incidents serving as motiveto the main incident alleged in the above writ petitions dated 12.8.2001, hasfailed to impress that the Tamil Nadu Police as a whole and the StateGovernment have become prejudiced against the journalists group to cause the`deliberate and preplanned assault in order to frighten the journalists andprevent them from discharging their duties', which appears to be a farce and afarfetched idea.No.554/2001had been registered and since six more journalists also lodged complaintsthereafter, they were also taken on file for investigation in the same crimenumber since all of them arose from out of one and the same cause of actionand in the course of the same transaction.On such observations, in thesaid case, the order of the High Court directing CBI investigation was setaside further remanding the matter to the High Court to consider prima faciecase and to decide whether CBI investigation was wanted in the circumstancesof the case.It could further be noted that in the case reported in (1989)2SCC 314, where complaint was lodged against a police personnel during certainencounters, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the said petition holdingthat `the State should be given an opportunity at the first instance beforeaccusing the police officials'.For all the above discussions held, it could be safelyconcluded that just for the simple reason that Section 8 of the Press CouncilAct, 1978 enables the Council to constitute a Committee to inquire intocertain incidents on the complaints received by it and to submit a report, itcannot be concluded that such report has any statutory force or value.It is further decided that directing the first and secondrespondents to register the FIR with the third respondent and direct the thirdrespondent to investigate and prosecute into the incidents that occurred on12.8.2001 at Marina, Chennai, as it has been prayed for in W.P.Nos.21120 and21121 of 2001, is neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of thecase and the same is decided accordingly.So far as this writ petition is concerned, there isabsolutely no denying of the fact on the part of the respondents 1 and 2regarding the incident dated 12.8.2001 and the injuries sustained by thepetitioners and some other journalists in the said incident that took placenear the DGP's office at Marina, though parties may differ the manner in whichthe incident had occurred in which the petitioner journalists and some othersare said to have been assaulted resulting in simple and grievous injuriessustained by the petitioners and other journalists besides loss or damage totheir cameras and such other equipments handled by them and therefore no doubtneed be entertained that the petitioners must be compensated adequately.Eventhough it comes to be seen from the materials made available that somecompensation to some journalists have been made on the part of the Governmentof Tamil Nadu, it should be borne in mind that the compensation should not bemeant 'some or mere compensation' for the name sake but 'adequatecompensation' to the extent the injury or damage has been caused to the personor the property of the petitioners in full consideration of the claims made bythe individual petitioners based on such evidence placed before the firstrespondent Government and if any of these petitioners is aggrieved on groundof inadequate compensation, he/she is always at liberty to file suchapplications in the manner known to law before this Court on such failure bythe first respondent to consider their claims in full and in the proper mannerdepending upon the facts and circumstances of the case of each of thepetitioners.In result,(i) W.P.Nos.21120 and 21121 of 2001 are dismissed as devoid of merits. | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,631,972 | This order shall be valid for a period of thirty days from today.C. c. as per rules. | ['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
168,636,035 | C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAVI KANT KEWT Date: 2018.01.25 03:02:19 -08'00' H rk.ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e shhy I.A.No.685/2018, which is an application for suspension of ad sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.M The appellants have been tried and convicted for an offences under Sections 294, 332/34 and 353/34 of IPC and sentenced to of suffer R.I. of 3 months under section 294 of IPC, sentenced to rt suffer R.I. of 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- under section 332/34 of ou IPC, and sentenced to suffer R.I. of 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- under section 353/34 of IPC with default stipulation.C Looking to the short sentence of only 1 year, I.A.No.685/2017 is h allowed and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the ig appellants and direct they be enlarged on bail upon their H furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Call for the records of the trial Court and list the case immediately, thereafter for orders on admission. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,686,377 | JUDGMENT Pratap Kumar Roy, J.These two writ applications are taken up for hearing analogously.Originally these writ applications were filed before High Court at Judicature of Madras.In the both the two writ petitions the petitioners is the same person.In W.P. 1583 of 2004, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of his name from the First Information Report wherein his name appears in the status of accused in Park Street Police Station/D.D. Case No. 300 dated 23rd September, 2001 under Sections 120B/420/409/385/511 IPC and in the writ petition W.P. 1584 of 2004 petitioner has prayed for quashing of his name from the First Information Report wherein his name appears as accused in Hare Street Police Station/D.D. Case No. 476 dated 24th September, 2002 under Sections 120B/420/409/467/468/471/477A IPC.In the High Court at Madras in the said writ petitions petitioner prayed for an interlocutory order restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner in connection with the said two cases.Subsequently, by the order dated 28th March, 2003 both these writ petitions were dismissed on the sole ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of that Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam of High Court at Madras.The two writ appeals were preferred being Nos. 1737 and 1738 of 2003 assailing the said order of His Lordship P. Sathasivam before the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court by the accused writ petitioner Dinesh Dalmia.Said two appeals were taken up for admission by the said Division Bench of Madras High Court on 27th June, 2003 when an interim order dated 27th June, 2003 restraining the respondents to arrest the writ petitioner accused Dinesh Dalmia was passed.On 11th July, 2003 the Division Bench of Madras High Court adjourned the matter till 27th August, 2003 and at this juncture on 25th July, 2003 Special Leave Petitions being No. 15629 and 15630 of 2003 were filed assailing the interim order dated 27th June, 2003 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court aforesaid.On 29th July, 2003 interlocutory applications were filed praying transfer of both the said two appeals as filed by the accused writ petitioner Dinesh Dalmia in the High Court at Madras to Calcutta High Court before the Supreme Court of India.On 8th December, 2003 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stayed the operation of the order dated 27th June, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court.This order was subsequently clarified on 12th January, 2004 by the Apex Court to this effect: "It is clarified that by interim order dated 8th December, 2003, police investigation was not stayed and the same shall continue".On 8th March, 2004 the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Apex Court consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur was pleased to transfer both the said two writ petitions as originally filed before the High Court at Madras to the High Court at Calcutta for decision on merit upon passing the direction that the interim order dated 8th December, 2003 along with the order dated 12th January, 2004 would continue to operate until the High Court at Calcutta considers prayer of interim relief and/or passes any appropriate order by adjudicating writ petitions on merit as the case may be.The transferred writ petitions ultimately were registered in the High Court at Calcutta being W.P. No. 1583 and 1584 of 2004 respectively as already mentioned.On 17th December, 2004 these two writ petitions were listed before the Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose of High Court at Calcutta, when His Lordship was pleased to release those matters on personal ground.Thereafter, both the two writ petitions were assigned before this Court by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of High Court, Calcutta.Initially the writ petitioners in both the two writ petitions prayed for appropriate interim relief restraining the respondents from arresting the writ petitioner/accused in connection with the said two criminal cases as already referred to, but this Court decided to dispose of the entire matter on merits upon final hearing and as such direction for affidavits by the respective parties was passed.In pursuance thereof, affidavit-in-opposition were filed in both the two writ petitions by the respondents and reply thereof also have been filed by the writ petitioner in both the two writ petitions.On perusal of the writ petitions as filed before the High Court at Madras, this Court noticed that relevant documents as referred to in the said writ petitions were not annexed and accordingly have granted to file the respective annexure, namely, the First Information Reports (FIR) and other relevant documents including the different orders passed by the competent Criminal Courts at Madras.Parties filed those documents.From the respective documents as filed, following facts are revealed.The copy of complaint, which was treated as FIR has been filed before this Court, which has been kept on record.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Hare Street Police Station/D.D. Case No. 476 dated 24th September, 2002 under Sections 120B/420/409/467/468/471/477A IPC was started against all accused persons including the present writ petitioner Dinesh Dalmia of W.P. No. 1584 of 2004, whose name appeared at Serial No. 14 of the said First Information Report.(3) On 26th September, 2002, Criminal Original Petition No. 240/ 2002 was filed by the writ petitioner accused Dinesh Dalmia, a named accused in the FIR in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 476 dated 24th September, 2002 in the High Court at Madras praying anticipatory bail, which was allowed directing the accused Dinesh Dalmia to appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction within six weeks.accused Dinesh Dalmia, the writ petitioner herein moved the Madras High Court again praying anticipatory bail in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 300 dated 23rd September, 2001 aforesaid by filing Criminal Original Petition No. 26004 in the High Court at Madras, which was allowed by the interim order granting anticipatory bail with a direction to appear before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction within six weeks.(5) On 18th November, 2002, another Criminal Original Petition No. 28241/2002 was filed by the writ petitioner in the High Court at Madras praying anticipatory bail in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 476 dated 24th September, 2002 and on 18th November, 2002, same was allowed by Hon'ble Justice A. Pakiaraj with identical direction as aforesaid directing the accused to appear before the appropriate Court.(6) Similarly, with reference to criminal case being Park Street Police Station Case No. 300 dated 23rd September.2001, accused Dinesh Dalmia again moved an interim anticipatory bail application registered as Criminal Original Petition No. 28657/ 2002 of the High Court at Madras and on 20th November, 2002, Hon'ble Justice A. Pakiaraj of High Court at Madras passed order granting anticipatory bail.(7) Subsequently again on 11th December.which was allowed by the order dated 11th December, 2002 by Hon'ble Justice A. Pakiaraj of High Court at Madras.(8) W.P. Misc.Petition No. 65434/2002 in writ petition No. 44701/ 2002 of High Court at Madras was filed by accused Dinesh Dalmia praying necessary order restraining the respondents from arresting the accused Dinesh Dalmia and by the order dated 12th December, 2002, Hon'ble Justice R. Balasubramaniam of High Court at Madras passed the order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the accused Dinesh Dalmia including his arrest.(9) On 27th, January, 2003, the Investigating Agency of the aforesaid two criminal cases approached Regional Passport Officer, Chennai to impound the passport and travel documents of accused Dinesh Dalmia, which prompted the said accused Dinesh Dalmia to move an application before the High Court at Madras praying necessary permission to leave India for his stay at U.S.A. and by the order dated 28th January, 2003, said accused was allowed to leave India.(10) On 28th March.2003, the prosecution of the aforesaid two criminal cases made a prayer in the High Court at Madras for quashing all orders as passed in the writ applications and other miscellaneous applications and by the order dated 28th March, 2003, Hon'ble Justice P. Sathasivam dismissed the writ applications and other miscellaneous petitions on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.(11) On 28th April.2003, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata.The order dated 28th April, 2003 of the said learned Magistrate was assailed by filing a revision petition dated 28th May, 2003 by the writ petitioner, which was taken up for hearing on 30th June, 2003 by the learned City Session Judge, 5th Court at Kolkata when the impugned order was upheld.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate again was approached by the respondent prosecution after the clarification order of the Apex Court was passed and a "Red Corner Notice" was issued on 30th January, 2005 through the INTERPOL Wing of CBI.On 6th July, 2005, CBI got an information from the INTERPOL that accused Dinesh Dalmia was found in U.S.A. but his Attorney therein submitted before the INTERPOL at Washington that all the charges against him in India have already been dismissed. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,837,805 | This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who has been arrested on 05.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.98/2017, registered at Police Station Rampur Kalan, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC added afterwards 302, 201 of IPC.After arguing for a while, when learned counsel for the respondent/State referred the dying declaration of deceased then counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this first bail application filed on behalf of applicant.Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Ashish* ASHISH CHAURASIA 2020.01.10 11:31:21 +05'30' | ['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. |
145,837,840 | Court No.28 Sl No.76 AP CRM 922 of 2020 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.01.2020 in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No.460/19 dated 20.12.2019 under Sections 448/341/323/325/354B/307/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: P. Bhaskar Rao ... ... Petitioner.Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... for the petitioner.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) | ['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
14,584,072 | Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are assumed to be true, prima facie, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.The applicant has no criminal history, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.Let the copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to Sessions Judge concerned for it's compliance.Order Date :- 17.9.2019 Dhirendra/ | ['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,845,136 | This is fifth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 14/8/2015 in connection with Crime sh No.325/2015 registered by Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri for offence e under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO, Act.ad This fifth application has been filed on the ground of delay in trial.Copies of the order-sheets of the trial court have been filed, which indicate that nine Pr witnesses have already been examined.The applicant is in jail from 14/8/2015, a i.e. for the last more than two and half years, and it also appears from the order-hy sheets that on several occasions arrest warrants were issued against the witnesses, but still the trial is proceeding at snail's speed.Speedy trial is the fundamental ad right of an accused, however, in the present case, the prosecutrix has been M examined and she has supported the prosecution case.Under these circumstances, it is directed that the trial court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial of within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.The trial court is further directed to take coercive steps against the police rt officer, who does not execute the warrant of arrest issued against the witnesses.ou The prosecution must make every endeavour to keep the witnesses present without any delay, as now most of the remaining witnesses are formal and C departmental witnesses.If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months h from the date of production of certified copy of this order, then the applicant shall ig be at liberty to file a fresh application for grant of bail.H With aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.03.05 14:29:51 +05'30' | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
145,847,882 | ss Ct.No.28 C.R.M. 12741 of 2017 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15/12/2017 in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No. 78 of 2017 dated 14/03/2017 under Sections 448/325/307/354B/379/506/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: - Debasish Makhal @ Debasis Makhal & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Advocate ...for the petitioners.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2 | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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. |
145,850,982 | Item No. 72And In the matter of: Susumit Singha & Anr.The State of West Bengal .Opposite Party Mr. Sandip Kundu For the Petitioners Mr. Sparshamoni Saha Podder For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur Police Station Case No.134 of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 under sections 143/341/323/325/307/379/34 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.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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. |
145,852,176 | He induced women of the State of West Bengal to travel to Maharashtra assuring them of jobs taking advantage of their financial condition, but ultimately they landed in brothels.It is also claimed by the petitioner no.1 that the respondent no.4 had approached her with intent to have sexual contacts but because of resistance put up by her, the respondent no.4 did not succeed in his evil design.The petitioners are aggrieved by investigation of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 671 dated 11.12.2009 under Sections 467/193/419/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IPC), registered on the basis of an order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia (hereafter the learned Magistrate), on a petition filed by the respondent no. 4 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the CrPC).2 They have, inter alia, prayed for orders to quash the proceedings arising out of the said case and to restrain the Officer-in-Charge of Kalyani Police Station, respondent no.3, from arresting them.It would be appropriate to give a composite picture of the facts, as revealed from the pleadings, giving rise to the present petition.The petitioners 1 and 2, belonging to Scheduled Caste community, are married to each other.The petitioner no.2 is a patient of epilepsy.He is unable to earn a living.The respondent no.4 had assured through the petitioner no.3 to arrange a job for the petitioner no.1 in the State of Maharashtra.However, the petitioner no.1 subsequently obtained information that the respondent no.4 was of perverted mentality and engaged himself in flesh trade.Infuriated thereby, the respondent no.4 lodged a complaint with the respondent no.3 alleging criminal intimidation by the petitioners.On receipt of P.R. No. 144/09 under Sections 506/34 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate on 8.4.2009 took cognizance, issued summons and fixed 28.5.2009 for service return.The petitioners 3 surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 15.5.2009 and were enlarged on bail.It appears from the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate that the respondent no.4 "filed a affidavit and a Mutual petition".On perusal of the record and the compromise petition, the learned Magistrate found the offence compoundable.The respondent no.4 then filed the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC referred to above.He alleged therein that he was neither present before the learned Magistrate on 28.5.2009 nor did he sign any compromise petition or swear any affidavit; that the affidavit/petition must have been signed by someone 4 other than the respondent no.4 who posed as if the respondent no.4 was placing and moving the compromise petition; that the petitioners had connived with their learned advocate resulting in such fraudulent practice and that the conspiracy must be the outcome of any wise brain.According to him if at all the allegation of the respondent no.4 in the Section 156(3) application is to be believed, no order for investigation could be passed by the learned Magistrate since Section 195 of the CrPC is a clear bar.He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.Mr. Chatterjee raised a preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. | ['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,458,525 | On the day of incident at about 6 a.m. when she came down stairs with her children, the petitioner started abusing her.Her brother Ashok who also resides in the same area was called and after some time her brother Ashok went out of the house and the petitioner also went out.The petitioner came back after some time and abused her saying 'Randi, Tu Mar Kyo Nahi Jati'.JUDGMENT O.P. Dwivedi, J.This revision is directed against the order dated 30.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi for framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A and 306 IPC being prima facie of the view that from the statement of deceased Smt. Bhagwati Kholia made before her death, the appellant should be tried for the said offences.She gave her statement to the Police wherein she stated that she was married to the petitioner 12 years back.Her husband/ petitioner used to suspect her character and used to quarrel with her every day.Thereafter she locked herself and bolted the room and set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil.Bhagwati Kholia died in the hospital on 21.8.2000 so Section 306 IPC was also added to the FIR.On completion of the investigations challan under Section 498A/306 IPC was filed against the petitioner.He was charged accordingly. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,009,859 | Appellant Shyam Babu Maurya and his co-accused Lavlesh @ Pappu andRam Bahadur were convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, "I.P.C."] and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand each and in default toundergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.On appeal, the High Courtaltered the conviction of the appellant and his co-accused from one under Section 302I.P.C. to Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the First Information Report,was that the appellant and his co-accused killed Inder Dev Singh on 9.11.1999 nearthe culvert of minor canal of village Moran by firing shots from their ...2/-The trial Court relied upon the testimony of Om Dev Singh [P.W.1] [brotherof the deceased], Devender Singh [P.W.2], a resident of village Moran and Dr. R.K.Mishra [P.W.6], who conducted the post mortem and found that almost all theinjuries were caused by fire arms and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinarycourse and held that the charge is proved against the accused.had been charged with the allegation of having committed offence underSection 302 I.P.C., but he was convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. This Courtnoted that for recording a conviction under Section 304-B, a presumption could beraised against the accused, which he was entitled to rebut by leading evidence, but,as no charge was framed under Section 304-B I.P.C., he was deprived ofopportunity to defend himself.Therefore, the case was remitted to the trial Courtwith a direction to frame charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. and decide the matterafresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.The fact situation inthis case is entirely different.The appellant and his co-accused were charged andwere convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 I.P.C. The High Court, asmentioned above, altered the conviction to one under Section 302 read with Section34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show as to how his client wasprejudiced on account of non-framing of specific charge under Section 302 readwith Section 34 I.P.C. Even otherwise, we are convinced that no prejudice wascaused to the appellant because the prosecution had come up with the case that theaccused persons armed with fire arms came together, all of them fired on thedeceased and then fled from the place of occurrence.The appellant knew of thenature of charge and got ample opportunity to defend himself.In the result, the appeal isdismissed. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B 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. |
15,801,293 | Shri Deependra Mishra, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State.Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the objector.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 40/2013 registered at P.S. Ajaygarh, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294 & 506-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.The incident took place on the spur of the moment.Though, the firearm is alleged to have been used at the time of incident, but fire was not made.A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party vide Crime No. 41/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC.The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.They are reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for State and the objector have opposed the application.In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.Certified copy as per rules. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,016,407 | PW 1 is the father of P.W.2 and the complainant of this case.He specifically stated on oath that his daughter (P.W.2) was given in marriage with the appellant no.1 about 2/3 years ago and after marriage she started residing with him at his house and during her stay at the matrimonial home his son-in- law namely appellant no.1 ill-treated her and used to assault her.He then called a Panchayat and in the said Panchayat matter was compromised and then he sent his daughter at her matrimonial home.Thereafter, his son-in-law poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire.On getting the news of burning of his daughter his wife (P.W.3) and son (P.W.5) went to their house but his son-in-law and his father Manik Mondal did not permit them to take his daughter to the hospital.Accordingly, he went to the Prodhan (P.W.11) and on his intervention his daughter was sent to the Labpur hospital where she was admitted and remained there for 25/26 days.He identified Mat. Ext.1 to be the seized burnt saree and blouse of his daughter.He was cross-examined at length but nothing came out contrary to his statements made in his examination-in-chief.On the other hand during cross-examination he clearly stated that after six months of his daughter's marriage she was assaulted by her husband and over such ill-treatment Panchayat was called on two occasions.He also specifically stated that after Panchayat he sent his daughter two days before when she was set on fire by her husband.He denied the defence suggestion that his daughter caught fire at the time of preparation of tea.Defence failed to impeach his credibility.P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1 and the victim.She clearly stated that she was married 3 years back and after marriage she started living at her matrimonial home and gave birth to a dead child at Sian hospital.After release from the hospital she went to her in-laws house and after 3/4 days from returning back from hospital her husband used to assault her at the instigation of her ja Sumitra.Her father then reported the matter to panchayat and after salish of panchayat her uncle and elder brother brought her to her matrimonial home.After two days at dawn on 22nd Jaistha about 1 yrs.ago while she was cleaning cow shed, then at that time her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire by a lighter.She then rushed to the house of 'khursasur' and her 'khursasur' extinguished the fire.Thereafter, her paternal brother-in-law, Dukhu Mondal informed her parents and getting the said news her father, mother and elder brother came and she narrated the incident to them.Her parents then wanted to take her to the hospital but she was not allowed by her father-in-law and only after intervention of Panchayat Pradhan she was taken to the Labpur hospital at about 1/1.30 p.m. by her parents, elder brother and others where she was treated (she showed her injuries to the court in course of her deposition and the learned trial Judge also noticed the existence of burning spot below her left arm and on her back).Her burning wearing apparels namely saree and blouse were taken by the police.She after release from hospital went to her father's house and since then she had been residing there.During cross examination she admitted that before birth of the child she was not assaulted by the husband physically but there was mental torture and that she stated to the Daroga Babu that when she returned back to her husband's house she was assaulted by her husband at the instigation of her ja (sister-in- law).She also specifically stated during cross examination that there was a Panchayat in the village and after salish she came back to her husband's house but after two days the incident of setting fire took place and her 'khursasur' extinguished the fire.Thus, from the above it is evident that her evidence with regard to cruelty by her husband namely appellant No. 1 during her stay at the matrimonial home, Panchayat meeting in the village towards her ill-treatment and her returning back to the matrimonial home only after Panchayat and incident of setting her fire by her husband from her behind within 02 days of her arrival remained unshaken during cross examination.Nothing was brought out during her cross-examination which could render her evidence dis-believable in so far as the cruelty and setting her on fire by her husband is concerned.The above statements of PW2 also found corroboration from PW3, PW4 and PW5, her mother, uncle and brother respectively.PW3, also deposed that after marriage her daughter (PW2) started living with her in- laws at her matrimonial home but during her stay there she was assaulted by them.Her daughter gave birth to a dead child within one year of her marriage and after giving birth of the child she was sent to the husband's house but her son-in-law (appellant No.1) abused her in filthy languages and also assaulted her.She further deposed that due to such torture her daughter came back to their house.There was a settlement in the panchayat and after that they sent her to the matrimonial home but again she was subjected to cruelty by her husband as a result she returned back to their home.Thereafter, they further took the help of Panchayat and after that they sent her daughter to the matrimonial home but after two days on her arrival she was burnt by her husband.On getting information of the incident at about 8.30 a.m. she and her son went there and found her lying in the varanda without any treatment.On being asked her daughter told them that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire.She further deposed that they tried to take her daughter to the hospital but father-in-law of her daughter did not allow them and accordingly her husband informed the Panchayat Pradhan and at the intervention of the Panchayat Pradhan her daughter was sent to the hospital where she was treated.She was cross examined by the defence but her evidence remained unshaken and nothing came out contrary to her statements-in-chief.PW 4 had deposed that after marriage PW2 went to her matrimonial home and there she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and he came to know the same from PW 2 when she came back to her father's house.He further deposed that cousin brother-in- law of PW 2 reported about burning of PW 2 and accordingly her mother and elder brother went to the P.O. and he also went there and found PW 2 lying in the varandah writhing in pain.They then went to Pradhan and only at the intervention of Pradhan PW 2 was taken to the hospital.PW 5 had also specifically stated that during stay of PW 2 at her matrimonial home she was abused and assaulted by her husband.Thereafter, a salish was held and after that she was taken to the matrimonial home.He further deposed that PW 2 again came to their house and told them that her husband assaulted and abused her.They again called Panchayat and after that P.W.2 was sent to the matrimonial home and thereafter the incident of burning of his sister by fire took place.On getting the news he along with his mother went to the place of occurrence and found her lying in the burnt condition and on being asked PW 2 told them that her husband set her on fire.They tried for treatment of the victim but they were not allowed and only after intervention of Pradhan, PW 2 was taken to the hospital.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Md. Mumtaz Khan & The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRA No. 578 of 2003 Sukdeb Mondal & Ors.By virtue of the impugned judgement appellants were convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 more months for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently with usual direction of set off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.).Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:P.W.2 was given in marriage with the appellant no.1 by P.W.1 but after one year of such marriage P.W.2 was subjected to cruelty by husband, father-in-law, since deceased and sister-in-law namely the appellants.P.W.2 being unable to bear such torture left the matrimonial home and started living at her father's house.P.W.1 reported the matter to Panchayat and a settlement was arrived in the village by the local Panchayat.On June 5, 2000 at about 8 a.m., P.W.1 got an information from a relative of appellant that on that day at about 6 a.m. P.W.2 had been set on fire.On getting such information, P.W.1 went to the house of the appellants and found his daughter lying in the varanda in burnt condition.On being asked, P.W.2 told him that in the morning at about 6 a.m. she had been to the cowshed for cleaning.Then all on a sudden from behind her husband and sister-in-law poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire.She then rushed to the house of her neighbor Dhudu Mondal who extinguished the fire.P.W.1 then with the help of local panchayat took P.W.2 to Labpur Hospital and got her admitted there in severe condition.P.W.1 the lodged a written complaint (Ext.1) scribed by P.W.9 before the officer in charge of Labpur P.S. (P.W.14).On the basis of the above written complaint, P.W.14 started Labpur P.S. case No. 47 of 2000 dated June 5, 2000 under Sections 498A/307/326 IPC against the appellants and took up investigation of the case and thereafter, on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 498A/ 307/326 IPC.On January 29, 2002 charges under Sections 498A/307/34 IPC were framed against the appellants and on their pleading not guilty to the charges, trial commenced.Prosecution in order to prove it's case, examined 14 witnesses and also produced and proved the written complaint, formal FIR, rough sketch map with index, seizure list, injury report etc. After completion of the evidence for the prosecution, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence also examined 04 witnesses in support of their claim and thereafter on completion of trial, learned trial judge passed the impugned judgement.During pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 Manik Mondal expired and the appeal stood abated against him.According to Mr. Sur, in so far as the appellant no.1 is concerned he is the principal accused and the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against him beyond shadow of doubt.We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence and the materials on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned court below.Learned trial judge after over all assessment of the evidence on record particularly that of PW1, father of the victim and the de-facto complainant, PW2, the victim, P.W.3, mother of the victim, P.W.4,uncle of the victim,P.W.5, brother of the victim,P.W.13,the doctor and the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges under Sections 498A/307/34 IPC against the appellants.He was also cross examined by the defence and his evidence also remained unshaken.PW11, the Prodhan, has also deposed that on June 5, 2000 he had been to the house of appellant No. 1 and found PW2 in burnt condition and at his intervention she was sent to the hospital.During cross examination he has specifically stated that there was a salish and both he and Upa-Pradhan were present and at his intervention victim was sent to the hospital for treatment.PW13, Medical officer attached to the Labpur BPHC, has specifically stated that on June 5, 2000 at about 12.50 hrs he examined Fancy Mondal wife of Sukhdeb Mondal (P.W.2) and found 10 per cent superficial burn on the left side back of chest, back of left shoulder and back of left arm and the patient stated to him that she was set on fire by her husband by pouring kerosene oil on her person on that date in the morning.He also clearly stated that if the said fire had continued for a little more time there was every chance of death of the victim due to such burning.Thus, we find that the above statements of prosecution witnesses also found corroboration from medical report.It is true that P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the relations of the victim but only because they are the parents, brother and uncle of the victim their specific averment on oath cannot be brushed aside and disbelieved.Moreover, investigating officer has duly given explanation for not examining any person of the village of the appellants.Defence by examining one RMP medical practitioner, uncle of appellant no.1 and other two villagers tried to prove that burning of the victim was accidental while preparing tea.They all have admitted that on the relevant date P.W.2 caught fire and the said fire was put off by D.W.2 at his house where she had rushed.The claim of DW1 that victim told him that she caught fire while preparing tea does not appear to be believable as he himself admitted that he did not note the same in the medical paper or anywhere else.So, it seems he has stated this on memory which is not expected from any doctor and that too after long period.The evidence of other defence witnesses that P.W.2 caught fire while preparing tea also do not appear to be believable in view of the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses more so of the doctor(P.W13) who treated the victim on the same day at 12.50 hrs.He clearly deposed that victim stated him that she was set on fire by her husband.He was even not challenged by the defence on that score.Thus the evidence on record unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant no. 1, Sukhdeb Mondal, in subjecting his wife (P.W.2) to cruelty during her stay at the matrimonial home and setting her on fire thereby causing burn injuries on her person which according to the doctor had it continued for some more time it would have been fatal.So, the intention was very much apparent to cause the death of the victim.The story of instigation by the appellant no.3 to appellant no.1 to assault P.W.1 as alleged by P.W.2 do not find corroboration from other witnesses.There is also no iota of evidence on record with regard to the involvement of appellant no.3 either with regard to subjecting the victim to cruelty or setting her on fire as alleged in the FIR.Learned Court below taking into account the entire circumstances and the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the evidence on record clearly point towards the guilt of the appellants in the commission of the offence under Sections 498A/307/34 IPC.We do not find any irregularity and/or illegality with regard to the above findings of the learned Court below in so far as the appellant no.1 is concerned.But with regard to the findings of the learned court below towards the involvements of other appellants are concerned we find that the learned court below was not justified in holding them guilty of the offence alleged against them and as such, our interference with the impugned judgment is required on that score.Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant no.1, Sukhdeb Mondal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant no.3, Sumitra Mondal.She is acquitted from the charges framed against her and she be released from her bail bonds. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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. |
1,580,203 | The order dated 17.08.2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous PetitionNo.269 of 2007 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions cumFast Track Court No.After framing acharge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the revision petitioner hasfiled Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.269 of 2007, praying to frameadditional charges against the accused under Sections 302, read with34, 120(b), 201, 217, 218, 220, 331, 342, 348 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code.The order dated 17.08.2007 passed in CriminalMiscellaneous Petition No.269 of 2007 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2006 by theAdditional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,024,832 | A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 1 of 82. Allegations against the appellants as reflected in the charge- sheet were that on 18.08.2011 at about 07.00 A.M. at Main Road Gandhi Nagar, they, in furtherance of common intention kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (changed name), a minor aged around 13 years out of the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intention to secretly and wrongfully confine her.On 18.08.2011, 'X' as usual had gone to school at about 07.00 a.m.; she did not return after school hours and went missing on her way to school.Efforts were made to search her at various places but she could not be traced.Finally, victim's parents approached the police.The Investigating Officer after recording statement of the victim's father - Krishan Lal (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report.The victim's Crl.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 2 of 8 parents and the police officials went here and there for her recovery but to no effect.On 01.09.2011, the Investigating Officer received an information about X's presence along with the appellants at Ludhiana (Punjab).She was recovered from House No.662, Basti Jodhwal at A-1's instance.She was brought to Delhi and medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.The accused persons were arrested.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.The prosecutrix has categorically deposed that she was repeatedly ravished by A-1 in the rented accommodation at Ludhiana (Punjab) where she was confined after kidnapping.Since 'X' was below 16 years of age; her date of birth being 24.09.1998 as per school record (Ex.PW-1/C), not under challenge, even her consent (if any) for physical relations with A-1 was of no consequence.At no stage, she bothered to get the prosecutrix released from A- 1's captivity.She did not inform X's parents about her whereabouts when they were frantically searching their lost child. 'X' and A-1 lived together for sufficient duration at Ludhiana far away from Delhi.She did not initiate any action when her husband did not visit her at Delhi for so long.PW-9 (Balbir Chand), landlord, deposed that on 13/14.08.2011, A-1 had come along with a 'local' man for taking the room on rent for the family.A-1 along with a 'girl' to whom he described his sister-in-law arrived on 18.08.2011 at 04.00 p.m. in the said room pretending that his wife was in PGI to take care of her ailing brother admitted there.They both started living in the rented room.On 20.08.2011 at about 06.30 a.m. A-2 came in the room and stayed there for about two hours.She went away at around 8 O'clock telling that she and her brother would go to Delhi from PGI and she would get him Crl.The appeals lack merits and are Crl.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 7 of 8(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 05, 2016 / tr Crl.Page 8 of 8Aggrieved by a judgment dated 30.04.2014 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.153/2011 arising out of FIR Crl.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 1 of 8 No.219/2011 PS Gandhi Nagar by which the appellants - Zaheer Alam (A-1) and his wife Reshma (A-2) were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/365/376/34 IPC and 363/365/34 IPC & 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC respectively, they have preferred the instant appeals.By an order dated 09.05.2014, they were awarded various prison terms with fine.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants in the Court.The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to substantiate the charge.In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have filed the present appeals.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 2 of 8During arguments, learned counsel for A-1, on instructions, stated at Bar that A-1 has opted to not challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction.He prayed to modify the substantive sentence as he (A-1) has remained in custody for sufficient duration; he is to take care of his four minor children in the absence of his wife who happens to be in custody along with him in this case.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 3 of 85. A-2's counsel, on instructions, informed that A-2 has also given up challenge to the findings on conviction under Sections 363/365/34 IPC.1) to sexually assault the victim.Attention was drawn to X's statement wherein she had admitted that at the time of rape, A-2 was not present and had arrived there later on.Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor urged that A- 2 was privy to the kidnapping and was aware of commission of rape with the prosecutrix.Since A-1 and A -2 have voluntarily opted to give up challenge to the findings on conviction under Sections 363/365/34 IPC and overwhelming evidence too is on record to establish their complicity, their conviction for the aforesaid offences is affirmed.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 4 of 87. A-2's submissions denying her complicity in the abetment of rape by her husband are devoid of force.A-2 had played an active role in X's kidnapping from the very inception and it was in her knowledge that both A-1 and 'X' were present in the rented accommodation at Ludhiana (Punjab).She had stayed there for sufficient period with them after the incident.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 5 of 8 admitted there.On 25/26.08.2011, A-2 again came carrying a trunk, a folding bed and some other household goods at about 04.00 a.m. and started living in the rented accommodation.He further deposed that A-2 did not allow the said 'girl' to talk to anyone; she was also not allowed to go outside.The appellants took the said girl namely 'X' with them at about 7 O' clock after packing household goods informing that he would come back after leaving her to an acquaintance.This independent witness having no familiarity with the complainant at Delhi had no oblique motive to make a false statement.Apparently, 'X' was kept in the rented accommodation till her recovery by the police.The appellants did not bother to inform X's parents about her whereabouts.They had no occasion or reason to take the prosecutrix, a minor with them at a far away place without the permission or consent of her parents with whom they were well acquainted before the occurrence.During that period, A-2 also stayed in the said accommodation.She misled the landlord about X's identity.At no stage, she compelled A-1 to allow the prosecutrix to go to her parents.Needless to say, she was aware as to what was going on between the prosecutrix and A-1 during that period.She had played an Crl.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.From the circumstances referred, it can be deciphered with certainty that A-2 was privy to the whole episode and never offered any opposition to it.A-2's conviction under Sections 109/376 IPC based upon fair appraisal of the evidence cannot be faulted and is affirmed.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 5 of 8A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 6 of 8Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence whereby a child aged around thirteen years was subjected to sexual assault repeatedly by A-1, a married person, aged around forty years, it is not a case for reduction of sentence awarded by the Trial Court.Both the appellants were hand in glove with each other.The Court can well understand the trauma of the victim's parents who were not aware as to where their little child was for so long.A.1006/2014 & connected appeal.Page 8 of 8A.1006/2014 & connected appeal. | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,027,256 | In brief, case of the petitioner is that around August- September 2004, he came in contact with the respondent and they voluntarily stayed together in hotels and lodges in fake names.After marriage, they had been temporarily living in hotels and lodges because petitioner was facing resistance from his family members for this marriage.He started looking for a separate residential accommodation and during that period, he became apprehensive and suspicious because, respondent insisted that he should continue to give fake names in the hotels and lodges even after their marriage.Petitioner wanted to get the marriage registered, to which respondent showed reluctance for no plausible reasons.On 13th/14th January 2005, petitioner came to know that respondent was already married and the said marriage was subsisting, though, he was a bachelor before marrying her.Respondent refused to divulge information about her first marriage and on her insistence, he took her to his native village.His parents agreed to accept her provided their marriage was solemnized as per MAT APP.40/2009 Page 2 of 13 their customs, to which respondent refused.On 21st January 2005, petitioner came back to Delhi and joined his duties.On 28th January 2005, he came to know that respondent had filed a complaint against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and an FIR bearing No.58/2005 was registered against him at Police Station, Paharganj.However, parties arrived at a compromise and in accordance with the compromise, respondent got the FIR quashed and he again solemnized marriage with her in Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, Jamna Bazar on 11th March 2005, wherein the parties filed their affidavits.In the said affidavit, respondent had declared that she was a divorcee of Mr.Sunil Kumar, her previous husband.Respondent did not agree for registration of marriage performed on 11th March, 2005 and threatened the petitioner, his family members and his Advocate of false implication in various cases.She has admitted that parties had compromised and they re-married on 11th March 2005, according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Jamuna Bazar and in view of the said marriage, FIR was quashed and also the first petition of the petitioner for annulment of marriage came to an end.She has averred that on 6th August, 2005 around 7.00/8.00 pm she was taken to the house of petitioners maternal uncle Sh."(i).Parties met each other somewhere in August-September 2004 and they continued to live together in various hotels and lodges of their own free will in fake names.(ii) Against wishes of their parents, they married each other on 31st December, 2004 at Jhandewalan Temple in Paharganj.She informed the petitioner that her marriage with Sunil Kumar was still subsisting and the statement given by her on affidavit in the Temple and before the Court was incorrect.Hence, this petition.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 2 of 13MAT APP.40/2009 Page 3 of 13MAT APP.40/2009 Page 3 of 13Respondent in her written statement denied all the allegations levelled against her by the petitioner and alleged that she was compelled to marry the petitioner under undue influence and pressure on 21st December, 2004 and he forcibly put Sindoorover her forehead and not only this, petitioner put Mangalsutra on her neck despite resistance and protest from her and in the garb of marriage, he raped her number of times.Therefore, she had got registered an FIR under Section 376 IPC against him.Raj Mohan Sharma in Burari for preparing dinner for him, where many people raped her and she filed another complaint with police under Section 376 (g)/109 IPC, being FIR No.418/2005 in Police Station Timarpur, which is still pending trial.She has further averred that this petition is not maintainable as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, previous criminal proceedings were quashed and they had also compromised their disputes and the earlier petition MAT APP.40/2009 Page 4 of 13 accordingly came to an end.She has denied that her marriage with Sunil Kumar was subsisting and alleged that she was a divorcee when she married the petitioner.She further averred that petitioner cannot be allowed to file similar petition against her and has claimed that she is lawful wedded wife of the petitioner.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 4 of 13Replication was filed by the petitioner controverting the averments of the respondent as raised in the written statement.On the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed the following issues:-Whether the previous marriage of the respondent was validly dissolved on the date of solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner? If so, to what effect?2. Relief."ISSUE NO. 1Sudhir Nandrajog, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that it was for the respondent to prove that her marriage with her previous husband, Sunil Kumar was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce and that she had legally married the petitioner.However, she has failed to discharge the onus of proving the same and under the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to a decree for annulment of marriage, as prayed.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 5 of 13MAT APP.40/2009 Page 5 of 13Submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are refuted by Mr.R.K.Verma counsel appearing for the respondent.He has submitted that marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and respondent was a divorcee at the time of the said marriage, therefore, she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner.(iii) The marriage was consummated and they co-habited at various places.(iv) A petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed which was compromised and the said petition was dismissed in default.(v) Respondent had got registered an FIR bearing No.58/2005, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Paharganj against the petitioner.In view of the compromise, aforesaid FIR was got quashed by filing a writ petition under MAT APP.40/2009 Page 6 of 13 Section 482 Cr.P.C.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 6 of 13(ix) Respondent got registered another FIR bearing No. 418/2005 under Section 376 (g) /109 IPC in Police Station Timarpur.The trial of the case is still continuing."Petitioner had filed his previous petition under Section 11 of the Act seeking annulment of marriage on the ground that respondent had concealed the fact that she was previously married and also that she is not a divorcee.Since the matter was compromised, the said petition was dismissed in default on 8th April, MAT APP.40/2009 Page 7 of 13 2005 due to non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner.After its dismissal in default, petitioner did not take any steps to get it restored and pursue it.Provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC are applicable to the proceedings under the Act.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 7 of 13Order 9 Rule 9 CPC bars fresh suit filed on the same cause of action where earlier suit or part of it is dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC.A party is entitled to move an application for setting aside the dismissal order.If the court is satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for his non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing, it would restore the suit.As pointed out above, petitioner did not file any application seeking restoration of the petition dismissed in default.Therefore, he is debarred from filing this petition seeking the same relief of annulment of marriage dated 31st December, 2004 based on the same cause of action.He cannot be allowed to re-agitate his case and seek declaration of decree of annulment of the said marriage.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 8 of 13However, fresh cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner when the parties married again on 11th March, 2005 after the matter was compromised inter se them.The relevant terms of the compromise are:-b) That the reason for the dispute between the parties were based on the alleged information received by the petitioner regarding the subsistence of the first marriage of the respondent.d) It was also agreed between the parties that they shall get their marriage solemnized once against strictly in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and that the said marriage will be followed by the registration of the same."Respondent filed her affidavits one before Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, Jamna Bazar and another before the Court in the writ petition under Section 482 MAT APP.40/2009 Page 9 of 13 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.58/2004, declaring that she was a divorcee of Sunil Kumar, her previous husband.However, she has failed to produce the decree of divorce and prove it in evidence to satisfy the court that she was a divorcee at the time of her marriage with the petitioner on 11th March, 2005 and therefore, is his legally wedded wife.Onus of proving this issue heavily lay on the respondent and she had to open evidence.Record indicate that she did not lead any evidence to prove that her previous marriage was validly dissolved on the date of solemnization of marriage with the petitioner.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 9 of 13Vide order dated 2nd July 2009, during pendency of the appeal, this Court gave an opportunity to the respondent to file certified copy of the decree of divorce obtained by her against her previous husband Sunil Kumar.She failed to produce the certified copy as directed and also absented herself despite directions.On 24th August 2009, respondent stated that she is illiterate and does not know the particulars of the date nor is in a position to give the name of the court from which the decree of divorce was obtained.She could not even give the name of the lawyer who was representing her in the said case.Till date, respondent has not been able to place on record either certified copy of the decree sheet or any particulars of MAT APP.40/2009 Page 10 of 13 the alleged divorce petition, wherein she was allegedly granted a decree of divorce against her previous husband Sunil Kumar.It is significant that respondent herself has disputed legality of the marriage dated 31st December, 2004, as according to her, no Saptapadi was performed.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 10 of 13Thus, it is evidently clear that a valid marriage existed between the respondent and Sunil Kumar when she entered into matrimonial knots with the petitioner.While dismissing the petition, Trial Court observed:-MAT APP.40/2009 Page 11 of 13In the present case also, the parties to the petition have filed a compromise deed as well as the affidavits before the Honble High Court of Delhi and they have acted upon this.According to those affidavits and compromise deed, the respondent is a divorcee.But the petitioner has not led any evidence to explain the averments raised by him in his petition.However, Section 11 of the Act empowers a court to declare such marriage by way of decree of nullity on a petition presented by either party to such marriage if, MAT APP.40/2009 Page 12 of 13 it contravened any of the conditions specified in clauses (1), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Act.MAT APP.40/2009 Page 12 of 13In view of my discussion as above, it is concluded that since respondent has failed to prove that she was a legally divorced wife of Sunil Kumar at the time of solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 11th March 2005, in my opinion, the said marriage between the parties is a nullity being violative of the provisions contained in Section 5 sub-clause (1) of the Act. Findings of the Trial Court on this issue are accordingly set aside.In view of my observations on issue No.1, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 11th February, 2009 is set aside.Marriage between the parties dated 11th March, 2005 is hereby declared a nullity.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Decree be prepared accordingly.CM No.6252/2009 (for stay)Since the appeal has been disposed of, this application has become infructuous and the same stands dismissed accordingly.ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) AUGUST 26, 2010/sb MAT APP.40/2009 Page 13 of 13MAT APP.40/2009 Page 13 of 13 | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
158,031,592 | (i) The deceased in this case is one Murugesan.He was residing atKummampatti Village, Authur Taluk, Dindigul District.There was a previousenmity between the appellant/accused and the deceased regarding giving falseevidence before the Court.Due to the same, on 06.03.2007, at about 10.30p.m., while the deceased was irrigating his land, the accused attacked himwith knife on the chest, head and hands indiscriminately and ran away.Atthat time, P.Ws.1 and 2 came there to answer natures call and hearing thealarm of the deceased, they rushed the scene of occurrence and saw thedeceased with serious injuries.Then, P.W.1 told P.W.2 to inform to the wifeof the deceased and P.W.2 brought the wife of the deceased to the scene ofoccurrence.Then, they took him to the Government Hospital, Dindigul.(ii) P.W.16, the Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Dindigul,admitted the deceased in the Hospital, given first aid then referred thedeceased to the Government General Hospital, Madurai, and issued Accident Register [Ex.P9], he also a memo to the respondent police.(iii) On receipt of the memo from the Hospital, P.W.18, the HeadConstable attached to the respondent police, proceeded to the GovernmentGeneral Hospital, Madurai, recorded the statement of the deceased[Ex.P13] and sent the first information report to theJudicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to the higher officials.(iv) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent PoliceStation, on receipt of the first information report, commenced investigation,proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar [Ex.P3], arough sketch [Ex.P15] in the presence of witnesses.He examined thewitnesses and recorded their statements.Then, he arrested the second accused and remanded him to the Judicial custody.In the mean time, P.W.14, thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, on receipt of a memo from theHospital, went to the Government General Hospital, Madurai and after beingsatisfied that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to givedying declaration, recorded dying declaration of the deceased.Then, P.W.19,proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Madurai, where, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by D.Krishnakumar, J.) The first accused, in Sessions Case No.124 of 2011, on the file of thelearned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, is the appellantherein.Totally, there are two accused in this case.Pending trial, thesecond accused was died and A-1 alone stood charged for the offence underSections 341 and 302 f IPC.The Trial Court, after trial, by judgement dated22.12.2014, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months andacquitted the accused for the offence under Section 341 IPC.On 08.03.2007, the first accusedsurrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai and on the same dayat about 11.00 a.m., the deceased succumbed injuries.Then, P.W.19 alteredthe first information report into Sections 341 and 302 IPC and sent the sameto the Judicial Magistrate Court.Then, he conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of panchayators in he Hospital, and heprepared inquest report Ex.After the inquest, he sent the dead body forpostmortem autopsy through P.W.18 Head Constable.(v) P.W.15, the Doctor working in the Government General Hospital,Madurai, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-Sutured stab injury 7 x 2.5 cms x peritoneal cavity depth on theleft side of umblicue.Sutured stab injury 3 x 1 cms x cavity depth left hypochondrium.Sutured transversely oblique stab injury 6 x 1 cms x muscle deepright lion.Sutured vertically oblique cut injury 8 x 1 cms x muscle deep.Vertically sutured cut injury 10 x 1 cms x muscle depth left sidechest.Surgically sutured midline abdominal incision from epigastrium to 4cms below umbilicus.Sutured cut injury 10 x 1 cms, 8 x 1 cms over mid parietal region ofscalp.Sutured cut injury 6 x 1 cms x muscle deep over dorsum of righthand.Sutured cut injury 6 x 1 cms x muscle deep over dorsum of righthand.Scalp contusion 10 x 8 cms in the mid and occipito parietal region ofscalp.Linear fracture 7 x 1 cms left tempero parietal region of skull bone.Diffuse subdural haemorrhage and sub arachnoid haemorrhage present over both cerebral hemispheres.Cerebrospinal fluid flood stained.He opined that the deceased appear to have died of external injury Nos.1 to 4and 7 and its corresponding internal injuries, he has given postmortemcertificate Ex.(vi) Then, P.W.19, continued the investigation, took the first accusedto the police custody and he has voluntarily given confession, based on thedisclosure statement, P.W.19 seized [M.O.3] knife and bicycle [M.O.2] used bythe accused in the crime.Then, he examined the Postmortem Doctor and other witnesses and recorded their statements, after completion of investigation helaid charge sheet.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges asdetailed above and the accused denied the same as false.In order to provethe case of prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and exhibited 18 documents and 5 material objects were marked.Out of the above witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the brother in law ofthe deceased.According to him, on 06.03.2007, he along with P.W.2 went toone Iyer Garden to answer the natures call, at that time they heard the noiseof the deceased and rushed the scene of occurrence, there they saw thedeceased pool of bleeding with serious injuries, and the deceased told himthat the accused attacked him with knife and ran away.Then, he told P.W.2 tobring the wife of the deceased.P.W.2 also brought her to the scene ofoccurrence.Subsequently, all of them took the deceased to the GovernmentHospital, Dindigul, then the deceased was referred to the Government GeneralHospital, Madurai.P.W.2 is also belongs to the same village.He along withP.W.1 went to a garden near the scene of occurrence to answer the naturescall, at that time they heard the noise of the deceased and they rushed tothe scene of occurrence and saw two persons were running and the deceased lying with serious injuries, they took the deceased to the GovernmentHospital, Dindigul. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased.According to him, onthe date of occurrence at about 9.00 p.m, since the deceased did not returnhome, his mother P.W.4 asking him to search for him.He went in search forhis father, at that time, he saw the accused attacking the deceased withknife on his head and then both the accused ran away from the scene ofoccurrence.At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 were also there, then P.W.2 bring hismother, and all of them took the deceased to the Government Hospital,Dindigul. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased.According to her, on the dateof occurrence, since the deceased did not return home, she ask her son tosearch for him.Then, P.W.3 told her that the accused attacked the deceased,and they took him to the Hospital.P.W.5 is the witness to the observationmahazar.P.W.6 is a resident of accused village.According to him, on thedate of occurrence at about 10.45 p.m., he saw both the accused, and theysaid that they have settled the old account, he also saw A-1 came from theriver bank with a knife.P.W.7 is another villager.According to him, he sawthe accused near the scene of occurrence, subsequently he saw the deceased with serious injuries.P.W.8 is also a villager went along with PW.6 and 7.He also saw both the accused came in a cycle and they told that they havefinished their enemy.Then, they saw the deceased with serious injuries.P.W.9 is the village head man.According to him, three months prior to theoccurrence, in a village meeting, there was a quarrel, in which number ofvillagers including the accused, making allegation against the deceased thathe has given false evidence after receiving money, then, he dissolved themeeting.P.W.10 is yet another villager, his evidence has no substance.P.W.11 is the Village Administrative Officer, he was the witness to theconfession statement of the first accused and recovery of M.O.2 cycle andM.O.3 knife.His evidence has no substance.P.W.13 is the Head Constable attached to the respondent police station.Hesubmitted the first information report to the Judicial Magistrate Court.P.W.14 is the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai, on receipt of the memofrom the hospital on 07.03.2007, at about 4.35 a.m., he proceeded to theGovernment General Hospital, Madurai, after being satisfied that the deceasedwas in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration and after obtainednecessary certificate from the Doctor, he recorded the dying declaration ofthe deceased.P.W.15 is the Doctor working in the Government General Hospital, Madurai.He conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave postmortem certificate [Ex.P8].P.W.16 is the Doctorworking in the Government Hospital, Dindigul.He admitted the deceased in theHospital and issued accident register, then he referred the deceased to theGovernment General Hospital, Madurai.P.W.17 is the Assistant Directorworking in the Forensic Lab Department.He examined the blood strainedmaterial objects and given serology report Ex.P.W.18 is the HeadConstable attached to the respondent police station.On receipt of the memofrom the Hospital, he recorded the statement of the deceased in the hospital,registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2007, for the offence under Section 341and 307 IPC, prepared first information report, sent the same to the JudicialMagistrate Court, and copies of the same to the higher officials.P.W.19 isthe Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station.Heconducted investigation, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch,arrested the accused, recovered the material objects, examined the witnessesand recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he laidcharge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false, the accused did notexamined any witness and did not mark any documents.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convictedand sentenced the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused filed the presentappeal.We have heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the recordscarefully.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit thatthere was no eye witness to the occurrence.Apart from that theprosecution mainly relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased.Evenin the dying declarations, there are material contradictions, it cannot betrue and voluntary, and it is highly unsafe to rely upon the same to convictthe accused.Hence, he sought for allowing this appeal.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe State would submit that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they wentto the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, and the deceasedtold them that the accused attacked him with knife.At that time, P.W.3, theson of the deceased was also present in the scene of occurrence, and he wasan eye witness to the occurrence.Apart from that P.W.14, the JudicialMagistrate No.III, Madurai recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, inwhich, the deceased has clearly implicated the accused.Hence, there is noreason to disbelieve the dying declaration and the prosecution has clearlyestablish the guilt of the accused and he sought for dismissal of thisappeal.I have considered the rival submission.The deceased and appellant are belongs to the same village andthey have a previous enmity.P.W.9 is the Village Head Man.He spoke aboutthe village meeting conducted some time prior to the occurrence, in which,the accused had quarrelled with the deceased for allegedly giving falseevidence in a criminal case.P.W.3 is son and P.W.4 is the wife of thedeceased.They also spoke about the motive, and previous enmity between the accused and deceased regarding giving false evidence in a criminal case.From their evidence, the prosecution has established that there was aprevious enmity between the accused and deceased and it was the motive forthe occurrence.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that at the time of occurrence,they went to answer the natures call, at that time heard the noise of thedeceased, immediately, they rushed to the scene of occurrence, they saw twopersons running from the scene of occurrence, but they could not identifythem.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased told them that the accused attacked him with knife and ran away.P.W.3 is the son of the deceased.Eventhough, he claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but his presence inthe scene of occurrence is doubtful, according to P.Ws.1 and 2 after theoccurrence P.Ws.1 and 2 only went to the scene of occurrence and P.W.1 told P.W.2 to bring P.W.4 the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 alone took P.W.4 to the scene of occurrence and thereafter all of them took the deceased to theGovernment Hospital, Dindigul and further stated that except P.W.1 and P.W.2nobody else there.In the above circumstances, P.W.3 could not be an eyewitness to the occurrence.The another important circumstance in this case is the dyingdeclaration of the deceased.There are three dying declarations in this case.The first dying declaration was given before the Doctor, P.W.16, atGovernment Hospital, Dindigul.According to him, on 07.03.2007 at about 1.00a.m., the deceased was brought to the Hospital and he was conscious.At thattime, the deceased told him that a known persons attacked him at about 11.00p.m., Then, he referred the deceased to the Government General Hospital,Madurai, where, the deceased was admitted and based on the memo received from the Government General Hospital, Madurai, P.W.14, the learned JudicialMagistrate No.III, Madurai, went to the Hospital on 07.03.2007 at about 4.35a.m., and after being satisfied that the deceased was conscious and in a fitstate of mind to give dying declaration and after obtained necessarycertificate from the Doctor putting necessary question to ascertain that thedeceased was in fit state of mind, he recorded the dying declaration of thedeceased, in which, the deceased has stated that on 06.03.2007 at about 10.30p.m., while the deceased was irrigating his land, the accused attacked himwith knife on the chest, head, hands and hip, the above dying declaration wasmarked as Ex.On all the above dying declarations, the deceased hadconsistently implicated the accused.Even though there are some minor inconsistency in the dying declaration, in all three dying declarations, thedeceased has clearly implicated the accused.So far as the dying declarationgiven before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai is concerned,the learned Judicial Magistrate after being fully satisfied that the deceasedwas conscious and in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration and afterobtained necessary certificate from the Doctor recorded the dying declarationof the deceased.Hence, the dying declaration given before the learnedJudicial Magistrate stands in higher footing and there is no reason todisbelieve the same.So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for theappellant that there are lot of inconsistency in the dying declaration, thefirst dying declaration was given before P.W.16 the Doctor, the deceased saidthat a known person attacked him, then P.W.16 also issued accident register.In the accident register, it has been mentioned that a known person attackedhim on 06.03.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., Then, the next dying declaration givenbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate on 07.03.2007 at about 4.35 a.m.,wherein, the deceased told him that at about 11.00 p.m., while he wasirrigating his land near Iyer Garden, P.Ws.1 and 2 also irrigating theirland, P.W.2 brought Idly for dinner and while he was taking dinner, the firstaccused attacked him with knife.Wherein he has stated that on 06.03.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., while he waswent to the Iyer Garden to answer the natures call, at that time A-1 and A-2came there, A-1 attacked him with knife and both the accused ran away.Eventhough some inconsistency in the dying declarations, but, in all three dyingdeclarations, deceased has clearly implicated the accused.The incompatibility in the dying declarations Exts.It is settled principal law that the dying declaration can be thesole basis for convicting the accused provided it is genuine, voluntary,consistent and untutored.In the above circumstances, in all the three dyingdeclarations, the deceased clearly implicated the accused.In the abovecircumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has clearlyestablished the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, hence theappeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.In the result, this appeal is dismissed.The conviction andsentence passed in S.C.No.124 of 2011 by the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, Dindigul stands confirmed.The trial Court is directed totake appropriate steps to secure the accused and commit him to prison so asto serve the remaining period of sentence imposed on him.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.2.The Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.. | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
4,604,925 | 1 C.R.R. 2921 of 2019 2020 In the matter of: Biswajit Karmakar ...petitioner Mr. Soumik Ganguly ..for the petitioner The petitioner being the brother of the opposite party no.2 has preferred the present revisional application praying for quashing of the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 500 of 2018 arising out of Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 98 of 2018 dated August 19, 2018 under Sections 448/323/354A/354/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and considering the materials placed on record, the petitioner is directed to serve the copies of the present application along with all annexed documents to the opposite party no.1, i.e. the State of West Bengal though office of the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta and to the opposite party no.2 by speed post with A/D. within one week from date and to file affidavit of service within two weeks from date.Let this matter appear under the same heading two weeks hence.(Madhumati Mitra, J.) | ['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,052,713 | The land of deceased Hanumant is within the revenue boundaries of village Aswal-Amba.The said land is towards the side of village Mandekhel.Hence, the Hanumant [deceased] and the informant Gawalanbai started residing at ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.The brothers of deceased Hanumant viz. Ramkishan and Vithal [PW-1] are residing in their field at Aswal- Amba.The land of brother of Gawalanbai [PW-3] viz. Angad [PW-7] is within the limits of village Aswal-Amba.The land of Angad [PW-7] and land of the deceased Hanumant were jointly cultivated by them.The deceased Hanumant has taken part in the said transaction and helped Angad [PW-7] for purchasing the said land.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::However, as the deceased Hanumant has taken leading part for purchasing the said land by Angad [PW-7], the accused no.4 Janardhan and his sons were giving threat of ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 4 killing to the deceased Hanumant.Accused no. 4 Janardhan, accused no.1 Vyankati and accused no.2 Bankati were always asking deceased Hanumant to sell the said land [from Gat No.31] to them, otherwise they threatened to kill him.However, the deceased Hanumant and Angad [PW-7], were not ready to sell the said land to the accused.On 23th July, 1999, the informant Gawalanbai [PW-3], her husband Hanumant [deceased] and her brother Angad [PW-7] went to the said land bearing Gat No.31 along with bullocks and agricultural implements.Angad [PW-7] asked Hanumant [deceased] to do the agricultural operation in the field and that he will bring seed from the Parli.At about 10.00 a.m. Angad [PW-7] left the field.The Hanumant [deceased] was doing the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 5 agricultural operation in the field.They asked Hanumant [deceased] that why he is doing the agricultural operations in the said field as they asked him to give the land to them.Accused nos.1 and 2 started giving abuses to Hanumant, the deceased.Then exchange of words was going on between them.The informant Gawalanbai tried to intervene by saying not to give abuses.361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 6 5] came running there.Though the accused beat Hanumant severely, informant Gawalanbai tried to intervene by saying not to beat and also made hue and cry.Accused no.6 Kausabai and accused no.5 Parwatibai beat informant Gawalanbai and her husband Hanumant by means of kicks and fist blows.Because of beating Hanumant became unconscious.His left leg was fractured.By ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.By seeing them and as Hanumant became unconscious, the assailants ran away.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Hanumant was carried to Ambajogai by informant Gawalanbai and her brother and son of her brother at Ambajogai.They went to Ambajogai Police Station.By taking Yadi from the Police, Hanumant was carried to S.R.T.R. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai.He was admitted in the Hospital.On 24th July, 1999, at 3.00 a.m., Hanumant died in the Hospital.He also denied suggestion that injury no.6 mentioned in column no.17 of P.M. notes at Exh.68 is not possible by bullock cart accident.He further stated that the description of each injury is suggestive of age of injury.He further stated that article no.8 is not having smooth surface.He further stated that there was no wheel mark on those injuries.Appeal.odt 18 Gawalanbai [PW-3] in her evidence stated that Prabhu, Vithal, Ramkishan are the brothers of her husband.Since 10 years prior to the incident, her husband and brothers of her husband were residing separately.The lands at Mandikhel and Aswal-Amba were given to the share of her husband.Her parents are from Mandikhel.At the time of incident, she herself and her husband were residing at Mandikhel.Her husband helped her brother for purchasing the said land by offering more money.The said land was purchased one year prior to the said incident.Her brother and her husband were jointly cultivating the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 19 said land namely Paisa.Janardhan Dhakne, Vyankati Dhakne, Bankati Dhakne and Maruti Dhakne were giving threat to her husband as they could not purchase the said land.The accused persons were giving threat of killing to her husband.She further stated that on Friday she herself, her husband Hanumant, her brother Angad, and her son Dipak had been to the said field namely Paisa.They reached in the field at about 9.30 a.m. Her husband started agricultural operation, and her brother Angad went to the Parali for bringing seed.Accused Vyankati gave an axe blow on the right leg of her husband.Accused Maruti beat her husband by means of wooden, instrument 'Rumne' on chest and leg.The accused Janardhan beat her husband by means of stick on the hands when he raised his hands.The accused Kausabai caught hold her hair, and accused Parwatibai beat her by means of feet, and also beat her husband.She asked her son Dipak to go to the house and call her brother.Her son Dipak went to the house.Her brothers Ankush and ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 21 Bibhishan came running to the spot.After arrival of her brothers, the accused persons ran away.Her husband sustained bleeding injuries on head, neck and also on leg.She wrapped towel over injuries of her husband.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::She further stated that son of her brother, namely Rajabhau, brought bullock cart.Then her husband was carried in the said bullock cart up to the road.She herself and her brothers accompanied her husband in the said bullock cart.From the road, they carried her husband in auto rickshaw in Ambajogai Police Station.From the Police Station along with Yadi, her husband was carried to the Government Hospital.Her husband was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ambajogai.At about 3.00 a.m. her husband died in the Hospital.It appears that the suggestion was given to her in the cross examination that her husband i.e. Hanumant, was involved in the money lending business, and the land from Gat No.31, namely Paisa, was purchased by her husband as a money lender; but the said land was purchased in the name of Angad i.e. her brother.The suggestion was also given to her that while executing transaction of the aforesaid land, it was agreed to return the said land after repayment of money.It appears that the suggestion was given that, whether Bankati signed the said sale deed as ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 23 witness.She also admitted that her husband Hanumant had filed the suit against the said Keshav, his wife and daughter in respect of the land, and the said suit was dismissed.There was also suggestion given that she purchased one land from Shrimant Kerba and that land was again returned to him, however, the said suggestion was denied by her.There was also suggestion given to her that whether her husband deceased Hanumant has purchased two lands from Jema Tukaram and then those lands were returned, however, the said suggestion was also denied by her.It appears that further suggestion was given that her husband has obtained sale deeds from Lahudas and Ankush and then re- conveyed the said lands to them, however, the said suggestion was denied by her.She further stated that while lodging the complaint, she stated before the police that her son Dipak accompanied them to the field on the date of incident, but she cannot assign any reason why the said information is not appearing in the FIR.She stated that nobody was there in the adjoining land at the time of incident.She shouted, but lady accused caught hold her.She further stated that till her brother came in the field, the accused persons were beating them.The lady accused caught hold her hair, and beat her and did not allow her to intervene.She was beaten on her back by means of kick and fist blows.She fell on the ground.As she fell on the ground, there were some abrasions on her back.As her husband sustained serious injuries and died, she did not medically examine herself.She denied ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 26 suggestion that there were houses of Bankati and Rajaram Wahule in the field, and they are residing there along with their families.She further stated that they did not inform the Police Patil about the incident.They went to the Police Station and from Police Station, they went to the Hospital.She further stated that she herself, her brothers Ankush and Bibhishan, and son of Ankush namely Rajabhau accompanied her to the Police Station while carrying her husband and Angad came afterwards.The incident was narrated by her to the Doctor.Her husband was admitted in the Hospital in between 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. She denied suggestion that due to quarrel between her husband and Bankati on the count of return of the field, false case was lodged against the accused.She denied suggestion that her husband had obtained sale deeds from so many persons under money lending transactions and that's why there were so ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 27 many enemies to her husband.She also stated details about the names of the adjoining land owners.She stated that at the time of incident, sowing and other operations were going on in the fields.She stated that while lodging the FIR, she stated before the Police that Vyankati and Bankati asked her husband for re-conveyance, and her husband told that Angad will not execute the re-conveyance deed.However, she denied that the aforementioned version was not stated by her in the complaint/FIR.She further stated that her brother was with her since her husband was admitted in the Hospital till cremation.In his evidence, he stated that name of his mother is Gawlanbai.He was calling his father as Pappa.On the day of incident, he was in the field.Appeal.odt 30 father and mother were with him on that day.His father was doing agricultural operation in the field.His mother was also doing work in the field.Then he went to their house.He told to Biban and Ankush and Rajabhau.He told that Rajabhau is called with bullock cart.Then Ankush, Bibhishan came to the field and Rajabhau came in the field with bullock cart.Those assailants are present today in the Court.Appeal.odt 31 There is one teacher to them.The name of his teacher is Jogdand.He himself was alone playing in the field.He went to the field along with his parents.When the assailants were beating his father, his mother was near the said spot.Yankya, Bankya used to visit their house and hence he knows them.He has seen them at his house once.Nobody introduced them with him.Janya and Marutya were also visiting his house and hence he knew them.They visited their house for 2-3 times.Except those persons, nobody from Aswal-Amba used to visit their house.He is not acquainted with owners of adjacent fields.His mother had collected 2-3 pots residues of grass.The assailants beat his father and went away and then his father asked him to bring bullock cart.Ankush, Biban and Rajabhau were at their house.He cannot assign reason why that is not appearing in his statement.Nobody told him about Janya and Martya.He knows them.He is afraid of his mother if he has not stated properly here.He denied suggestion that he is deposing on the say of his mother that Janya, Vyankya, ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 34 Bankya and Martya beat his father.He denied suggestion that on the say of his mother and his maternal uncle, he is deposing false.He denied suggestion that on that day he did not go in his field and no accused beat his father in his presence.Reserved on : 06.07.2017 Pronounced on : 19.07.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 2 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:one Gawalanbai Hanumant Dhakne [PW-3], the informant, married with Hanumant Dhakne [deceased].The deceased Hanumant was residing at village Aswal-Amba.The parents of Gawalanbai [PW-3], the informant, are residing at village Mandekhel.Hence, the accused were having grudge against the deceased Hanumant.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Gawalanbai [PW-3] was collecting the grass in the field.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::At that time, Janardhan Hariba Dhakne [accused no.4], Maroti Rama Gutthe [accused no.3], Kausabai Bankati Dhakne [accused no.6] and Parwatibai alias Nanagabai Vyankati Dhakne [accused no.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Janardhan, the accused no.4 was having stick in his hand.Vyankati, the accused no.1 and Bankati, the accused no. 2 were having axe in their hands.Janardhan, the accused no.4 asked other accused to kill Hanumant, the deceased.Then Vyankati, the accused no.1 and Bankati, the accused no.2 beat Hanumant, the deceased by means of sharp edge of axe on his head and right leg.Janardhan, accused no.3 beat by means of a part of agricultural implement viz. 'Rumne'.Gawalanbai the informant went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report [in short 'FIR'] against the accused persons.On the basis of the said FIR, crime was registered as Crime No. 203/1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 302 of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 8 Indian Penal Code.During investigation, inquest panchnama and spot panchnama were recorded.The statements of witnesses were recorded.The accused persons were arrested.The dead body was sent for postmortem.The postmortem report was collected.The stick and axe were discovered at the instance of the accused.The seized articles and clothes of the deceased were sent to C.A. Viscera and blood sample were sent to C.A. After analysis by the C.A. certificates were collected by his office.After completion of an investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 447 of the IPC in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambajogai.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::361.2001 Cri.In Sessions Case, the trial Court framed the charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149 with 302 and 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC.The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence of the accused persons was of total denial.After full-fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the appellants - accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 with 302 of the IPC and 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC.Therefore, this appeal against acquittal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court are not in consonance with the evidence brought on record.There are two eye witnesses to the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 10 alleged incident.The trial Court has not properly considered the evidence of the two eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence.Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- accused invites our attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court, and submits that those are in consonance with the evidence brought on record.He also invites our attention to the contradictions, omissions and improvements from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.It is submitted that PW-4, Bibhshan Palwade, has stated in his deposition that when he reached to the spot of incident, the deceased informed him that he was beaten by the accused persons.However, the informant has stated in the FIR that the deceased had became unconscious ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 11 immediately after attack on him.PW-4, Bibhishan, had reached the spot of incident when he was reported about the said incident by PW-6 Dipak, who rushed from the spot of incident to the house of PW-4 Bibhishan, seeking his aid.Considering time which would have been required for PW-6 Dipak to reach the house of PW-4 Bibhishan and the time which would have been required for PW-4 Bibhishan to arrive at the spot of incident, the deposition either of respondent no.3 or of respondent no.4 is absolutely false regarding consciousness of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::It is further submitted that PW-7, Angad, brother of informant, has admitted that the deceased was engaged in many land transactions, which would indicate that the deceased was engaged in money lending business.PW-8 Shankar Gore and PW-9 Dipak Surwase did not support the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 12 Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed.We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned APP appearing for the appellant-State, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.With their able assistance, perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the medical evidence, and also the findings recorded by the trial Court.The prosecution examined Dr.Satyanarayan Kistayya Goli as PW-11, who was working as Associate Professor in the Forensic Department of Medical College, Ambajogai, so as prove that the death of Hanumant was homicidal.In his deposition, he stated that on 24th July, 1999, he received the dead body of Hanumant Nivrutti Dhakne.On the very same day, since 12.40 p.m. to 1.40 p.m. he performed the postmortem, and ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 13 noticed the following injuries on the dead body:::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Stitched wound over parietal region Rt.side 2½" long with under scalp contusion, reddish-bluish.Swelling with abrasion over Rt.hand dorsum extending to Rt. wrist, 3" x ½", reddish dried [fracture 3rd x 5th metacarpals seen].Swelling with abrasion over Lt. hand dorsum, 3"x1", reddish dried.Abrasion over Lt. hand thumb [dorsum] 1" x ½" with C.L.W. over thumb pulp 1½" x 1/8", reddish.C.L.W. over Lt. shin, lower 1/3rd, 1 ½" x 1/8", margins irregular and bloodstained, with fracture tibia fibula, comminuted with haematoma [underneath]C.L.W. over Rt.calf region, lateral aspect lower 1/3, 1" x 1/4", margins ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 14 irregular, with fracture fibula, lower 1/3rd, comminuted.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Abrasion over Rt.knee joint, anterior aspect, 1" x ½", reddish- dried [fracture lateral condyle with joint effusion].9. Abrasion over Lt. knee joint, anterior aspect, 2" x ½", reddish dried.Abrasion over back, Lt. side, subscapular region, and scapular region, 2" x 1" and 2" x ¾" respectively, reddish dried.Evidence of drainage fuses over Rt.ICD-6th inter costly space and Ltd. ICD 6th ICS.All above injures were ante mortem.On internal examination of head, he noticed contusion under the scalp over right parietal region, 3"x2", reddish-bluish.The brain showed contusion over left parietal and temporal region, 3" x ½" x 1/8", reddish with ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 15 central necrosis.On internal examination of thorax, he noticed fracture of ribs No.2, 3, 4, 5 left side and no.2 on right side Right lung showed collapse of upper lobe, left lung and left lower lobe showed contusion 1" x ½" reddish.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::He further stated that the cause of death was head injury in the form of brain contusion, associated with fracture tibia- fibula [Lt.], fracture fibula [Rt.], fracture ribis Lt. fracture fibula [Rt.], fracture ribs [Lt.side], fracture metacarpals [Rt. side], injury to right knee.The afore-mentioned injuries are also possible by an axe [article no.9], if hit by blunt end.He further stated ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 16 that the injuries are also possible by article no.4 and 8 before the Court.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::During his cross examination, he stated that injury no.1 mentioned in column no.17 of P.M. notes [Exh.68] along with corresponding internal injury to brain is the main cause of death.He specifically stated that no injury was found on the dead body caused by sharp edge of the axe.Injury no.1 shown in column no.17 of Exh.68 is possible because of fall from the bullock cart in case of accident.However, he denied suggestion that injury no.1 is possible only by fall.He further stated that injury mentioned in column no.20 of P.M. notes Exh.68 as fracture to ribs is possible by means of violent external cardiac massage.He further stated that there is no external injury over chest corresponding to injury of fracture of ribs, there are injuries on back ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 17 and possibility of those injuries as corresponding injuries to fracture of ribs cannot be ruled out.Injury nos.2 to 11 except injury no.6 mentioned in column no.17 of P.M. notes [Exh.68] are possible in a bullock cart accident.However, he voluntarily stated that injury no.11 in column no.17 is surgical injury.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::According to the prosecution, Gawalanbai [PW-3] wife of Hanumant [deceased] and Dipak [PW-6] son of the Hanumant [deceased] have witnessed the incident.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::361.2001 Cri.Her brother-in-law Ramkishan and Vithal were residing in the field at the time of incident.Her brother Angad purchased the land namely 'Paisa' from Vishwanath Wahule.She further stated that the accused Janardhan Dhakne was to purchase the said land.The said land namely Paisa is near the land of accused, and from the field of the accused, the said land can be irrigated.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::At about 11.00 a.m. accused Vyankati and Bankati came in the said field.The accused Vyankati and Bankati asked her husband to give the said land to them, and ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 20 asked to that effect even to Angad.Her husband refused to give the said land to them.Then accused Vyankati and Bankati started giving abuses.Her husband also gave abuses to them.Then the accused Janardhan, Maruti Kute, Parwatibai, Kausabai came to the said field and Janardhan asked the other accused to beat Hanumant.Then the accused Bankati gave a blow of an axe on the head of her husband, also on neck.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Then, she lodged the complaint / FIR.She put her thumb impression on the said Complaint/FIR.She ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 22 further stated that she can identify axe, stick and Rumne used in the commission of offence by the accused, and accordingly, she stated that article nos.4, 8 and 9 are the same by which her husband was beaten.She also identified the accused who were present in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Further suggestion was given that Vishwanath was insisting for return of the land on repayment of money to her husband, and the accused Bankati was also asked her husband to return the land of Vishwanath, and on refusal of returning the land, there was quarrel between her husband and Bankati.However, Gawalanbai [PW-3] denied the said suggestions given by the defence counsel.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::It further appears that the suggestion was given by the defence that Keshav Bhaurao Kedar of Mandekhel had filed complaint against her, her husband, her brothers Angad, Ankush and others.She stated that 2-3 times threats were given by the accused to her husband, however, Hanumant did not lodge any complaint about giving such ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 25 threats.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::She is not able to remember the Gut number of the land, and the date on which the land was purchased in the name of Angad.The incident had taken place at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. Before her husband was carried to the Hospital from the Police, the information about the incident was given by her to the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 28 Police.Again on the next day, she visited the Police Station.She further stated that while lodging the FIR, she stated that Janardhan Dhakne, Vyankati Dhakne, Maruti Gutthe, Bankati Dhakne were giving threats to her husband for not purchasing the land, and that land was purchased by her husband by giving more money.She further narrated before the Police that the said land is near the land of accused.However, she cannot assign any reason why the afore-mentioned version is not appearing in her statement before the police.She further stated that while lodging the FIR, she stated before the Police that Maruti beat by means of 'Rumne' on the chest, and leg.However, she cannot assign any reason why the said version is not appearing in her complaint / FIR.She further stated that she did not state while lodging the complaint that, Janardhan beat her husband by means of stick on his hand when he ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 29 raised his hand.She further stated that she wrapped towel on the wound of her husband.She further stated that she stated in the complaint that she was beaten by Kaushalyabai by holding her hair.She cannot tell any reason why the said statement is not appearing in her complaint/FIR.She cannot remember whether her husband or brother purchased the land of Shriram Dhakne from Gat No.30 and whether her husband or brother were cultivating the said land.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::His ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.He was playing in the field.Vyankya, Bankya, Janya and Marutya came to the field and beat his father.They beat his father by means of sticks, axe and Rumne.The assailant did not talk anything.His father was beaten on the chest, head and legs.His father asked him to call maternal uncle with bullock cart.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::During his cross examination, he stated that his school is up to the 4th standard.There are four rooms in his school.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::361.2001 Cri.He went towards the house and he was crying.Nobody met him when he went towards his ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 32 house.Then he returned to the field with Bibhan, Ankush and Rajabhau.He accompanied his father to the Hospital.His statement was recorded by the Police.He has not stated before the Police about any talk between his father and assailants.Portion marked 'A' from his police statement now read over to him is not correct.He has not stated so before the Police.It is true that he attended the Court on every date.He is seeing the accused persons on every date.His mother and maternal uncle also used to visit every date along with him.He denied suggestion that his mother and maternal uncle used to tell him who is Janya, Marutya, witness added that he knows them.He denied suggestion that on every date his mother and maternal uncle used to say him how he should give evidence in the Court.He denied suggestion that he did not go to the field on day of incident and he does not know about ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 33 the incident.He denied suggestion that on the say of his mother and maternal uncle he is deposing in the Court.His uncle Vithal has three children.Vithal is residing at Aswalamba.Soni, Parwati and Santosh are the names of children of his uncle.His anotehr uncle Ramkishan is also residing at Aswalamba.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::22. PW-6 further stated in his cross examination that it is true that his mother used to teach him how to behave.His mother used to scold him if behaved improperly.He has stated before the Police that Janya and Martya beat his father.He denied suggestion that his father did not ask him to go and bring bullock cart.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::We have discussed the evidence of two eye witnesses, namely, PW-3 Gawalanbai and PW-6 Dipak.Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-3 Gawalanbai, after incident she took her husband to the Police Station.Her brothers accompanied her and from the Police Station they went to the Hospital.The prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 35 FIR, and in the present case, when PW-3 Gawalanbai took her husband Hanumant first to the Police Station and thereafter to the Hospital, there was no reason for not promptly lodging the FIR.PW-3, Gawalanbai, has not mentioned the presence of PW-6 Dipak in the FIR.However, first time, she has stated before the Court during her evidence that PW-6 Dipak was present in the field, and he was asked to rush to the house and to call brothers of the informant.Therefore, afore- mentioned version is an improvement by way of omission.She has also stated in her complaint/FIR that the deceased became unconscious on the spot after attack by the accused persons, however, PW-4, Bibhishan, who is brother of the informant, who allegedly reached to the spot after incident, has deposed before the Court that the deceased has told him that accused Janardhan, Vyankati and Bankati beaten him.The said ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 36 version of PW-4 Bibhishan is contrary to the version of PW-3 Gawalanbai.If the evidence of PW-3 Gawalanbai is perused carefully, she stated that she was also beaten by the accused, however, there is no any injury certificate brought on record by the prosecution to that effect.Though she stated in her evidence that accused Bankati gave a blow of an axe on the head of her husband, and also on neck.However, the PW-11 Dr.Goli, Medical Officer stated that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report are possible by hard and blunt object.He further stated that the injuries are also possible by an axe if hit by blunt end.He stated that injury no.1 mentioned in column no.17 of the postmortem notes along with corresponding internal injury to brain is the main cause of death.He specifically stated that no injury was found on the dead body caused by the sharp edge of the axe.He further stated that ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 37 injury no.1 is possible because of fall from the bullock cart in case of accident.Therefore, the medical evidence does not correspondent with the version of the PW-3 Gawalanbai that accused Bankati gave a blow of an axe on the head from sharp side of the axe.They carried Hanumant [deceased] by bullock cart first to the Police.PW-3, Gawalanbai, stated in her evidence that when Hanumant [deceased] sustained injuries to his head, she wrapped towel on his head.However, the said towel was not sent to the C.A. On perusal of her cross examination, it appears that, suggestion was given by the defence that Hanumant [deceased] was indulged in money lending business, and he purchased the land of various persons out of such money lending business, and therefore, many persons had enmity with him.It appears that, the said suggestion was denied.However, she admitted that one Keshav Bhaurao Kedar, ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 38 resident of village Mandekhel had filed complaint / FIR against her, her husband, her brothers Angad and Ankush and in the said case, they were convicted by the Court.She also admitted that her husband Hanumant had filed the suit against said Keshav, his wife and daughter in respect of the land dispute, however, the said suit was dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::Upon careful perusal of her deposition, it clearly emerges that she made considerable improvements in her evidence before the Court by way of omissions.She deposed that the land, about which dispute arose between the accused and her husband, is near to the land of the accused.However, she cannot assigned any reason why the afore- mentioned version is not appearing in her statement before the Police.Though she stated before the Police that Maruti beat by means of Rumne on the chest, and leg.She ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 39 cannot assign any reason why the said version is not appearing in her complaint / FIR.She further stated that she did not state while lodging the complaint that, Janardhan beat her husband by means of stick on his hand when he raised his hand.She further stated that she wrapped towel on the wound of her husband.and further while lodging the FIR, the son of her brother namely Rajabhau brought bullock cart.However, she cannot assign any reason why the said portion is not appearing in her complaint / FIR.She further stated that she stated in the complaint that she was beaten by Kaushalyabai by holding her hair.She cannot tell any reason why the said statement is not appearing in her complaint/FIR.However, upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-10, Investigating Officer, he stated that the contents of the FIR were written down as it is, as narrated by the PW-3 Gawalanbai.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::361.2001 Cri.Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-6 Dipak, it appears that during recording of the evidence, he referred all the accused by first name.However, he stated that, nobody told him their names.As a matter of fact his age was 4½ years when the alleged incident had taken place.As already observed, PW-3, Gawalanbai, did not mention in the FIR that PW-6 Dipak was present at the time of incident.Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW-3 Gawalanbai and PW-6 Dipak, same creates serious doubt about their physical presence at the time of alleged incident.Upon considering the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses in its entirety, an involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incident appears to be doubtful.We have carefully perused the findings recorded ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 41 by the trial Court, and we are of the considered view that those are in consonance with the evidence brought on record.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::The approach of the appellate Court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu Vs.State, AIR 1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807, Aher Raja Khima Vs.State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh Vs.State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G.Agarwal Vs.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor Khan Vs.State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286, Khedu Mohton Vs.State of Bihar,1. 2014 [4] Mh.L.J.[Cri.] 353::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.Appeal.odt 42 [1970] 2 SCC 450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs.State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793, Lekha Yadav Vs.State of Bihar, [1973] 2 SCC 424, Khem Karan Vs.State of U.P., [1974] 4 SCC 603, Bishan Singh Vs.State of Punjab, [1974] 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs.Sate of Gujarat, [1978] 1 SCC 228, K.Gopal Reddy Vs.State of A.P., [1979] 1 SCC 355, Tota Singh Vs.State of Punjab, [1987] 2 SCC 529, Ram Kumar Vs.State of Haryana, 1995 Supp [1] SCC 248, Madan Lal Vs.State of J & K, [1997] 7 SCC 677, Sambasivan Vs.Sanjay Thakran, [2007] 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa Vs.State of ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: 361.2001 Cri.It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 :::[Underlines supplied]In the light of above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, hence appeal stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:53 ::: | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,059,748 | on 21.3.2013 in connection with Raghunathganj P.S. Case No. 189 of 2013 dated 18.3.2013 under Sections 143/186/109/113/114/332/333/353/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee ...For the petitioners Mr. Arun Kr.Roy ... For the State We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) 2 ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J. ) | ['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,061,868 | Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the applicant.Shri D.K. Paroha, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.Previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.The applicant is in custody since 7.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.265/2014 registered at P.S. Palera, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged against this applicant that co-accused Mahesh had assaulted the complainant by using an Axe and the present applicant Santosh @ Santu and co-accused Lachhi had assaulted the complainant by using knife.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.C. No. 819/2015 and thereafter similarly placed co-accused Mahesh and Lachhi have already been released on bail by the trial Court.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case along with the parity with the co-accused persons, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI) | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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. |
46,063,503 | This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Mani @ Manikandan, aged about 22 years, son of Elumalai, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1188/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 09.09.2014, passed by the second Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.T.V.Somasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by order of the High Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 in connection with R7 KK Nagar Police Station Cr.No.301/2009 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC and in Crl.MP.No.12888/2011 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chennai in connection with P4 Basin Bridge Police Station Cr.No.1025/2011 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 392 r/w 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
46,064,435 | Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.10.2018 and summoning order dated 22.12.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 4492 of 2018 (State Vs.Vishnu Gupta), arising out of Case Crime No. 0689 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Gate, Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judical Magistrate, Hathras.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the F.I.R. has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations on 12.09.2017 by Block Education Officer, Ramanpur, District Hathras, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&R) Hathras that the applicants were indulged in raising fake bills with regard to the vehicle services and had gained a sum of Rs.3,08,593/- in connivance with the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras and as such, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the directions issued by the District Magistrate.Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. submits that after submission of charge sheet the applicants have been summoned by order dated 22.12.2018 and the court below while summoning the applicants has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial.It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants.The court below has summoned the applicants through a printed order, which is wholly illegal.It has been further submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2018 is not a judicial order as it has been passed on a printed proforma without recording any reasons in support of satisfaction for taking cognizance against the applicants and merely the case, Section, date of the order and date of the summon have been filled.It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the applicants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.State of U.P. And 4 others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 11232 of 2018 Avdhesh Vs.State of U.P. And Another reported in [2019(6) ADJ 667] Dushyant Kumar Vs.State of U.P. And Others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 7206 of 2020 Ashu Rawat Vs.State of U.P. And Another passed in Application U/s 482 No. 13883 of 2020 Rishipal & others Vs.Accordingly, the present criminal misc. | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,567,656 | The reason for repeating the prayer is compromise between the parties.The compromise is yet to be submitted before the trial Court.Looking to the unprecedented circumstances due to spread of Covid-19, with consent of the parties, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the trial Court to consider the bail application of the appellant to be filed before it in the wake of compromise afresh without getting influence of withdrawal of the first appeal of the appellant before this Court.The trial Court shall be free to pass an order on merits in accordance with law.With the aforesaid, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84322bb579 7cf28ee60671538b737cf52962d84d Dalai 7b527897e53ac, cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.08.13 10:36:21 +05'30' | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,105,703 | (1) The four appellants, namely, Kashmiri Lai, Ravinder Kumar, Mahmohan Raiand Moot Chand were charged and tried along with the co-accused ChancierPrakash for offences punishable under Sections 303, 307, 326, 452 read withSection 149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in SessionsCase No. 30 of 1978 (Trial No. 9 of 1978), who by his judgment dated llthMay, 1978 acquitted the co-accused Chander Prakash, but convicted andsentenced the four appellants herein as under :Name of the Accused Section(s) SentenceKashmiri Lal 326/34 IPC R.I. for 5 years ami a fine of Rs, 300, indefault of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.323 IPC R.I. for three months.452 IPC R.L for two years All the sentences to run concurrently.Ravinder Kumar 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 200,in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.452 IPC RI, for two years.All the sentences to not concumntfy.(4) The prosecution case was that on the aforesaid date and time, the fourappellants along with the acquitted accused Chander Prakash were attemptingto break open the look of the room in ground floor which was in possessionof Krishan Lal, P.W. 14 and, therefore, the deceased Gurbachan Singhdirected his son Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, to go and inform Krishan Lalabout the same.It was alleged that when Manmohan Lal, P.W. 12, came downand was in the courtyard of the ground floor, the appellant No. 1 KashmiriLal armed with an axe, appellant No. 4, Mool Chand armed with a Sua,appellant No. 2 Ravinder Kumar armed with a Sua and appellant No. 3,Manmohan Rai armed with a knife and the acquitted accused Chander Prakasharmed with a hammer were seen there, when the appellant Kashmiri Lal issaid to have raised a Lalkara that Manmohan Singh should not be allowed toescape.Thereupon, Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, was assaulted by theappellants.On sustaining the injuries Manmohan Singh ran back to the firstfloor but the appellants as well as the acquitted accused chased him up tothe first floor where the appellant Kashmiri Lal inflicted an axe blow onthe head of Gurbachan Singh, as a result of which he fell down.Thereafter,the appellant Mool Chand inflicted repeated Sua blows on his back.WhenMohinder Singh, P.W. 9, came forward to save Gurbachan Singh from furtherassaults, the appellant Mool Chand inflicted Sua blows on his left arm.452 IPC R.I. for two year Both the sentences to run concurrently.Monmohan Rai ! & 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and a fine ofRs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for twomonths.324 IPC R.I. for one year.Mool Chand 302 IPC Imprisonment for life.307 IPC R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.326 IPC R.I. for six years.452 IPC R.I. for two years.All the sentences to run concurrently.(2) The High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1978, decided of 18thDecember, 1979, upheld the conviction and sentences imposed of theappellant Ho. 4, Mool Chand.The High Cowl also upheld the convictions ofthe remaining appellant Nos. 1 to 3 under various counts, as indicatedabove, but reduced the period of their sentences to that alreadyby each of them.In addition the High Court imposed payment of fine of Rs.1,000 of appellant No. 1, Kashmiri Lal, in defauk of payment of fine toundergo further R.I. for six months.(3) Admittedly, the incident had occurred on January 6, 1978 at about 11P.M. is the house belonging to the appellant Kashmiri Lal, the first floorof which was tenanted by him to the deceased Gurbachan Singh.The appellant Kashmiri Lal had initiated eviction proceedingsagainst the deceased Gurbachan Singh, who had also filed a suit forinjunction against the appellant Kashmiri Lal.On hearing the hue and cry the witness GurdevSingh, P.W. 19, and other neighbours rushed to the scene and then theappellants and the acquitted accused went away down the stairs,(5) The injured Gurbachan Singh died on the way when he was being taken tothe Civil Hospital, Ludhiana.The Police, inspector Bua Das, P.W. 21, onreceiving the information, reached the Civil Hospital where he recorded thestatement of Surinder Singh, P.W. 7, at about 1.30 A.M. On 7th January,1978 on the basis of which a report of the incident was lodged in thePolice Station, Ludhiana at 1.45 A.M. Dr. Gurcharan Kaur, P.W, 2, performedan autopsy on the dead body of Gurbachan Singh, who found three laceratedwounds, four punctured wounds on various parts of the body of the deceased,besides a few abrasions.Injury No. 8 a punctured would on the left backwas found chest cavity deep.The pleura was punctured on left side underinjury No. 5 and left lung was also punctured and heart was puncturedthrough and through in left auricle.In the opinion of the Doctor death wasdue to shock and internal haemorrhage as a result of injury to the lung andheart due to injury No. 5 which was individually sufficient in the ordinarycourse of nature to cause death.(6) The injured witness Mohinder Singh, P.W. 8, was also examined by Dr.Ashwani Kumar, P.W. 3 at 7 P.M. On January 7, 1978 who found sevenabrasions of simple nature on his person.The injured Manmohan Singh, P.W.12, was examined by Dr, Anand Prakash, P.W. 4, at 1 A.M. on January 7, 1978and found seven injuries on his person, out of which five were incisedwounds besides one abrasion and a contusion.Dr. Anand Prakash alsoexamined Smt. Kartar Kaur, wife of the deceased at 12.45 A.M. on the samenight and found five incised wounds, two lacerated wounds, three swellingsand two abrasions with pain in abdomen.(7) As said earlier, according to the prosecution case, the complainantparty had also caused injuries to the four appellants in exercise of 'theirright of self-defence, who were medically examined by Dr. AnandPrakash, P.W. 4, on the same night.The appellant Kashmiri Lal hadsustained two lacerated wounds, Mool Chand had sustained five laceratedwounds and four abrasions - three injuries being on his scalp.Theappellant Manmohan Rai had sustained one lacerated wound and one contusionwhile the appellant Ravinder Kumar had also sustained one lacerated woundand one abrasion.According to the appellants, Shashi Prabha, daughter ofthe appellant Kashmiri Lal had also sustained one laberated wound, onecontusion and swelling on the same night.She was also examined by the samedoctor.(8) During the course of investigation, on the disclosure statement madeby the appellant Kashmiri Lal, an axe was seized and on the dis-closurestatement made by the appellant Manmohan Rai a knife was seized.(9) At the trial, the appellants look the plea that at about 9/10 P.M. whenthey were in their courtyard, the deceased Gurbachan Singh and his sonManmohan Singh, P.W. 12, came there armed with slicks and each dealt a blowon head of appellant Kashmiri Lal and when appellant Mool Chand came to hishelp, he was also hit on the head.Mool Chand grappled with Gurbachan Singhand threw him down.The appellant Ravinder Kumar picked up a Thapi lying inthe courtyard and hit Gurbachan Singh with the same on the head and whenManmohan Singh, P.W. 12, turned towards him, then the appellant ManmohanRai, who had brought a small Sua gave a blow on the back of Gurbachan Singhwho lay over the appellant Mool Chand.Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, dealt blowson the head of the appellants Ravinder Kumar and Manmohan Rai and then Smt.Kartar Kaur, wife of the deceased Gurbachan Singh also came down and pickedup the stick and when Shashi Prabha came out of the kitchen to help theappellants, Smt. Kartar Kaur beat her with stick and on seeing this theappellant Manmohan Rai gave Sua blows to Smt. Kartar Kaur, Mohinder andSurinder, sons of the deceased Gurbachan Singh broke open the doors withtheir hockey sticks as well as the shutters.The appellants took thedefence that in fact the incident had taken place in their courtyard andthat the complainant party itself was the aggressor.(10) The trial court on evaluation of the evidence on record rejected theplea of defence that the complainant party was aggressor and that theincident had occurred in the courtyard of the appellants.The trial Courtrecorded the finding that the appellants themselves were aggressors and theincident had occurred up-stairs in the first floor which was in occupationof deceased Gurbachan Singh and his family where the deceased and otherpersons were assaulted by the appellants resulting into the death ofGurbachan Singh.The trial Court also recorded the finding that thecomplainant party had also assaulted the accused persons in exercise oftheir right of self-defence.With these findings, the trial Court, whilegave the benefit of doubt to the co-accused Chander Prakash, but convictedand sentenced the four appellants, as said above, which has been furtherconfirmed by the High Court, against which this appeal has been preferred,(11) The main contention advanced by Shri Lalit, learned senior counselfor the appellants in assailing the concurrent findings recorded by theSessions Court and the High Court are that the very genesis of theprosecution case is extremely doubtful inasmuch as the prosecutiondeliberately shifted the scene of occurrence from the ground floor to thefirst floor with a view Jo confer the right of private defence to thecomplainant party who were themselves aggressors and to deprive theappellants who were the actual victims and were entitled to right ofprivate defence of their person, the incident having been occurred at thedoor-step of the appellants' house in the ground floor.In order tosubstantiate his aforementioned contention and to show that the complainantparty itself was aggressor, the learned counsel strenuously urged that thefollowing facts and circumstances stated herein below indicated that theincident had in fact occurred in the ground floor and not in the firstfloor occupied by the deceased and the complainant party.(i) The genesis of the prosecution case was that the look of the tenantKrishan Lal, P.W. 14, was being broken, but.there is no evidence that thesaid room was occupied by Krishan Lal on the date of occurrence andstrangely enough neither the said, broken lock nor the goods having beenleft in the room, were seized or shown to Krishan Lal(a) Admittedly, Shashi Prabha, daughter of the appellant No. 1 Kashmiri Lalhad sustained injuries and was medically examined by the Doctor the samenight along with the appellants while the prosecution witnesses admittedthat Shashi Prabha did not go up- stairs at all during the course ofoccurrence.(iii) The substantial blood was found in the courtyard of the ground floorand near the staircase in an area of about 2/3 yards.The spectacles ofManmohan Singh, P.W. 12, had also fallen there,(iv) All the appellants had sustained injuries while the appellant No. 4Mool Chand had sustained serious injuries which could not be explained bythe prosecution.(v) The door/shutter in the ground floor in occupation of the appellantswas broken.(12) We have carefully and closely examined the evidence and material onrecord through the assistance of the learned counsel for parties withregard to the aforementioned points raised by the learned counsel for theappellants for our consideration.As regards the contention with regard tothe possession of a room in the ground floor by the witness Krishan LalP,W. 14, it is sufficient to point out the evidence of Sub-inspector BuaDas P.W. 21 who deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence henoticed the lock of the room lying broken at the spot, which fact supportedthe statement of Manmohan Singh P.W. 1.2 who was directed by his deceasedfather Gurbachan Singh to go and inform Krishan Lal P.W. .1.4 that theappellants were trying to break open the lock of his room.The secondcircumstance about the injuries having been sustained by Shashi Prabha whodid not go up-stairs is also of no assistance to the appellants in view ofthe evidence on record.First of all, it may be pointed out that ShashiPrabha was a major girl aged about 18 years and could have been the bestperson to state as to how, in what manner, by whom and at what place, underwhat circumstance, she sustained the injuries, but she was not produced asa witness.Shashi Prabha is said to have sustained three simple injuries.No questions were put up to any of the prosecution witnesses that ShashiPrabha had sustained these simple injuries in the same occurrence.Thatbeing so, no advantage can be derived by the appellants on the mere factthat there were simple injuries on the person of Shashi Prabha which couldnot be explained by the prosecution.(13) The recovery of spectacles of Manmohan Singh, P.W, 12, from a placenear the staircase and the presence of substantial blood in the courtyardof the ground floor in occupation of the appellants and opposite in thestaircase in an area of 2-3 yards has been sought to be capitalised by theappellants to substantiate the contention that the complainant party wasaggressor, as according to the appellants, the complainant party at-tackedthem while they were in their apartment in the ground floor.(14) Apparently, these submissions appear to be very attractive and soundbut when we go deep into the revealing facts, the fascinating argumentsdisappear in the thin air and the same turn out to be arguments withoutmerit.It may be stated here that according to the prosecution case, theincident had occurred when Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, had gone down to theground floor in order to go and inform Krishan Lal that the lock of hisroom was tried to be broken by the appellants and at that point of time hewas assaulted by the appellants in the courtyard.According to the medicalevidence of Dr. Anand Prakash, P.W. 4, Manmohan Singh had sustainedextensive injuries on his person out of which five were incised wounds and,therefore, the blood must have flown and dropped in the courtyard of theground floor where he was assaulted.This fact has been fully testified byManmohan Singh, P.W; 12, himself and there is no reason to doubt histestimony which is corroborated by the medical evidence.That being so; theblood found in the courtyard and in an area of 2-3 yards near the staircasewould be the blood out of the injuries sustained by Manmohan Singh, Thespectacles belonging to Manmohan Singh and found in the courtyard alsowould have fallen at that point of time when Manmohan Singh was assaultedby the appellants in the courtyard.It has been stated in the earlier partof this judgment that several members of the complainant party hadsustained multiple injuries on their person and the four appellants hadalso sustained injuries.If, infact the incident had occurred in thecourtyard of the house occupied by the appellants the blood would be foundscattered in the entire courtyard, which is not the case here.It is,therefore, difficult to accept the submission that the incident hadoccurred in the courtyard of the ground floor.(15) There is yet another strong piece of evidence which belies the standtaken by the appellants regarding the place of occurrence and that is theevidence of an independent witness Gurdev Singh, P.W. 19, who was theneighbour of the complainant party and the appellants.He deposed that atabout 11.00 F.M. on the date of occurrence, when he heard the noise he wentto the house of the appellant Kashmiri Lal.According to him, the noise wascoming from the upper storey and when he approached the house he noticedthat the appellant Kashmiri Lal armed with an axe, appellant Mool Chandarmed with a Sua, appellant Ravinder Kumar armed with a So/a, appellantManmohan Rai armed with a knife and the acquitted accused Chander Prakasharmed with a hammer were seen coming down from the staircase.The witnessGurdev Singh, P.W. 10, further stated that when he went up-stairs he foundGurbachan Singh lying unconscious and his sons Manmohan Singh and MohinderSingh, and wife Kartar Kaur having injuries on their person, in thepresence of such a positive and convincing evidence there is hardly anyscope to contend that the incident had occurred in the courtyard of theground floor in order to hold the complainant party as aggressor.(16) As regards the contention about the door and shutter of theappellants' house in the ground floor having been broken to support thecontention that the incident had occurred in the ground floor, we find thatthe same is without any substance for the reason that Gurdev Singh, P.W.19, made a categorical statement that did not see the doors of the roombroken at the time when he reached the house immediately after theoccurrence.He also deposed that after 2-3 days he noticed that the doorswere broken.The evidence of Sub-Inspector Bua Das, P.W. 21, also goes toshow that he did not see the shutters in a broken condition.This evidencegoes to show that the door appears to have been broken sometimes later andnot at the time of occurrence,(1.7) It is no doubt true that nothing is an offence which is done inexercise of right of private defence of person or property, for purpose ofrepelling an unlawful aggression within certain limits.Strictly speakingthe right of private defence under the Penal Code is entirely a preventivemeasure provided to a person or party who is unlawfully attacked by anotherperson or party, to dispel such attack.But there is no such right ofprivate defence available under the Code against an act which is in itselfan offence.The Law does not confer a right of self defence on a person whoinvites an attack on himself by his own attack on another.The principle ofright of self defence cannot legitimately be utilised as a shield tojustify an act of aggression.A person who is unlawfully attacked has everyright to counteract and attack upon his assailant and cause such injury asmay be necessary to ward of the apprehended danger or threat.(18) In the instant case before us, as discussed above, we haveconclusively found, on the basis of positive evidence, that the incidenthad occurred In the first floor occupied by the complainant party and theappellants themselves were the trouble-shooters and aggressors havingattacked the complainant party and the deceased in their dwelling apartmentand, therefore, no right of private defence was available to them becausethe Law does not confer a right of self-defence on such persons who invitean attack on themselves by their own high-handedness, threat or attack onanother.(19) Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the weaponof offence with which the appellants are said to have been armed with andsaid to have been used in the crime are not the conventional weapons ofoffence or instruments of attack and, therefore, no knowledge or anyintention to kill the victim could be inferred by use of such weapons.Hesubmitted that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased were onhis back, but no assault on neck or head was made to show that theappellants had any intention to kill the victim.As already stated earlier, besidesMohinder Singh, his brother Manmohan Singh, P.W. 12, and his mother KartarKaur P.W. 19, had sustained serious injuries.Maamohan Singh, P.W. 12, hadsustained five incised wounds on the back of the left side chest, in thescapular region, left upper an besides an abrasion and a contusion.Similarly, Kartar Kaur had sustained as many as 13 injuries on her person.If we look to the evidence of lady Dr. Gurcharan Kaur, P.W, 2, she foundfive punctured wounds besides other injuries on the dead body of thedeceased.Pleura was punctured under injury Ho. 9 and left lung was alsopunctured.Pericardium was also punctured on the left side.The heart waspunctured under uncle.These injuries were caused to the deceased when hehad fallen down with his face downwards and was totally in a helplesscondition.The repeated assaults made on the back of the deceased causingmassive damage to the vital organs indicate the minds of the assailantsthat they were determined to do away with the victim.(20) The injuries discussed above, the weapon of offence, the part of thebody choose in to inflict such injuries and the nature and gravity thereofcoupled with the circumstances in which they were caused clearly establishthe requisite ingredients of clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC and the actof the appellants was nothing short of a murder.From the evidence onrecord it distinctly emerges out that there were bodily injuries to thedeceased sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.It isalso evidence from the material on record that there was an intention toinflict those particular bodily injuries which were neither accidental norunintentional.Consequently, the appeal fails and ishereby dismissed, | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,571,153 | The relevant facts leading to the conviction of the appellant are that on 23.11.98 a telephonic information was received from someone at police post Nehru Place that at the main gate of MTNL one boy had been apprehended by the public with a knife and quarrel was going on.That information, Ex. PW1/A, was entered in the Daily Diary maintained at the police station as DD No.24 and the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Lokesh Kumar(PW-6) and he then went to the spot where he found that accused appellant Suresh had been apprehended by the public and he had been beaten by the public on account of which he had sustained injuries also on his person.Today on 23.11.98 at about 9.00 P.M. in my jhuggi I was sitting along with my brother Dilip S/o Late sh.Sahinder Rai, R/o Jhuggi No. G-154, Dr. Ambedkar Camp, Nehru Place, New Delhi and as talking with him, Suresh S/o Ramchander who was living in the Jhuggi's R/o F-464, Dr. Ambedkar Camp, Nehru Place, New Delhi CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 2 of 8 whom I knew earlier suddenly came inside my Jhuggi.He had open knife in his right hand.He said to me whatever is in the house bring out.If the public persons could dare to apprehend the accused appellant with the open buttondaar knife in his hand then the CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 8 of 8P.K.BHASIN, J:The appellant had been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 13th May, 2000 and vide order dated 27th May, 2000 he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years u/s 397 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of ` 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month u/s 452 IPC and CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 1 of 8 rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of ` 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month u/s 27 of the Arms Act. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal had been filed.A. 699/2000 Page 1 of 8At that time the accused appellant was holding one purse in one hand and a buttondaar knife in other hand.PW-1 Smt. Nirmala gave her statement, Ex-PW1/A to the following effect:-" I am hereby a homely women.I live at the aforesaid address.No will make noise else knife will cross over the abdomen.On this I and my brother got perturbed and in order to save my life I gave Suresh my black colour purse which I was containing a sum of Rs.195/-.After taking the purse Suresh went out of the Jhuggi and ran along with the purse.Then I and my brother made noise loudly.Hearing the noise number of public persons apprehended Suresh in front of the gate of MTNL and started beating him on account of which Suresh received at many places injuries on her body.I and my brother Dalip also reached behind the accused.I had produced before you the accused with knife in his right hand and a black colour purse containing Rs.195/- in his left hand which was robbed by Suresh after showing knife at my Jhuggi."A. 699/2000 Page 2 of 8Since Section 397 IPC had been invoked by the police the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and then it came to be assigned to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.Charges under Sections 452/392/397 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused appellant and during trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution.The material witnesses were the complainant(PW-1) and her brother(PW-2) being the eye witnesses, and the police official(PW-6) to whom the custody of the accused appellant was handed over by the public when he had reached the place where he CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 3 of 8 had been apprehended.The trial Court accepted the evidence of these three witnesses and convicted the accused appellant for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 397 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.A. 699/2000 Page 3 of 8Though the accused appellant had, in the grounds of appeal, challenged his conviction in respect of all the three offences but at the time of hearing of the appeal his learned counsel Mr. A.J.Bhambani had given up the challenge to the conviction under Sections 452 and 392 IPC and had confined his submissions to pursuade this Court that Section 397 IPC, which provides for minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment in the event of any accused being held guilty of using a deadly weapon while committing robbery, was not attracted.Mr. Bhambani very fairly submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 there was little scope for interference in this appeal as far as the offences under Sections 452 and 392 IPC are concerned.On the other hand, Mr. M.N.Dudeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fully supported the trial Court's judgment of conviction and the order on sentence and submitted that the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case on all the charges for which the accused appellant was tried and so this appeal deserved to be dismissed.A. 699/2000 Page 4 of 8Both of them had deposed about the incident as per the first information report contents of which have already been noticed.They could not be discredited in cross-examination.However, as far the prosecution case that the accused appellant had used a deadly weapon also while committing robbery is concerned, it cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecution case is that after taking the purse containing some money from PW-1 Nirmala after entering her jhuggi by showing her a knife the accused appellant had left the jhuggi and then she and her brother(PW-2) had come out of the jhuggi and shouted and at that time some public persons had apprehended him near the MTNL gate, which as per the plan Ex.PW-6/D was at quite some distance from the jhuggi of PWs 1 and 2, and gave him beatings also.The accused appellant had sustained injuries due to the beating given to him by the public persons.In the meanwhile, someone had informed the police about the apprehension of the accused appellant with a knife and PW-6 SI Lokesh Kumar had then reached that place.He found the accused appellant in the custody of public persons and CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 5 of 8 at that time he was holding a knife in one hand and one purse in the other hand which he allegedly took into police possession.If actually anyone from the public could gather the courage to apprehend the accused appellant who was holding a big buttondaar knife, as is the prosecution case, he would not have hesitated to come forward to make a statement to the police to that effect and also to depose against the accused in Court if summoned.A. 699/2000 Page 6 of 8 first thing which the people apprehending him would have done was to snatch the knife from his hand to avoid it being used against anyone of them while he was being beaten.Therefore, the prosecution story in respect of the recovery of the deadly weapon i.e. knife Ex. P-3, from the accused appellant becomes doubtful and so the benefit has to go to him.A. 699/2000 Page 6 of 8The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant was at one stage suspended after he had remained in jail for about four years but during the pendency of this appeal he absconded and after arrest in CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 7 of 8 execution of non-bailable warrants he was again sent to jail and was denied bail thereafter.Now he is ordered to be released from jail, if not required to be detained there in connection with any other case.A. 699/2000 Page 7 of 8P.K. BHASIN, J April 29, 2013 CRL.A. 699/2000 Page 8 of 8 | ['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,105,766 | According to the petitioners, they have planted 200 cashewnut trees, 68palmirah trees and 600 gooseberry trees.The petitioners claim to have obtaineda loan from the Indian Bank and they have also decided to float a Trust forestablishing a school for poor children.The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents decided toestablish a Storage Wind Farm Sub Station at Sarkaraikulam and that for the saidpurpose, they made preparations to erect 6 high tension wire linking towers.Some of those towers were proposed to be located in the middle of the propertyowned by the petitioners.Thus, the 1948 Act caused a small dent into the provisions of Sections12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of the 1910 Act, without repealing the 1910 Act inentirety.This is due to the fact that the professed objects and reasons of the1948 Act were different from those of the 1910 Act. Consequently, after theenactment of the 1948 Act, Section 12(2) of the 1910 Act lost its significancein cases where a provision was made in a sanctioned scheme.However, in the year 2003, the Electricity Act, 2003, was enacted.1.The Chief Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Source, Anna Salai, Chennai.4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District.5.The Joint Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Veerasigamani, Tirunelveli District.6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-11The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition, seeking aMandamus, to forbear the respondents from erecting any high tension electrictowers in their property in Survey No.195/1D and 195.14, Veerasigamani Village,Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in violation of the provisions of theIndian Electricity Act.I have heard Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for thepetitioners and Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.The petitioners oppose the erection of the towers onthe ground that their consent was not obtained as required by Section 12(2) ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that on the Northern side and Eastern sideof their property, there are roads in which towers could be convenientlylocated.On 11.8.2011, R.Sudhakar, J., before whom the writ petition came up,passed an order, appointing an Advocate of this Court as a Commissioner toinspect the property and to file a report as to whether any concrete structuresare being put up in the property for the purpose of erecting electric poles.Thelearned Judge also granted an interim injunction restraining the respondentsfrom erecting any towers for high tension electrical wires in their property.Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed areport.In the meantime, the respondents in the writ petition have come up witha petition to vacate the interim order of injunction.When the promoter of thelayout made a request to the Electricity Board, the Board demanded a sum of Rs.6lakhs towards expenses for shifting.Therefore, the promoter of the layout fileda writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the Board to remove the electricpoles and service lines.The writ petition was allowed and the Board preferredan appeal.Once such a protest is lodged, thelicensee should seek an order from the District Magistrate.With the above principles of law in mind, if we now come back to thefacts of the case, it is seen that even as per the counter affidavit filed bythe sixth respondent, the survey for the line transmission and erection wasconducted in August 2010 and subsequent check survey was conducted on 1.8.2011.According to the respondents, the Chief Engineer, TNEB-Transmission published anotification in the 'Daily Thanthi' on 6.7.2011 itself, inviting objections.Though the notice published in the Tamil newspaper 'Daily Thanthi'dated 6.7.2011, does not indicate the lands on which it was proposed to erecttowers, the petitioner nevertheless sent telegrams to all the respondents on22.7.2011 itself.The Commissioner has filed a reportenclosing photographs showing that the erection had already been completed.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the erection wascompleted in violation of the interim order of injunction, it is not very clearfrom the report of the Commissioner as to when the erection was completed.Inpart-II of his report, the Commissioner had stated that at the time of hisinspection on 17.8.2011, he not only found that a concrete structure had beenput up, but also the whole structure of TLCC Tower had been erected andcompleted.What remained to be done on the date of inspection by theCommissioner, was only the completion of connection to the main line.TheCommissioner has indicated the following features:-"That the height of the tower is measuring 23 Meter (approximately 100feet) and the Length of the bottom portion of the tower on each side ismeasuring 19.9 feet and there are totally four sides in the bottom.There arefoursquare typed concrete basements.On each basements measuring 2 feet andtower been erected up on the four basements."But the grant ofthe prayer for mandamus, after the entire exercise has been carried out, wouldresult in serious consequences.If the District Magistratechooses to exercise his discretion to direct the petitioner to permit theerection of towers, nothing much could be done thereafter, since the power ofjudicial review over such exercise of discretion may be limited.On the otherhand, even if I refuse the prayer for mandamus sought by the petitioner, hewould still have two types of remedies against the respondents.They are (i) aremedy under Section 16 (3) for determining the sufficiency of compensation and(ii) a remedy under Section 17 (1) to require the respondents to remove or alterthe line or post and a remedy under Section 17(2) to apply to the DistrictMagistrate to direct the removal of the line or post.In other words, the grantof the prayer for mandamus after the respondents have completed the erection oftowers would leave the respondents remedyless, while the refusal of the prayerfor mandamus would not leave the petitioner remedyless.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.There will be no order as to costs.Consequently connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,584,841 | The prosecution case, in short, is that on 24.1.2013 the complainant-Baladeen has filed a complainant alleging therein that he is aged 85 years old and illiterate person and suffering from various ailments and he is unmarried and one ancestral land of his title and possession is situated at Mauja Birgava Rani Tahsil Ater District Bhind Cr.R.No.796/2014 (Ramesh and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) 2 and on that land his sister, husband of sister and their sons are doing agriculture work.It is submitted that one Ramesh Kumar who is petitioner no.1 is also residing at Village Birgava and Ramesh Kumar along with his sons namely Dilip Kumar and Suryakant on false assertions took the complainant on the Bike that they will conduct the check up of his eyes from the hospital and took him to their house and taken the thumb impression of complainant on some papers.After some time complainant came to know that Ramesh Kumar along with his family members and along with document writer Karan Singh Baghel and one Incharge Sub Registrar Ater with an intention to grab the land of the complainant has prepared a forged sale deed.(28/8/2015 ) Per Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta :By this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. (in short "the Code") petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T.No.72/2014, whereby the charge of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short "the Penal Code") have been framed against the petitioners.On the complaint of the complainant the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has made an enquiry and after enquiry directed the Police Station Dehat Bhind to register the case.The police lodged an FIR against the petitioners and charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the case was committed.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence available on record against the petitioners for framing of charge under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.He further submitted that even if all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are taken to be true even then no offence is made out under section 420 467, 468, 471 read with Cr.R.No.796/2014 (Ramesh and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) 3 section 34 of the Penal Code.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and further supported the impugned order for framing of charge and prays for dismissal of the revision.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.Complainant Baladeen specifically stated in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Code, that Ramesh Kumar alongwith his sons took him on the bike with this false pretext that they will get his eyes checked up in the hospital and on their false assertion, they took him to their house and taken his thumb impression on some papers.It is also indicates from the the statement of complainant Baladeen that he has not sold his land to the petitioners even he has not received any consideration.Prima-facie, it is also indicates from the statement of complainant Baladeen that without his knowledge petitioners prepared forged sale-deed and got executed in their favour.So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Jai Prakash and Pavan, who are the witnesses of sale-deed, have stated in favour of the petitioners that complainant Baladeen voluntary executed the sale-deed in their favour but they are relatives of the petitioners and at this stage where complainant specifically stated against the petitioners, their statement cannot be taken true at this stage.So far as the statement of the one In-charge Sub-Registrar Ater Korne Lieus Tigga (Record Keeper) as per the complaint of Baladeen, he was also involved in commission of the offence alongwith petitioners and document writer Karan Singh Baghel therefore, where the specific Cr.R.No.796/2014 (Ramesh and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) 4 allegation has also been made against the In-charge Sub-Registrar Korne Lieus Tigga, his statement cannot be taken true at this stage.Statement of complainant also supported by witnesses Gangaram and Santosh Kumar.So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a case of civil nature has no substance.From the evidence available on record, it is prima-facie appears that petitioners with the intention to grab the land of complainant prepared forged sale-deed.It is also appears from the record that the Superintendent of Police, Bhind inquired the matter on the complaint of Baladeen and submits report according to which petitioners have committed the alleged offences. | ['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,587 | The question that arises in this Criminal Revision is when a person is charged for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) in relation to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, whether charge under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should also be framed.The facts leading to the controversy can be briefly stated as :-The petitioner herein Elabi @ Murugesan one Palanivel Selvaraj and Marialious were friends.On 11.6.1999 at 10.30 P.M. they were playing cards.On 11.6.1999 the accused being armed with a knife hidden in his waist, with such intention of causing the murder of Selvaraj and Palanivel began to playing cards with them along with Mariyaluis at about 10.30 P.M. in thatched shed situated on the western side of the graveyard at the western bank of Vennar river at Marakkadai Village.Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned second Additional District and Sessions Judge, the accused petitioner had preferred the instant Criminal Revision.4. Heard both the sides. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,589,740 | /34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mosaraf Biswas & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Snehansu Majumder ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kr.Roy, Ms. Rita Datta ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 235 of 2018 dated 28.05.2018 under sections 447/448/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners say that the complaint has been lodged out of a political rivalry following a minor fracas on the day of the recently concluded panchayat election.The State opposes the prayer and refers to the serious injuries suffered by some of the victims.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) | ['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,592,654 | The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction of the appellant/accused is that the appellant/accused is the grand-son of the deceased Dhanabhagiyam.P.W.1/de-facto complainant is the father of the appellant/accused.The deceased had been receiving the old-age-pension of Rs.1,000/- per month.The appellant/accused was regularly threatening the deceased (grand-mother) by demanding the pension amount.On 03.07.2012 at about 1 p.m., the appellant came to the house of P.W.1 and indulged in quarrel with his grand-mother.When she refused to budge the undue demand of the accused, the appellant/accused scolded her in filthy language and took an iron rod and attacked her over her neck and hip, thereby causing serious injuries.Besides, the appellant threatened that he would not leave her alive.On hearing the noise, P.W.1 son came there and took his mother (deceased) to Ariyalur Government Hospital, where P.W.1 was instructed to take her to Thanjavur Government Hospital, where she was admitted.Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with P.W.15 Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No.187 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 323 and 506 (Part 1) IPC.P.W.15 who registered the case, went to the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P-7 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-8 rough sketch and recorded the statement of the father of the appellant, i.e. P.W.1, and other witnesses.Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 05.07.2012 at about 14.30 hours.The appellant/accused produced iron pipe, with which he assaulted his grandmother-deceased.P.W.15 prepared Ex.P-2 seizure mahazar and also recovered M.O.1 iron rod.Thereafter, P.W.15 sent the accused to jurisdictional Magistrate for remanding him to judicial custody.He sent the material object in Form-95 to the Court.Since the victim died, further investigation was taken over by P.W.17 Inspector of Police and the offence under Section 302 IPC was included with the offences already registered in the FIR and he prepared Ex.P-9 alteration report, which was sent to Court.He went to Thanjavur Government Hospital at about 9 a.m. on 27.07.2012 and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-10 inquest report.This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ariyalur, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part 2) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (Part-2) IPC.Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and after conducting post-mortem/autopsy on the body of the deceased, the same was handed over to Head Constable, who in turn handed over it to the relatives of the deceased.P.W.17 investigating officer recorded the statement of other witnesses.After completion of all formalities and investigation, P.W.17 filed charge-sheet before the trial Court.The case was taken on file in S.C.No.5 of 2013 by the trial Court.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked and M.O.1 was produced.When the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime.He neither examined any witness nor marked any document.Upon hearing the submissions of either side and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above.Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that there is material contradiction between the oral evidence and the medical evidence.As per Ex.P-6 FIR, the accused assaulted the deceased on her cheek and waist, but P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that the accused attacked his grand-mother on her back, shoulder, waist and the back portion of the head.Further, P.W.4 deposed that the accused assaulted the deceased on her backside of the head and her left hand got twisted and beaten up.Hence, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that they might not have witnessed the occurrence.Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that even P.W.13 Doctor in Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects and complications of multiple injury involving brain and cervical cord injury.But the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the appellant has assaulted the deceased on her neck and waist of the deceased; when that being so, there is no possibility for sustaining multiple injuries in the brain and cervical cord.On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by cogent, clinching and convincing evidence and hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.While keeping in mind the above submissions made on either side, I have anxiously considered the same and perused the materials available on record.Though P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the accused assaulted his grandmother with hands and thereafter, by iron road, on her neck and waist, P.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically stated that the deceased was assaulted on the back, waist, shoulder and backside of the head.Moreover, this Court is of also the view that the said minor contradictions will not vitiate the entire case of the prosecution and it can, at the most be termed only as an insignificant error, unless the contradictions or infirmities found in the evidence raise great suspicion in the mind of the Court and the same has not affected the genesis of the case of the prosecution in its entirety.In fact, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and convincing to prove that the deceased died only due to the multiple injuries caused by the accused with M.O.1 iron rod.I am not able to accept any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.Moreover, though the trial Court has rendered a specific finding that from the manner in which the offence had taken place and the condition in which the accused was there at the time of the commission of the offence, it is inferred that the accused has committed the offence without knowing the consequences thereof and without the knowledge that his act would cause the death of his grandmother, but, by taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court concluded that the category of homicide in this case, would not amount to murder and that the charge would not come under the purview of Section 302 IPC, thereby, the trial Court convicted the accused only for the offence under Section 304 (Part-2) IPC and awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment.However, taking into consideration the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that some leniency may be shown in awarding the sentence to the one period already undergone, this Court is of the view that the sentence could be reduced from ten years to five years rigorous imprisonment.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court, but reducing the quantum of sentence from ten years to five years rigorous imprisonment.The miscellaneous petition is closed.30.08.2016Index : Yes / noInternet: Yes / nocsCopy to1. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District (Crime No.187 of 2012)The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.R.SUBBIAH,Jcs Judgment in Crl.A.No.620 of 2013 30.08.2016 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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. |
110,594,280 | Considering the nature of the charges and the petitioner's possible involvement, the prayer for bail is rejected.CRM 4891 of 2020 along with CRAN 3103 of 2020 stand disposed of.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.) | ['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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. |
110,595,449 | 15.9.2017 (CL 505) KC C.R.M. 8503 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Monirul Munshi..... petitioners.Mr. Rabindra Nath Pal.................For the petitioners.Ms. Sreyasi Biswas..................................For the State.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Shyampur P.S. F.I.R. No. 328/2017 dated 16th July, 2017 under Sections 341, 325, 354B, 379, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary, more particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Sectin 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application, thus, stands allowed with the direction that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the condition that the peetitioners shall continue to meet the investigating officer twice a week till such time on completion of investigation police report (charge-sheet) under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) is submitted before the relevant magistrate and also subject to other conditions as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.(DEBI PROSAD DEY,J.) (DIPANAKAR DATTA,J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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. |
11,060 | 23.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amount of Rs.1 lakh is not yet paid to the family of the victim.It is seen that as per the materials available on record that victim Karuppee was working as a servant maid and earning a monthly income and the husband of the victim, one Sonai is making his livelihood as a cobbler and they were running their family with the income earned by both the victim and her husband.[1]The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, is directed to nominate a competent police official in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, assisted by a team of police officials to investigate into the matter and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, who has filed the counter before this Court is hereby directed to collect all the records available in respect of this case and to hand over the same to the officer nominated by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai.The police official who has been nominated by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai shall conduct investigation as expeditiously as possible and to file the final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.[2] All further proceedings pending in S.C.NO.105/2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, is hereby stayed pending investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Chennai.[3] The State Government is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs including Rs.1 lakh already awarded by the order of the State Government dated 1.03.2006 to the family of the victim.The petitioner who is said to be the Executive Director of People's Watch, Tamilnadu, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of directing the transfer of investigation which was pending in Cr.No.475/2002 on the file of the 2nd respondent, Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, to the 4th respondent, the Joint Director of Police, CBI, Chennai and for further direction to expedite the investigation and file the final report within the time frame fixed by this Court and pass such other or further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a serious case of custodial violence which resulted in the death of a woman by name Karuppee while she was in the custody of the 2nd respondent police.It is submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused persons who are none else than the police officials, the petitioner who is representing an organisation fighting for human rights has come forward with this petition seeking for the above said relief.It is submitted that the pathetic story of the fate of the said Karuppee came to light during the Public Hearing held jointly by National Women's Commission and Tamilnadu State Women's Commission on 28.10.2003 at Madurai and as such, the petitioner has thought it fit to bring it to the notice of this Court with a view to get fair investigation in this matter of custodial violence resulting in the death of the said Karuppee.3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said deceased Karuppee was working as a domestic servant in the household of one Prema, W/o.It is submitted that on 25.11.2002, the master of the deceased Karuppee, viz., Prema, found some jewels and money were missing from her house and as such, she has preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent police and the same was registered in Cr.No.455/2002 for the offence under sections 454 and 380 IPC.It is submitted that on the same day, the said Karuppee was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent police for enquiry in respect of the above said registration of the FIR.The 2nd respondent police also taken one Arumugam, W/o.Christudoss, who is the sister-in-law of the said karuppee into custody and thereafter, both the deceased Karuppee and Arumugam were taken to the house of the said Prema, the complainant in that case.It is also submitted that from the statement of Arumugam, the deceased was tortured physically and she was forced to confess that it was she who committed the theft.It is further submitted that once again on 26.11.2002, both the said Arumugam and the deceased were taken to the 2nd respondent police and on that day, one Anitha, D/o.Arumugam was brought to the Police Station and both of them were taken to Arumugam's husband's place for search and again, they were brought back to the Police Station.It is submitted that even the said Christudoss was tortured inhumanly by the 2nd respondent police.4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.11.2002, the 2nd respondent police once again, enquried the said Karuppee and also forced Arumugam to advise the deceased to admit that she was responsible for the theft.It is submitted that thereafter, the other relatives of the said Arumugam were also summoned and they were also treated inhumanly and tortured by the 2nd respondent police.It is submitted that from the statements of the said witnesses, it was revealed that the deceased was tortured and the police officials alleged to have pulled her hair and also assaulted.It is further submitted that when the said Arumugam along with her daughter Anitha went to the police station on 29.11.2002, the said Karuppee, the deceased cried and told them that she was assaulted and tortured by the police officials.It is submitted that on 01.12.2002 around 10.00 a.m., the said Christudoss was informed by a fish seller that a woman died in the police station and when the said Christudoss went to the police station, the Sub-Inspector of that station told him that the Karuppee had died.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are enough materials available to establish that the said deceased died not due to natural cause, but only due to custodial torture.It is submitted that the Post-mortem Certificate also disclosed a number of ante-mortem injuries and as such, it is very clear that the death is only due to homicide and that too, due to custodial torture of the police officials of the said police station.Therefore, it is contended that in view of the police officials have been implicated in this case as accused persons, the petitioner apprehends that there may not be any fair investigation.As such, it is submitted that in the interest of justice, the investigation is to be transferred to some other competent police official for ensuring fair and effective investigation in this case.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women also found a prima facie case of custodial violence in this matter and opined that as the local police were the accused, investigation must be handed over to the CBI to bring out the truth in the interest of justice and further prayed for direction to the Government to pay an immediate compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to be paid to the family of Karuppee, the deceased.The learned counsel further contended that in view of the threat caused to the other family members of Karuppee even during her illegal detention by the 2nd respondent police, that during the course of investigation by some other investigating agency, the witnesses also should be given sufficient protection to their life to give their version freely without any fear or threat.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the investigation conducted by the 2nd respondent police.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased Karuppee was taken to police station on 30.11.2002 for interrogation in connection with the case registered in Cr.No.455/2002 for the offence under sections 454 and 380 IPC and on the next day, i.e., 01.12.2002 at about 6.30 a.m., she was found hanging at the Wireless Tower at the backside of the police station.It is submitted that a case was registered in Cr.No.475/2002 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C.,on 01.12.2002 by the then Inspector of Police and the inquest was conducted.It is further submitted that the Sub-Collector of Paramakudi also conducted a detailed enquiry under section 151 of the Police Standing Orders and sent a report to the Government through the District Collector of Ramanathapuram.It is submitted that on the basis of the report, the Government directed to take criminal action by order dated 12.01.2006 and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, has filed a criminal complaint against the Inspector of Police and the then Sub-Inspector of Police under sections 190[1][a] and 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram on 13.09.2006 for the offence under Section 306 IPC.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Government had already initiated action against the police officials said to have been involved in the case.7.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record including the petition and the counter filed by the respondent police through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi and other materials available on record including the Postmortem Certificate.8.It is a pathetic case of unnatural death of a poor woman, viz., Karuppee while she was in the police custody.But the undisputed fact remains that the victim Karuppee died while she was in the police custody.9.The materials available on record discloses that the said Karuppee was working as a servant maid under one Prema and the said Prema gave a report for the offence of theft as certain jewelleries and cash were missing in her house.Admittedly, the deceased was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent police for interrogation.Therefore, it is to be seen that there is absolutely no dispute about the taking of the victim under the police custody, be it as it may, whether on 25.11.2002 or on 30.11.2002 and it is for the investigating agency to find out correctly the exact date on which the deceased was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent police.10.The categorical version of the petitioner is to the effect that it is a clear case of custodial torture and the deceased Karuppee died due to custodial torture and violation.On the other hand, it is claimed by the prosecution to the effect that it is a case of suicide and the police officials have been implicated for the offence under section 306 IPC pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi and thereafter, a private complaint was filed against the police officials and the same was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in PRC.No.1/2007 and thereafter, transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court], Ramanathapuram in SC.No.105/2007 and the same is pending as on date.11.The sequence of events in respect of this case and the perusal of the medical evidence, viz., the Postmortem Certificate reveals the tell-tale of the custodial violence committed on the poor victim.The fact remains as already stated, the Revenue Divisional Officer also found fault with the police officials, but strangely proceeded on the basis that the police officials have only abetted the victim to commit suicide.This Court is also constrained to state that the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of requesting the police to conduct independent investigation considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, proceeded to file a private complaint as per the Government order in GO.Ms.No.65 Public [Law & Order 'E'] Department dated 12.01.2006 only for the offence under Section 306 IPC.It is also pertinent to be noted that the scope of the enquiry under the Police Standing Orders is only to find out the cause of death.It is pertinent to be noted that in the counter filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, this case was regarded as custodial death of the victim Karuppee."THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF ASPHYXIA DUE TO HANGIGN 12 TO 18 HOURS PRIOR TO POSTMORTEM."It is pertinent to be noted that in the Postmortem Certificate as already pointed out, there were number of ante-mortem injuries.The doctor himself described the injuries as ante-mortem.It is seen from the report that there were contusions on the thighs and arms of the deceased.Such injuries were also found as per the perusal the Post-mortem Certificate.15.As such, this court is constrained to direct the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, to nominate a competent police official in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, assisted by a team of police officials to investigate into the matter and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, who has filed the counter before this Court claiming that he is having acquaintance with the facts and circumstances of the case is hereby directed to collect all the records available in respect of this case and to hand over the same to the officer nominated by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai.The police official who has been nominated by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai shall conduct investigation as expeditiously as possible and to file the final report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.It is further directed that out of Rs.3 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs should be paid to Sonai, the husband of the victim Karuppee and Rs.1 lakh to Balammal, the daughter of the victim who is the wife of Sonaimuthu, who are residing at Kattuparamakudi Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.26.With the above directions, the petition is hereby disposed of.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Paramakudi.3.The Home Secretary Secretariat, Fort St.4.The Inspector of Police Paramakudi Police Station Ramnad District.5.The Superintendent of Police Ramnad District, Ramnathapuram.7.The Sub Collector Ramnad District, Ramanathapuram.8.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,602,668 | Perused the case-diary.This second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been filed by the applicant Ashfak Shaikh S/o Lt. Arif Shaikh, is implicated in Crime No.1014/17 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, Dewas for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 333, 427 and 294/34 of IPC and under Sections 3 /4 of Chikitsa Seva Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co- accused persons Sahid @ Shahid Sheikh and Aamin have already been granted bail vide order dated 02.04.2018 passed in MCRC No.9306/2018 and prays that this application for grant of bail of the present applicant be also allowed and he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.After considering the statements of Dr. Tarik Ahmad (PW-1), Nisha (PW-2), Anjali (PW-3), Ashok Verma (PW-4) and Jagdish (PW-5) so also the fact that PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution nor he is identified the present applicant.The allegation against the present applicant is identical and similar and he is having complete parity with HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE the co-accused persons.On due consideration of the aforesaid and other material evidence available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant Ashfak Shaikh S/o Lt. Arif Shaikh shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concenred JMFC/CJM for their appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as my be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge amit Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2018.04.19 16:12:37 +05'30' | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
110,605,352 | 1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.Considered their respective submissions as well as the materials on record.Subsequently, the accused persons filed motor accident claim cases before the tribunal at Calcutta and 24-Parganas.In connection with the said motor accident claim cases it was claimed by the accused persons that they were treated at Uluberia S.D. Hospial and the accused Asish Chandra, the petitioner no. 3, Kalpana Mondal, the petitioner no. 2 and Alok Pal, the petitioner no. 4 herein submitted partial disability certificates.However, during the investigation by the National Insurance Company Limited it came into light that the said FIR relating to the road accident was lodged one month after the case and only the accused Asish Chandra was treated at Uluberia S.D. Hospital and not the others.The disability certificate produced by the accused persons before the tribunal are all forged and fake and was never issued by the Superintendent, District Hospital, Howrah.It was also found the accused persons in their application before the tribunal gave false address.All 6 the medical documents, viz., injury reports and discharge certificates produced before the tribunal by the accused persons were forged and fake.The accused persons dishonestly made false claim before the tribunal and fraudulently obtained decree for sum not due.Thus, this is a case where the accused persons maintained their false claim before the motor accident claim tribunal by production of forged, false and fictitious documents, viz., the injury reports, disability certificates and by lodging a false FIR.This is a case where the aforesaid false and forged medical documents and the disability certificates, were manufactured before the same were produced and given in evidence in connection with a proceeding before the motor accident claim tribunal as well as the First Information Report was falsely lodged before the institution of the said claim case. | ['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 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,167,691 | The incident of murder of Jitendra Marotrao Gawande at 5.30 p.m. on 10-1-2013 in the Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant ("the said Bar") at Sakkardara, Nagpur, is not in dispute.The story deposed by PW 1 Raghuveer Ramesh Vallabhdas, the Manager of the said Bar, is that on the date of the incident at about 5 to 5.30 p.m., four persons entered the said Bar and one of them came to his counter and made a demand for a peg (liquor), which he gave it to him in the glass.The other three persons were standing behind him and all of them were looking outside the door again and again, giving an impression of waiting for someone's arrival.After some time, a ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 11 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt big white car came, from which one person (victim) alighted and entered the said Bar.There were altercation between the four persons and the victim who came in the car, which resulted into quarrel.Out of four persons, two persons started assaulting the victim by means of knife and rest two went outside.The victim, who was assaulted, fell down, the assault continued and thereafter two assailants left the said Bar and the victim was lying in a pool of blood.PW 2 Raju and PW 3 Sitaram, the waiters in the said Bar, were also the eye-witnesses to an incident.PW 1 Raghuveer informed the incident on phone to the police.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::3. PW 16 Rupali Bawankar, working as PSI at Sakkardara Police Station, states that she received the information from the Control Room that in the said Bar one person is assaulted by a knife at about 6 p.m. She, therefore, proceeded along with the Head Constable Sawarkar and other staff to the said Bar.Inside the said Bar, she found the victim lying in a pool of blood and he was dead.She arranged to collect the blood samples with the help of cotton swab and also seized the glass from the counter of the said ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 12 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Bar, used for consuming peg by one of the assailants, as was told by PW 1, the Manager of the said Bar.PW 1 also showed her LCD TV where the live video of the camera was being displayed.The Finger Print Expert PW 8 Sunil Lonarkar was called, who, after encircling finger prints on the glass, asked the photographer to snap it.PW 16 called the owner of the said Bar, PW 5 Kailash Gulhane, and after getting the information, the Expert PW 14 Shubham Narayan Padgilwar, who installed the CCTV system in the said Bar, was called.The Expert PW 14 told that he installed the cameras in the said Bar and the same were working properly.According to PW 14, the DVR contains the recording of camera and he showed the recorded footages of the incident from DVR on LCD TV.The camera No.1 contained the footage of two persons assaulting one person by a sharp weapon and the other persons were instigating ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 13 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the assailants.The footage recorded in the camera No.7 showed that the assailants came inside the said Bar and thereafter the deceased came there.It also indicated the assailants running away from the said Bar.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::The Expert PW 14 Shubham told that the copy of the said footage can be done and, therefore, PW 16 PSI Rupali arranged the blank pen drive and two DVDs (CDs).PW 14 took the copy of the said footages from DVR in the pen drive and copied in DVD with the help of the laptop.On verification of the pen drive and the DVD in the laptop, it was found that the copies were properly done.The pen drive and the two DVDs were seized and sealed.PW 14 took out the Hard Disk from the DVR, which was seized and sealed.PW 16 PSI Rupali further states that the complaint dated 10-1-2013 at Exhibit 85 by PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager, was recorded.Printed FIR at Exhibit 86 was prepared initially against unknown persons, as PW 1 did not state the names of assailants.On the next date, PW 1 gave the names of accused Nos.1 to 5 as assailants.She identified the articles seized, viz. Article-1 DVR, Article-4 Hard Disk, Article-7 Adapter, Article-10 Mouse, and Article-13 Remote.She states that the labelled Articles 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 bear her signature whereby the said articles were seized.The CD (DVD) was marked as 'X' for identification and it was played in the laptop.The footages of the camera Nos.1, 2 and 7 were seen by the witness.The accused No.1 took them to one heap of soil and after removing one stone from the heap, took out the clothes and the knife.The knife Article 1A was of the size of 14.5 inches, including the handle.It was stained with blood.PW 18 API Vitthal took the accused No.2 along with the panchas and the police staff in a Government vehicle.The accused No.2 took them to one house in the slum area and knocked the door.The accused No.2 went inside the house along with the staff.He took out one knife from the loaf (sajja) behind the speaker.The knife Article 2A was having blood stains.This camera covers half portion of the hall.The third camera is installed in the hall and used to cover the passage towards lawn.PW 17 states that "he told me that he used to visit Seven Hills Bar and to see the proper working of cameras.He saw the cameras and told us that they are working properly.He told that recording of cameras is being recorded in DVR." PW 14 Shubham was working in ITG Solution Company, which is engaged in installation of CCTV camera and thumb impression machine, apart from dealing with development of software and security system.One camera was installed at the entrance gate.One camera was installed on wall behind the counter.Two cameras were installed in the hall.Accused No.2- Kunal was having blood-stained knife in his hand and he occupied a seat of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler, of which ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 28 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt accused No.6 Sameer was a rider.Accused No.1- Tushar and accused No.2- Kunal were arrested by Suresh Dambre on 11-1-2013 at 05.30 hours vide arrest memos at Exhibits 179 and 180 respectively.Accused No.3- Lashu, No.4- Amol and accused No.5- Bhupesh were arrested subsequently on 11-1-2013 vide Exhibits 176, 177 and 178 respectively.They continue to remain in jail till today.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::Discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused No.1- Tushar :Exhibit 138 is the confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, of the accused No.1, and Exhibit 139 is the seizure memo of knife, having total length of 14.5 inches, of which the blade was of 9.5 inches and the grip was of 5 inches.apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtPW 18 Vitthal Salunke is the Investigating Officer and in his oral evidence he states in para 3 that on 12-1-2013, the accused No.1- Tushar told him that he is intending to make voluntary statement.PW 18, therefore, arranged for two panchas through constable, one of which was PW 9 Lalit Meshram.PW 9 Lalit states in his oral evidence that he agreed to act as a panch at the request of the Police Inspector.He states that at about 4.30 to 4.45 p.m. he went to the Police Station Sakkardara and the Police Inspector called one accused and asked his name.He was Tushar Dalal.He states that the Police Inspector told us that the said accused had hidden the articles and he is going to discover it.PW 9 states that he along with one another panch, Police Inspector and other staff and the accused Tushar sat in one white coloured Jeep and went to Sakkardara Chowk, then to Chhota Tajbag, then to Tukdoji square and thereafter in front of Ajni Police Station as per the direction of the accused.He further states that ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 30 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt after reaching Ramteke Nagar, the accused asked to take turn and accordingly the vehicle was turned and it was stopped on kaccha road.All of them alighted from the vehicle.The accused along with one constable were ahead and behind them the police and the panchas.Beneath the said stone, accused took out jeans pant, shirt and one knife.The accused showed articles to them.PW 18 Vitthal Salunke, the Investigating Officer, states in para 4 of his evidence that on 13-1-2013, the accused No.2- Kunal Maske told him that he is intending to make voluntary statement and, therefore, two panchas were arranged, one of which was PW 11 Akash Dhawale.PW 11 Akash states in his evidence that he was asked the willingness to act as panch which he expressed and accordingly when he went to the Police Station Sakkardara, the constable brought one accused who told his name as Kunal Maske.PW 11 identifies him in the Court.Joint of blade and handle was fixed.Handle of the said weapon was yellowish metal and wooden covering, length 13 cms, breadth 6.5 cms and thickness 1.5 cm.Hilt of size 9 cm in length and 1-5 m breadth.Reddish brown stains present over the handle."After some time, the accused No.1 Tushar Dalal came out of the Bar, holding in his hand a blood-stained knife.The accused No.5 Rinku (Bhupesh) and the accused No.4 Amol Mandale also came along with Tushar and all of the three sat in the car, which was standing ahead of Bollywood Centre Point Hotel and the car left.He claimed to be knowing the accused as criminals in the locality and identified all of them in the court-room.PW 6 admits in his examination-in-chief that though he stayed at that place for some time and came to know that somebody was murdered, he did not speak of it to anybody.One of them came to his counter and asked counter peg of Rum.PW 1 prepared a peg (liquor) and gave it to him in a glass.The other three people were standing behind him.In para 8, he deposes after watching the footage of camera No.1 in which the incident, which happened in the Bar, appears.He states that "In footage of camera no.1, on counter, there are glasses on right side".In the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him in para 26, in response to which, he states that "It is not correct to say that the glasses which were lying on the counter broke down in the said quarrel".It states that the left thumb finger print on the F.I. Slip of suspect- (1) Tushar Sahebrao Dalal received for comparison.Exhibit 131 is the statement of reasoning and opinion in connection with crime in question, opining that the chance finger print, marked 'A' is identical with left thumb finger print, marked 'A-1' on the finger impression clip of suspect - Tushar Sahebrao Dalal.Objection of the defence to the oral evidence of PW 8 Sunil, Finger Print Expert, and his reports at Exhibits 129 and 121 :The other evidence available on record to identify the accused as the assailants is the oral evidence of PW 19 Ms Puja, the Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, who proved her report at Exhibit 57, opining that the accused persons are similar to the assailants, who committed the crimes in question.The another evidence is that of PW 4 Pramod, the brother of deceased Jitu Gawande, who identified all the accused persons as the assailants and described the role played by each of the accused in the crimes in question.This is based on the CD, marked as 'X' for identification, or the DVD, marked as Article 18A. We have, therefore, to see whether the photographs at Exhibits 197 to 202 are proved.Thereafter we saw in the footage the assailants while running away from the Bar." PW 14 Shubham states in para 4 of his deposition that "On the request of police, I showed them footage recorded in CCTV system, on the LCD TV of Bar.I showed them footage recorded after 5-00 p.m. to 5-30 p.m. In the said footage, some people were assaulting one person."PW 16 Rupali states that "On enquiry, Shubham told us that copies of the said footage can be done.apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt PW 5 Kailash Gulhane is a panch witness on the seizure panchanama at Exhibit 99 and was called by PW 16 Rupali from cyber cafe near the said Bar.He says that on 10-1-2013, PW 14 Shubham showed footages of all cameras one by one in the said LCD TV.He saw the footages and thereafter in his presence, PW 14 Shubham copied the data in footages in DVD and Pen Drive.He saw the copied data on the laptop and he found it to be correctly recorded in the Pen Drive and DVDs.All these articles were seized and sealed in his presence.He says Hard Disk in DVR was of Toshiba Company and it was taken out in his presence and sealed.PW 14 Shubham further states in para 4 of his examination-in-chief that "On the request of the police, I prepared copy of footage of three cameras from DVR and gave to the police.For that purpose, police had provided me laptop, pen drive and two CDs.Pen drive and CDs were brand new.I had provided copies of footage, wanted by the police in pen drive.I had also copied the wanted footage in two CDs from pen drive.I gave pen drive and both CDs to the police.On enquiry by the police, I told them the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 69 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt footage are recorded in the Hard Disk of DVR.On the request of police, I took out Hard Disk from the DVR and gave to the police.On request of the police, I also detached DVR and provided to police.Thereafter, police were engaged in the proceedings.PW 18 Vitthal states in para 13 of his examination-in-chief that "On 18-1-2013, on my instructions, full size photographs of the accused were snapped by Nitin Watkar, PW 20, of Diamond Photo Studio.At that time, accused were in police custody.PW 20 Nitin, in his examination-in-chief, states that a Digital Camera is used by him for snapping the photographs and they are saved in the memory card of the camera.Thereafter, the photographs are uploaded on computer and with the help of pen drive, the same are sent for developing.He further states that six photographs at Exhibits 197 to 202 in the size of 4 x 6 inch might have been snapped by him and he identifies bill at Exhibit 204 issued to PW 18 Vitthal.He subsequently states that the photographs might have been snapped by his worker.Activities in the Seven Hills Bar :PW 1 Raghuveer states that the Bar used to open at 10.30 a.m. and used to close at 11 p.m. There are six waiters, one cook and one security guard.In the morning, two waiters used to come for a work and they used to remain in the Bar upto 2 p.m. ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 120 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Four waiters used to come at 2 p.m. and used to remain in the Bar till 11 p.m. Cook and guard used to come at 2 p.m. He states that "I used to come to Bar at 2 p.m. and my job was to provide service to the customers by sitting on the counter." He states that the Bar provides service of liquor for drinking to the customers at the counter.Waiters used to provide service to the customers at the table.It was big car.After some time, one person came out of the said car and entered in the Bar.He was talking to all four persons.They were talking in Marathi.I do not know Marathi.It is not in dispute that PW 1 Raghuveer was the Manager in the enclosed Bar, sitting on the counter.Obviously, he could say something definite about the persons who entered the Bar.He deposes that the four persons entered the Bar and one of them came ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 148 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt to his counter and demanded a peg.The other three persons were standing behind him.He deposes that the assault was by two persons by means of knives which they might have brought with them.He does not speak of the remaining two assailants, other than four.We ourselves have seen the CCTV footages recorded in the primary document of Hard Disk seized at Exhibit 1, by getting DVR seized assembled.We also saw the footages in CD - 'X' and DVD Article 18A seized, in the laptop.The assailants were six in number.Four of them came inside the Bar.They were waiting for someone to come in the Bar.One of them wearing blue coloured ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 149 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt shirt was near the counter and started consuming a peg of liquor served to him, probably on his demand.The other three assailants were standing behind him and all of them were seen to be waiting for somebody, as they were looking outside the Bar again and again.Then we saw in the footages, the altercations were between the deceased and the person wearing blue shirt who was consuming liquor.The accomplice, who brought the deceased, left the Bar and went outside.One of the accomplices in the assembly of four inside the Bar, supplied a knife to a person wearing blue shirt, who started assaulting the deceased.Thereafter one another assailant/person in the assembly wearing white T-shirt having beard and heighted strong personality, took out a knife, which was already with him, and joined the assault on the deceased.When the inmates ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 150 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt other than the assailants in the Bar tried to proceed, one of the accomplices brandished them with cold drink bottle picked up from the Bar.After some time only two persons assaulting the deceased remained in the Bar and others went outside.After the object was accomplished, one of the two assailants firstly came out and fled away from the spot as a pillion rider, on a motorcycle of one more accomplice waiting as rider on it.We find that an assembly of six assailants was constituted, as all of them came together at the Bar.Some of them were inside the Bar and the others were outside.Their body language and the movements in and out of the Bar were uncomfortable and suspicious.One of the assailants outside the Bar brought the deceased inside the Bar.The deceased also seemed to be in a drunken condition, as he came with the support of one of the assailants.The assailant in blue shirt and the deceased started talking to each other.The deceased was also hugging the said assailant and the body language of both showed their previous acquaintance or friendship.(1) The deceased Jitu was murdered in the Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant ("the said Bar") on 10-1-2013 at 5.30 p.m. (2) The spot of incident, its surroundings, installation of CCTV system and its functioning on the date and time of incident are established.[Para 23].They continue to remain in jail till today.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Para 24].[Paras 28 and 35].[Paras 30 and 35].(6) The accused No.5- Bhupesh alias Rinku furnished the information on the basis of which the 'Ritz' car having registration No.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Paras 31 and 35].[Paras 32 and 35].[Para 33].apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (10) Exhibits 68 and 69 are the reports of the Chemical Analyzer in respect of the blood found on the knives seized from the accused Nos.1 and 2 and on Articles 16 and 17, the clothes of the accused No.1- Tushar as of human.[Para 37].On the contrary, we find that it corresponds with each other and are true and genuine.It is consistent with the oral evidence of the witnesses also.All the accused persons are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") apart from the offences under Sections 147, 148, 506-B and 149 of IPC in relation to the murder of one Jitendra Marotrao Gawande on 10-1-2013 between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. in the Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant at Sakkardara, Nagpur.All of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 10 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 149 of IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/-, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offences punishable under Sections 506-B and 149 of IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/-.All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::The DVR was also seized and sealed along with the Charging Wire, the Mouse and the Remote.She prepared the rough sketch of the spot at Exhibits 166 and 167, including the location of the cameras.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 14::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtShe states that the footages contained in the CD (DVD) are the same, which were copied from DVR to pen drive and from the pen drive to DVD.In the wee hours of 11-1-2013, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and investigation was handed over to ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 15 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt PW 18 API Vitthal Salunke.PW 18 API Vitthal Salunke, attached to Sakkardara Police Station, carried further investigation in the matter.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::On 12-1-2013, PW 18 recorded the memorandum panchanama of the accused No.1 Tushar at Exhibit 138 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act upon expressing an intention to make a voluntary statement and to show the place where he concealed the clothes and the knife.The clothes were consisting of black and while shirt and blood-stained blue coloured jean.Article 16 is the jean and Article 17 is the shirt.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 16::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtAlong with him and the police staff, PW 18 API Vitthal went in front of Shyam Palace building, Congress Nagar Square.The accused No.5 Bhupesh showed them a car besides the said building.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::On 18-1-2013, PW 18 API Vitthal got full size photographs of the accused persons, snapped for the purpose of investigation, by PW 20 Nitin Watkar of Diamond Photo Studio while the accused persons were in police custody.PW 18 states that on 19-1-2013, he sent the clothes of the accused and the deceased and the blood samples of the accused and the deceased under the covering letter at Exhibit 189 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which were kept in the Malkhana.The accused No.6 Sameer Katkar intended to make a voluntary disclosure in respect of the bike used in the crime.He took PW 18 API Vitthal along with the police staff in the Government vehicle to show the way and eventually reached the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 18 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt place near Shrikrishna.After a minute observation, the blood stains were found on the pillion seat cover.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::All the articles were bearing seal as 'VSS'.The witness identified the photographs of the accused persons at Exhibits 197 to 202, snapped by Nitin, the Photographer.He identified the clothes of the deceased at Exhibit 152A. He also ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 19 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt identified fifteen photographs snapped from the spot of the incident and sealed, marked as Articles A to O, and CD as Article-P. On 4-2-2013, the Test Identification Parades of the accused persons were conducted by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibits 89 and 94 and accordingly the report was prepared.The thumb impressions of the accused were taken at the time of arrest and were sent to the Finger Print Expert for comparison.The reports dated 22-2-2013 and 14-3-2013 at Exhibits 129 and 128 respectively were received.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::Controversy in brief :The incident of murder of Jitendra on 10-1-2013 at 5.30 p.m. at the said Bar is not in dispute.But it is the identity of the assailants or involvement of accused in this case, is in dispute.The deceased was stabbed with multiple injuries by the two knives causing his death by the assailants on the spot, is not in dispute.The ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 20 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt entire incident was recorded in CCTV cameras installed and functioning in the Bar.PW 4 Pramod, the real brother of the deceased, has identified each of the accused as the participant in the conspiracy and a member of an unlawful assembly, which blotted out the deceased Jitu, when he was confronted with CCTV footages during his examination-in-chief.The core issue is, therefore, of the admissibility of electronic evidence of footages in CCTV cameras, to identify the assailants as the accused persons.Since PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager, and PW 2 Raju and PW 3 Sitaram, the waiters in the said Bar and the eye-witnesses to an incident refused to identify the accused as the assailants, they were declared as hostile and cross-examined.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::The identification of the accused persons was a fact in issue and in terms of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Evidence Act, it was required to be established beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecution has relied upon the direct evidence of PW 6 Vinay, the chance witness, sitting on his motorcycle at some distance from the said Bar, who saw the accused persons coming out of the said Bar and running away on the motorcycle and in the car.PW 4 Pramod, the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 21 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt brother of the deceased, has deposed about the motive and also identified the assailants in CCTV footages as the accused persons.The Sessions Court found the evidence of both these witnesses trustworthy to identify the accused persons as the assailants.The Sessions Court also relied upon the other corroborative evidence and the circumstances to hold that the identity of the accused as the assailants of the deceased Jitendra is established beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::We now, therefore, proceed to consider the entire evidence on record, the challenges to it and record our findings under different headings.Spot of incident, its surroundings and installation in the Bar :PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager in the Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant, has described the spot of incident, surroundings and installation in the Bar.The incident occurred inside the Bar on the ground floor.There is a glass door adjacent to the shutter of the Bar.Adjacent to the glass door, there is a partition of glass.After entry in the Bar from the glass door, there is a hall, thereafter a kitchen, thereafter a lawn and immediately towards left side after entry, there is a counter and adjacent to it, starts kitchen, and towards right side, there is a sitting arrangement for the customers.In the hall, there are eleven tables for the customers.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::She prepared the inquest and spot panchanamas at Exhibits 162 and 163 respectively, signed by the panch witnesses, one of which is PW 3 Sitaram Wankhede.PW 3 identifies the inquest panchanama as Exhibit 92 and the spot panchanama as Exhibit 93 (Inquest Panchanama bears Exhibits 162 and 92, whereas Spot Panchanama bears Exhibits 163 and 93).The documents at Exhibits 162 and 163 describe the spot of incident.The glass door of the Bar is fixed facing the northern side.Immediately after entering the Bar, on the eastern side of the wall, a showcase containing the liquor bottles is mounted, in front of which, there is a north-south counter table of ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 23 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 8 feet in length and 4 feet in breadth.In the open space immediately after the counter, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood, having its head on the northern side and legs on the southern side.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::PW 1 further states that for security purpose, CCTV cameras were installed in the Bar on 21-12-2012, consisting a system of eight cameras and one Digital Video Recorder (DVR).The first camera is installed towards left side of the extreme corner of the hall, over the wall, situated behind the counter.This camera used to record the visual activities on the counter and entries in the hall.There is space of 15 to 20 square feet between the counter and the tables of the customers.The distance between the counter and the tables of the customers is 5 to 6 feet.The second camera is installed on the beam, attached opposite to the wall where the first camera is installed.The fourth camera is installed in the kitchen.The fifth camera is installed in the godown on the first floor.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 24::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtDVR of the said system was installed at the counter and it contains a chip of 500 GB.DVR also contains Hard Disk.The footages of all cameras are being stored in DVR.The DVR has a capacity to store the footage of 10 to 15 days.Thereafter recent footage is stored and footage of first day is deleted automatically.He states that "Sometimes I used to see the recorded footages and the system used to remain on 24 hours." PW 16 Rupali states that after preparing spot panchanama, the Manager PW 1 Raghuveer of the Bar showed her the cameras installed in the Bar, the description of which she mentioned in the panchanama.Manager showed us LCD TV wherein the live video of cameras were being displayed.She states in para 3 that "I have prepared rough sketch of the spot including location of cameras.The sketch of spot of the incident is the same.These bear my signatures.They are marked as Exhibits 166 and 167."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 25::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtPW 16 further states that after receiving the information from the Bar owner, the Expert, who installed the CCTV system, was called.The name of the said Expert is Shubham Narayan Padgilwar (PW 14).He states that "In December 2012, we installed CCTV camera in Seven Hills Bar.We had installed eight cameras there.Four cameras were of IR Dom and four cameras were of IR Bullet.In the said system, there was one DVR, containing Hard Disk of 500 GB for the storage of video recording.All the cameras were connected with DVR by cable.In front of counter, one LCD TV was there.The DVR was connected to the said LCD TV for viewing video recorded.One camera was installed in the kitchen and one in the godown at ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 26 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the first floor.Two cameras were installed behind the door in open space."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::PW 14 Shubham further states that the Hard Disk was of the capacity of storage of video recording of 15 days.After the recording of 15 days, video recording of camera of first day, is automatically deleted from the storage and video recording of camera of 16th day is saved.He states that "I checked the picturization of all the cameras on LCD TV.All cameras were working properly.I set the time and date in the system.I started recording by all 8 cameras.I also checked and found that video recording is properly being stored.After installation, I apprised the Bar Manager the procedure of operating system.We used to visit once in a week to verify whether the system is working properly.I also visited Seven Hills Bar for verification and found that the system was working properly.I also enquired on phone from Seven Hills Bar and found that the system is working properly." Our findings on the spot of incident, its surroundings and installation in the Seven Hills Bar :There is no challenge to it in the cross-examination.The evidence is corroborative and we do not finding any reason to discard it.We find such a view taken by the Sessions Court, relying upon the oral evidence of PW 1 Raghuveer, PW 2 Raju, PW 3 Sitaram, PW 14 Shubham, PW 15 Sachin, PW 16 Rupali and Exhibit 84 receipt, to be legal, correct and proper.Arrest of the accused persons :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::Accused No.1- Tushar came out of the Beer Bar with a blood-stained knife in his hand and along with accused No.5- Bhupesh and accused No.4- Amol, sat in a car, which was driven by accused No.3- Lashu and fled away from the spot.The seizure memo shows the blood stains on the blade as well as the grip of the said knife.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 ::: 29::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::There was heap of soil and there was ditch, full of water.There was one big stone on the heap.Accused moved the said stone beside.There were blood stains on the jeans pant, shirt and knife.Police took possession of the articles and then they returned towards Jeep.The articles were wrapped in the separate brown colour envelope which was signed by the panchas, accused and the Police Inspector.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:51 :::He identified the clothes seized in the Court as also the knife.PW 9 thus corroborates the evidence of PW 18 Vitthal Salunke.There is no cross-examination on all these ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 31 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt points.Relying upon the evidence of PW 9 and PW 18, it has to be held that the document at Exhibit 139 is proved and the discovery of knife as Article 1-A and the clothes as Articles 16 and 17 of the accused No.1- Tushar at Exhibit 139 becomes admissible in evidence.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::The accused No.2- Kunal told that he would take out the knife which is used in the crime and clothes which he wore at the time of committing crime.The memorandum panchanama at Exhibit 146 was prepared.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 32::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtPW 11 states that he along with other panch, the accused No.2 Kunal, constable and PSI Salunke left the Police Station between 11.15 and 11.30 a.m. by the Government vehicle and through Tiranga Chowk, Jagnade Chowk, Gangabai Ghat by cement road, the accused asked to stop the vehicle in front of Syyed Ali Dargah.All of them alighted from the vehicle.The accused was heading them and all others followed him.The accused took them in front of his house and knocked the door.One lady opened the door.The accused called her as mother and went inside.There was a speaker box on the loft (sajja).The accused No.2 took out the knife behind the speaker box and gave it to PSI Salunke.PSI Salunke measured the said knife.The drawing of it was drawn.The seizure memo at Exhibit 147 is proved to have been drawn by PSI Salunke in presence of PW 11 Akash.There is no cross-examination on these points.Relying upon the oral evidence of PW 11 and PW 18, it has to be held that the documents at Exhibits 146 and 147 are proved.Consequently, discovery of knife as Article A-2 vide Exhibit 147, at the instance of accused ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 33 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt No.2- Kunal becomes admissible in evidence.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::PW 18 Vitthal, the Investigating Officer, states that accused No.5 made a voluntary statement that he is going to show the place where he has kept the vehicle used in the crime.He states that he went along with the accused No.5, panchas and the staff in the Government vehicle, and the accused No.5 showed the way and took them in front of Shyam Palace Building, Congress Nagar Square.The vehicle was stopped.All of them alighted from the vehicle.The accused No.5 showed the car besides the said building.PW 13 Jagdish Wankhede, a panch witness, admits his signatures on seizure panchanama of car at Exhibit 153 and on the seizure memo of clothes of accused No.5 at ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 34 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Exhibit 154 and also on Exhibits 155 and 156, but denies the contents of it.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::Discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused No.6- Sameer :According to PW 18 Vitthal, accused No.6- Sameer intended to make a voluntary statement on 19-1-2013 that he is going to show the place where he has kept the bike used in the crime.All of them went in the Government vehicle and the accused No.6 showed the way and took them near Shrikrishna.The vehicle was stopped and all of them alighted from it.The accused No.6 went near one house and knocked the door.One middle-aged person came out of the house and the accused No.6 called him as 'Papa'.PW 18 further states that after minutely observing the bike, some blood stains were found on the pillion seat cover, and the same were collected with the help of cotton, which was sealed in one plastic ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 35 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt bag.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::Seizure of the clothes of the deceased :PW 18 states that on 11-1-2013, he seized the clothes of the deceased from Police Constable Premkumar under the seizure panchanama in presence of panchas, bearing his signature and marked as Exhibit 152A. The white coloured half shirt, sando baniyan, jeans pant, underwear, pair of shoes, blue coloured socks, chocolate coloured belt, white coloured handkerchief and wrist watch of 'Titan' were shown to him and he identified the said items.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 36::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Forwarding of clothes and articles seized and sealed, to the Chemical Analyzer for opinion :PW 18 further states that "On the same day (i.e. 19-1-2013), I sent the clothes of the accused and the deceased and the blood samples of the accused and the deceased with my covering letter to RFSL, which were kept in Malkhana.Our findings on the issues of arrest of the accused persons and discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at their instance :The entire evidence on the arrest and discovery from the accused persons, as narrated above, is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination.Weapons from accused Nos.1 and 2 were seized vide Exhibits 138 and 139 on 12-1-2013 and on 13-1-2013 vide Exhibit 147 respectively.Seizure from accused Nos.5 and 6 was on ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 37 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 14-1-2013 vide Exhibit 182 and on 19-1-2013 vide Exhibit 149 respectively.The clothes seized were forwarded on 19-1-2013 vide Exhibit 189 to the Regional Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur.There is no question of any explanation in respect of clothes and articles seized, or the delay, if any, as alleged.The defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that it is false.There is a corroborative evidence available on record and discussed above.We concur with such a view taken by the Sessions Court.What is the effect of it and in what manner it forms a chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused, can be seen at a later stage.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::Query Report in respect of weapons seized :PW 10 Dr. Nitin Shyamrao Barmate conducted post mortem over the body of deceased Jitu and has described 11 stab injuries, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 38 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 12 incised wound, constituting external injuries and internal injuries in thorax, abdomen, cavity, stomach and kidney.Paras 4, 5 and 6 of his opinion being relevant, are reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::"4] First knife was having blade and handle.Length of blade was 24 cm., breadth 5 cm, thickness .1 cm, 1 edge was sharp other edge sharp and distal 1/3 portion and blunt and serrated, pointed tip, reddish brown stains present over both sides of the blade."5] Second knife was having blade and handle.Length of blade was 19 cm, breadth 4 cm, thickness .1 cm, 1 edge was ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 39 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt sharp, other edge sharp and distal 1/3 portion and blunt and serrated pointed tip, reddish brown stains present over both sides of the blade.Joint of blade and handle was fixed.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::Handle of the said weapon was yellowish metal and wooden covering, length 11 cms, breadth 5.5 cms and thickness 1 cm.Injuries No.1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, mentioned in column No.17 of PM report are possible by second knife."The report issued is along with diagrammatic representation of the weapons, which is reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 40::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtExhibit 66 is the report of the Chemical Analyzer in respect of the blood sample of the accused No.2- Kunal, showing his blood group as 'A'.Exhibit 72 is the report of the Chemical Analyzer in respect of the blood sample of the accused No.1-Tushar, showing his ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 41 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt blood group as 'A'.The report of the Chemical Analyzer at Exhibit 68 in respect of the blood found on the knives seized from the accused Nos.1 and 2 shows the human blood.Exhibit 69 is the report of the Chemical Analyzer, showing the blood detected on Articles 16 and 17, the clothes of the accused No.1- Tushar, as of human, and the group of it, is found to be inconclusive.The blood on the clothes seized from the person of the deceased is found to be of group 'B' in Exhibit 69, the report.Exhibit 69 shows that the blood stains on the seized pant of accused No.3- Lashu were washed and no blood was detected on his full shirt.On the clothes of accused No.5- Bhupesh, No.4- Amol and No.6- Sameer, no blood was found.Our findings on the weapons seized and the report of the Chemical Analyzer :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::In response to the question Nos.114 in respect of report at Exhibit 143, put in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 42 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that "I do not know"; whereas in response to the question Nos.186 to 196 regarding the Chemical Analyzer's reports at Exhibits 66, 68, 69 and 72 is that "It is false".We concur with such a view taken by the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 43::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::In the present case, PW 80 SI Pratibha Sharma has deposed in her cross-examination that no independent person had agreed to become a witness and in the light of such a statement, there is no reason for the courts to doubt the version of the police and the recoveries made."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::When recovery is made pursuant to the statement of the accused, seizure memo prepared by the investigating officer need not mandatorily be attested by independent witnesses.In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, [(2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 248], it was held that non-attestation of seizure memo by independent witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve recovery of articles' list consequent upon the statement of the accused.It was further held that there was no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 CrPC to obtain signature of independent witnesses.If the version of the police is not shown to be unreliable, there is no reason to doubt the version of the police regarding arrest and contents of the seizure memos."Oral evidence of PW 6 Vinay :We now consider the oral evidence of PW 6 Vinay Ramraj Dubey, a chance witness, about its trustworthiness.PW 6 states that on the day of incident, i.e. 10-1-2013, he wanted to have beer at the Seven Hills Bar and hence he proceeded at 6 to 6.30 p.m. In order to see a missed call, he stopped just before Seven Hills Bar, outer wall of petrol pump, near small tree.At that time, he saw the accused No.3 Lashu Faye ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 45 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (Laxman) coming out of the said Bar hurriedly and sitting in the car.The car then moved from the place and stopped at some distance away, proceeding towards Chhota Tajbag Chowk.The next was the accused No.6 Sameer Katkar, who came out of the Bar on a two wheeler.The third was the accused No.2 Kunal Maske, possessing a blood-stained knife, who sat on the pillion seat on the vehicle of Sameer Katkar.He was knowing that the area comes within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sakkardara, and on the next day morning at about 9 to 9.30 a.m., he went to Police Station Sakkardara and stated the incident to the police.His statement was typed on the computer in Marathi and was read over to him by ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 46 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt translating it in Hindi.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::PW 6 Vinay states that Bhande Plot Chowk is towards north of the said Bar, at the distance of 300 meters.The distance between Chhota Tajbag Chowk and Bhande Plot Chowk is about one kilometer.There is a road in front of the Seven Hills Bar, flowing from Bhande Plot Chowk to Bollywood Centre Point Hotel, and thereafter up to T-point of Chhota Tajbag, the road has a cement divider.He states that when one goes to Chhota Tajbag from Seven Hills Bar, there is a road towards left after the petrol pump.Bollywood Centre Point Hotel is facing road, which ends towards Chhota Tajbag Chowk, where the divider ends at the T-point.He states that if one has to go to Bhande Plot Chowk from Bollywood Centre Point Hotel, he has to take U-turn.PW 6 further states that he stayes at Dwarkapuri, and Bhande Plot Chowk is about 4 to 5 kms.away from his house.He admits that in the locality where he resides, there are 5 - 6 Beer Bars.He states that he filled petrol in his two wheeler from the petrol pump, which is at the distance of 25 to 30 feet from Bollywood ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 47 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Centre Point Hotel.He volunteers that the petrol pump is facing 25 to 30 feet on the road and the Bollywood Centre Point Hotel is facing on the road about 300 to 325 feet.He then took U-turn, and since there was a call on his mobile, which he missed, he stopped just before Seven Hills Bar, outer wall of petrol pump, near small tree, to see the call.It is from that place he claims to have seen the accused persons at the distance of 25 - 30 feet.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::In the cross-examination, PW 6 Vinay claims ignorance about the existence of Battery Shop, Pan Thela, Tea Stall or Fabrication Shop, near the petrol pump where he filled the petrol in his two wheeler.He also claims ignorance about existence of certain landmarks, confronted to him in the cross-examination.He states that "I cannot assign any reason as to why the fact that he filled petrol in his two wheeler from the petrol pump besides Bollywood Centre Point Hotel and thereafter he took U-turn, does not find place in his statement".He states that "Since the police did not ask him about it, I did not state".He states that "I had stated to the police that Lashu left from there and stopped some distance away, Lashu was proceeding towards Chhota Tajbag Chowk and thereafter Sameer ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 48 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Katkar came to Seven Hills Bar and thereafter Tushar Dalal came out of the said Bar and he was holding blood-stained knife, all the three sat in the car by running, which was standing ahead of Bollywood Centre Point Hotel, the car left, I was frightened and I stayed there for some time".However, he further states that "I cannot assign any reason as to why these facts do not find place in his statement to the police".He states that "I cannot assign any reason why the portion marked 'A' is appearing in my statement".He denies the suggestion that he is the childhood friend of Jitu Gawande and that he never went to Seven Hills bar on 10-1-2013 and that he was a regular witness of Sakkardara Police Station.He denies the suggestion that - (1) he had not seen the incident and police had falsely planted him as an eye-witness, (2) he never visited Sakkardara Police Station prior to incident, or (3) he acted panch in murder case of Sheetal Kale.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::PW 18 Vitthal Salunke was the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation on 11-1-2013 from PW 16 Rupali Bawankar, who conducted initial investigation in the matter.In para 30 of his cross-examination, he states that "I visited Seven Hills Bar on 10-1-2013 at 7 p.m. to 8 p.m., but did not take part in ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 ::: 49 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the investigation".The said statement in Marathi, marked as portion 'A', is reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:52 :::" uarj iksfylkadMwu eyk ekfgrh feGkyh fd] [kqu >kysyk ble gk ftrsanz xkoaMs vkgs-"[Later on I came to know from the Police that a person murdered is Jitendra Gawande] He further states that PW 6 had not stated that "I filled petrol in my two wheeler from the petrol pump besides Bollywood Centre Point Hotel and took U-turn, there was a call on my mobile which I missed to see, I stopped just before Seven Hills Bar, outer wall of petrol pump and near small tree, Lashu left from there and stopped some distance away, Lashu was proceeding towards Chhota Tajbag Chowk, thereafter Sameer Katkar came out of Seven Hills Bar, thereafter Tushar Dalal came out of Seven Hills Bar and he was holding blood-stained knife (the omission is in respect of coming out ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 50 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt of Seven Hills Bar and blood-stained), all the three sat in the car by running which was standing ahead of Bollywood Centre Point Hospital, the car left, I was frightened and I stayed there for some time, I returned back to house as I was frightened, I did not tell the incident to anybody as I was frightened and I could not sleep for whole night".::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::He categorically states that the position shown in the map is correct.Perusal of the map at Exhibit 209 shows that to the north of Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant, there is Bhande Plot Chowk, and the Bar is located on the road flowing from Bhande Plot Chowk to Chhota Tajbag Chowk T-point.Adjacent to Seven Hills Bar on the eastern side, is the place of Ahmed Classes, and on the west side, is the Supreme Services.The Indian Oil Petrol Pump is adjacent on the western side of Supreme Services.The map at Exhibit 209 further depicts that adjacent to the western side of Supreme Services, is the Hindustan Steel Traders, and thereafter a lane before and adjacent to Bollywood Centre Point ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 51 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Hotel.Thus, there is a plot in between the Indian Oil Petrol Pump and Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant on the western side.Our findings on the oral evidence of PW 6 Vinay Dubey :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::Except the aforesaid evidence, there is no other evidence on this point, relevant to be considered.We, therefore, proceed to appreciate the evidence to test the veracity of the testimony of PW 6 Vinay.On the eastern side of Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant is Bhande Plot Chowk and on the western side of it is Chhota Tajbag Chowk.The said Bar is on the road from Bhande Plot Chowk to Chhota Tajbag.The road is 30-meter wide and divided by a cement divider in two parts - one for going to T-point at Chhota Tajbag from Bhande Plot Chowk, and other, after U-turn, from T-point at Chhota Tajbag, return to Bhande Plot Chowk.One cannot go to the other side of the road divider, unless there is a crossing provided.It is not the evidence that there is any crossing provided in the divider for the vehicles.Even the map at Exhibit 209 does not show any crossing.Once Seven Hills Bar is crossed while coming from Bhande Plot ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 52 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Chowk, and U-turn is taken from the T-point at Chhota Tajbag, one cannot reach to the said Bar again unless, either another U-turn is taken from Bhande Plot Chowk after crossing a distance of one kilometer or comes back from T-point at Chhota Tajbag.This position becomes very clear and established from the reading of oral evidence of PW 6 Vinay in the light of the site location map at Exhibit 209, proved by PW 18, the Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::The vital evidence as to the end from which PW 6 Vinay was going to the Seven Hills Bar - whether Chhota Tajbag Chowk on the western side or Bhande Plot Chowk from eastern side - is totally absent.It is not the case of PW 6 that he went to Seven Hills Bar by entering wrong side from Chhota Tajbag Chowk, located on the western side of the said Bar.He also does not say that he went to the said Bar from Bhande Plot Chowk on the eastern side.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 53::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtIf it is assumed that he was going from Chhota Tajbag Chowk on the western side and had reached the petrol pump near Seven Hills Bar, it is not the version of PW 6 that before taking U-turn, he witnessed the incident.Taking of U-turn means he was on return from the Seven Hills Bar and also the petrol pump to Chhota Tajbag and turning to the other side of the divider on the T-point to reach Bhande Plot Chowk.In such situation, unless he takes another U-turn from Bhande Plot Chowk after crossing the distance of one kilometer and thereafter half kilometer, he will not reach to the Seven Hills Bar.It is not the version of PW 6 that he took another U-turn from Bhande Plot Chowk to reach the said Bar.In such a situation, PW 6 could not be near Seven Hills Bar or the petrol pump, but he went away from it, at the time of the incident.If it is assumed that PW 6 went to Seven Hills Bar from Bhande Plot Chowk on the eastern side, he will have to cross the said Bar to reach to the petrol pump located on the western side of the Bar.It is not his version nor it appears from the map at Exhibit 209 that the petrol pump is located on the eastern side of the said Bar.It is also not his version that he went to the petrol pump ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 54 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt after crossing the said Bar.Be that as it may, it is his version that after filling petrol, he took U-turn after Bollywood Centre Point Hotel, which means that he went away from the said Bar up to Chhota Tajbag on the western side and thereafter to the other side of road divider.It is not the version of PW 6 that he witnessed the incident before taking U-turn after Bollywood Centre Point Hotel.In such a situation also, PW 6 could not be near the said Bar or the petrol pump at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::The positive case of PW 6 is that he stopped just before the Seven Hills Bar, outer wall of petrol pump and near small tree, to see a missed call at the distance of 25 to 30 feet and witnessed the incident.It is, therefore, probable that he was going to Seven Hills Bar from Bhande Plot Chowk on the eastern side.Though the petrol pump shown in Exhibit 209, a site location map, is on the western side of the said Bar, it is not adjacent to it, but there is one plot of Supreme Services in between the said Bar and the petrol pump.There is no evidence to show the width of this plot, though the width of the plot of the petrol pump, as deposed by PW 6, is 25 to 30 feet, facing the road.In such a situation, it is improbable that PW 6 was at ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 55 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the distance of 25 to 30 feet on the western side of the said Bar and from the outer wall of the petrol pump, adjacent to the said Bar, he witnessed the incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::The theory of witnessing the incident from the petrol pump, taking U-turn and thereafter checking missed call, is a complete omission, which has been pointed out in earlier paras, is established.His previous knowledge about the accused persons has become doubtful.Not only that, but his acquaintance with the accused persons is doubtful.The presence of PW 6 on the spot at the time of incident seems to be also doubtful.The Sessions Court ought not to have treated him as an eye-witness to establish the identity of the accused persons.We do not concur with the view taken by the Sessions Court to accept the version of PW 6 Vinay as trustworthy.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 56::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Finger Print of Accused No.1- Tushar :PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager of the Seven Hills Bar, deposed that the incident took place on 10-1-2013 at about 5 to 5.30 p.m. when four people entered the Bar.PW 16 Rupali, the first Investigating Officer, states in para 2 of her deposition as under :" 2] Manager told me that the glass which were kept on the counter used by the assailants.Investigation Car had come ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 57 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt there.Finger Print Expert took the finger prints from the glass.Thereafter, the said glass were sealed.I also mentioned location of camera in spot panchanama.Accordingly, spot panchanama was prepared.I and panchas were put signature on it.Spot panchnama now shown to me is the same.It bears my signature and the panchas.It is marked at Exhibit 163."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::Exhibit 163 is the spot panchanama under which four glasses used for serving peg were seized.PW 8 is Sunil Laxman Lonarkar, working as Junior Expert API (finger print in I Car Unit Crime Branch, Nagpur).He states in para 2 that on 10-1-2013, he received message from police control room at about 6-30 p.m. to visit the place of scene of crime of murder at Seven Hill Bar, Nagpur.He states in para 2 that on 10-1-2013, he received the message from the police at about 6.30 p.m. to visit the place of incident and, therefore, he along with the driver of the vehicle and photographer went on the spot at about 7 p.m. API Salunke and PSI Bawankar were there, who told him to check four glasses kept on the counter of the Bar.In para 3, he states that "I applied the universal powder on the said glasses with the help of brush.Out of four, I could find the finger print on one of the glass.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 58::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt I encircled the said finger print and put my signature on it beside the encircle on the glass.Photographer snapped photographs of the said finger prints".He states that the police gave him requisition and he also issued spot inspection report dated 10-1-2013 to the police, which is at Exhibit 116 and it bears his signature.Exhibit 116, which is the panchanama of four glasses on which gray powder was applied, shows that on glass No.1, one finger print was found, and on glass No.2 two finger prints were found.In para 4, he states that after 2 - 3 days he received three photographs of finger print of the said glasses, and out of it, he declared two photographs as not fit for further process, and one photograph was found fit for the process, as it contained 8 ridge character in the said photograph.Exhibit 126 is the enlarged finger print impression developed on drinking glass, marked as 'A'.He states in his evidence that "During my examination, I found Nine ridge characteristics of Exhibits 126 and 127 were matching".::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 59::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtThe objection to the admissibility of the evidence of PW 8 Sunil, the Finger Print Expert, and the reports submitted by him ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 60 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt at Exhibits 129 and 131 is that there is no evidence on record to show as to when and how the finger prints of the accused No.1-Tushar were obtained at Exhibits 120 and 127, which were found matched with the chance finger print.In this regard, paras 5 and 6 of the oral evidence of PW 8 Sunil need to be seen, and hence the same are reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::"5] I requested PS Sakkardara to send the finger impression slip (specimen) of the suspected.On 19-1-2013, I received request letter of PS Sakkardara along with six finger impression slips (specimen).I have brought the original request letter.(On oral request of witness the original letter is returned back to him after verifying the xerox copy of the letter).On the said six finger impression slips (specimen), there was no plain finger print of the suspected and only rolled prints were there.Therefore, I requested on telephone to send fresh finger print impression slips containing plain print and roll print.I had also made endorsement to that effect on the requisition letter Exh 118.""6] On 22-2-2013, I received letter of P.S. Sakkardara dt- 21-2-2013 along with finger print impression slips containing plain print and roll print of six suspects.I have brought the original letter.(On oral request of witness the original letter is returned back to him after verifying the xerox copy of the letter).I have brought the original finger print impression slips.(On oral request of witness the original letter is returned back to him after verifying the xerox copy of the letter).Chance finger print/photographs of finger print collected from glass, was enlarged.Enlarge copy of photograph of finger print collected from glass, now shown to me, is the same.Enlarge copy is marked at Exh 126."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::The only cross-examination on the point is contained in para 11, which is reproduced below :"11] The earlier finger impression slips which I returned back to police, are not on record.Query No.103 put to accused No.1-Tushar and answer to it, are reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 62::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt "Q.103 : It has further come in his evidence that on 22.2.2013 he received letter from PS Sakkardara along with finger print impression slip containing plain print and roll print of six suspects.What do you want to say about it?The cross-examination tries to raise a doubt about communications at Exhibits 118 and 119 and without background, the suggestion is that the said letters are fabricated.While recording the statement under Section 313, in reply to a question about receipt of letter at Exhibit 119 and finger prints at Exhibit 120, the stand is that "I do not know."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 63::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Our findings on the issue of Finger Prints of accused No.1- Tushar :We hold that the prosecution has proved the finger prints of accused No.1- Tushar, which established his presence on the spot at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 64::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Core Issue :The identification of the accused persons as the assailants in the present case constituting an unlawful assembly and conspiring to commit an act of murder of Jitu Gawande on 10-1-2013 between 17.45 and 17.56 hours in the Seven Hills Bar and Restaurant, is the core issue to be decided in this case.We now, therefore, turn to the core issue.The Sessions Court essentially relied upon the oral evidence of PW 6 Vinay, a chance witness, who saw the accused persons as the appellants fleeing away from the spot of incident on the two-wheeler and the car with knives, stained with blood, in the hands of the two accused, namely, the accused No.1- Tushar and the accused No.2- Kunal.We have already found the evidence of PW 6 Vinay to be untrustworthy.We have also held that the presence of the accused No.1 on the spot at the time of incident is established on the basis of his finger prints found on the glass of liquor in the said Bar.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 65::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtThe another aspect is of the admissibility of electronic evidence in the form of the DVD at Article 18A and the CD marked as 'X' for identification.All the arguments, therefore, essentially revolve around it and we, therefore, proceed to discuss it one by one.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 66::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Consideration of electronic evidence in the form of CD - 'X' marked for identification to establish the entire incident of murder of Jitu at Seven Hills Bar :PW 16 Rupali states in para 3 that "On our request, Shubham showed us the recorded footage of the incident from DVR on LCD TV.In footage recorded by camera no.7, we saw the assailants came inside the Bar, thereafter, we saw the deceased came inside the Bar.I arranged a blank pen drive and two DVD (CD).Shubham took the copy of said footages from DVR in pen drive and copied it in DVD with the help of laptop.We verified the pen drive and DVD in laptop and found the copies were done properly.The said pen drive and two DVD were seized ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 67 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt and sealed.On our request, Shubham took out Hard Disk from DVR which was seized and sealed.DVR was also seized and sealed.DVR Charging Wire, Mouse and Remote were also seized and sealed.I and panchas signed on it.Seizure panchanama (Exhibit 99) (Dated 10-1-2013) now shown to me is the same.It bears my signature and panchas.Its contents are correct.I had obtained the bills of pen drive and DVD.The bills of pen drive and DVD now shown to me are the same.It is marked at Exhibit 165."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::PW 16 Rupali identifies all the articles seized and her deposition in para 7 being relevant, is reproduced below :"7] I can identify the articles seized by me.Article-1 DVR, Article-4 Hard Disk, Article-7, Adapter, Article-10 Mouse, Article-13 Remote, now shown to me are the same which were seized by me.Label Article-2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 15 bear my signature.These are the same whereby the above said articles respectively were sealed.(CD(DVD) X for identification is now played in laptop.The footage of camera nos.1, 2 and 7 are seen by the witness.) The footages contained the CD(DVD) X for identification are the same which were copied from the DVR to Pen Drive and Pen Drive to DVD."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 68::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::Our findings in respect of electronic evidence of CD - 'X' for identification :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::Immediately on 10-1-2013 itself, within thirty minutes of the occurrence of an incident, i.e. at 6.00 p.m., the police personnel, led by PW 16 Rupali, the Investigating Officer, reached the spot.The inquest and spot panchanamas were prepared.For the purposes of security, a system of CCTV, consisting of eight cameras and one DVR containing Hard Disk of 500 GB for storage of video recording, well-connected with the cables, was found installed and functioning properly.The entire incident of murder of Jitu Gawande was recorded in the Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, contained in the DVR.The Sessions Court accepts the evidence of PW 14 and PW 15, the independent witnesses, who have stated that the Hard Disk is of the same Company, which they ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 70 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt had supplied and identified.The Sessions Court accepts such a view corroborated by PW 5 Kailash and PW 16 Rupali, as all the witnesses are found to be independent.We concur with such a view.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::The evidence of PW 16 Rupali is supported by the oral evidence of PW 14 Shubham and PW 5 Kailash Gulhane, a panch witness.PW 16 Rupali, PW 5 Kailash and PW 14 Shubham identified in their evidence before the Court the articles seized, viz. DVR, Hard Disk, Adapter, Mouse and Remote, as also the CD, marked as 'X' for identification, which was played in the laptop before the Court, from which the footages from camera Nos.1, 2 and 7 were seen by the witnesses.He identifies envelope in which DVR and label (Articles 1 and 2) were sealed in his presence.He identifies Hard Disk as Article 4 and its label and envelope as Articles 5 and 6 respectively.He identifies footages shown by Shubham, i.e. DVD-X played in the laptop as the same.We, therefore, hold that the DVR, Hard Disk, Adapter, Mouse, Remote, CD marked as 'X', produced before the Court are the same which were seized and sealed under seizure panchanama at Exhibit 99 on ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 71 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt 10-1-2013 on the spot of incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::At the request of PW 16 Rupali, the Expert PW 14 Shubham, showed the recorded footages of the incident from DVR on LCD TV.In the footages, the assailants and the deceased were seen inside the Bar.Some people were assaulting one person and subsequently the assailants ran away from the Bar.On the request of PW 16 Shubham the Expert PW 14, took the copies of the footages from DVR in pen drive and copied it in DVD (CD) with the help of laptop.The pen drive and DVD were verified and the copies were found to be done properly.PW 16 states that CD (DVD) X for identification is played in the laptop and the footages contained in it are the same which were copied from the DVR to Pen Drive and Pen Drive to DVD.This version is fully supported by PW 14 Shubham and PW 5 Kailash.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::Appreciation of the evidence on the snapping of the photographs of all the accused persons - our findings on it :The said photographs were snapped for investigation purpose and were handed over to me in the evening.The amount was paid as per bill dated 18-1-2013 at Exhibit 204."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 73::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtThis witness was allowed to be cross-examined as he resiled from his statement.The factum of snapping photographs of the accused persons, has been proved.In the cross-examination, no questions are put to challenge the method by which photographs at Exhibits 197 to 202 were prepared.No objection was raised at the time of his evidence in respect of the mode and manner of proof of photographs or its admissibility in evidence.We, therefore, hold that the photographs of accused, at Exhibits 197 to 202 are proved.PW 18 Vitthal states that on 2-2-2013, he prepared the request letter to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai, for ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 74 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt examination of Hard Disk and comparison of photographs of accused with CCTV footage.The letter is at Exhibit 195, which he identifies.He states that on 3-2-2013, he sent Hard Disk, blank Hard Disk, DVR, Adapter, Remote, Mouse, photographs of the accused and deceased in sealed condition along with covering letter at Exhibit 195 through Police Constable Premkumar.He states that all the articles were bearing seal as 'VSS'.He states that Police Constable Premkumar collected those articles from Malkhana of Police Station Sakkardara.He states that the officials at Kalina were not accepting the photographs without seal on each photograph, and this was informed to him by Police Constable Premkumar on mobile phone.Hence on 6-2-2013, he put the seal on all seven photographs and after re-sealing photographs, he sent Police Constable Premkumar along with all articles to Kalina, Mumbai.There is no reason to doubt the seizure, sealing and forwarding of all the photographs at Exhibits 197 to 202, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, under the covering letter at Exhibit 195, which we accept it as proved.Its receipt in sealed condition by the office of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, on 8-2-2013 is also proved by PW 19 Puja, who has vouched for it.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 ::: 75::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:53 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Electronic evidence in the form of DVD - Article 18A :On 8-2-2013, the office of the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai, received all six photographs of the accused snapped on 18-1-2013, marked as C to I in Exhibit 195-letter along with Hard Disk marked as Exhibit A, DVR marked as Exhibit B, and Remote, Charging Cable, Mouse, marked as Exhibits B(1), B(2) and B(3) respectively.PW 19 Ms Puja, working as Scientific Officer, prepared forensic image of the data, contained in Exhibit 1 Hard Disk to blank Hard Disk provided by Police Station Sakkardara.The DVD in which images were copied, was marked as "Annexure DVD CY 66/13".Hence, we accept such evidence.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 76::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtWe have gone through the covering letter dated 2-2-2013 at Exhibit 195, under which PW 18 Vitthal forwarded on 6-2-2013 all the Articles 1 to 15 seized in connection with CCTV cameras, including the Hard Disk of 500 GB of 'Toshiba' Company Model No.HDKPC05A0A02J Part No.(P/N)9F13178 vide Exhibit 99 on 10-3-2013, full size photographs of all the accused persons snapped on 18-1-2013 at Exhibits 197 to 202, to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai, with a request to submit the report on the following three queries, which are in Marathi, but translated in English :(2) Whether frames of persons appearing in the Hard Disk seized at Exhibit No.A are the same in the photographs of the persons at Exhibit No.C to Exhibit No.(3) The backups of recording be obtained in DVD." The parcels were inspected with regard to seal and numbering and were found in sealed condition and the same were sent for cyber analysis of CCTV footage dated 10-1-2013 between 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. She states that all parcels were opened and were given Exhibit Nos.1 to 12 to the articles.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the deposition of PW 19 being relevant, are reproduced below :"4] On 16-12-2013, the above said case came to me for analysis.All the articles Exhs 1 to 12 were received by me.I prepared forensic image of data contained in the Exh.1- harddisk to blank harddisk provided by PS Sakkardara.The DVR was connected to the said harddisk, wherein image was prepared.DVR was connected to our screen and image was played.We searched the question footage in the said image.We extracted footage 8 channel (camera) of the time 5-30 to 6-30 pm ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 78 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt dt- 10-1-2013 from said image, and it was written in DVD.We put said DVD in system.We compared the reference photograph Exhs 6 to 12 with the footage of DVD.The frames of persons selected, appeared to be similar with the reference photograph of Exhs 6 to 12."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::"5] Each digital record has its unique hash value.Accordingly, I noted the hash value in my report.Hard disk Exh-1 was in proper and working condition.I extracted the hash value of question footage channel 1 to 8 and mentioned in my report.After consultation with HOD, Jt.Director, and Director, I prepared my report.Report Exh 57 now shown to me, is the same.I also sent Art.1 DVR, Art.4 Hard disk, Art.7 Adapter,Art 10 Mouse, Art.13 Remote, now shown to me, are the same.7 brown colour sealed parcel, having seal of FSL are opened, wherein each envelope 1 photograph with one torn envelope are found.Exh 7 to 12 Photographs now shown to me are the same, which were sent to me for ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 79 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt reference.These are the same, which were sent to me as a reference photographs.The envelopes in which these photographs are found, are marked at Exh. 196-A to Exh 202-A and the respective torn envelopes are marked 196-B to 202-B. DVD X for identification now shown to me, is the same, in which the image was extracted from Hard-disk.DVD is marked at Art.18A."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::"6] During comparison of reference photographs, we scanned the reference photographs.In the report, against selected photographs, scanned reference photographs are shown for ready reference."PW 19 states that the Hard Disk has Image of CY 66/13 and it was marked as Exhibit-1 for identification.The DVR was connected to the Hard Disk, where the image was prepared and transferred to the blank Hard Disk (According to us, instead of "blank Hard Disk", it should be "blank DVD") provided by Police Station Sakkardara.DVR was connected to the screen and image was played.The footage concerned was searched.PW 19 states that "We extracted footage 8 channel (camera) of the time 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. dated 10-1-2013 from said image, and it was written in DVD.We put the said DVD ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 80 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt in system.We compared the reference photograph Exhibits 6 to 12 with the footage of DVD.The frames of persons selected, appeared to be similar with the reference photograph of Exhibits 6 to 12."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::She extracted the hash value of question footage channel of 1 to 8 and mentioned in her report.She also sent Article 1 DVR, Article 4 Hard Disk, Article 7 Adapter, Article 10 Mouse, Article 13 Remote, which she identifies.She states that "DVD X for identification now shown to me, is the same, in ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 81 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt which the image was extracted from Hard Disk and it was marked as Article 18A."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::The report at Exhibit 57 given by PW 19 Ms Puja shows the comparative analysis of selected frames of video files, named as "CH-01.AVI" and "CH-07-AVI", with reference to photographs at Exhibits 6 to 12 with the finding that "the persons present in the mentioned video files are found similar with the photographs." PW 19 states that the report is in respect of comparison of selected frames of the persons from the footages with those photographs of the accused, marked as Exhibits 6 to 12 in the report (According to us, it should be "Exhibits 7 to 12").The opinion expressed was that the photographs of the accused are found to be similar to the frames of the persons selected from the footages.We have been taken through the cross-examination of PW 19 Ms Puja by Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the accused.In the cross-examination, she states that ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 82 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt "I have done restoring process of CCTV, Hard Disk, extracting the data and comparison with my eyes.I have not conducted any other examination for comparison of reference photographs with selected frames from the footage other than visual examination." She states that "I enlarged the pictures of people appearing in question footage for comparison.I enlarged the photographs from the footage to the size of the selected frames as appearing in the Court.I did not measure the width and breadth of various parts of the faces of selected frames for comparison with reference photographs." In para 9, she says that "I did not compare the hash value of the Hard Disk with hash value of the footage of the DVD." She states that if the files of footage are tampered, it will have different hash value than the hash value appearing in the Hard Disk.She states that "I cannot certify the tampered media as an authenticated media." She states that "I have not conducted any test for ascertaining that the samples received are not tampered, edited or mastered.Our findings on electronic evidence of DVD -::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::Article 18A and the report at Exhibit 57 :The same were received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 8-2-2013 in a sealed condition for cyber analysis along with photographs of accused at Exhibits 197 to 202 with a request to submit report on the query.The report to that effect at Exhibit 57 is proved.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::We find that, PW 19 Ms Puja has furnished an explanation in respect of the statements given by her in the cross-examination.She states that it was not necessary to compare the hash value, because the Hard Disk contained the entire files, including footage, and it has different hash value than the files of footages.She states that the video was continuous and there was no tampering in the footages.She states that Tableau Forensic Duplicator Model D-2 is an equipment, and if one has licence of the said equipment with proper training, can restore the data.She denies the suggestion that the reference photographs are not even similar to selected photographs.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::What we find from the cross-examination of PW 19 is that, in the present case, it was not necessary to compare the hash value of Hard Disk with the hash value of the footages of DVD, as the Hard Disk contained the entire files and it has different hash value than the files of footages.The video was continuous and there was no tampering in the footages.It is never contended that DVD - Article 18A does not contain footages in the Hard Disk (Article 4).We concur with such findings.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 85::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtThe cross-examination of PW 19 reflects the suggestion that the hash value of the Hard Disk is different from the hash value of the footages contained in CD - 'X' or DVD and, therefore, the only inference which can be drawn is that there was tampering in the recordings of CD - 'X' and DVD.We have seen the Hard Disk, CD - 'X' and DVD.The report of PW 19 at Exhibit 57 shows the storage capacity of Hard Disk as "465.76 GB", whereas the capacity of CD - 'X' is "52X 700 MB 18 MIN" and that of DVD is of "4.7 GB/16X".It is in this background, PW 19 has explained that it was not necessary to compare the hash value of Hard Disk with the hash value of the footages contained in the DVD, as the Hard Disk contained the entire files and it has a different hash value than the files of the footages.We, therefore, are of the view that the suggestion in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 86 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt cross-examination was of no significance in the facts and circumstances of this case.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::We find from the evidence discussed earlier that there was no scope left out for tampering in the process of seizure, sealing, forwarding and receipt of all the concerned articles by PW 19, who has vouched that it is untampered and has withstood it in her cross-examination on all the questions in respect of it.No questions were put to this witness impeaching her credit, as required by Section 155 of the Evidence Act. We, therefore, do not find that the cross-examination of PW 19 is of any help to the accused persons.Oral evidence of PW 4 Pramod to identify the assailants as accused persons :PW 4 Pramod Gawande is the real brother of the deceased Jitu Gawande.He claims to be knowing the accused Nos.1 to 6 as ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 87 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the friends of the deceased Jitu and on visiting terms to his house.He talks about the motive of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to assault the deceased, who used to repeatedly demand the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the accused No.1- Tushar Dalal on credit.However, it is not clear whether footages were from CD marked as 'X' or from DVD marked as Article 18A. Be that as it may, CD - 'X' was confronted to PW 1 Raghuveer, who identified it.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::PW 4 Pramod identified all the accused persons.According to him two accused were assaulting Jitu by knife, two were watching outside the Bar, and remaining two accused were inside the Bar with the accused, who were assaulting Jitu.He states that the accused No.1- Tushar and the accused No.2- Kunal were assaulting Jitu by knife, the accused No.5- Rinku provided the knife, the accused No.3- Lashu Faye was standing along with the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 88 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 inside the Bar, the accused No.4- Amol Mandale came from backside of the Bar and took cold drink bottle and brandished to the persons, including the waiters inside the bar, and the accused No.6- Samir was standing outside, near the gate of the Bar.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::Our findings on the oral evidence of PW 4 Pramod on the identification of accused persons :The oral evidence of PW 4 Pramod claiming to have seen CCTV footages on 11-1-2013 in Police Station, was possible to get corroboration from the Investigating Officer.The evidence of PW 4 that he was shown CCTV footages on 11-1-2013 in the Police Station does not find any corroboration.In fact, all the items seized on 10-1-2013 were sealed and there is no evidence of re-opening of it.However, his oral evidence about previous acquaintance with the accused persons as the friends of deceased Jitu and in respect of motive, seems to us as natural.It is not questioned in the cross-examination.We, therefore, do not find any impediment in accepting this evidence and we hold that PW 4 Pramod has unequivocally established the motive of the accused to finish the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 89 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt deceased Jitu and has identified all the accused persons as the assailants of Jitu, on the basis of CCTV footages shown to him in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::The objection before the Court to confront PW 4 Pramod with CCTV footages was that he is not an eye-witness and, therefore, the footages can only be confronted to him in the cross-examination.The Court has held that the witness has stated to have seen the footages in the Police Station and, therefore, the objection was overruled.The cross-examination of PW 4 on the aspect of his acquaintance with all the accused persons is conspicuously silent.Whether PW 4 was confronted the CCTV footages from CD - 'X' or DVD - Article 18A does not make any difference, as, in our view also, CCTV footages were shown only to identify the assailants, which he has done.This witness has clearly established his previous acquaintance with all the accused persons as the friends of deceased Jitu and in respect of money transaction between accused No.1- Tushar and deceased Jitu.We do not find any reason to ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 90 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt disbelieve the version of PW 4 and we hold that he has identified all the accused persons as the assailants of deceased Jitu Gawande and has attributed each of them the specific role which he has played in the crime in question.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::Rival contentions on the question of admissibility of the certificate at Exhibit 160 issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act :The prosecution has relied upon the certificate dated 12-2-2013 at Exhibit 160, issued under the signature of PW 15 Sachin, the owner of ITG Solution Company, which installed CCTV cameras in the Seven Hills Bar on 21-12-2012 and continues to monitor its working by sending the employees, including PW 14 Shubham, the Hardware Operator.The certificate at Exhibit 160 is reproduced below :"ITG Solution Date : 12-02-2013 Certificate (U/S 65-B of Indian Evidence Act) I Sachin Kshirsagar Proprietor of M/s ITG Solution, Plot No-79 Radhakrishna Nagar Behind Radhakrishna Temple, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur.To the best of Knowledge and belief certify as under :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 91::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt1) That I Sachin KS am running the Business of CCTV System and IT Solution by ITG Solution.2) That I have Installed the CCTV System in 7 Hill BAR, Near Sakkardhara lake, Sakkardhara Nagpur On 21st Dec 2012, Receipt No-ITG-0263) That CCTV System in 7 Hill BAR, Sakkardhara Nagpur was installed by our Technical Team.5) That On dated 10th Jan 2013 the CCTV System was working till time after 8:30 pm when Mr. Shubham Padgilwar visited 7 hill Bar, Sakkardhara Nagpur, and CCTV System (HDD and DVR) in the Presence of Investigation Team Of Sakkardhara Police Station and Handed Over CCTV System (HDD and DVR) to the Police Note:- Copy of Bill is Already Hand Over to the Police Station Seal of ITG Solutions, Nagpur and Signature as- Sachin Place:- Nagpur Signature and Seal Regd.Off.79, Rarhakrishna Nagar, B/H Radhakrishna Temple, Hudkeshwar Rd, Nagpur-34."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 94::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtConsideration of precedents :In the decision of a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600, an issue of production of electronic evidence on record was considered.In para 150 of the said decision, it was held as under :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 95::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::The signatures in the certificate were also identified.That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Probably what the Court intended to say is that the question did not fall for consideration in Navjot Sandhu's case.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 97::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 ::: 99::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing.It holds that omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case.The Court, therefore, drew an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.The conviction was, therefore, set aside.It holds that it does not appear from the record that any such objection was taken even at the appellate stage before the High Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 109::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 110::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Our view on the admissibility of electronic evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case :PW 14 Shubham states that he had also copied the wanted footage of three cameras from DVR in the Pen Drive.He states that "I had also copied the wanted footage in two CDs from the Pen Drive, which were given to the police." The Sessions Court, relying upon the oral evidence of PW 14, holds in para 66 that the copies of footages, which were made in Pen Drive, were kept by police for investigation purpose and they are not produced before the Court.We do not find any fault in such a view taken by the Sessions Court.The Hard Disk, which is a primary electronic evidence, containing Image of CY 66/13, is marked as Exhibit 1 without any objection as to its admissibility.A DVD, which is the copy of the Image or a copy of the Hard Disk prepared and identified by PW 19 Ms Puja is marked as "Annexure DVD CY 66/13" - Article 18A is also admitted in evidence without any objection of it being a true copy of the footages in the Hard Disk.The Sessions Court records the finding in para 78 that PW 19 Ms Puja has clarified that the video is continuous and she ruled out the possibility of tampering of Hard Disk or even DVD - Article 18A. We concur with it.Thus, the primary as well as the secondary evidence of electronic record produced on record is true and genuine.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::On the basis of the oral evidence of PW 5 Kailash, PW 14 Shubham, PW 16 Rupali, Exhibit 99 seizure panchanama, bill of Pen Drive and DVD/CD at Exhibit 165, sketch of spot at Exhibits 166 and 167 and bill for purchase of CCTV system at Exhibit 84, we have already held that - (1) CCTV system containing Hard Disk and cameras to record all happenings in the Bar was installed, (2) it was functioning on the date of incident, (3) it recorded the entire incident of murder of Jitu on 10-1-2013 at 5.30 p.m. onwards, (4) recorded footages in cameras were viewed on LCD TV on the spot, (5) copies of footages from cameras 1, 2 and 7 in the Hard Disk, taken in CD - 'X' are true and genuine, and ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 112 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (6) CD - 'X' and entire system of CCTV cameras was seized and sealed under panchanama at Exhibit 99, and (7) all these articles are identified by the witnesses in Court.The Sessions Court also records the finding in para 73 that from the date of seizure till opening of parcel, containing Hard Disk, by PW 19 Ms Puja, the label seal (Article 5) on the parcel was intact.We accept such finding.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::One more additional aspect we would like to consider.On CD - 'X' placed on record, it is written "CAPTAIN PRO COMPACT DISC RECORDABLE" and on DVD, it is written as "DVD-R".After its search on Internet, we find that it is known as "CD-R" or "DVD-R", which is a type of "Write Once, Read Many" (WORM) compact disc format that allows one-time recording on disc and it is different from CD-RW which allows you to write data and then erase to re-use the disc.As long as CD-R disc has not been finalized, you can erase it and re-use it the same way you could a standard CD-RW disc.The finalization process makes it impossible to re-use a CD-R after its been recorded to and so long as that has not happened you can continue to record data to a disc as often you would like.In our view, it means that the CD - 'X' and DVD - Article 18A placed on ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 113 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt record are of type "Write Once, Read Many" and are not capable of multiple recordings, once the process is finalized.No questions were put in the cross-examination of PW 14 Shubham or PW 19 Ms Puja, on the question of re-use of CD - 'X' and DVD - Article 18A before finalization of recording.It was not the suggestion to PW 14 Shubham or PW 19 Puja that multiple CDs or DVDs were used while copying the data in CD - 'X' or DVD - Article 18A. It was not the suggestion that CD - 'X' or DVD - Article 18A were of "RW" type and not "R" type.There was no suggestion that the Hard Disk, other than one at Exhibit 1, was used for copying purposes.Once the recording in CD - 'X' and DVD was complete, there was no scope to tamper with it as they were not re-usuable.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::Significant aspects to be noted in respect of electronic evidence produced :We would like to note most significant aspects in respect of the electronic evidence produced on record.It was not the objection raised that the CCTV system installed in the said Bar was neither functioning at the time of incident nor did record the incident of murder of Jitu Gawande.In view of such position, we hold that the objection raised to the admissibility, loses its significance and is, therefore, rejected.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 115::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Other objections to electronic evidence :The Sessions Court has dealt with two objections raised by the defence in paras 76 and 77 as under :Taking help of this discrepancy, learned Advocate for the accused No.1, vehemently submits that the hard-disk examined by the expert is not the same.Bare perusal of hard-disk (Article-4) goes to show that apart from number mentioned in the requisition letter (Exh. 197), various other numbers are mentioned on the hard-disk itself.The number WD5000AAKX-00ERMA0 is one of the numbers printed on the said hard disk Apart from HDKP05AOK02J. So, it appears that the expert has written in her report one of the another number, which is appearing on the hard-disk (Article-4) containing number HDKP05AOK02J. Therefore, I do not find force in the argument of learned Advocate for accused No.1 that it is not the same hard-disk."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::It is also submitted by learned Advocate for the accused that the CD as well as hard-disk are not exhibited and they have been given Article Numbers, therefore, they cannot be read in evidence.Let me state, in general practice any document of paper is given an exhibit number and whereas, any article, though it may be document within the meaning of Evidence Act, are given article numbers for the convenience purpose.So, mere on this ground it cannot be said that hard-disk and DVD/CD are marked as Article No.4 and 18, respectively and not given exhibit numbers, therefore they cannot be read in evidence.Article or Exhibit Numbers are given only for identification and convenience purpose during the trial.Deciding its probative value is entirely different thing.So, if the other criteria is satisfied, then they can be read in evidence, irrespective of the fact that they are given article numbers.Therefore I do not find force in the argument of Learned Advocate for defence."We do not find any fault in rejecting the objection and we concur with it.Ourselves witnessing CCTV footages from the Hard Disk, CD and DVD :The Hard Disk at Exhibit 1 contained in the DVR is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 117 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt available on the record of the Sessions Court.The witnesses PW 1 Raghuveer, PW 2, Raju, PW 3 Sitaram, PW 4 Pramod, PW 5 Kailash, PW 14 Shubham, PW 16 Rupali and PW 18 Vitthal were confronted with the relevant portion in CD - 'X' and Annexure DVD CY-66/13 (Article 18A) during the course of their examination-in-chief.We opened the seals of the articles sealed and produced.We got it assembled and have ourselves viewed the footages contained in the Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, which was connected to the DVR, CD - marked as 'X' and DVD at Article 18A.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 118::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtProbably for this reason, there was no insistence from the defence for showing the footages from the Hard Disk, which is a primary electronic evidence.We do not find it necessary to consider the question as to the admissibility of secondary evidence produced by a person not in power and possession of the CCTV system.We find that the primary as well as secondary evidence of electronic record is produced, and that the secondary evidence is a true and genuine copy of relevant primary evidence available on record.In the absence of any objection or cross-examination of the witnesses, PW 1 Raghuveer, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 119 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt PW 2 Raju, PW 3 Sitaram, PW 4 Pramod, PW 5 Kailash, PW 14 Shubham, PW 16 Rupali and PW 18 Vitthal, on the aspect of CD - marked as 'X' and DVD at Article 18A not being the true and genuine copies of the footages contained in the Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, in our view, the provision of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is not at all attracted so as to make the electronic evidence in the form of CD and DVD inadmissible to establish the incident and the identity of the assailants.We, therefore, hold that the electronic evidence tendered in the form of Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, CD - 'X' and DVD - Article 18A is admissible in the facts and circumstances of the case without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. We, therefore, accept such a view taken by the Sessions Court to be legal, correct and proper.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::After taking orders from the table, waiters used to come to the counter and used to take liquor from him as per the orders of the customers.He states that in the year 2013, Raju Vargat, Anil Tiwari, Vinay Tiwari, Manish Tiwari, Devendra and Gajanan were working as waiters in the Bar, whereas Rupesh Gade and Sitaram Wankhede were the security guard and cook respectively.Actual incident, complaint, the persons present on the spot, and their oral evidence :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::PW 1 further states that the incident took place on 10-1-2013, on which date he came to the Bar at 2 p.m., and Sitaram Wankhede, Anil Tiwari, Raju Vargat and Rupesh attended the duty.At about 5 to 5.30 p.m., four people came in the Bar.He states that "One of them came to my counter and asked counter peg of Rum.I prepared peg (liquor) and gave it to him.Other three people were ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 ::: 121 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt standing behind him.I provided Rum to the said person in a glass.Thereafter, I was busy in my work.Besides the said door, there is partition of glass.I saw from the glass partition, one car came there.Those three persons were looking towards car.I felt that they were waiting for somebody because those persons were looking outside the Bar again and again.The said car was of white colour.They started talking loudly, therefore, I paid attention towards them.One of them, closed the door of the Bar.The said person was one of the four persons.Those four persons started quarrelling with a person who came in the car.Out of four, two persons started assaulting the said person by means of knives.Those knives might have brought by those persons.Rest of two persons went outside.The person to whom assault was made fell down.In spite of that those persons were assaulting the said person, who fell down.Thereafter they left the Bar.There was pool of blood.I had been to rescue him but one of them brandished knife towards me and asked me to go inside.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 122::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Therefore, I went inside the counter."PW 1 Raghuveer states that at the time of incident, CCTV cameras were on.In para 7, he states that "When incident happened, I, Raju Vargat, Sitaram Wankhede and Anil Tiwari were present.Nobody other was present there except us.I made phone call on 100 number and informed the incident." In para 11, he states that within 20 to 25 minutes, police came there and enquired with him about the deceased.He further states that "I told police that I do not know deceased.I was taken to police station.I informed the police about the incident." He states that "What I told, police wrote.He says that "No further enquiry was made by police with me at Bar."PW 1 states that "I do not remember the description of the said persons.I cannot identify those persons due to passage of time.The portions marked 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' in the complaint at Exhibit 85 were confronted to this witness in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 123 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt cross-examination.The said statements are reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::"Portion 'A' : FkksMh nsj ckn mues ls ,d vkneh 30 rs 35 lky mez ds vkneh dks ftlus OgkbZV jax dh 'kVZ igsuh Fkh mls ysdj vk;sA"[Portion 'A' - Translated - After some time one amongst them brought a person aged about 30 to 35 years wearing white T-shirt.] "Portion 'B' : ckn es OgkbZV 'kVZ okyk vkneh ml CY;q 'kVZ okys yMds dks ckjckj psd dj jgk Fkk vkSj ckdh yksx mlds vktqcktq [kMs gksdj ns[k jgs Fks A"[Portion 'B' - Translated - Subsequently a person wearing white shirt was checking the person wearing blue shirt and rest of the persons standing were watching him.] "Portion 'C' : og ,d nqljs ds [kansij gkr j[kdj xys feydj ckrfpr dj jgs Fks rks eq>s yxk dh og lHkh yksx ,d nqljs dks igpkurs gSA rc CY;q 'kVZ igus gq;s vknehus OgkbZV 'kVZ okys vkneh dks xkyhxyksp djuk 'kq# fd;k A "[Portion 'C' - Translated - They were keeping hands on the shoulder of each other and were talking and hugging.I therefore thought that they were knowing each other.At ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 124 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt that time person wearing blue shirt started abusing the person wearing white shirt.] "Portion 'D' : fQjls dkmaVj ds ikl vkdj mlus mlds lkFkokys vkneh ls votkj ekaxk rc mlds lkFk okys vkneh us mldks votkj fn;k vkSj mlus votkj ysdj OgkbZV 'kVZokys vkneh dks fn[kkdj Mjkus yxk A"::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::[Portion 'D' - Translated - Again he came near the counter and asked one of his accomplices to give weapon and the accomplice gave it to him and threatening started to a person wearing white shirt.] "Portion 'E' : rc muds lkFk okyk vkSj ,d yMdk nqcyk iryklk yacs cky okyk ckj ds vanj ls vk;k vkSj mlus ogkWij j[kh dksYMªhad dh ckWVy mBk;h vkSj mlls gekjs osVjksa dks Mjk;k A rc muds lkFk okys vkSj nks vkneh ckgj ls dksbZ vk jgk gS dh ugh ;g ns[k jgs Fks vkSj njokts ls vanj ckgj dj jgs Fks A"[Portion 'E' - Translated - At that time, the accomplice or one another of slim and heighted personality with long hair came in the Bar, took up a bottle of cold drink and started threatening the waiters.Two other persons accompanying them started watching outside to see if there is someone coming inside and they were going out and coming in.]::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 125 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt "Portion 'F' : eS vxj mu vkneh;ksa dks okil ns[kaqxk rks igpku yaqWaxk A"::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::[Portion 'F' - Translated - If I see the said persons I can identify them.] The witness says that "I do not remember whether deceased was wearing white shirt.I do not remember whether I had stated to police that after some time one of them brought a person aged 32 to 35 years wearing white shirt.He further states that "I do not remember that all persons were talking each other by hugging.It is not correct to say that I felt that all those persons might be knowing each other.I do not ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 126 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt remember person wearing blue shirt, started abusing the person wearing white shirt.I do not know why portion 'C' is appearing in my report."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::PW 1 further states that "As I was busy in my work, therefore, I could not pay attention whether the person wearing blue shirt, demanded weapon to the person who showed the weapon to the person wearing white shirt and frightened him.I do not remember out of those, two persons were looking outside to see whether anybody come inside the bar and were coming and existing from the door.I cannot assign any reason why portion marked 'E' is appearing in my report."He further states that "I do not remember whether I stated to police if, I had seen assailants, I can identify them.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 127::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt I cannot assign any reason why portion marked 'F' is appearing in my report."PW 1 further states that "It is not correct to say that I am deposing false that I do not remember, portion marked 'A' to 'F' to police.It is not correct to say that I had stated portion marked 'A' to 'F' to police."He states that "I was asked to take the complaint of complainant.At about 8.00 p.m. complainant came to police station.I recorded his oral complaint on computer.Complainant signed on the said computerized report." He identifies the complaint at Exhibit 85 shown to him and states that it bears his signature.He states that the contents are written as per the say of the complainant and he prepared the printed FIR and registered the offence under relevant Sections vide Crime No.12/13 and the printed FIR is identified at Exhibit 86, which bears his signature and the signature of the complainant.He states that the portion marked 'A' to 'F' in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 128 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt complaint at Exhibit 85 are written as per the say of the complainant.In the cross-examination, he denies that the said portions were written by him on his own.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::PW 18 Vitthal, who took over the investigation on 11-1-2013 at 9 a.m., states that the complainant approached him and told that he wants to state something and, therefore, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded as per his say.The portions marked 'A' to 'F', appearing in the statement of PW 1, recorded on 11-1-2013, were confronted to him as Exhibits 174-A to 174-F. The said statements are reproduced below :"Portion 'A' : dy eSus esjh vkW[kks ls [kqu gksrs gq;s ns[kus ls eS Mj x;k Fkk vkSj [kqu djusokys xqaMks dh ng'kr dh otg ls iwjh tkudkjh ugh ns ik;k Fkk vkSj [kqu djusokys xaqMks dk uke eq>s ekywe gksrs gq;s Hkh eSus iqyhl dks ugh crk;k Fkk A"[Portion 'A' - Translated - Yesterday I witnessed the murder.However, I was scared and because of terror of gundas I could not give the complete information to the police in spite of knowing their names.]::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 129 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt "Portion 'B' : dy rk- 10-01-2013 dks 'kke 05-30 cts ds vklikl gekjs ckj es ges'kk vkusokys xzkgd rq"kkj nyky] dq.kky EgLds] yPNq Qk;s vkSj fjadq fVpdqys vk;s A eSus dbZ ckj mudks m/kkj nk# fn gS blfy, eS mUgs vPNs ls igpkurk gwW A ml fnu og yksx ckj esa vkusij eSus ges'kk fd rjg mudks Xykl es 'kjkc fn A"::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::[Portion 'B' - Translated - Yesterday on 10-1-2013 at about 5.30, the usual customers in the Bar Tushar Dalal, Kunal Maske, Lashu Faye and Rinku Tichkule came.I had supplied them liquor on credit on earlier occasions and therefore I know them very well.On that day I served them liquor in the glass as usual, when they came in the Bar.] " Portion 'C' : dqN le; ckn yPNq Qk;s gekjs ckj esa ges'kk vkusokyk xzkgd ftldks esa m/kkj nk# fiykrk Fkk blfy, mls igpkurk Fkk ml ftrw xkaoMs dks ckj esa ysdj vk;k A"[Portion 'C' - Translated - After some time Lashu Faye who is our usual customer to whom I know and used to serve liquor regularly brought with him Jitu Gawande.] " Portion 'D' :rq"kkj ftrw xkaoMs dks fganh esa cksyk] lkys ckj ckj iSls ekWxrk gS rq>s fn[kkrk gWw A mrus es rq"kkj us fjadw dks dqN ekaxk rc fjadw us mlds ikl dk pkdw tSlk votkj rq"kkj ds gkFk eS fn;k A "::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt [Portion 'D' - Translated - Tushar said in Hindi to Jitu Gawande "Sale bar bar paise mangta hai, tuze dikhata hu".Immediately Tushar demanded something from Rinku and Rinku immediately gave him weapon like knife to Tushar.] " Portion 'E' :mrus esa dq.kkyus vius ikl dk pkdw fudkydj ftrq xkaoMs dks ekjus ds fy,s nkSMk rc yPNq Qk;s dq.kky vkSj rq"kkj dks cksy jgk Fkk " ftR;k dks NksMks er ekj Mkyks"A rc rq"kkj vkSj dq.kky us ftrq xkaoMs dks pkdq tSls votkj ls ekjuk 'kq# fd;k A"[Portion 'E' - Translated - Immediately Kunal took out the knife and started assaulting Jitu Gawande and at that time Lashu Faye told Kunal and Tushar "Don't leave Jitya, kill him." At that time Tushar and Kunal started assaulting Jitu Gawande with knife.] " Portion 'F' :mrus esa esjs ckj ds vksiu jsLVkWjaV dh rjQ ls gekjs ckj es ges'kk vkusokyk veksy ekankGs ;g Hkh ogkWij vk;k A"[Portion 'F' - Translated - Immediately Amol Mandale our usual customer came inside the Bar from the open restaurant.] PW 18, in response to the questions put to him in cross-examination in para 22, states that on 11-1-2013 at ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 131 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt about 9 a.m., he recorded the statement of the complainant and it lasted for 15 minutes.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::PW 1 Raghuveer states that "On 11-1-2013, my statement was not recorded by police." He states that "I cannot assign any reason why portion marked 'A' is appearing in my supplementary statement."He states that "It did not happen that the customer Tushar Dalal, Kunal Maske, Lassu Faye and Rinku Chitkule who used to visit frequently in our bar, had been to my bar on 10-1-2013 at about 5.30 p.m." He states that "I cannot assign any reason why portion 'B' is appearing in my supplementary statement."PW 1 states that "It did not happen that after some time, Lashu Faye brought Jitu Gawande in the bar.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 132::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt He states that "As I was busy in my work, therefore, I do not say that after some time Tushar asked Jitu Gawande "sale bar bar Paise mangta hai, tuze dikhata hu", therefore, Tushar demanded something to Rinku then Rinku gave weapon like knife to Tushar.PW 1 states that "It did not happen that when Kunal also rushed to assault Jitu Gawande by taking out knife, Lashu Faye told Kunal and Tushar "Jitya ko chodo mat, mar dalo"." He states that "It is not correct to say that I had stated to police that Tushar and Kunal started assaulting Jitu Gawande by means of knife." He further states that "I cannot assign any reason why portion marked 'E' is appearing in my supplementary statement."He states that "It did not happen that Amol Mandale, who used to often visit my bar, came there.I cannot assign any reason why portion marked 'F' is appearing in my supplementary statement.It is not correct to say that as I was knowing the name of assailants, therefore, I had stated their names to police.I cannot say that ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 133 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt accused are the same persons, who are assailants in the incident dt- 10-1-2013."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::Though PW 1 Raghuveer stated that Raju Varghat was present on the spot of incident when the incident happened, PW 2 Raju denies his presence on the spot and claims ignorance about the incident.He was confronted with the statements said to have been recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10-1-2013, marked as 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', and 'F', which are reproduced below :"Portion 'A' : 'kke 05-30 cts ds vklikl ckj es fHkM ugh Fkh rc ckj es pkj ikWp yksx vk, ftudh mez vanktu 25 ls 30 lky gksxh og dkmaVj ds ikl [kMs gksdj mUgksus mudk vkWMZj fn;kA FkksMh nsj ckn ,d 30and35 lky mez dk vkneh ftlus OgkbZV jax dh 'kVZ igus Fkh og vk;k vkSj og yksx dkmaVj ds ikl [kMs jgdj ejkBh es ckrphr djus yxs A rc OgkbZV 'kVZ iguus okys vkneh CY;q 'kVZ igus gq;s vkneh ls tksjtksjls ckr dj jgk Fkk vkSj CY;q 'kVZokyk vkneh OgkbZV'kVZ igus vkneh ds lkFk iSls ds ysu nsu ds ckjs es ckrfpr dj jgk FkkA"[Portion 'A' - Translated - In the evening at about 5.30 there was no rush in the Bar and at that time 4 to 5 persons aged about 25 to 30 years came near the counter in the Bar ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 134 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt and gave order.After some time one person wearing white shirt aged about 30 to 35 years came inside and all of them were standing in front of the counter and talking in Marathi.At that time, person wearing white shirt started talking to person wearing blue shirt in a loud voice on the money transaction.] "Portion 'B' : ckn es ckrks gh ckrks es mudk >xMk gks x;k vkSj og ,d nqljs dks xkyhxyksp djus yxsA rc CY;q 'kVZ okys ftldh mez 25 ls 30 lky dh] nqcyk iryk vknehus mlds lkFk vk;k gqvk xksy psgjsokyk ftldh mez vanktu 25 ls 30 lky gksxh mlls pkdq ekaxk rks mlus vius ikl dk pkdq CY;q 'kVZ okys yMds ds gkr es fn;k A"::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::[Portion 'B' - Translated - Subsequently the altercations between them started, converting in quarrel and abusing each other.At that time person wearing blue shirt aged about 25 to 30 years having slim personality demanded knife from a person with a round face aged about 25 to 30 years, who gave it to him.] " Portion 'C' :rc CY;q 'kVZ okys yMds us OgkbZV 'kVZ okys vkneh dks votkj ls ekjuk 'kq# fd;kA rc esjs eWustjus mudks >xMk er djks ,slk dgkA mrus es ekjusokys vkneh ds lkFk vk;k gqok lQsn Vh 'kVZ okyk] mapk vkSj ftlus nk<h j[kh Fkh og vkneh us Hkh mlds ikl dk pkdq fudkydj ml OgkbZV 'kVZokys vknehij okj fd;sA "::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt [Portion 'C' - Translated - At that time, person wearing blue shirt started assaulting the person wearing white shirt.At that time Manager started intervening.One amongst the assaulters wearing white T-shirt, heighted and having beard, took out the knife and started assaulting a person wearing white shirt.] " Portion 'D' :[Portion 'D' - Translated - At that time Manager tried to pacify but the person having beard threatened the Manager with knife.] " Portion 'E' : rHkh ,d vkneh ftldh mez 30and35 lky gksxh ftlds lj ds lkeus ds cky de Fks vkSj xksjk fpV~Vk Fkk tks ekjus okys yksxks ds lkFk vk;k Fkk vkSj ogh dkmaVj ds ikl [kMk Fkk A og vkneh pkdq ls okj djusokys nksuks dks dg jgk Fkk ftR;k dks ekj MkyksA "[Portion 'E' - Translated - At that time, a person aged about 30 to 35 years, having thin hair on the head and came along with the assailants, was also standing near the counter.He started saying the assaulters "Kill Jitya".] " Portion 'F' :,d vkneh nqcyk vkSj yacs ckyksokyk] 25 ls 30 lky mezokyk ekjusokys yksxks ds lkFk Fkk vkSj OgkbZV 'kVZokyk vkneh::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 136 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt fups fxj ugh jgk Fkk mlus ekjus okys nksuks ds pkdq idM j[ks Fks rch OgkbZV 'kVZokys dks fxjkus ds fy, mlus vius gkr es ckj es j[kh gqbZ dksYMªhax dh ckWVy mBk;h rc rd OgkbZV 'kVZ okyk vkneh Q'kZij fxj x;k vkSj rc yacs ckyokys vknehus gedks ns[kdj ml ckWVyls Mjk;k A"::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::[Portion F - Translated - The person wearing white shirt was not falling down and he caught the knife in his hand.At that time, another person of a slim personality, having long hair, aged about 25 to 30 years, accompanying the assailants, picked up a cold drink bottle.In the meantime, the person wearing white shirt fell down and we were threatened with the bottle of cold drink.] PW 16 Rupali, the Investigating Officer, states in para 4 of her deposition that "I recorded the statement of Raju Varghat.Portion marked 'A' to 'F' in his statement were recorded as per his say.It is marked at Exhibits 168-A to 168-F."PW 1 Raghuveer also states that Sitaram Baburao Wankhede, PW 3, was also present when the incident occurred.The statement of PW 3 was recorded on 10-1-2013 by PW 16 Rupali, the Investigating Officer.Portion marked 'A' in the statement of PW 3 recorded in Marathi is reproduced below :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 137::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt " Portion 'A' :eyk vkeps ckjps dkmaVjps fn'ksus HkkaM.k gks.;kpk vkokt vkyk o rs ikg.;klkBh eh frdMs xsyks- rsOgk dkmaVj leksj ,dk ika<jk 'kVZ ?kkrysY;k O;Drhoj nksu yksd pkdqus okj djhr gksrs- okj dj.kkand;k blekaiSdh ,d map o nk<h vlysyk o ika<jk fV 'kVZ ?kkrysyk etcqr cka/;kpk gksrk rj nqljk lk/kkj.k maphpk lMikrG o fuG;k jaxkpk 'kVZ ?kkrysyk gksrk- rsOgk vkeps eWustj ;kauh R;kauk HkkaM.k d# udk vls lkafxrys vlrk ekj.kkand;k blekaiSdh nk<hokY;k blekus vkeps eWustjyk pkdq nk[koqu /kedkoys- njE;ku ,d 30 rs 35 o;kpk o ekj.kkand;kaP;k cjkscj vlysyk iq<s VDdy vlysyk xksjk ble dkmaVjoj mHkk gksrk o rks pkdqus okj dj.kkand;k blekauk ekj.;klkBh lkaxr gksrk- rsOgk ekj.kkand;kapk ,d lkFkhnkj tks xksy psgand;kpk] xksjk] Qqy ckghpk fV'kVZ ?kkrysY;k 20 rs 30 o;kpk gksrk rks ckjps vkr ckgsj djhr gksrk- R;akpk vk.k[kh ,d lkFkhnkj lMikrG] dkGklkoGk o ykac dsl vlysyk tks vkeps vksiu jsLVkWjaV dMqu vkyk o ekj [kk.kkjk tehuhoj iMr uOgrk o R;kus ekj.kkand;kaps nksUgh pkdq idMysys gksrs o ekj.kkjs R;kl [kkyh ikM.;kpk iz;Ru djhr gksrs o rks iMr uOgrk rsOgk R;kus ckje/khy ,d dksYMªhadph ckWVy mpyyh o ekj [kk.kkand;kps fn'ksus xsyk brD;kr ekj [kk.kkjk [kkyh iMyk rsOgk dksYMªhad ckWVy gkrkr ?ksrysyk ble ekxs vkyk o R;kus vkEgkyk ikgqu /kedkoys o dkgh osGkus rs loZ ekjsdjh ekj [kk.kkjk esyk vls letqu rsFkqu ckgsj fu?kqu xsysA"[Portion 'A' - Translated - I heard the noise from the counter and therefore I went there.I saw that a person wearing white shirt was being assaulted by two persons with knife.One was strong and stout, having beard, wearing white shirt, and the other was slim and wearing blue shirt.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 138::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt At that time our Manager asked them not to quarrel, but he was threatened by a person having beard with knife.In the meantime, one accomplice aged about 30 to 35 years was standing on the counter and asking the assailants to kill.At that time, one of the assailants, having a round face, fair in colour, wearing full T-shirt, aged about 20 to 30 years, was going out and coming in the Bar.Along with him, one more accomplice of slim personality, having long hair, came inside from the open restaurant and picked up a cold drink bottle, as he saw the person assaulted was not falling on the floor and had caught hold of the knives.However, immediately the person assaulted fell on the floor and the person having cold drink bottle in his hand came back and started threatening us.Subsequently all of them left, presuming that the person assaulted has died.] PW 16 states in her deposition in para 5 that "I recorded statement of Sitaram Wankhede.Portion marked 'A' in his statement was recorded as per his say and it is marked as Exhibit 169."PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager, though deposed the entire incident, states in para 7 of his deposition that "I do not remember the description of the said persons (assailants).I cannot identify those persons due to passage of time." He stated that at the time of ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 139 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt incident, CCTV cameras were on and he can identify footages of the incident, and after seeing it, he can identify the assailants.At that stage, APP made request to the Court to show CCTV footage from the CD deposited in the Court.It was objected on the ground that the accused are not shown to the witness and the witness has not turned hostile.Keeping the objection open, the Court granted permission to the learned DGP to show the CCTV footage.The Court, keeping aside the objection to be decided subsequently, permitted playing of CD in the laptop.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::In the footage of camera No.1 started running, PW 1 identified himself and one Anil Tiwari present at the time of happening of the incident and says that "I can identify the assailants", immediately turns around, and says that "I cannot identify the assailants because the video is not so clear." Except refusing to identify the accused persons/assailants, the deceased and ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 140 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the clothes worn by them, there is complete narration of incident - step by step - identifying every other thing shown in the footages.The CD, which was played, was marked as 'X' for identification and it was re-sealed by the Court.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::PW 2 Raju Vargat, the Waiter in the Bar, who also admits his presence at the time of incident along with 2 to 3 other Waiters, refused to identify the accused persons even in the Test Identification Parade.He states that at the time of incident he was inside the kitchen and does not know what happened after 2.30 p.m. He was permitted to be cross-examined by APP." He further states that "I cannot assign any reason why portion marked A, B, C, D, E and F is appearing in his statement." After he was confronted with CD, marked as 'X' for identification, which was run in the laptop, he fails to identify the accused persons or the assailants.PW 3 Sitaram, working as Cook, admits that at the time of incident, he was himself and PW 1 Raghuveer, PW 2 Raju Vargat, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 141 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt and one Tiwari were present inside the Bar.He, however, says that "I was inside the kitchen and, therefore, I do not know what happened in the Bar and I came to know about murder after the incident, which took place near the counter.This witness also refused to identify the assailants in the Test Identification Parade.The Court permitted APP to cross-examine him.He claimed complete ignorance about the incident and the assailants.Concurring with the findings of Sessions Court :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::The Sessions Court holds that though PW 1 Raghuveer, the Manager, identified his Bar, the entire articles in the Bar, including the staff, and also the incident happened, as appearing in the CD, he fails to identify the assailants as the accused persons.This witness did not support the theory of the prosecution to identify the assailants.It further holds that PW 2 Raju saw the murder, but went on deposing that he does not know who committed the murder.He identified the Bar and the Manager, but failed to identify the assailants as the accused persons when he was confronted with ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 142 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt DVD - Article 18A. It further holds that PW 3 Sitaram was also shown CCTV camera footages.Though he identified the Manager, waiter Anil did not identify the assailants in the CD as the accused persons.We endorse the view taken by the Sessions Court.Not only that, but we proceed further and hold that there is a deliberate design on the part of the eye-witnesses in failure to identify the assailants as the accused persons, obviously for the reasons best known to them.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::Law on unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy :::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 143::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odtSo far as the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC making a member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object is concerned, three ingredients are required to be satisfied - (1) there must be an unlawful assembly of five or more persons, (2) there must be commission of offence by any member of an unlawful assembly, and (3) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.The common object has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and they act as an assembly to achieve that object.The common object may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may join or adopt it.It is the common object which makes the person vicariously liable for the acts of an unlawful assembly.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 ::: 144::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:56 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt Objection to the identification of accused :Shri Adwait Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for one of the accused, invited our attention to the oral evidence of the complainant PW 1 Raghuveer, who has deposed that on the date of the incident at about 5 to 5.30 p.m., four persons entered the Bar and one of them came to his counter and made a demand for peg.The other three persons were standing behind him and all of them looking outside the Bar again and again giving an impression of waiting for someone's arrival.In our view, if the evidence brought on record establishes an unlawful assembly of six persons/assailants, who have conspired to commit an offence of murder of deceased Jitu, which is accomplished, the question as to which four out of six assailants have assaulted the deceased by knives, loses its significance, for the reason that they are found to be the members of unlawful assembly and the participants in the conspiracy.Merely because PW 1 Raghuveer could see only the activities of four assailants, would not be enough to destroy the story of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::After some time, a white coloured big car came outside the Bar and a person wearing white shirt (referred to now as "the deceased", since his identity is not in issue) alighted from it and came along with one another accomplice, inside the Bar.Thus we found in the CCTV footages a group or an assembly of five assailants/persons inside the Bar along with the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::The assailant wearing blue shirt came outside the Bar and along with four others, boarded a 'Ritz' car standing outside the gate of the Bar and fled away.Thus, it was clearly a group or an assembly of six assailants involved in the attack on the deceased Jitu, playing different roles to attain a common object.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::There was a ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 151 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt close watch by all of them on the inmates of the Bar as well as the surroundings outside the Bar.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::After some time, the deceased checked the person of the assailant in blue shirt.The other assailants were in a position protective to the assailant in blue shirt.None other than the assailant in blue shirt was talking to the deceased and they were watchful on the movements of both.The assailant in blue shirt was trying to find an opportunity which he exploited when none other than the four assailants were in the Bar, apart from the staff.He shut the glass door, demanded the knife, which was provided by one of the assailants, and started assaulting the deceased.The other assailant, who was already having a knife, took it out and joined the assault on the deceased.Rest of the assailants inside the Bar took ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 152 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt care to see that no one intervenes and at times brandished those who tried to intervene.The deceased was multipally stabbed by both the assailants.After some time, the other assailants left the Bar, except the two who continued the assault probably till the deceased was finished.The assaulter in white T-shirt having beard and strong personality tried to leave the Bar, but then again turned and pulled the assailant in blue shirt to come out.The assailant in blue shirt was continuing the assault probably to ensure that the deceased does not survive and thereafter both of them went outside.Four assailants boarded the 'Ritz' car standing outside the gate of the Bar and one assailant having beard, sat as a pillion rider on the motorcycle.Thus, the two assailants fled away on the motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::PW 4 Pramod was shown CCTV footages and he has identified all the six accused and attributed to all of them the specific acts appearing in the CCTV footages.His evidence of identifying the assailants as the accused persons has already been held to be trustworthy by us.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::It was pre-planned or pre-meditated.Each of the member of unlawful assembly was assigned a specific role, which everyone has performed.It was a smooth operation carried out.The offence of murder was committed in prosecution of common object to get rid of the demand for money by the deceased.Upon accomplishing the purpose, they fled away from the spot of incident with the blood-stained knives in their hands on two vehicles, i.e. 'Ritz' car and Hero Honda 'Splendor' motorcycle.The common object ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 154 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt of murder of the deceased got terminated or accomplished.We have, therefore, no hesitation to confirm the findings of the Sessions Court that the offences punishable under Section 149 and 120-B of IPC are fully established.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Para 34].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Para 38].(12) The finger prints of the accused No.1- Tushar are found on the glass seized from the counter of the said Bar on 10-1-2013 and the report at Exhibit 131 compares the chance finger prints at Exhibit 126 with the finger prints of the accused No.1- Tushar at Exhibit 120 and establishes ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 158 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt the presence of accused No.1 on the spot of incident at the time of occurrence.[Para 61].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::(13) For the purposes of security, a system of CCTV, consisting of eight cameras and one DVR containing Hard Disk of 500 GB for storage of video recording, well connected with cables, was found installed and functioning properly.The entire incident of murder of Jitu Gawande was recorded in the Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, contained in the DVR.[Para 68].(14) The entire system of CCTV cameras installed and functioning in the said Bar at the time of incident, consisting of DVR, Hard Disk, Adapter, Mouse, Remote, and CD - 'X' were seized and sealed at Exhibit 99 on 10-1-2013 and PW 16 Rupali identified the same in Court.[Para 69].[Para 70].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::All these photographs of the accused along with the Hard Disk, DVR, Remote, Charing Cable, Mouse, etc., were forwarded on 3-2-2013 in a sealed envelope along with the covering letter dated 2-2-2013 at Exhibit 195 to the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory at Mumbai for submitting the report on the queries made therein.[Paras 71 to 74].(17) PW 19 Ms Puja, the Scientific Officer, working in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory at Mumbai, has proved the DVD, marked as "Annexure DVD CY 66/13"The frames of persons selected from CCTV footages are found matching with those reference photographs at Exhibit 197 to 202 and report at Exhibit 57 is proved.[Para 81].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (18) There was no scope left out for tampering in the process of seizure, sealing, forwarding and receipt of all the articles sent to PW 19 and no questions were put to PW 19 impeaching her credit, as required by Section 155 of the Evidence Act. [Para 85].(19) PW 4 Pramod, the brother of the deceased, has proved motive on the part of accused No.1- Tushar, to whom the deceased was demanding refund of Rs.50,000/-lent to him.[Para 88].(20) PW 4 Pramod identified the assailants as the accused persons and attributes to each of them the specific role played by them, on the basis of the CCTV footages shown to him during the examination-in-chief before the Court.[Para 89].(21) The primary evidence in the form of electronic evidence of Hard Disk and the copies of it in the form of ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 161 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt CD, marked as 'X' for identification, and DVD as Article 18A, found to be true and genuine copies of the footages contained in the Hard Disk, are produced on record and proved.[Paras 109 to 113].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Paras 114 and 115].(23) The electronic evidence tendered in the form of Hard Disk at Exhibit 1, CD - 'X' and DVD - Article 18A, is admissible in the facts and circumstances of this case, without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. [Para 116].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (24) The eye-witnesses to the incident, who are PW 1 Raghuveer, PW 2 Raju, and PW 3 Sitaram, have turned hostile and refused to identify the accused persons for the reasons best known to them.[Para 130].Unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy :(25) CCTV footages in the Hard Disk at Exhibit 1 clearly indicate that the assailants were six in number, constituting an unlawful assembly, out of whom, four were inside the Bar, one of them wearing blue shirt was near the counter and consuming the peg of liquor, and the other three were standing behind him.[Para 138].(26) A person wearing white shirt (the deceased) alighted from the car outside the gate and he was brought inside the Bar by one another accomplice.Thus, there was a group of five persons inside the Bar along with a person who came in the white shirt.[Para 139].::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt (27) A person wearing blue shirt was supplied a knife by one of the accomplices and he started assaulting the deceased who came in the car.One another assailant wearing white T-shirt having beard and heighted personality also joined the assault on a person wearing a white shirt.One of the five accomplices in the Bar brandished the inmates of the Bar other than the assailants with cold drink bottle when then tried to intervene.[Para 140].(28) After the object of killing the deceased was accomplished, the assailant wearing blue shirt came out of the Bar and along with four others boarded the 'Ritz' car outside the gate and fled away and two others fled away on the motorcycle.[Para 140].(29) PW 4 Pramod has identified all the six accused persons as the assailants and attributed to all of them the specific acts appearing in the CCTV footages confronted to ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 164 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt him during the course of his examination-in-chief.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::[Para 143].After narrating the facts and circumstances proved on record and keeping in view the law laid down in para 153 by the Apex Court in the matter of circumstantial evidence in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, we hold that the facts and circumstances established in the present case are conclusive in nature pointing towards the guilt of all the accused persons for the offences alleged against them.The chain of circumstantial evidence is completely established, without any missing link.The facts and circumstances proved are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt, without leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and exclude every possible hypothesis except the one which is proved, i.e. the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged.The offences alleged against all the accused are established beyond reasonable doubt.We are, therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: 165 apeal254.15 with connected appeals.odt constrained to maintain the conviction of the accused persons recorded by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 147, 148, 149 and 506-B of IPC along with the sentence imposed upon each of them for the offences established and the fine imposed.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 :::We direct the office to re-seal all the articles, which were opened by us, and remit back to the Sessions Court along with the R & P.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/06/2018 01:29:57 ::: | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
311,736 | Petitioner No.2 kept on insisting on her proposal and refused to give certificate of commencement of training till respondent No.2 signs the agreement; that respondent No.2 finally left petitioner No.2 in the end of April 1998 and petitioner No.2 even did not pay him what was agreed upon but handed over a cheque dated 28.4.1998 for a sum of Rs.2,500/- only.Respondent No.2 in his reply then proceeds to narrate the alleged incident of 22.5.1998 at 10 A.M.; that in the said incident respondent No.2 sustained some injuries and was medically examined; that petitioner No.1 with the help of other persons dragged respondent No.2 out from the premises.They picked up the lock of respondent No.2 and tried to lock the room but it was later on found that they could not put the lock in the right place and unknowingly left the room open; that when respondent No.2 came back to his place after filing the FIR and after being medically examined, he found Rs.5,000/- and gold chain weighing 20 gms.ORDER N.G. Nandi, J.Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") FIR No.407/98 dated 22.5.1998 alleging offences under Section 341/448/34 IPC registered at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.A few facts, emerging from the record, necessary to state are that on 22.5.1998 respondent No.2 (Deepak Anand alias Deepak Jha) filed a complaint in P.S. defense Colony, New Delhi alleging offences under Section 341/448/34 IPC stated that at about 10 A.M. petitioner No.1 (Raj Gupta) along with six other accomplice came to his defense Colony home and betray into the house A-263, defense Colony, Ground Floor and started beating mercilessly and dragged him out of the home; that even his cellular phone was also taken away by force and locked the room; that police was contacted on Telephone No.100; that all fled away; that when the complainant was working, five other persons came and tried to pull him in the car on the pretext that Raj Gupta wants to see him and when the complainant provoked they again started using force; that the complainant was working with petitioner No.2 (Mrs.Amita Gupta) who is an Advocate; the complainant had a six months' independent agreement; on telephone she threatened that if he does not vacate the place she will get him killed; that the complainant was terminated from his job in this month.In this complaint the prayer is that safety of the house and person of the petitioner be ensured besides the police protection.In the petition, it is the say of the petitioners that Petitioner No.2, an Advocate had employed respondent No.2 (complainant) as Trainee Advocate on his request on 4.4.1998; that Mr.Vinay, Assistant Registrar of the High Court complained to petitioner No.2 about the misbehaviour and threats given by respondent No.2 while removing the defects/ office objections of a matter on 18.4.1998 and immediately on the morning of 20.4.1998, petitioner No.2 terminated the services of respondent No.2 and handed him a cheque for Rs.2,500/-; that petitioner No.2 has her office at 100, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi and in one room on the ground floor at A-263, defense Colony, New Delhi, which is owned by the company wherein petitioner No.1 is the Director; that on 22.5.1998 petitioner No.2 had got her matter listed before Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and she had left for Chandigarh on 21.5.1998; that petitioner No.1 was passing at about 10 A.M. through A-263, defense Colony, New Delhi and found respondent No.2 standing near the gate.Since the services of respondent No.2 had been terminated on 20.4.1998, petitioner No.1 inquired from respondent No.2 as to why he was standing there and stopped him from entering the premises; that respondent No.2 started abusing petitioner No.1 and threatened that he would bring 500 persons and not leave the premises without taking ransom of Rs.5.00 lakhs.Petitioner No.1 lodged complaint at 11.30 A.M. on 22.5.1998 with the S.H.O. P.S. defense Colony; that respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.407/98 at 2.30 P.M. in P.S. defense Colony; that FIR No.407/98 does not disclose the charges as alleged therein; that respondent No.2 does not have any right to enter the premises A-263, defense Colony, New Delhi as he is no more in the employment of petitioner No.2; that petitioner No.1 being a Director of the company to which the property belongs, has every right to stop respondent No.2 from entering the premises as he was no longer in the services of petitioner No.2; that petitioner No.1 is the owner of entire building bearing No.A-263, defense Colony and he had allowed petitioner No.2 to use only one room as her office she being his wife; that petitioner No.1 can not be said to have committed house trespass of the building in question of which he is the owner in possession of the entire building but it is respondent No.2 who has committed the offence under Section 448 IPC.On these grounds, FIR No.407/98 dated 22.5.1998 for the offence under Section 341/448/34 IPC registered at P.S. defense Colony, New Delhi is sought to be quashed.The admitted facts emerging on record are that respondent No.2 as a trainee joined the office of petitioner No.2, a practicing advocate.It has been submitted by Mr.Dinesh Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners left for America in June 1998 and returned in July; that Money Order Slip Annexure R-8 dated 16.6.1998 and the Acknowledgement suggest the respondent to be the sender of the Money Order and also the recipient of the amount; that the plea of tenancy and Money Order received are fabricated; that M.L.C. is of 1530 hours whereas DD No.6A on the basis of the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 is registered at 11.30 AM; that in reply it is not stated as to by whom and how rent and the security deposit were paid; that respondent No.2 has been put in possession by the police and the possession be restored to the petitioners.It is submitted by Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State (respondent No.1) that investigation into the allegations in the complaint dated 22.5.1998 is pending and no conclusion has yet been reached; that there was no material for arrest hence no arrest has so far been made.Mr.Deepak Anand @ Deepak Jha, respondent No.2 has stated that there is nothing to show that through police he entered into the premises; that the complaint dated 22.5.1998 by petitioner No.1 is contrary to what has been stated in the rejoinder-affidavit (page 68) in as much as it is stated therein that "the constable from Police Station defense Colony at the instance of Respondent No.2, went to the office of the petitioner no.1 on 22nd May, 1998 and collected the duplicate key of the office of the petitioner no.2 and allowed him to enter the office of petitioner no.2, especially when she had gone out of station", since these averments are not to be found in the complaint; that inquiry at this stage can not be made about the genuineness of the defense; that respondent was inducted on 12.4.1998 in the premises in question as a tenant; that the agreement about six months' tenancy is a question of fact and interpretation of the terms of agreement; that as far as the M.L.C. is concerned, the nature of injuries is not material; that the petitioners have not come with clean hands; that the relationship of landlord and tenant is a question of fact and no inquiry can be made by this Court into the same; that there is no question of quashing of complaint at this stage since the investigation is in progress; that practically the investigation is stayed by the order passed earlier; that petitioner No.2 has no locus standi to file the petition; that there are no allegations made by petitioner No.2 as far as the incident of 22.5.1998 is concerned.In our opinion, the course adopted by the High Court to appreciate the `evidence' was not proper.The observations made with regard to the alleged unsatisfactory nature of the evidence by the High Court, to say the least, were premature."The facts alleged by petitioner No.2 in his complaint received at P.S.defense Colony at 11.30 AM or in the communication, which Respondent No.2 handed over to the S.H.O., P.S. defense Colony, on 22.8.1998 at 8.30 P.M. stating that "after the complaint was filed Mr.Raj Gupta was arrested and later on released on bail. | ['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,175,032 | T h e applicant has been arrested on 24.08.2019 by Police Station Saraichhola, District Morena, in connection with Crime No.103/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S 323, 324, 294, 506/34 of IPC and enhanced Sections 302, 325 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.12.2019 in M.Cr.Charge-sheet has been filed.The allegation against the present applicant is to cause injury using lathi.Hence, prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor, for the State opposed the bail application and submits that earlier bail application was rejected by this Court.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of first bail application, now the change in circumstances is that charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, prayed for grant of bail.Looking to the grievous nature of offence, without commenting on any merits of the case, the bail application of the applicant is rejected with liberty 2 MCRC-8765-2020 to revisit the Court after recording of some important prosecution witnesses.A copy of this order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2020.02.29 11:22:14 | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,180,612 | Shri Rishikesh Bohre, counsel for the objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 02-07-2015 relating to Crime No.198/2015 registered at Police Station Cantt.District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 452, 354, 354-A, 354-D and 506 of IPC. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
311,930 | The trial has been going on for about eight years and the case was still at initial stage.The complainant was to receive a cheque of Rs. 17,640/- from her policy No. M- 9024066927 under Unit Trust of India and cheque of this amount dated 1.1.1998 was sent by UTI at the address of complainant.This cheque was not received by her and she contacted Unit Trust of India.She was informed by UTI that this cheque had already been encashed.She thereafter, made a complaint to the police that she had not deposited this cheque in her account and the account at PNB, Vasant Vihar was not hers and somebody had opened a fake account in her name and got her cheque encahsed.The person, who got the fake account opened, would have been introduced by another bank account holder and in this forgery and cheating some bank employee might also be involved.Some photograph must have been pasted on the account opening form and the matter should be investigated.JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 (complainant) are related to each other and with the intervention of relatives/family members, a compromise was arrived at and the complainant had filed an affidavit along with present petition that she had no objection if the FIR was quashed. | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,194,569 | Digitally signed byANITA MALHOTRADate: 2018.10.1016:45:45 ISTReason:In order to appreciate the issues involved inthis appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts of thecase in detail hereinbelow.The case of the prosecution may be brieflystated as follows.On 19th August 1991, some posters werefound pasted on the walls of public streets in thecity of Coimbatore.These posters contained threatsthat seven persons belonging to a particularcommunity would be killed.One person, out of theseven named person, was “Siva Kumar @ Siva”.Siva on coming to know of his name beingpublished in the poster scolded in filthy languagethe members of a particular community in a publicmeeting held on 30.08.1991, as according to him,the members of that community had pasted suchposters wherein he and six others named thereinwere given threat of murder.On 01.09.1991 between 2.30 p.m. to 3.30p.m., all the nine accused (A1 to A9) assembled inthe house of the appellant (A6) and they hatched acriminal conspiracy to murder Siva.In furtheranceof the criminal conspiracy, on 05.09.1991, around 47.45 a.m. accused (A1 to A5) along with oneabsconded accused armed with deadly weaponsassembled at Kovai Mill Road, Coimbatore andaccused (A1 and A3) attacked Siva with knife, whowas passing through the road.Accused (A1) alsostabbed one Constable Chinnathambi (PW1) withknife, who had come to the spot.Injured Siva wastaken to the nearest hospital where he succumbedto injuries and was declared dead.This incident led to arrests of nine accused.Perusal of evidence of PW3 and PW4 wouldgo to show that PW4 was running his small teastall under a tree near appellant's house.It wasaround 70 feet away from the house and one couldsee the appellant's house from the tea stall.PW3was working as a tea boy in PW4's tea stall on dailywages during the relevant time.PW3 said in his deposition that on01.09.1991 around 2.30 p.m., he saw appellant (AJ U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1200 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissedSignature Not Verified the appeal filed by appellant herein.In all nine persons were tried for commissionof various offences in Session Trial No.239 of 2000by the Additional Court of Sessions (Fast TrackNo.111) Coimbatore.The details of the offences under the IndianPenal Code (for short “IPC”) for which the accusedwere tried are set out herein below:(1) A 1 to A 9 Section 120B, IPC (2) A1 to A 5 Section 148, IPC (3) A 1 to A 5 Section 302, IPC (4) A1 Section 332, IPC 3Investigation was carried out and after completingit, the chargesheet was filed against the nineaccused and they were put to trial for commission ofvarious offences as detailed above.By order dated29.07.2003, the Sessions Judge convicted theaccused persons as under:“The punishment of life imprisonment to accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 120(b)(1) and a fine of Rs.10,00/ is imposed, failing which 1 year RI have to undergo.For accused Nos. 1 to 4, life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and a fine of Rs.25,000/ 5 as fine, failing which 1 year RI under Sections 148 of IPC to accused Nos.1 to 4 should undergo the RI in the same period.Under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, the period of jail while in the trail period may be deducted.Rs.1,00,000/ is to be given to the ward of the Siva as compensation from the total fine of Rs.1,90,000/ under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.”Sections 148 of IPC to accused Nos.1 to 4The convicted accused felt aggrieved and filedtheir respective criminal appeals, some jointly andsome separately in the High Court of Madrasquestioning therein the legality and correctness oftheir respective convictions and sentences awardedto them.By a common impugned order, the High Courtdismissed the appeals of the accused, except that ofaccused (A9) who was acquitted.The conviction ofaccused (A2) under Section 120B was set aside.The accused (A6) alone felt aggrieved by hisconviction and award of sentences and he has filedthe present appeal by way of special leave to appealin this Court.It has come in evidence that starting point ofthe incident leading to the death of Siva gainedmomentum due to pasting of posters on public wallsin the city by the members of one communitymentioning therein the name of “Siva” with sixothers that these seven named persons would bekilled.This prima facie indicated that Siva and sixothers could be a soft target for their elimination bythe members of a particular community in comingdays.6), Basha (A8) and Sbeyar (A9) getting down fromthe car (van) and entering in appellant's house.After some time, (A8Basha) came to the tea stalland asked him (PW3) to bring 10 cups of tea to theappellant's house.PW3 on his part then told PW4to prepare and give him 10 cups of tea, which PW3brought to the appellant's house and servedeveryone sitting in the room.He then waited for 18some time to collect the empty teacups when heheard appellant (A6) saying to others present therethat: “whatever might be the cost, we should kill Sivawithin 10 days”.He said that on appellant sayingthis, another personBasha (A8) who had come tothe tea stall for ordering tea said “in no case weshould go back after taking the initial step andfinishing Siva”.On this A7 (Subahier) saidtouching A1 (Jahir Husain) sitting next to him thathe i.e. (A1) would be the fittest one to do the job.At this time, (A8 Basha) saw PW3 who wasstanding there and asked him as to why he (PW3)is standing here and asked him to go out of theroom.When PW3 was leaving the place, he heardthe appellant asking others as to whether theywould murder Siva.All in reply to appellant's querysaid in a loud voice, as if, they were taking somekind of oath that they would kill Siva.PW3 thensaid that on return to tea stall, he told to his boss 19(PW4) what he saw and heard in appellant's houseto which (PW4) said to him that he should ignore.PW4 then asked him to go back after some time tocollect the empty cups and bring sale money for 10cups of tea.PW3 then went to the appellant’shouse after ten to fifteen minutes when the personsassembled there paid him Rs.8 and said to retainthe balance by way of tip for him.He then said thatafter about 4/5 days or so, he heard that Siva ismurdered by stab injuries so he went to see him inGovernment hospital.More or less on the same lines of (PW3), PW4has also deposed about the incident in hisdeposition.In other words, PW4 has corroboratedthe testimony of PW3 on all material events andhence we do not wish to repeat his deposition indetail.First, there was adequate foundation laid forholding a meeting on 01.09.1991 by the accused 21and the said foundation was an incident of pastingof posters on 19.08.1991 in public places all overthe city and second, a public meeting held on30.08.1991 in which Siva (deceased) uttered filthylanguage against the members of the community towhich the accused belonged.These two facts didconstitute a foundation for the commission ofoffence in question and they were duly proved withadequate evidence by the prosecution.Second, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 hasproved the factum of holding a meeting inappellant’s house on 01.09.1991 with other accusedwherein a decision was taken to kill/eliminate Sivawithin 10 days.Whether both went together or went individuallywith some time gap between their visits is hardly of 24any significance so as to discard their entiretestimony.The second instance which was pointed out bythe learned counsel for the appellant was that whyshould PW3 go to see the dead body of Siva in thehospital when he was in no way connected with himand nor was he connected with the accused.In any event, the second instance evenotherwise has no substance for the simple reasonthat PW3 and PW4 were the only persons whowere aware of the meeting held on 01.09.1991 atthe appellant’s house where PW3 had heard theplan for elimination of Siva and on his return fromappellant's house, he told to PW4 of the saidincident.In these circumstances and with thisbackground, if PW3 went to the hospital, whichwas very near to the tea stall, there is nothingunnatural in his visit.There might bemyriad reasons for PW3 to leave this job. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
31,200,722 | This writ petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 pending trial on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as accused A2 to A6 in the proceedings arising out of the Crime No.48 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the Women Police Station, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh and filed final report in C.C.No.1198 of 2016, before the concerned jurisdictional Court viz., the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.Before entering into the merits of the writ petition, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the proceeding in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh?State of Maharastra and others as follows :-The High Court failed to consider all the relevant facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.The Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complaint had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed for quashing the said complaint.The High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police.The High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 transfer of shares.The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter.On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court."Thus, this revisional application under Section397, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is disposed of on merits upon hearing the opposite parties only.Thus, the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. stands rejected.If multiple writ petitions are admitted in various High Courts, challenging the same prosecution, there is every possibility of conflicting orders being passed.Though I am of the view that this FIR deserves to be quashed, yet, my brother Judge in Calcutta seems to hold a totally different view.This is one of the additional reasons for this Court to keep its hands off and leave it to the High Court, within whose jurisdiction, the FIR has been registered, to deal with the matter, in accordance with law."The facts remains that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh and after completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report before the jurisdictional Court and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram and it is pending for trial.Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as this Court has no jurisdiction and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.No costs.23.04.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, First Class, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vizianagaram, Viziznagaram District, Andhra Pradesh State.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.W.P.No.9128 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.9647 of 2019 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,176,949 | This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 28.10.2017 in connection with Crime No.570/2016 registered at Police Station Lakhnadon District Seoni (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(dha), 506 of IPC, Section 3-A, 4, 7 and & of POCSO Act.the applicant and the complainant was having love affair and the objection of her parents resulted in lodging of the FIR against the applicant.Applicant-accused and prosecutrix loved to each other but parents of prosecutrix did not accept the applicant-accused so he has been falsely implicated in this case.He is in jail since last two years.There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and trial will take long time to conclude.There is no probability of absconding and tampering the evidence.Apart from that prosecutrix, PW/2-Bharatlal Yadav father of the prosecutrix, PW/3 Rajjo Bai mother of the prosecutrix, were examined by the trial court prosecutrix admitted the fact that the applicant-accused did not commit intercourse with her.All the witnesses turned hostile, on these ground he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand opposes the application.Considering the contention of both the parties, and evidence on record, and the fact that trial will take time for final disposal.According to prosecution the prosecutrix is aged about 17 years and six months.It is a matter of love affair, so in the opinion of this Court, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.Consequently, the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant-Rahul Kahar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 10:50:15 | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,183,251 | Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) 3 ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 4 | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,184,767 | Heard on admission.Call for the record.At this juncture, Counsel prays for grant of suspension of sentence and bail vide I.A. No.4948/2016 regarding appellants No.1 Mohan, No.2 Vikram, No.3 Babulal & No.4 Poonamchandra.Appellants have been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to 2 years RI and sentenced to 3 years RI u/S.325 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI u/S.323/34 of IPC.Fine amount has been deposited.Counsel for the appellants prayed for grant of suspension of sentence.Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellants and stated that the appellants are fully implicated in the matter.Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application needs to be allowed.The application is, therefore, allowed.It is directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to their having paid the fine amount, if any, and on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a surety in the like amount by each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 16.11.2016 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the office.In the meanwhile, the substantive portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till hearing of the appeal.CC as per rules.(VIVEK RUSIA) | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
231,858 | Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against his conviction under Section 306 and under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. and three years' R.I. respectively and fine of Rs. 100/- under each section and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I. retrospectively, by judgment dated 5-5-2003 in Sessions Trial No. 180/2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha.The appellant is the husband of deceased Ram Bai.According to the prosecution case, the incident took place in the intervening night of 24th and 25th of June, 2002 at about 2 a.m. and at about 17.30 hours (5.30 p.m.) the appellant lodged a report to the Police Station, Ganj Basoda that in the night he was sleeping in the room alongwith his children after taking meals, at 2 o'clock in the night he heard the voice of his wife, she was shouting.When he came outside, he found his wife ablazed.He called his brothers Babulal and Mardan.They extinguished the fire by putting water on her body.She had died.He informed Chowkidar and thereafter informed the incident to the police.On the basis of merg intimation 'Dehati Nalishi' was recorded.Police reached at the spot and investigated the matter.Deadbody was referred for post-mortem.During investigation, statements of father Bhujjilal, mother Ram Kunwar, sister Sonabai, Babulal brother of the appellant and Atar Bai wife of Babulal were recorded.In the investigation and also from the statements of the witnesses it was found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband.It was found that the appellant used to beat her and was not giving food.It was also alleged that the appellant was not doing any work and regularly used to ask Rambai to bring money from her father.Many a times the demand was fulfilled by the parents of the deceased and money was given.Lastly 15 days before her death deceased Rambai went to her father's place and asked for money but due to destruction of the crops her father was not in a position to help her, therefore, the help was denied to her.The prosecution case was that on account of cruelty and mal-treatment meted out with Rambai by her husband she has committed suicide.After investigation charge-sheet was filed.During trial charge was framed under Section 306, IPC and in alternate, for the offence punishable under Section 302 and also for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC.During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and has taken the defence that he is a patient of epilepsy and, therefore, Rambai was denying to live with him.On the date of incident he was sleeping in his room, Rambai came out from the room, closed the doors from outside and has committed suicide.After considering the prosecution evidence, Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302, IPC beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant from the aforesaid charge but found that the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.Against which the appellant has filed this appeal.I have heard Shri K.M. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent-State and perused the evidence on record.In the trial, prosecution examined Bhujji (P.W. 1), who is the father of the deceased, Sonabai (P.W. 2), elder sister of the deceased, Ramkunwar Bai (P.W. 8), who is the mother of the deceased.Babulal (P.W. 5), brother of the appellant, Atar Bai (P.W. 6), wife of Babulal and Brijesh Kushwaha (P.W. 9), nephew of the appellant, have not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile.Bhujjilal (P.W. 1), Sonabai (P.W. 2) and Ramkunwar Bai (P.W. 8) have deposed that after the marriage appellant was continuously harassing the deceased.He was always compelling her to go to her parents and to demand for the money.They have stated that the appellant was not doing any work and he was compelling Rambai to labour and earn money for their livelihood and also to ask for money from her parents.Parents had given her sufficient money after selling their cattles and they had also given cattles to him.They have stated that the cause of death was regularly practising cruelty with her.Though they have admitted that the marriage of Rambai took place 15-16 years back and they are having two children; one aged about 8-10 years and another aged about 5-7 years.Both the boys were also present in the house at the time of incident but prosecution has not examined them.Cause of her death was regular cruelty practiced by the appellant but they have not stated any immediate cause for the abetment of committing suicide by the deceased. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
2,318,652 | Heard on the bail application.Perused the case diary This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have been arrested in Crime No.51/2014 registered at Police Station, Tetra, District Morena, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 294, 394, 506-B of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.On the way near Kemara Tala bridge one vehicle bearing No.MP-06-PA-0245 hit his vehicle, as a result of which, the right portion of the vehicle of the complainant was damaged.Thereafter the persons traveling in the vehicle bearing No.MP-06-PA-0245 started beating the complainant, son and daughter-in-law and also one of them Gyan Singh has snatched golden chain of his son and golden kundal of daughter-in-law.Bhagwanlal has put shafi on his neck and asked the applicant to bring Rs. Two Lacs otherwise he will be killed.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have falsely been implicated.They have not committed any offence.Co-accused Bhagwanlal and Mukesh have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2014 passed in M.Cr.On the ground of parity, learned counsel for the applicants prays for bail.C.No.5857/2014 Ghyan Singh Rawat and another Vs.State of M.P.The application is opposed by learned counsel for the State.As per the medical report of Rajendra, it appears that 03 contusions have been found.No medical report of the complainant and daughter-in-law is available in the case diary.Considering the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, but without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules. | ['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
231,894 | The prosecution story, unleashed from the evidence of the witnessesexamined by them, is as follows:(a) The accused had some misunderstanding with his wife and the matter wasreferred to Jamath ten months prior to the date of occurrence.The deceased wasa Member of the Jamath.The deceased advised the appellant to pronounce Talaqand hence, the appellant developed grudge over the deceased.(b) P.W.1, Abdul Kadar, is the son of the deceased.P.W.8, Hanifa, is thefather-in-law of the accused.(c) On 12.10.1999 at abut 6.45 a.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went totheir field.When they were near Marthal tank, the appellant waylaid them andby saying that "you alone was instrumental for divorcing my wife", attacked thedeceased with a rice pounder, M.O.3, on his head.When he again attacked thedeceased, P.W.1 intervened and prevented the attack.Thedeceased lost his consciousness and fell down.When P.W.2, Mohammed Yusuf, andone Sheik Mohammed, who were coming behind P.W.1 and the deceased, shouted, theappellant left the scene of occurrence with the weapon.Brother of P.W.1, oneSaleem and two others took the deceased and P.W.1 to Government Hospital.(d) P.W.9, Dr." x 1." x bone deep bleeding from thewound present (NC) pupil unequal not reacting to light.Treatment was given tothe deceased.P.W.9 issued an accident register, Ex.P13, for the injury foundon the deceased.P.W.9 sent an intimation to the Police under Ex.(e) P.W.9 also treated P.W.1 for the injuries sustained by him and issuedan accident register, Ex.P15, certifying that the injury sustained by P.W.1 wassimple in nature.(f) On receipt of Ex.P14, the police came to the hospital and recorded hisstatement, Ex.P1 and thereafter, the deceased was taken to TirunelveliGovernment Hospital for better treatment.But, unfortunately, he was declareddead.(g) P.W.11 is the Head Constable, who received information, viz. Ex.P.W.11, after returning to thepolice station, registered a case in Crime No.720 of 1999 for the offencepunishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 I.P.C. Ex.P19 is the printed FIR,which was despatched to the Court and handed over to the Sub Inspector ofPolice, P.W.14, for investigation.(h) P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation at11.00 a.m. on 12.10.1999, visited the scene of occurrence at 11.10 a.m. andprepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.W.14also drew rough sketch, Ex.P.W.14 recovered bloodstained earth, M.O.4and also collected sample earth, M.O.5, from the scene of occurrence at 11.30am, under mahazar, Ex.P.W.14 examined P.W.2 andone Saleem and recorded their statements.At 1.30 p.m. he examined P.W.1 andrecorded his statement.He recovered bloodstained shirt, M.O.1, worn by P.W.1and also a bloodstained lungi, M.O.2, worn by the deceased, under mahazar,Ex.He also examined P.Ws.6 and 7 andrecorded their statements.(i) On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased, Ex.P18, at 9.00p.m., the case was altered into one under Section 302 IPC.(j) On receipt of the altered FIR, Ex.P21, Inspector of Police, P.W.16,took up further investigation in the case and conducted inquest over the deadbody on 13.10.1999 and prepared inquest report, Ex.ATR/gb/kplCopies to:(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)I - JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL The appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred to as the'accused') in Sessions Case No.360 of 2003 on the file of learned PrincipalSessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.The accused questions thecorrectness of the judgment dated 31.01.2003 rendered in the above statedsessions case, whereunder he was convicted for the offence punishable underSections 341, 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonmentfor one month under Section 341 I.P.C., imprisonment for life with a fine ofRs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months underSection 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.II - CHARGEThe charge against the accused is that on 12.10.1999 at 6.45 a.m., hewrongfully restrained the deceased Samsudeen and his son, P.W.1, which ispunishable under Section 341 I.P.C.; in the course of the same transaction, heattacked the deceased on his head by using a rice pounder, with an intention tocause his death and inflicted grievous injuries, causing the death of thedeceased, which is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; and also attacked P.W.1on his head with the same weapon and caused simple injury, which is punishableunder Section 324During the inquest,P.W.16 examined panchayatdars, P.W.2 and others and recorded their statements.P.W.16 gave a requisition to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, forconducting postmortem on the dead body and deputed Constable, P.W.12, for thesaid purpose.(k) P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of thedeceased.He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of thedeceased.An antero posterior, sutured lacerated injury seen on the top of head, 17 cmabove the root of nose, measuring 11cm x 1cm x bone depth.On dissection of scalp, skull and dura, sub scalpel contusion seen on thefrontal, mid parietal and occipital regions, measuring 25cm x 20 cm.Fractureof skull, left tempero parietal bones, 11 cm in length, seen.Diffused subdural and sub arachnid haemorrhage seen over left cerebral seen overt leftcerebral hemisphere.Laceration of brain left tempero parietal lobes.5cm x3cm x 2cm and laceration of cerebella hemispheres.3cm x 2cm x 2cm each seen.Fracture base of skull, left middle cranial fossa, 3cm in length present.Abrasions seen in the following areas:i) Back of right shoulder, 2cm x 2cm.ii) Middle of front of left thigh, 3cm x 3cm.iii)Right knee, 2cm x 2cm.iv) Right middle toe, 1cm x 1cm.v) Inner aspect of right foot, near base of big toe, 1cm x 1cm.The doctor, P.W.13, who conducted post mortem, was of the opinion that thedeceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.P17 isthe postmortem certificate.(l) P.W.16, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant at 3.00 p.m. on13.10.1999, near Marthal tank.When P.W.14 examined the accused in the presenceof P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement and theadmissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confessionstatement of the accused, rice pounder, M.O.3, was recovered under mahazar,Ex.P.W.16 examined P.Ws.3 and 4 and recordedtheir statements.P.W.16 sent the accused as well as material objects to theCourt.He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.(m) P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and turnedhostile.(o) The prosecution, accordingly, examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16,filed Exs.IV - DEFENCEWhen the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances found against him inthe evidence of prosecution witnesses, he was innocent and had know complicitywith the crime, but was falsely implicated.That apart, the accused examinedD.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.Alexon Devasagayam, whotreated the accused for acute psychiatrist episode from 10.12.1997 to 07.02.1998and issued a certificate, Ex.D3, to that effect.Nagarajan, who hadalso treated the accused for his unsound mind and issued a certificate, Ex.D4,about his mental status.D.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused, who speaksabout the mental disorder of the accused.D1 is the medical notes, Ex.D2series is the prescription and Ex.D5 series is the prescription and bills.Thus, the accused took the defence that he was not mentally sound at the time ofoccurrence.V - JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURTThe trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceplaced before it, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him asstated earlier.Hence the present appeal.R.Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the accused,relying on the evidence of the witnesses examined on the side of the accused,namely D.Ws.1 to 3, submits that the accused is entitled to the benefit ofSection 84 IPC, as, at the time of occurrence, the accused was suffering fromschizophrenia.Without prejudice to the above contention, learned counsel for theaccused alternatively submits that assuming the motive behind the crime, asprojected by the prosecution is accepted, since the wife of the accused broughta divorce proceedings, as per the Muslim Personal law, before the Jamath, inwhich the deceased was a member and in the said proceedings, the deceasedsuggested the accused to pronounce talaq against his wife, the accused gotprovoked against the deceased, as his wedlock broke due to the ill-advice of thedeceased, which was subsisting in the mind of the accused all along.With this backdrop of subsisting provocation, on seeing thedeceased and PW1, the accused lost his power of self control and attacked thedeceased and thus, learned counsel for the accused claims benefit of Exception 1to Section 300 IPC, seeks modification of the conviction and sentence underSection 302 IPC and pleads for alteration of the same into one under Section304(i) IPC.Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that theaccused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC, as the evidenceadduced by the accused, viz. D.Ws.1 to 3, are not sufficient enough tosubstantiate that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time ofoccurrence.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that thereis ample evidence to prove the motive aspect of the prosecution case, as spokento by P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8 and therefore, it is a case of pre-planned murder.It is also contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor thatsince the alleged talaq was pronounced ten months prior to the date ofoccurrence, there is no question of sudden provocation to attract Exception 1 toSection 300 IPC and therefore, the accused is not entitled to any modificationin the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court.VIII - CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGWe have given very careful consideration to the relevant evidence andthe submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.The motive for the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution andspoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8, was not denied by the accused.The prosecutionsubstantially proved that the deceased was a member of the Jamath, before whichthe divorce proceedings between the accused and his wife were initiated.Thefact that the deceased suggested the accused to pronounce talaq against his wifeis not disputed.As the wedlock of the accused and his wife was broken, theaccused developed enmity against the deceased, is also substantially proved.On the fateful day, with an intention to cause the death of thedeceased, the accused waylaid the deceased and his son, P.W.1, who wereproceeding to their field.The injury inflicted on P.W.1, who was a directwitness to the occurrence, substantially proves the presence of P.W.1 at thescene of occurrence.P.W.1 in clear terms, deposed that the accused shouted onthe deceased for having suggested him to pronounce Talaq against his wife and healone was responsible for pronouncement of Talaq, due to which his wedlock wasirretrievably broken, and attacked the deceased with rice pounder, M.O.3 on hishead.P.W.1 also deposed that when he intervened to prevent the accused, theattack landed on the left side of his head.This portion of the evidence ofP.W.1, who is an injured eye witness to the occurrence, is clear and direct.Wedo not see any reason to disbelieve the same.That apart, the contention made on behalf of the accused that theaccused was suffering from schizophrenia cannot be accepted since the accusedwas in good state of mind at the time of occurrence, as he was able tocorrelate the Talaq pronounced by him before the Jamath, in which the deceasedwas a member and to declare that the deceased alone was responsible for havingsuggested to pronounce Talaq.Of course, the accused, as a defence, examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 andmarked Exs.D1 to D5 to substantiate his evidence under Section 84, IPC.Section84 IPC reads as follows:Act of a person of unsound mind.-- Nothing is an offence which is done by aperson who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, isincapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is eitherwrong or contrary to law."D.Ws.1 and 2 are doctors, who examined the accused and gave treatmentfor his mental illness.D.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused.D.W.2, Dr.Nagarajan, deposed that he treated theaccused from 23.07.2000 to 20.08.2000 for his mental unsoundness.D.W.3 is thebrother-in-law of the deceased, who deposed that the accused was suffering frommental illness for the past 10 years.Schizophrenia is a mental disorder involving a breakdown in therelation between thought, emotion, and behaviour, leading to faulty perception,inappropriate actions and feelings, and withdrawal from reality into fantasy anddelusion.(Concise Oxford English Dictionary - 11th Edition).Therefore, it isa temporary disorder and it can be cured.That apart, the evidence of P.W.1 also corroborates with that ofP.W.2, an independent witness, who clearly and directly deposes that when thedeceased and his son were proceeding to their field on the date of occurrence,the accused waylaid them and shouted against the deceased that he alonesuggested to pronounce Talaq against his wife and attacked him with ricepounder, M.O.3, on his head.According to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 8, the deceased wasa member in the Jamath and the accused developed enmity against the deceased forhaving suggested the accused to pronounce Talaq against his wife in the divorceproceedings initiated by his wife before the Jamath.The further case of theprosecution is that the accused developed a perennial enmity against thedeceased from the date of pronouncement of the Talaq, as the wedlock between himand his wife was broken due to the ill-advice of the deceased, on account ofwhich, the accused, on seeing the deceased and his son, P.W.1 on the fatefulday, lost his self-control and caused attack on the head of the deceased, whichresulted in his death.Of course, the words employed by the accused at the timeof causing the attack on the deceased would clearly spell out the intention tocause the death.But the very same words also substantiate the enmity thatsubsisted in the mind of the accused, which got provoked on seeing the deceasedand made him to attack the deceased as he was instrumental for divorcing hiswife.IX - DECISIONIn the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accusedunder Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and topay a fine of Rs.1000/- and a compensation of Rs.5000/-, which shall be paidwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,failing which, the accused shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment asdefault sentence.The compensation amount so paid shall be given to the wife ofthe deceased and if she is not alive, the same shall be given to P.W.1, the sonof the deceased.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused underSection 341 and 324 IPC by the trial court remain unaltered.All the sentencesare to run concurrently.The sentence already undergone shall be given set off.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.The Inspector of Police, Boothpandi Police Station, Boothpandi, Kanyakumari District.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
231,907 | Ex-P7 is the Post Mortem Certificate.The Doctor opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.P4 is the report submitted by P.W.8-Motor Vehicle Inspector relatingto the vehicle TN01-6105 and Ex.P.W.8 gave opinion that the accident has not occurred due to anymechanical defects in both the vehicles.vii)P.W.13- Inspector of Police in continuation of his investigation,examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.8 and recorded his statement.He alsoexamined P.W.11-Head Constable and P.W.12-Special Sub Inspector of Police andrecorded their statements.After completing the investigation on 18.4.2001 andfiled the charge sheet under Sections279, 337, 304-A IPC.i)On 16.4.2001, P.W.1-Sundaravadivelu was travelling in a Ambassador Carbearing Reg.P.W.2 is the owner of the car and the car wasdriven by one Senthilkumar, Driver.When the vehicle was nearing Verakurichibridge, the bus bearing Reg.TN B 1377 driven by the accused dashed againstthe Ambassador Car.There he was reported dead.P.Ws 6 & 7 are therelatives of Senthilkumar, Driver identified the dead body in the hospital.ii)P.W.1-Sundara Vadivelu was treated by P.W-9, Assistant Surgeon.Hefound the following injuries."1.Sutured wound on the left side of forehead.2.1 x .sized abrasions on the forehead.3.Pain on the leg and4.Pain on the neck."iii)At time of occurrence P.W.12 was the Special Sub Inspector of Policeattached to Pattukottai Police Station.P.W.12 received the complaint and registered the same in Station CrimeNo.321 of 2001 under Sections 279, 337 & 304 -A IPC.P8 is the printedF.I.R. and placed case before the Inspector of Police for further investigation.iv)P.W.13-Inspector of Police attached to Pattukottai Police Station tookup further investigation in this case.He visited the scene of occurrence on17.4.2001, prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P2 and the rough sketch-Ex.P9 inthe presence of witnesses.He also held inquest on the dead body of thedeceased Senthilkumar in the presence of witnesses.P10 is the inquestreport.v)Since the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body, DoctorP.W.10, attached to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital had noticed thefollowing injuries sustained by the deceased."INJURIES:1.Bleeding from both nostrils and ears.2.Multiple abrasions of variable sizes present over the lateral and medialaspect of right upper arm with fracture deformity at the level of upper 1/3rdof humerus.3.Laceration 8x1 muscle deep present over the upper aspect of (suprascapularregion) of right shoulder.4.Multiple abrasions of varying sizes present over the anterior aspect of upperthird of right leg.5.Abrasion of 18x1 muscle deep vertically placed on the right midaxillary lineof chest."3.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused,examined P.Ws 1 to 13 and filed Ex.4.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect ofthe incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied the chargeslevelled against him and said that he has been falsely implicated in the case.5.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned JudicialMagistrate Court, Pattukkottai in C.C.No.988 of 2002 dated 25.5.2005, found theaccused guilty under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC and for the first charge,sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, in default one monthsimple imprisonment; for for the second charge sentenced him to under threemonths simple imprisonment along with the fine of Rs.500/- in default two weekssimple imprisonment and for the third charge he was sentenced to undergo oneyear rigorous imprisonment along with the fine of Rs.4,000/- in default twomonths simple imprisonment.The learned trial Judge ordered the above sentencesto run concurrently.The learned Appellate Judge acquittedhim of the offence under Section 279 IPC and confirmed the sentences underSections 337 and 304-A IPC.7.Challenging the Judgment of the learned Appellate Judge, the aboveRevision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused.8.Point for Determination:1.whether the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC ?POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:9. P.W.2 is the owner of the car bearing Reg.On16.4.2001, at about 13 hours, P.W.1-Sundaravadivelu was travelling in theAmbassador Car of P.W.2 and the car was driven one Senthilkumar, Driver.Whenthe car was nearing Verakurichi bridge, the bus bearing Reg.TN B 1377 drivenby the accused dashed against the said Ambassador Car.There hewas reported dead.P.Ws 6 & 7 are the relatives of Senthilkumar, Driveridentified the dead body in the hospital.Since the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body DoctorP.W.10, attached to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital had found about thefollowing injuries sustained by the deceased."INJURIES:1.Bleeding from both nostrils and ears.2.Multiple abrasions of variable sizes present over the lateral and medialaspect of right upper arm with fracture deformity at the level of upper 1/3rdof humerus.3.Laceration 8x1 muscle deep present over the upper aspect of (suprascapularregion) of right shoulder.4.Multiple abrasions of varying sizes present over the anterior aspect of upperthird of right leg.5.Abrasion of 18x1 muscle deep vertically placed on the right midaxillary lineof chest."Ex-P7 is the Post Mortem Certificate.The Doctor opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.11.The evidence of P.W.8- Motor Vehicle Inspector would show that theaccident had occurred not due to any mechanical defects in both the vehicles.12.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ accused vehementlycontended that the identity of the accused was not proved and in this regard, herelied on the case in VALLIKAN Vs.STATE REP.13.In the above said case, it was found that since the identification ofthe accused was not established, the conviction was set aside.In the case onhand also, P.W.1 one the victim who was travelling in the Ambassador Car did notsay that the other vehicle viz. bus bearing Reg.14.Without ascertaining the driver of the bus which was involved in theaccident, the mere arrest of the accused is not sufficient to connect theaccused to the crime.There should have been investigation in the Office of theTransport Corporation as to who drove the bus 49-B 1377 on the date ofaccident.But absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the saidbus was driven by the Revision Petitioner/accused.Even the trip sheet was notseized by the Investigating Officer.The prosecution has filed to prove thatthe bus was driven by theaccused on the fateful day.3.The Inspector of Police,Pattukottai Police Station Thanjavur District4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,192,180 | Prosecution case, in brief is that accused wasmarried to deceased Ushabai about 8 years i.e. in 2004,prior to the incident.Their marriage was performed inGujrat State after they eloped.After marriage accusedalongwith his wife the deceased came to reside at DhuliPada in Nawapur taluka, Dist.They have oneson and daughter.At the time of incident deceased wasworking as Nurse in dispensary at Nawapur.Further, it is the case of the prosecution thatthere used to be quarrel between the accused and thedeceased and accused used to quarrel with the deceasedand he used to consume liquor.On 02/09/2011 at about05.30 pm while the deceased was cooking food, the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 3 ) criappl195.14.odtaccused came home.He started demanding money from thedeceased.She refused to give money.Thereupon, thedeceased asked him why did he requires money and he toldthat he was to go to consume liquor.The deceased saidhim that she would not give him money to consume liquor.Thereupon, accused annoyed and he lifted kerosene canlying nearby and poured kerosene on her person.He thentook up a piece of burning fire wood from the earthenstove and set the deceased on fire.She raised shoutsand came out of the house.Nearby people gathered andput off the fire.Her father Arjun (PW-2) came there andtook her to Nawapur Sub-District Hospital, initially bymotorcycle and later by the autorikashaw.She sustained89% burns.While she was admitted in the said hospitalPolice Head Constable Shaikh (PW-9) who was on duty inthe said hospital recorded dying declaration/ complaint(Exhibit 41) of Ushabai the deceased at about 06.00 p.m.and she narrated the incident as above of sustainingburns to her implicating the accused, in presence of Dr.Gavit (PW-10).::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::While the deceased was taking treatment in thehospital at Nawapur on the same day i.e. on 02/09/2011at about 06.50 pm Sunil Ghoil (PW-1) Nayab Tahasildar,Nawapur recorded dying declaration (Exhibit 16) of thedeceased in presence of Dr. Gavit (PW-10) and as per thesaid dying declaration also she implicated the accused.It appears that there after in the night of 02/09/2011while she was admitted in the hospital at Nawapur, shedisclosed to her father Arjun Gavit (PW-2) and BrotherVilas Gavit (PW-3) the incident as above of sustainingburns to her by the accused and then in the night atabout 10.45 p.m. she was admitted in Civil Hospital,Dhule in injured condition.It appears that on the sameday i.e. on 02/09/2011 the Investigating Officer APISanjay Chavan (PW-13) visited the place of incident i.e. ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 5 ) criappl195.14.odthouse of the accused and prepared panchanama of spot ofincident (Exhibit 19) in presence of Panchas and seizedcertain articles i.e. can of kerosene, earth mixed withkerosene, simple earth, burn pieces of clothes and halfburnt wood.While the deceased was admitted in CivilHospital at Dhule in the night on 02-09-2011 her dyingdeclaration (Exhibit 32) was recorded by Vinod Thakur(PW-6) Executive Magistrate at 23.30 hours (11.30 pm)stating role of the accused as referred earlier and saiddying declaration was recorded in presence of Dr.Ravindra Sonwane (PW-8).It appears that on 03/09/2011accused was arrested and Dr. Anil Gavit (PW-10) examinedaccused and found in all five injuries including twoburn injuries on his person and issued injurycertificate (Exhibit 43).Clothes on the person of theaccused were also seized.It appears that on 03/09/2011between 00.05 a.m. to 00.20 a.m. dying declarationExhibit 35 of the deceased was recorded by PW-7 PHC ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 6 ) criappl195.14.odtKhairnar in presence of Dr. Ravindra Chavan (PW-8)implicating the accused.The deceased succumbed to burnson 10/09/2011 in Civil Hospital, Dhule at 08.45 am.Thereafter, inquest panchanama was prepared by theInvestigating Officer API Khairnar.The postmortemexamination was conducted on the dead body by the teamof two doctors in Government Medical College and GeneralHospital, Dhule and they had noticed 89% burns on theperson of the deceased.Said doctors opined that deathwas due to septicemia following thermal burns and theyhad issued postmortem report (Exhibit 37).In the crossexamination he denied that father of deceased waspresent when he recorded dying declaration and hefurther denied that he is deposing false that doctor ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 17 ) criappl195.14.odtexamined deceased and opined that she was in a positionto give statement.He also denied that deceased did notgive any statement before him and she was not anyposition to give statement.He denied that he jotteddown the complaint as stated by Arjun Gavit and that heis deposing false.9).Dr. Anil Gavit (PW-10) has stated that on 02/09/2011when the deceased was admitted in the hospital at about6.10 p.m. in Nawapur hospital he treated her and she wasconscious and well oriented and was in a position togive statement.Dr. Ravindra Sonawane (PW-8) in whosepresence dying declaration (Exhibit 32) was recorded bythe Executive Magistrate Thakur, has stated that on02/09/2011 he was working as a Medical Officer at CivilHospital, Dhule and at about 11.30 p.m. ExecutiveMagistrate Thakur recorded dying declaration of deceasedUsha Gavit.started at 11.30 p.m. and it was completed at 11.55.p.m.In the cross-examination he was shown Exhibit 32dying declaration.He stated that remark, "patient isconscious and able to give statement" was scribed beforerecording of dying declaration and remark below it wasput up after its completion.He denied that due totreatment given at Nawapur and at Dhule and due tosevere burns on neck patient was not at all in aposition to give statement.So also, he denied thatpatient was not in a position to make signature andtherefore her thumb impression was obtained.He deniedthat dying declaration (Exhibit 32) was not recorded inhis presence and he is deposing false.He denied that hejust blindly put his endorsement on the dyingdeclaration recorded by Executive Magistrate.Thus,nothing is found in favour of accused in the cross-examination of Dr. Sonawane.He deposed that at that time he saw hiswife was bringing Usha out from her house and she was inburnt condition.There was no rickshaw or other vehicleavailable in his village.Therefore, he called one Dilipwho had got motorcycle.Dilip brought his motorcycle.They had taken her on motorcycle towards the hospital.She was not in a position to sit on motorcycle.According to him she told himthat her husband demanded money from her as he wanted todrink liquor, she refused to give money, so he gotangry, he took kerosene and poured it on her body and hepicked up one burning stick from the choola and set heron fire.He stated that from Nawapur they had taken herto hospital at Dhule and on 10/09/2011 she died in thehospital.There is evidence of independent witnessLalitabai Gavit (PW-11) who was residing in front ofhouse of accused at the material time of incident.Herevidence is that accused resides in front of her house.Deceased Ushabai was his wife.They used to quarrel.Accused used to demand money from her for consumingliquor.Incident took place on second day at about 5.00p.m.She was in her house.She heard the shouts ofUshabai.She rushed to their house.Accused had pressedmouth of Ushabai.DATED : 22-11-2019ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- S.M. GAVHANE, J.).The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'theaccused') who has been convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code(for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to sufferimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar as per the judgmentand order dated 12/02/2014 in Sessions Case No. 42 of2011 is challenging the said conviction and sentence bythe present appeal.Upon receiving the said dying declaration ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 4 ) criappl195.14.odtcrime No. 114 of 2011 for the offence punishable underSection 307 of the IPC was registered against theaccused in Nawapur Police Station and the investigationwas started.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Offence underSection 302 of the IPC was added in the crime alreadyregistered against the accused.The seized articles aswell as clothes of the accused were sent to the ChemicalAnalyzer by the Investigating Officer PSI Patil (PW-14).Report of Chemical Analyzer were collected.Aftercompletion of the investigation chargesheet wassubmitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate whocommitted the case to the Sessions Court at Nandurbar.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar.Accused pleadednot guilty.He claimed to be tried.Statement of accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure was recorded.He has notexamined any witness in defence.His defence was thatdue to strain relations with him father of the deceasedfalsely implicated him and that the deceased committedsuicide out of anger.In the written statement filed atthe time of statement under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure which is at page 73 of the papers theaccused has stated that on that day he had brought meatof cattle and the deceased his wife did not like thesaid meat.Therefore, she was annoyed and she herselfpoured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.His marriage with the deceased was love marriage andthere was no dispute between them.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::( 8 )Prosecution has examined in all 14 witnessesand it has relied upon the written and oral dyingdeclarations as referred earlier.Considering the evidence adduced by theprosecution the trial court held that prosecution hasproved the offence under Section 302 of the IPC againstthe accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordinglyconvicted and sentenced him for said offence as saidearlier by the impugned judgment.Therefore, this appealby the accused challenging the conviction and sentencerecorded against him.Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for theappellant/accused submitted that deceased was married toaccused in 2004 without consent of her parents andtherefore, parents of the deceased had a grudge againstthe accused.So also, prior to the incident there wasquarrel between the brother (PW-3) of the deceased andaccused when the motorcycle of the accused was involved ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 9 ) criappl195.14.odtin the accident and therefore, the relations between theaccused and PW-2 father of deceased were strain.Thus,according to the learned counsel accused has beenfalsely implicated in this case, though the death of thedeceased is suicidal.Thesedying declarations are inconsistent in materialparticulars and therefore, said dying declarationscannot be relied upon to record conviction and sentence.This submission was made relying upon the decision ofdivision bench of this court in Ramesh Rangrao Walsange& ors Vs State of Maharashtra, 2012 (4) Bom.In the said case death of the deceased wascaused due to burns.Allegation made against theappellants was that after pouring kerosene on the personof the deceased, she was set ablaze.Two dyingdeclarations were recorded by the Police Sub-Inspectorand Special Executive Magistrate.There were materialinconsistencies in both the dying declarations.It was ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 10 ) criappl195.14.odtheld that dying declarations are not in consonance witheach other but they are at variance.It was held thatmanner in which deceased had described incident inquestion in detail and role attributed to appellants inrespect of pouring of kerosene on her person and settingher on fire do not inspire confidence.Dyingdeclarations do not find to be even truthful in nature.It is settled law that in case of multiple dyingdeclarations same shall be consistent in respect ofmaterial aspects of incidents.After consideringprosecution case in its entirety, physical condition ofpatient, medical opinion, percentage of burns and painssuffered by deceased on holding that dying declarationsdo not inspire confidence to convict all appellantsconviction and sentence recorded against them for theoffence punishable under Section 302 read with section34 of the IPC was set aside by allowing the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::deceased are interested witnesses being relatives of thedeceased and therefore their evidence implicating theaccused on the basis of disclosure to them by thedeceased is not believable.Thus, learned counsel forthe accused submitted that there is substance in defenceof the accused and the evidence adduced by theprosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused forthe offence under Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore,according to learned counsel impugned conviction andsentence recorded against the accused is liable to beset aside and he is entitled to acquittal of the offenceunder Section 302 of the IPC by allowing the appeal.Mrs. Patil/Jadhav, learned APP for therespondent/State submitted that the case is based onfour dying declarations referred earlier and two oraldying declarations made to father and brother by thedeceased.All these dying declarations are consistent inmaterial particulars of the incident of pouring keroseneon the person of the deceased and setting her on fire ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 12 ) criappl195.14.odtwith the help of burning wood of earthen stove andtherefore, on the basis of these dying declarations theprosecution has proved the incident.Father and brotherof the deceased have denied defence of the falseimplication of the accused.It issubmitted that the deceased was conscious and mentallyand physically fit when all the four dying declarationswere recorded as the doctors concerned have stated inthis respect.Further it is submitted that death of thedeceased was caused due to 89% burns as mentioned in thepostmortem report (Exhibit 37).It is further submittedthat circumstantial evidence in the form of C.A. report(Exhibit 50) shows that kerosene was detected on fullpant and full shirt, partially burnt cloths pieces andearth mixed with dung and it shows that while pouringkerosene on the person of deceased kerosene was spreadon the person of the accused.It is submitted that theevidence of independent witness PW-11 Lalitabai showsthat she had seen the accused in the house at the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 13 ) criappl195.14.odtmaterial time of incident and her evidence shows motiveto accused for committing the offence.Thus, accordingto learned APP prosecution has proved offence underSection 302 of the IPC against the accused beyondreasonable doubt and thus the trial court has rightlyheld the accused guilty for the said offence andconvicted and sentenced him for the said offence as perthe impugned judgment and order and therefore there isno ground to interfere with the impugned judgment andorder.Thus, according to learned APP appeal deserves tobe dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Learned APP has relied upon the decision ofdivision bench of this court (Coram S. S. Shinde and V.K. Jadhav, JJ) in Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2013decided on 06/08/2008 and the decision of the Apex Courtin the case of Laxman Vs State of Maharashtra 2002 DGLS(SC) 750 to support her argument that no certificate bydoctor about consciousness of patient is necessary andthere is no reason to discard the dying declaration ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 14 ) criappl195.14.odtrecorded by Executive Magistrate.She has placedreliance on the case of P.B.Radhakrishna Vs State ofKarnataka 2003 DGLS (SC) 542 regarding satisfaction ofthe officer who records the dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::We have carefully considered the submissionsmade by the learned counsel appearing for the accusedand the learned APP and with their assistance we haveperused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and theimpugned judgment and order.As regards death of the deceased post mortemreport (Exhibit 37) which is admitted by the accusedshows that the deceased sustained 89% burns and cause ofher death is, "septicemia following thermal burns".Theinquest panchnama (Exhibit 36) which is admitted by theaccused also shows that the deceased died on 10/09/2011at about 08.45 p.m. while she was taking treatment forthe burn injuries in the Civil Hospital, Dhule.Thus, onthe basis of above evidence it can be said that deceased ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 15 ) criappl195.14.odtdied due to septicemia following thermal burns and thusher death was not natural.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Case of the prosecution is that on 02/09/2011at about 05.30 p.m. there was quarrel between theaccused and the deceased.Accused poured kerosene on herperson and set her on fire by the fire wood of theearthen stove while she was cooking food in the houseand thus accused is responsible for her death.To provethe same the prosecution has relied upon four writtendying declarations and two oral dying declarations madeto her father and brother.Thisdying declaration/complaint was recorded by police HeadConstable Shaikh (PW-9) on 02/09/2011 at about 6.00 p.m.i.e.immediately after the incident, while he was onduty in Nawapur Primary Health Center.Said dyingdeclaration was recorded by PHC Shaikh in presence ofDr.Anil Gavit (PW-10).The evidence of PHC Shaikh is ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 16 ) criappl195.14.odtthat on 02/09/2011, while he was on duty in NawapurPrimary Health Center patient Ushabai was admitted insaid hospital and she was a burnt patient.According tohim Dr. Gavit examined and treated the patient and thenasked him to record her declaration.He stated that herecorded statement of deceased Ushabai and she told thatwhile she was cooking food her husband asked her moneyfor liquor.As she did not give him money he wasannoyed.He therefore poured kerosene on her aftertaking kerosene can from near earthen stove.He thentook a piece of burning firewood and set her on fire anddue to it she sustained burns.She raised the shouts andcame out.Nearby people then put off fire and broughther to hospital.He further stated that Exhibit 41-complaint shown to him is the same and its contents arecorrect.It bears thumb impression of Ushabai and alsoendorsement and signature of Dr. Gavit.Thus, nothing is found in favour ofthe accused in the cross-examination of PHC Shaikh (PW-::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::He stated that after completion ofrecording of statement, he made endorsement that thepatient was conscious and oriented at the time ofrecording statement and then he signed below saidstatement (Exhibit 41).In the cross-examination hedenied that the relatives of the patient were presentwhen dying declaration/statement Exhibit 41 was recordedand denied that no statement was recorded in hispresence.His evidence that patient was conscious and ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 18 ) criappl195.14.odtoriented at the time of recording statement has not beenspecifically challenged in the course of his cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::The second dying declaration relied upon by theprosecution is Exhibit 16 recorded on 02/09/2011 after06.45 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Nawapur by Sunil Gohil(PW-1), Nayab Tahasildar of Nawapur in presence of Dr.Gavit (PW-10).The evidence of Sunil Gohil (PW-1) isthat on 02/09/2011 at about 06.45 p.m. he received phonecall from Nawapur police station for recording dying ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 19 ) criappl195.14.odtdeclaration of one patient admitted in Civil HospitalNawapur.He collected letter from said police station(Exhibit 15).He visited Civil Hospital Nawapur and metthe Medical officer.He obtained permission of thedoctor for recording statement of patient.The patientwas a woman.She disclosed her name as Usha Manoj Gavit.His evidence shows that he asked her how she got burns.She informed him that on that day in the evening she waspresent in her house alonwith her husband.At that timeshe had a quarrel with her husband.During quarrel herhusband poured kerosene on her body and set her on firewith the help of burning wood from the stove (chooli).She further told that she ran out and her neigboursextinguished the fire.Her father had shifted her to thehospital.He stated that Exhibit 16 statement showed tohim was recorded by him.In the cross-examination headmitted omission in respect of word 'burning'.Headmitted that he had not obtained attestation for the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 20 ) criappl195.14.odtthumb impression of said woman.He denied that as thesaid woman was completely burnt she was not in aposition to give her statement and further denied thathe had obtained thumb impression of said woman on astatement which was already prepared by the police andthat he is giving false evidence.Thus, nothing is foundin favour of accused in the cross-examination of NayabTahasildar Sunil Gohil.The evidence of Dr. Gavit (PW-::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::10) shows that PW-1 Sunil Gohil recorded statement ofUshabai.He was present at the time of recording ofstatement.During that time patient was in a position togive statement and he said so because he was presentthere all along recording of statement.He then endorsedon the statement and statement (Exhibit 16) shown to himbears his signature below the endorsement.In the cross-examination he could not tell exact time of recordingstatement by Nayab Tahasildar.He denied that Exhibit 16and Exhibit 41 statements were falsely recorded at theinstance of relatives of deceased Ushabai and thosestatements were not recorded in his presence.Thus, on ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 21 ) criappl195.14.odtthe basis of evidence of Dr. Gavit it can be said thatstatement/dying declaration (Exhibit 16) was recorded byPW-1 when the patient was conscious and it was recordedin presence of this doctor.Thus, on the basis ofevidence of Sunil Gohil and Dr. Gavit it can be saidthat dying declaration (Exhibit 16) was recorded byNayab Tahasildar Sunil Gohil after on 06.45 p.m. on02/09/2011 and as per said dying declaration when therewas quarrel between accused and the deceased at about5.30 p.m. on 02/09/2011 the accused poured kerosene onthe person of deceased and set her on fire with the helpof wood of the earthen stove (Chooli).::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::The third dying declaration relied upon by theprosecution is Exhibit 32 recorded on 02/09/2011 byExecutive Magistrate Thakur (PW-6) at Dhule, while thedeceased was admitted in Dhule Civil Hospital in injuredcondition and it was recorded at about 11.30 p.m. aftershe was examined by Dr. Ravindra Sonawane (PW-8).TheExecutive Magistrate Thakur deposed that on the above ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 22 ) criappl195.14.odtsaid date he received letter from Duly City policestation to record dying declaration.Accordingly he wentto Dhule Civil Hospital on 02/09/2011 at about 11.30p.m.He met doctor on duty and requested him to giveopinion whether patient was in a position to givestatement.Doctor then examined patient Usha Manoj Gavitand opined that she was in a position to give statement.His evidence further shows that he then asked deceasedUsha and she told him that on 02/09/2011 at about 5.00p.m.she was cooking food, husband Manoj Gavit camedrunk and raised quarrel with her.He then pouredkerosene on her and set her on fire due to it she burnt.Her father Arjun Gavit admitted her in Dhule CivilHospital.He stated about endorsement made by doctor ondying declaration (Exhibit 32) and about thumbimpression of the deceased Usha Gavit.In the cross-examination he denied that Arjun Gavit father of thedeceased was present when dying declaration wasrecorded.He also denied that deceased Usha was not in aposition to sign below her statement.He also denied ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 23 ) criappl195.14.odtthat patient was not in a position to give statement andthat patient had not given any statement before him.Healso denied that patient did not make any complaintagainst accused and dying declaration was recorded astold by Arjun Gavit and accompanying police man.Hedenied that he is deposing false and that he preparedfalse dying declaration.After Shri.Thakur came to hospital, heexamined patient and found that she was in a position togive statement and then Executive Magistrate recordedstatement/dying declaration (Exhibit 32).He stated thatafter completion of statement he again examined patientand found that she was in a position to give statement.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Thus, on the basis ofevidence of Executive Magistrate Thakur and Dr. Sonawanethe prosecution has proved dying declaration (Exhibit ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 25 ) criappl195.14.odt::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::32) recorded on 02/09/2011 in Civil Hospital, Dhule ofthe deceased Usha between 11.30 pm to 11.55 pm and saiddying declaration shows that on 02/09/2011 at about 5.00p.m.while the deceased was cooking accused came drunkand picked up quarrel with her and then he pouredkerosene on her person and set her on fire and due tothat she was burnt.It was recorded by policeHead Constable Khairnar (PW-7) in presence of Dr.The PHC Khairnar has stated thatwhile he was working in Dhule City Police Station on02/09/2011 police station officer of said police stationgave him order to record dying declaration of thedeceased.Accordingly he went in Dhule Civil Hospital at ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 26 ) criappl195.14.odtmidnight and met Medical Officer.He requested MedicalOfficer to examine Usha Gavit and opined whether she wasin a position to give statement.Doctor examined her andopined that she was in a position to give statement.Doctor endorsed on a plain paper and singed below theendorsement.He stated that he asked patient her nameand she told her name as Usha Gavit.He then recordedstatement of Usha Gavit as per her say.Contents of saidstatement (Exhibit 35) shown to him are correct.Heobtained her thumb impression below the statement.Hestated that doctor's name was Ravindra Sonawane.Aftercompletion of statement doctor again examined patientand put his endorsement.In the cross-examination hedenied that Arjun Gavit was present during recording ofstatement of Ushabai and that she did not give any suchstatement before him.He also denied that she was not atall in a position to give statement.He denied that hefalsely prepared the said statement in his office itselfand that he is deposing false.Thus, nothing is found infavour of accused in the cross-examination of PHC ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 27 ) criappl195.14.odtKhairnar.Dr. Ravindra Sonawane also stated that on03/09/2011 at about 00.05 a.m dying declaration of Gavitwas again recorded.At that time he again examinedpatient and found that she was in a position to givestatement.He stated that Exhibit 35 dying declarationshowed to him bears his endorsement.In the cross-examination he denied that patient was not at all in aposition to give statement due to severe burns on neckand treatment given at Nawapur and at Dhule and that hejust blindly put his endorsement on alleged dyingdeclaration.He also denied that dying declaration(Exhibit 35) was not recorded in his presence.Thus,nothing is found in favour of accused in the cross-examination of Dr. Sonawane.Thus, on the basis ofevidence of PHC Khairnar and Dr. Sonawane it can be saidthat prosecution has proved dying declaration (Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::35).This dying declaration shows that on the date ofincident i.e. on 02/09/2011 at about 5.00 pm while thedeceased was preparing food in her house her husband theaccused came consuming liquor.He picked up quarrel with ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 28 ) criappl195.14.odther and poured kerosene on her person and set her onfire with the match stick and then poured water on herperson and went out of the house.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Onperusal of dying declaration Exhibit 41 which is thefirst dying declaration it appears that on 02/09/2011 atabout 5.30 p.m. while the deceased was cooking on theearthen stove, her husband the accused came and demandedmoney to her.When she asked him why he needs money hesaid her that he wants money for consuming liquor.Thereupon, she said him that she would not give moneyfor consuming liquor.Then he was annoyed and he pouredkerosene from the can on her person and set her on firewith the help of burning wood of the earthen stove andthus she sustained burns.On perusal of Exhibit 16second dying declaration it is clear that incident tookplace on 02/09/2011 at about 5.00 p.m. in the house ofaccused and the deceased and when they were sitting near ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 29 ) criappl195.14.odtthe earthen stove there was quarrel between them.Accused poured kerosene on her person and set her onfire with the help of wood of the earthen stove.Onperusal of Exhibit 32 third dying declaration it showsthat on 02/09/2011 at about 5.00 pm while the deceasedwas cooking her husband accused came consuming liquorand picked up quarrel with her and at that time hepoured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.Onperusal of the fourth dying declaration Exhibit 35 itshows that incident took place on 02/09/2011 at about5.00 p.m. and while the deceased was cooking on theearthen stove her husband accused came consuming liquorand picked up quarrel with her.He poured kerosene fromthe can on her person and set her on fire with the matchstick and she sustained burns.He poured water on herperson and went away.Her parents came and admitted herin Nawapur hospital.Thus, all the four dyingdeclarations are consistent as regards materialparticulars i.e. happening of incident on 02/09/2011 atabout 5.00 p.m. and they are also consistent as regards ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 30 ) criappl195.14.odtthe act attributed to the accused that there was quarrelbetween accused and the deceased and then accused pouredkerosene on the person deceased and set her on fire.Some minor inconsistencies as referred earlier are therein the written dying declarations, but they are notsufficient to discard the dying declarations.There isconsistency in all the four dying declarations thatthere was quarrel between deceased and accused andaccused poured kerosene on her person.So also, there isconsistency in all the three dying declarations exceptExhibit 35 that the accused set the deceased on fire bythe wood of earthen stove.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::( 31 )Now, let us consider oral dying declarationsmade to father and brother of the deceased.The evidenceof Arjun Gavit (PW-2) father of the deceased is thatincident occurred nine months back.On that day oneChinabai Nura Gavit came at about 5.00 p.m. in his fieldto call him and she told him that Usha is set on fire.Therefore, he came to his house and Usha was residingnear his house.On theirway they saw one rickshaw.They stopped the saidrickshaw and took Usha in the hospital.According to himin the hospital he had asked her what had happened withher.She told him that her husband accused was demandingmoney from her as he wanted to drink liquor.She refused ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 32 ) criappl195.14.odtto give him money.Therefore, her husband took a can ofkerosene and poured kerosene from it on her head andpicked up one burning stick from the stove (chool) andset her on fire with the help of said stick.Therefore,her hands, legs, chest, face were burnt.In the cross-examination he admitted that three months prior to thisincident motorcycle of Manoj i.e. accused was involvedin an accident as it gave dash to one small boy.Hedenied that father of said boy is friend of his sonVilas (PW-3).He admitted that due to said accidentthere was altercation between his son Vilas and accused.He denied that relations between his son Vilas andaccused were strained.Omissions in his statement beforepolice regarding the fact that after he reached hishouse he saw his wife taking Usha out of house, he hadcalled one Dilip to bring his motorcycle and regardingpouring kerosene on the head of Usha have been broughton record in the course of his cross examination.Hedenied that his daughter had performed marriage withaccused against his wish and his financial condition was ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 33 ) criappl195.14.odtpoor and therefore, he did not like the accused.He alsodenied that his relations with the accused were strainedand therefore he is giving false evidence against him.Thus, nothing is found in favour of the accused in thecross-examination of father of the deceased.Thus, onthe basis of his evidence it can be said thatimmediately after the incident he came to the house ofthe deceased, he saw her in burnt condition and heshifted her to Nawapur hospital and in the hospitaldeceased disclosed to him that her husband the accusedwas demanding money from her for consuming liuqor andwhen she refused he poured kerosene from the can on herperson and set her on fire with the help of burningwood/stick of the earthen stove.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Vilas Gavit (PW-3) is brother of the deceased.Deceased made oral dying declaration to him immediatelyafter the incident in Nawapur hospital.On that day he hadgone to Nawapur as he wanted to open an account in the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 34 ) criappl195.14.odtBank.At about 5.00 p.m. his friend Rajendra phoned himand informed him that his sister is burnt and she wasadmitted in hospital at Nawapur.Therefore, he rushed tothe said hospital.He saw that her hands, legs, stomach,face and chest were burnt.Though he has been cross-examined at length onbehalf of accused nothing is found in favour of accusedin his cross-examination.Thus, there is no reason todisbelieve evidence of this witness and on the basis ofevidence of this witness it can be said that deceasedmade oral dying declaration to her brother/this witnessthat on 02/09/2011 accused poured kerosene on the personof deceased and set her on fire as alleged by theprosecution.When the evidence of both Pws- 2 and 3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 35 ) criappl195.14.odtfather and brother of the deceased referred to above isconsistent and believable as regards the act of theaccused of pouring kerosene on the person of deceasedand setting her on fire with the help of burning wood ofearthen stove, simply because they are relatives ofdeceased it can not be said that their evidence is notbelievable, as argued by the learned counsel appearingfor the accused.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::Ushabai had burns.People in the lanegathered there.In the cross-examination she denied that ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 36 ) criappl195.14.odtshe is deposing false at the instance of Ushabai'sbrother and father and her husband.She also denied thatUshabai committed suicide.Thus, from the evidence ofthis independent witness an inference can be drawn thatimmediately after the incident of sustaining burns todeceased Ushabai.This witness had gone to the house ofdeceased and accused and she saw burns to Ushabai andshe also saw the accused present in the house while hewas pressing mouth of Ushabai by necessary implicationto prevent her from making shouts.Thus, evidence ofthis witness corroborates the written and oral dyingdeclarations referred earlier about involvement of theaccused in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::The next is the evidence of Dr. Anil Gavit (PW-10) recording examination of accused on 02/09/2011immediately after the incident and finding of burninjuries on his person as per certificate Exhibit 43.Dr.Gavit has stated that on 02/09/2011 he examinedaccused Manoj Gavit at about 9.00 p.m. in Nawapur Sub ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 37 ) criappl195.14.odtDistrict Hospital and found following injuries on hisbody:-::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::1) Superficial burns on dorsum of palm, about 1%.Nature of injury superficial; age: 1 to 2 hours, simplein nature.2) Contusion over nose swelling present, tendernesspresent, simple injury, one to two hours.3) Contusion over right eye region-simple; one to twohours.4) Superficial burn over right knee region; about 1% -simple; one to two hours.5) CLW over left parietal region, about ½ cm x ½ cm, ½cm, simple injury; one to two ours.The evidence of Dr. Gavit regardingexamination of accused and finding of burns on theperson of accused as per certificate Exhibit 43 is notshattered in his cross-examination.Above referredinjury Nos. 1 and 4 shows that accused sustained burns ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 38 ) criappl195.14.odton dorsum of palm and over right knee region and age ofsaid injuries was within 1 to 2 hours.So also, these injuries show involvement ofthe accused in the act of pouring kerosene on the personof deceased and setting her on fire.Accused has notgiven explanation of these burn injuries noticed on hisperson by Dr. Gavit.In fact, the accused should havegiven explanation of these injuries.Failure of theaccused to give explanation of cause of these burninjuries is a circumstance against on the basis which aninference can be drawn that he sustained said burns whenhe poured kerosene on the person of deceased and set heron fire.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::clothes on the person of accused.The prosecution hasproved seizure of clothes of accused as per the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 39 ) criappl195.14.odtpanchnama Exhibit 24 on 02/09/2011 on the basis ofevidence of the Investigating Officer API Chavan (PW-::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::13).Exhibit 50 report of the Chemical Analyzer showsthat on Exhibit (1) full pant and Exhibit (2) full shirtof accused kerosene residual was found.This shows thatwhen the accused poured kerosene on the person ofdeceased from the can (Exhibit 4) kerosene was spread onhis clothes and this shows his involvement in the act ofpouring kerosene on the person of deceased and settingher on fire.Thus, circumstance of finding of keroseneon the clothes of accused corroborates written and oraldying declarations regarding involvement of accused.Thus, the said act of theaccused is culpable homicide amounting to murderpunishable under Section 302 of the IPC.From the act ofthe accused of pouring kerosene on the person of thedeceased and setting her on fire it can be said that hehad intention as well as knowledge that by the said actthere would be death of the deceased.There is nosubstance in the defence of the accused that death ofthe deceased is suicide.Thus, we find that the trial Court has rightlyappreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution andrightly held the accused guilty for the offence underSection 302 of the IPC and rightly sentenced him asmentioned earlier in the opening paragraph of thisjudgment.We see no error committed by the trial Courtin appreciation of the evidence.Thus, there is noground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: ( 41 ) criappl195.14.odtof convicting and sentencing the accused for the offenceunder Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore, appeal beingdevoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly appeal is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 :::In view of dismissal of appeal, CriminalApplication No. 6282 of 2017 for suspending the sentenceis disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 14:20:32 ::: | ['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. |
231,924 | 341 and 302, IPC; A-2 under Sections 147, 341 and 302, IPC; A-3 to A-5 under Sections 147 and 341, IPC and they were acquitted of the offence under Section 302, IPC.The accused challenge the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.On 19-4-1993 at about 22-00 hours at Panneerkottagam village, due to previous enmity, the first accused-Thamizharasan and others waylaided Athimoolam and his family members, A-1 Thamizharasan attacked the said Athimoolam on his head with iron pipe; A-2 Ganesan attacked him at the head with casuarina club and other accused attacked him with casuarina clubs on his persons, as a result of the same, the said Athimoolam was inflicted with bleeding injuries on his head and knees etc. The injured Athimoolam was taken to Government Hospital.Sirkali, from where he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.On 20-4-93 at 20.00 hours Sub-Inspector of Police.Pudupattinam Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 288/ 93 of Pudupattinam Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 326, IPC and took up investigation.The injured Athimoolam died while under treatment on 30-4-93 at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.IPC was altered into 302, IPC.The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder :P.W. 1, son of the deceased, has deposed that on 19-4-93 at about 8.30 p.m. one Sunder of his village had informed him that his brother Ranganathan P.W. 2 was beaten by A-2 Ganesan, while the former was standing near Kalaignar tea stall at Panneerkottagam village.The said tea stall situates at half a k.m.from his village-Kodakaramoolai.He recognised that it was A-2 who gave the sound.At that time, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were there with torch lights.They focused the burning lights on the group of persons, from which they saw the 5 accused standing there.First accused Thamilarasan was armed with an iron pipe, to a length of 31/2 feet and other accused were having casuarina clubs to a length of 21/2 feet.On seeing Athimoolam, A-1 beat him (Athimoolam) with the iron pipe-M.O. 1 on his head, A-2 beat him with Casuarina club on his head and other accused also beat him with casuarina clubs on his right leg knee, buttocks and back and ran away with the iron pipe and casuarina clubs.The deceased Athimoolam sustained bleeding injuries.When he was about to fall down, his mother caught hold of him.This incident had taken place around 10 p.m. the injured Athimoolam was taken to Government hospital.Sirkali around 1 a.m. (on 20-4-93) and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Thanjavur around 4 a.m. On 20-4-93 at 11 a.m. Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudupattinam Police Station came there.On 30-4-93 at about 1.30 a. m. the deceased Adimoolam died in the Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur due to the injuries.P.W. 3 Dhanapal, though turned hostile, has deposed that at the time of the incident, he focused his burning torch light on A1, A2, A4 and A5 and identified them.He attested the Observation Mahazar-Ex. P-2, prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police.He also attested Ex. P-2 Observation Mahazar and handed over the torch light M.O. 9 to the Sub-Inspector of Police.According to him, the injured was taken to the hospital at 1 a.m. on 20-4-93 by one Saravanan P.W. 1, who informed him that on 19-4-1993 at 10 p.m. five known persons attacked his father-injured Athimoolam with iron pipe and casuarina clubs and caused multiple injuries to him.He noticed on the injured Athimoolam a lacerated fresh injury 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on the left posterior parietal region of the head.After treatment by treating as outpatient, he referred the injured to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur for further treatment.Ex. P-7 is the Accident Register and Ex. P-8 is the intimation sent by him to the police.The Accident Register issued by him is Ex. P-9 wherein he noted the injuries.(iv) P.W. 14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudupattinam, on receipt of Ex. P-8 intimation from P.W. 7, went to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and enquired the injured Athimoolam.As he was unconscious at that time, his son P.W. 1 gave a statement and P.W. 14 recorded the same.Ex. P-1 is the complaint.He registered a case in Crime No. 288/93 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 326, IPC and prepared Ex. P-13 Printed FIR.He visited the scene of occurrence on the same night and after staying there, on the next day i.e. on 21-4-93 at 6 a.m. he prepared Observation Mahazar Ex. P-2 in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4, drew Rough Sketch-Ex.He seized M.Os.6 to 8 under Ex. P-3 Mahazar in the presence of P.W. 5 and one Kaliamoorthy.He seized M.O. 9-torch light under Mahazar-Ex. P-4 the presence of the same witnesses.On 22-4-93 has enquired P.W. 1 and arrested A-1, A-2. A-4 and A-5 at the junction of Panneerkottagam.(v) One Thirunavukkarasu, the then Duty Doctor of the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.According to him, the injured died at 1-30 a.m. on 30-4-93 due to head injuries and he intimated the fact of the death to the Out-Post Police Station.Ex. P-10 is the death intimation sent by him.(vi) P. W. 11 was the Head Constable attached to Outpost Police Station, Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.He received the death intimation-Ex. P-10 regarding the death of Athimoolam and informed the same to Pudupattinam Police Station and other higher authorities through wireless.P.W. 14, on receipt of intimation from the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur on 30-4-93 that the injured Athimoolam died at 10.30 a.m., altered the offence into one under Section 302, IPC in the F.I.R. and forwarded Express report-ex.P-15 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate and higher authorities through P.W. 12 constable.On receipt of Express report-Ex.P-15, he rushed to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of Athimoolam between 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars.He enquired P.Ws. 1 to 4, Kaliammal and Ranganathan and recorded their statements.He entrusted the body with constable-P.W. 1 for postmortem examination with his requisition-Ex.On receipt of Ex. P-11 requisition on 1-5-93 from the Inspector of Police, Sirkali, he conducted autopsy on the body of Athimoolam at about 1.00 p.m. He noticed a vertical sutured wound on the right tempero parietal area at the middle; a sutured wound over the left fron to parietal area and other 10 injures on the body of the deceased Athimoolam and issued Ex. P-12 postmortem certificate.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.He also recorded statement from P.W. 14-Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Ws. 12 and 13-constables.On 6-5-93 at about 8 a.m. near Madhanam Mariamman temple, he arrested A-3 in the presence of P.W. 6 and Ramalingam.He made a voluntary confession statement and Ex. P-5 is the admissible portion.Pursuant to Ex. P-5, A-3 took P.W. 16 to the house of one Sambandam, his father-in-law and identified the iron pipe, casuarina sticks-M.Os.1 to 5 and the same were recovered under Mahazar-Ex.It is also the case of the prosecution that since A-1 and A-2 continued to sell illicit arrack in the village of the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 4, the deceased Athimoolam made a complaint against them to the police, due to which the accused party has got motive and was waiting for an opportunity to revenge them.Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 referred the same in their evidence, it seems that prior to his death, the deceased Athimoolam was selling illicit arrack and he stopped the business at the intervention of his villagers and in such a situation, he also expected that A-1 and A-2 should not sell illicit arrack in his village at Kottaramoolai.Another incident referred to and relied on by the prosecution witnesses is that on 19-4-93 at 8 p.m., when P.W. 2 after taking tea in Kalaignar tea stall, was standing in the bus-stop at Panneerkottagam village along with one Sunder.All the five accused were standing there.On seeing P.W. 2, A-2 scolded him.When questioned, he (A2) slapped him on his cheek.It is seen that while P.W. 2 stayed there, the said Sunder came to Kottaramoolai and informed the incident to P.W. 2's parents.While they were coming back to their village Kottaramoolai, near A-2's house, the deceased Athimoolam questioned his (A2) behaviour and the reason as to why his son was beaten by him.Since nobody came from A-2's house, they proceeded to their village.JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1. Accused 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1994 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, Nagal Quide-E-Milleth District are the appellants in the above appeal.A-1 was charged for an offence under Section 148, IPC; A-2 to A-5 were charged for an offence under Section 147, IPC; and A-1 to A-5 for offences under Sections 341 and 302, IPC.(i) The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as RWs.1 to 16, marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 and also marked M.Os.1 to 10 in support of their claim.The motive as per the prosecution case is that the prosecution party were prevented in selling illicit arrack in their village by the accused party.However, A-1 and A-2, in spite of objection by the deceased Athimoolam, were selling illicit arrack in their village and a case was registered against them (A-1 and A-2) in Pudupattinam Police Station.In regard to the complaint made by the deceased Athimoolam against A-1 and A-2 over the sale of arrack, the accused often threatened the prosecution party and were awaiting an opportunity to take revenge for the same.On hearing this, P.W. 1 Saravanan, his father-deceased Arumugam, mother Kaliammal and the said Sundar proceeded to the said Kalaignar tea stall at Paneerkottagam village.On the way to the tea stall, A-2-Ganesan's house is situated.After picking up his brother P.W. 2, they returned back.As nobody came from A-2's house, they started to proceed to their village.At that time, near Dhanapal's (P.W. 3) petty shop, they saw 5 or 6 persons standing there at a distance of 5 or 6 feet.P.W. 1 heard a noise from the side of those persons stating that "Athimoolam is coming.We have to beat him".He also sent the M.Os.for chemical examination.On 15-6-93 he examined P.W. 10-Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Athimoolam, and obtained postmortem certificate-Ex.P-12 and after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused on 8-7-93 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302, IPC.The accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances, for which they denied the same.Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellants/accused, after taking us through the oral and documentary evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge, has raised the following contentions :(i) The prosecution has failed to prove motive;(ii) The Court below ought to have disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 4, since there was no burning light at the time of the occurrence;(v) The deceased though sustained injuries on 19-4-93 at 10 p.m., died at 1.30 a.m. on 30-4-93 i.e., after 10 days.In such a circumstance, in the absence of examination of the Medical Officer, who treated the injured during that period, it cannot be presumed that the death was due to the injury caused on 19-4-93;(vi) Inasmuch as the deceased party alone was the aggressors, and responsible for the incident, and the accused party have no intention to murder the deceased, A-1 and A-2 cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC, but only 304, Part II, IPC applies.On he other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has established the motive for the occurrence, and the evidence of eye-witnesses-RWs.1 to 4 proved the case of the prosecution; hence the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the accused and sentencing them.There is no ground for interference.We have carefully considered the rival submissions.P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased Athimoolam.The prosecution party belong to Kodakkaramoolai village which comes within Pudupattinam Police Station.It is also seen that prior to the occurrence, the deceased Athimoolam himself was selling illicit arrack and at the intervention of the panchayatdars, he stopped the business.Accused party belong to Panneerkottagam village.Accused 1 and 2 are also brothers.A-3 is the conductor.When they were passing through a petty shop of one Dhanapal, P.W. 1 heard a voice of A-2 saying that "we have to beat Athimoolam".Dhanapal-P.W. 3 who as having a torch light-M.O. 7 at that time was able to see all the five accused standing there.On seeing the accused, the deceased questioned them.At that time, A-1 beat the deceased on his head with iron rod, A-2 also beat him on his head with casuarina stick.The other 3 accused also beat the deceased on his legs.P.W. 2 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 in all aspects.Though P.Ws. 3 and 4 also referred the incident, the evidence of P.W. 3 was treated as hostile since he did not support the prosecution case at the later point of time.It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 that though initially A-2 beat P.W. 2 in front of the Kalaignar tea stall at Panneerkottagam village, on hearing the same through one Sunder, P.W. 1 and his father deceased Athimoolam went there, enquired about the incident and while coming back to their village, near A-2 house, he questioned the act of A-2 by stating that, "(Vernacular matter omitted)".It is relevant to note that in spite of the aggressive scolding of the deceased as to the authority under which A-2 beat his son-P.W. 2, no one came out from A-2's house.It is also spoken to by P.W. 1 that on seeing the accused party armed with weapons, their village Headman-Natesan, Dhanapal-P.W. 3 and Balaiah-P.W. 4 tried to pacify the accused party and requested them not to quarrel with the prosecution witnesses.It is further seen that at that time, the deceased questioned the accused.Immediately, A-1 beat him on his head with an iron rod and A-2 beat him with a casuarina club.As said earlier, P.W. 2 also refers the conduct of his father-deceased Athimoolam and the accused party.It is also relevant to refer the evidence of P.W. 4, who deposed that Athimoolam and his son-P. Ws. 1 and 2 returned back from the tea stall by discussing about the incident of beating of P.W. 2 by A-2 and while they were crossing the house of A-2 Ganesan, they scolded them.In cross-examination, P.W. 4 has stated that, "(Vernacular matter omitted)" In Ex. P-1 which is a complaint made by P.W. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W. 14, it is stated that, "(Vernacular matter omitted)" It is also seen that in spite of such provocative statement from the deceased, neither A-2 nor any other accused came out and resisted the prosecution party.Only when they went near P.W. 3's petty shop, they saw the accused standing there.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Ex. P-1 that both the deceased, A-1 and A-2 were selling illicit arrack in their village.It is also relevant to note that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 nowhere stated in their evidence that A-1 or other accused threatened to kill the deceased or other prosecution party.It is relevant to note that even P.W. 1 has stated that he had heard a sound that "we have to beat Arumugham".In chief examination, he has stated that, "(Vernacular matter omitted)" It is clear from the words uttered and spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2, the accused have no intention to murder the deceased and at the most, it may be presumed that they decided to beat the deceased Athimoolam.In such a circumstance, A-1 and A-2 cannot be dealt with under Section 302, IPC as claimed.In that case, the appellants/accused had been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 147 and 149, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. All of them sentenced to imprisonment for life on the main count and for lesser sentences for the lesser offences.The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on all of them and dismissed the appeal filed by them.Considering the said arguments, Their Lordships observed (para 7) :We feel that the aforesaid arguments based on the abovementioned two broad features is a strong circumstance for us to think that the common intention of the assailants was only to thrash the deceased and to inflict him with injuries.P.W. 7 who treated the deceased at Government Hospital, Sirkali has stated that at the time of admission, the deceased Athimoolam, who was brought by his son-P.W. 1, was unconscious and Was not able to speak.He noticed only one injury on his head.In his evidence before the Court, he has specifically stated that except one injury on the left side of the head, no other injury was found in the body of Athimoolam.P,W. 7 has noted the following injury in Ex. P-7-Accident Register :--"1) A lacerated fresh injury 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep found.Sagitating on the left posterior parietal region of the head.No other ext.injuries found........"P. W. 10 Dr. Gandhi, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Athimoolam, has stated in his evidence that he has noticed two injuries on the head and 10 injuries in other parts of the body of the deceased.He has opined in his postmortem certificate-Ex. P-12 that "the deceased would appear to have died of head injury." Though in his evidence he has referred to injuries on left hand, left leg, right leg and other parts of the body, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that it would be difficult for him to say how the deceased sustained such abrasions.In the light of the evidence of P.W. 7, Exs.P-7, P-10 and P-12, it is clear that the deceased sustained head injuries at the hands of A-1, which resulted in his death.Though it is stated that A-2 beat the deceased on the head with casuarina club, the evidence of P.W. 7-Doctor and Ex. P-7-Accident Register do not prove the same.Likewise, there is no acceptable evidence to show that A-3 to A-5 beat the deceased with casuarina clubs.For the sake of repetition, we once again referred to the evidence of P.W. 7, who noticed an injury on the deceased at the earliest point of time viz., at the time of admission in the Government Hospital, Sirkali and after examination, he noted the said injury that was caused on his head in Ex. P-7 Accident Register and he has specifically stated that except the said head injury, he could not find any other injury in the body of the deceased.In such a circumstance, merely because there is reference that there were injuries on the hand and leg of the deceased in the postmortem certificate-Ex.P-12, it is not safe to hold that A3 to A5 caused injuries on the deceased by casuarina club.It is also relevant to note that though P.W. 3 has said that with the burning torch light-M.O. 7, he saw the accused near his petty shop, admittedly, he was treated as hostile witness.It is true that according to prosecution, P.W. 4 was also having torch light-M.O. 9 and with the help of the burning torch light, he saw the accused.The occurrence took place at 10 p.m. Except the two torch lights, the recovery and seizure itself are in doubtful.Even if we accept that A-1 beat the deceased on his head with iron pipe-M.O. 1 and A-2 with casuarina club, absolutely there is no acceptable legal evidence in so far as A-3 to A-5 are concerned.The Accident Register-Ex.P-7 shows only one injury on his head.Then the injured was referred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and he was admitted there around 4 a.m. on the same day.When he was taking treatment as in-patient, he died on 30-4-03 at 1.30 a.m. Though P. 10, who conducted postmortem, refers to the head injury and certain other injuries on the body of the deceased, Ex. P-12 Postmortem report shows that the deceased would have died of head injury.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, absolutely there is no evidence regarding the treatment given to the deceased between the period 19-4-93 and 30-4-93 at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.No doubt, no suggestion was put to P.W. 8 who admitted the deceased at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital 20-4-93 at 4 p.m. and P.W. 10, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, and recorded his opinion in Ex. P-12 that he died due to the injury on the head.When the deceased died of other injuries, it is the settled legal position that it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to explain the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during the period he took treatment till his death.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the absence of evidence regarding the nature of treatment given to the deceased during that period it is not safe to convict the accused for the offence of murder on the ground that the injury inflicted by A-1 caused his death.Though P.W. 10 in his report Ex. P-12 has stated that the deceased would have died of head injury, inasmuch as the deceased had treatment from 19-4-93 to 30-4-93, the details regarding the treatment given to him are relevant while convicting the accused for the offence of murder on the ground that the injury inflicted by A-1 and A-2 caused his death.In Thangappan v. State, reported in (2002) 1 Mad LW (Cri) 107, the very same contention was considered by a Division Bench of this Court.In the case before the Division Bench, the deceased though sustained injury on 8-12-1990, died only on 23-12-90 and the prosecution did not examine the doctor who treated him at Kottar Government Hospital, Nagercoil as well as the other doctor who treated him at the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai and contended that in the absence of nature of the treatment given by the doctors, it will not be safe to convict the accused for an offence of murder on the ground that the injury inflicted by him caused his death.Accepting the said argument, the Division Bench has observed that (para 12) :"12........ The prosecution had no explanation to offer, as to why the wound certificate, issued by the said Doctor for the injuries noted on the deceased was not marked.The prosecution also did not examine the Doctor, who treated the deceased at the Kottar Government Hospital, Nagercoil.The nature of treatment received by the deceased at Kottar Government Hospital at Nagercoil as well as at Palayamkottai Government Hospital remain a mystery to the Court.The prosecution neither examined the Doctors, who treated the deceased, nor did they produce any document to show the nature of treatment received by him.They did not even mark the case sheet, which would have shown the nature of treatment given by the Doctors to the deceased......... In the absence of any evidence from the side of the prosecution that the said complications were on account of the injury, this Court has only to presume that those complications were on account of some other supervening cause and not on account of the injury.Once we hold that there is a doubt as to the cause of the complications viz., whether they were due to the injury or whether they were due to some other supervening cause, then, this Court cannot give a finding that the deceased died on account the complications arising directly out of the wound."After holding so, the Division Bench found that the accused inflicted injury on the head of the deceased, the prosecution did not establish that the injury caused the death of the deceased, convicted the accused under Section 326, IPC for causing grievous injury to the deceased and modified the sentence accordingly.Part II, IPC.In support of the said contention, out of two points referred to, the second point relates to non-examination of the Doctor who treated the deceased at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore.After referring to the factual details, in the absence of examination of the Doctor, who treated the deceased and other materials like case sheet etc., the Supreme Court has observed thus :"...........We have seen the nature of the injuries and also the time gap between the time of infliction of the injury till the date of death which was two days after the injury was inflicted.We have no sufficient material as to the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during those two days."In the case before the Division Bench, the deceased died after a period of two days at the C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore.Even for the treatment for the period of two days, due to non-examination of the Doctor, who treated the deceased at the said hospital and failure to produce the case sheet, accepted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and found that A-1 can be held guilty only under Section 304, Part II and not under Section 302, IPC.Though three Doctors have been examined on the side of the prosecution, there is no evidence with regard to the details regarding the treatment given to the deceased or case sheet was not filed and marked.P.W. 7 after noting the nature of the only injury in Ex. P-7-Accident Register, and after administering first aid, referred the deceased Athimoolam to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment.We cannot expect anything more from him for the treatment given by him in the Government Hospital at Sirkali.P.W. 8-Dr.Anantharamakrishnan, who admitted the deceased in the Medical College Hospital at Thanjavur at 4 a.m. on 20-4-93, has not spoken to the treatment given to the deceased.The Accident Register-Ex.P-9, issued by him, also does not show anything about the treatment given to the deceased.The only other Doctor is P.W. 10, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Athimoolam.He noted the injuries found on the body of the deceased Athimoolam in his postmortem certificate-Ex.As said earlier, though in Ex. P-12 he.During this period of 10 days, some treatment might have been given to the deceased Athimoolam at the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital by various Doctors.The fact remains that neither of the Doctors, who treated him during this period, was examined nor the case sheet was filed and marked before the Court.In such a circumstance, in the absence of any evidence regarding the nature of treatment given to the deceased Athimoolam during the period between 19-4-1993 and 30-4-93, we accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and we have no hesitation to hold that A-1 and A-2 can be held guilty only under Section 304, Part II, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC.In the light of the above discussion, we hold that A-1 and A-2 are guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC.It is relevant to note that the occurrence took place on 19-4-93, roughly 10 years have gone.Records show that A-1 was in jail for a period of 3 years and 8 months, while A-2 for a period of 2 years and 9 months.Hence, we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302, IPC, instead they are convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part II IPC, and sentence them to the period already undergone by them.A-3 to A-5 are acquitted of the offences under Section 147 and 341, IPC. | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,198,983 | "it often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and as wife is often harrassed by the husband or his in-laws.This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 IPC."It has further observed as under :-Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed has opposed the bail application stating that the investigation is pending in the matter.There are specific allegations against the present applicant for raising the demand of dowry.There are allegation of harassment against the present applicant.He has read over the statement of father of the deceased and has contended that on earlier occasions also, there was complaint with regard to harassment and demand of dowry and as there was no issue to the deceased, mother-in-law and the family members used to harass her.The matter was reported to the Court, Morena, wherein on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the matter was resolved and thereafter the deceased was taken to the matrimonial house and again harassment is being caused by the present applicant and the family members.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that on earlier occasion there were complaints against the present applicant and the family members regarding harassment and demand of 3 MCRC-48333-2019 dowry and looking to the fact that the investigation is pending in the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the bail application at this stage.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2019.11.29 18:47:19 +05'30' | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
23,208 | P.W.4-Ulagammal is the wife ofdeceased Ramasamy.There was a dispute regarding a sitebetween the accused and P.W.1's son-in-law.Further, the constrainedrelationship was aggravated due to the election dispute between P.W.1's son-in-law and the accused.20 days prior to the occurrence, there arose a dispute whenthe deceased took the cattle to the first accused brother's garden for grazingand there was exchange of blows between the accused and P.W.1's son-in-law.3.On 04.08.1997, P.Ws.1 and 2 and deceased Ramasamy, son-in-law of P.W.1went to Meelavittan for earth work and was returning at 5.45 P.M. towardsSavarimangalam.5.An incised wound over left thumb, middle, index, ring fingers about 3 x1 x .5cm in thigh other fingers 1 x .5 x .5 cm.6.Incised would left great toe 1 x .5 x .5cm.7.Abrasion over right knee."She gave Ex.She also gave Ex.P.6-Intimation tothe police.5.On 05.08.1997 at 12.45 A.M., she examined A2-Mariappan and she found thefollowing injuries on A2:"1.Cut Injury over left knee 5cm x 3cm x 3cm.2.Cut Injury over Right fore arm 2cm x .5cm x .5cm."She gave Ex.6.On 04.08.1997, P.W.10-Dr.Nesamanivannan, Radiologist has taken M.O.10-X-Ray on P.W.1 on the head and found that there is a fracture in the head.On05.08.1997, he took M.O.11-X-ray on the left shoulder of P.W.1 and found thatthere is a fracture in the left shoulder.P.8 is the X-Ray report of P.W.1.On 05.08.1997, he also took X-ray on the thigh of A2 and gave Ex.7.On 04.08.1997, on receipt of message from the Government Hospital,Thoothukudi, P.W.15-Subbiah, Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital at23.45 hours and recorded Ex.P.1-statement of P.W.1 and went to the policestation on 05.08.1997 at 1.30 A.M. and registered a case Crime No.148 of 1997under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.16 is the printed F.I.R. Theprinted F.I.R. was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate and the copy was sentto the higher officials through P.W.12-Duraisamy, Police Constable.P.12 isthe passport given to P.W.12 to carry the F.I.R. to the Court.Since there wasno bus, he handed over the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate at 7.00 A.M. P.W.15also received a complaint from the second accused on 06.08.1997 and registered acase in Crime No.149 of 1997 under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C.8.Then the investigation was conducted by P.W.16-Nagoor, Inspector ofPolice.On 05.08.1997 at 3.00 A.M., he visited the scene of occurrence andprepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17-Rough Sketch in the presence ofP.W.6-Veluchamy, Village Administrative Officer and P.W.7-Balasubramanian,Village Assistant.Then he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased andprepared Ex.P.18-Inquest Report.Then, P.W.16 sent the body of the deceased forconducting postmortem along with Ex.P.10-Requisition Letter through P.W.13-Ponniah, Police Constable.P.13 is the passport given to P.W.13 to take thebody of the deceased to hospital for conducting postmortem and after postmortemto handover the body to the relatives of the deceased.9.Postmortem was conducted by P.W.11-Dr.So theaccused have grudge over the deceased.20.The motive portrayed and projected by the prosecution is enmity betweenthe accused and deceased Ramasamy.Further Ex.At that time all the accused waylaid them and attacked them.Inthe attack, Ramasamy was killed and P.W.1 was injured.4.P.W.1 was treated by P.W.9-Dr.Mariam Beevi and she found the followinginjuries on P.W.1:"1.An incised wound 8 x 1 x.5cm at back.2.An incised wound 6 x 1 x .5cm at back.3.An incised wound over centre of forehead 6 x 1 x 1 cm.x 1.cm.P.9-Report thathe sustained fracture on the Femur.She examined thebody of the deceased.On examination she found the following the followingexternal injuries:"1.Incised wound 6x3x3 on the back of left of shoulder.2.Incised wound over back of skull (occipital region) 8 x 2 x 2cm exposing bone.3.Incised wound over left frontal bone 6 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.4.Transverse incised wound over vertex 5 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.5.Incised wound vertically over the injury No.(4) 8 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.6.Incised wound over right wrist dorsum 5 x 2 x 2cm.7.Incised wound below right elbow 4 x 1 x 1cm.8.Incised wound below left ear 3 x .x . cm.9.Stab injury above he sternal notch 5 x 3 x 5cm.10.Incised wound above injury No.9 3 x .x .cm.11.Stab injury below right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.12.Stab injury below medial side of right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.13.Incised wound above right knee in the middle of right thigh 3 x 1 x 1cm.14.Incised wound above left knee 8 x 2 x 5cms.15.Incised wound above wound No.14 (6x1x1cms)."The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to injury to vital organs and multiple injuries sustained.P.11 is the postmortem certificate.P.W.16 recovered M.O.1-Dhoti with blue colour border and M.O.2-White colour half hand shirt from P.W.1in the presence of Paneer and P.W.5-Kasi Nadar.On 05.08.1997 at 8.30 A.M., herecovered M.O.3-Blood stained Full Hand White Shirt, M.O.4-BloodstainedPolyester Dhoti, M.O.8-Bloodstained Earth and M.O.9-Ordinary Earth, in thepresence of P.Ws.6 and 7 in the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.4-Mahazar.11.On 07.08.1997 at 4.00 P.M., P.W.16 arrested the 3rd and 4th accused inthe presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and recorded the voluntary confession statement of3rd accused in the presence of the said witnesses.P.19 is the admissibleportion of the confession statement of third accused.On the basis of theconfession statement, he recovered M.O.5-knive and M.O.6-Aruval and M.O.7-Aruvalunder Mahazar Ex.Then he handed over the accused and the Material Objectsto judicial custody.12.Since P.W.16 was retired on 31.05.1999, the further investigation wasconducted by P.W.17-Nagarajan.On 05.08.1997, P.W.14-Muthuraman, Head Constablereceived the postmortem certificate from P.W.17 and handed over the same toJudicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi at 4.30 P.M. Ex.P.14 is the passport givento him to carry the postmortem certificate to Court.On 22.08.1997 at 20.00hours, P.W.16 arrested A2 in the presence of Panneer and P.W.5 and recorded hisvoluntary confession statement.Then, he sent Ex.P.21-Requisition Letter to theJudicial Magistrate to send the material objects to forensic lab.P.22 isthe office copy of the letter sent by the Magistrate to the Forensic Lab.P.23 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P.24 is the Serological Reportreceived by the Court.13.After enquiring the witnesses and after completing the investigation,on 22.10.1997, P.W.27 filed charge sheet against the accused.He also enquiredCrime No.149 of 1997 registered on the basis of the complaint given by A2 andfiled referred charge sheet.P.25 is the referred charged sheet filed byhim.14.Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.All the incriminating pieces of evidence let in bythe prosecution witnesses were put to the accused under Section 313(1) of theCode of Criminal Procedure questioning the accused, and the accused denied thesame as false.There was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side ofthe accused.15.On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, foundthe appellants/accused No.1 to 5 guilty under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 149I.P.C. and also found appellants /accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty under Section 307r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced A1 to A5 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for aperiod of one year each for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencedA1 to A5 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each indefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months each forthe offence under Section 302 r/w 149 and sentenced A1 to A4 to undergo 7 yearsRigourous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default toundergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months each for theoffence under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.17.Now the question that needs to be answered in this appeal is whetherthe accused No.1 to 5/ appellants could be held guilty under Sections 148 and302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and accused Nos.1 to 4/appellants could be held guilty underSection 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.A.No.834 of 2001 was filed by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4,Crl.A.No.992/2001 was filed by the 5th accused and Crl.A.No.370 of 2003 wasfiled by the 2nd accused.Since all the appeals arises out of the same judgmentin Sessions Case No.374 of 1998, a common judgment is pronounced in theseappeals.19.P.W.1-Paradesi Konar's son-in-law is deceased Ramasamy.P.W.4-Ulagammalis the wife of deceased Ramasamy.There was long enmity between the accused and thecomplainant party.There was dispute between P.W.1's son-in-law and accused inrespect of a property.Manthira Konar contested the panchayat election.P.W.1'sson-in-law's relative also contested the election.There was dispute in theelection.It also go to show that there isenmity between the parties much prior to the occurrence.On the fateful day,i.e., on 04.08.1997, P.W.1's son-in-law was murdered.P.Ws.1 and 2 spoke aboutthe occurrence because they accompanied the deceased.P.W.1 spoke specificallyabout the overt acts of each of the accused.21.Learned counsel for the appellants raised a doubt about the presence ofP.W.2 in the place of occurrence because P.W.2 was not injured.The evidence onrecord would show that on seeing the occurrence, P.W.2 ran away from the placefor safety.This would show the presenceof P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence and it also shows the fact that even theaccused admitted the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence.So, the doubtraised about the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence is not acceptable.22.The enmity between the accused and the complainant party isestablished.Eye-witnesses spoke correctly about the attack on the victim.Thevictim sustained so many injuries which is evident from the postmortem report.The external injuries sustained by the victim is as follows:"1.Incised wound 6x3x3 on the back of left of shoulder.2.Incised wound over back of skull (occipital region) 8 x 2 x 2cm exposing bone.3.Incised wound over left frontal bone 6 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.4.Transverse incised wound over vertex 5 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.5.Incised wound vertically over the injury No.(4) 8 x 2 x 2cm bone exposed.6.Incised wound over right wrist dorsum 5 x 2 x 2cm.7.Incised wound below right elbow 4 x 1 x 1cm.8.Incised wound below left ear 3 x .x . cm.9.Stab injury above he sternal notch 5 x 3 x 5cm.10.Incised wound above injury No.9 3 x .x .cm.11.Stab injury below right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.12.Stab injury below medial side of right knee 2 x 1 x 3cms.13.Incised wound above right knee in the middle of right thigh 3 x 1 x 1cm.14.Incised wound above left knee 8 x 2 x 5cms.15.Incised wound above wound No.14 (6x1x1cms)."23.At this juncture, learned Senior counsel argued that the second accusedsustained injury and it was not explained, so, the prosecution case is bound tofail.In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SUPREMECOURT 2263 and the decision of this Court in Ebanesar & Anr., etc. v. State byInspector of Police, Panagudi P.S., Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, etc.reported in 2001(1) MWN (Cr.) 140 and argued that the non explanation of injuryis fatal to the prosecution case.No doubt, in this case P.Ws.1 and 2 were notprepared to accept the injury on the second accused.On the other hand P.W.9-Dr.Mariyam Beevi, who treated the accused Mariappan on the same day in the earlymorning pointed out that the second accused sustained the following twoinjuries:"1.Cut Injury over left knee 5cm x 3cm x 3cm.2.Cut Injury over Right fore arm 2cm x .5cm x .5cm."P.W.1 was treated by her on 04.08.1997 at 10.30 P.M. and the second accused wastreated by her on 05.08.1997 at 00.45 A.M. Both P.W.1 and the second accusedsustained fracture in the occurrence.Though the investigating officer referredthe case registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second accused asmistake of facts, the injuries sustained by the second accused would speak aboutthe attack on the second accused.The investigating officer P.W.16 admitted inhis evidence that he is aware of the injury sustained by the second accused inthe right hand and left leg.Further, his evidence would show that A2 sustainedinjury in the same course of occurrence.So, it is clear that there was fight between boththe parties and both the accused and the complainant sustained injuries.So, weare not inclined to accept Ex.P.25-referred charge sheet alleging that theaccused themselves attacked the second accused.24.The attack made by the accused on the victim is a sudden attack withoutpredetermination.But they have the knowledge that it will result in the deathof the victim.Since the accused attacked the victim and P.W.1 due to sudden quarrel they arenot liable to be punished under Section 148 I.P.C. and the conviction andsentence imposed on them under Section 148 I.P.C. is liable to be set aside.25.Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed and theconviction of the appellants in these appeals/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section302 r/w 149 I.P.C. by the Trial Court is modified to one under Section 304(i)I.P.C. and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three monthsimposed by the trial Court stands modified to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment witha fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a furtherperiod of three months and the conviction of appellants in Crl.A.Nos.834 of2001 and 370 of 2003/accused Nos.1 to 4 by the Trial Court is confirmed and thesentence of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in defaultto undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months imposed bythe Trial Court stands modified to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period ofthree months.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on theappellants in these appeals/Accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 148 I.P.C. is setaside.The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants /accusedshall be given set off.The sentences imposed on the appellants/accused shallrun concurrently.The respondent is directed to take steps to procure theappellants/accused for undergoing remaining period of sentence.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.2.The Inspector of Police, Pudhiyamputhur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. | ['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
15,679,039 | The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 147, 148, 342, 427http://www.judis.nic.in 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.678 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had a property dispute with the defacto complainant and they are said to have abused and intimidated the defacto complainant.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submitted that the petitioners had abused and intimidated the defacto complainant and no one sustained injuries.The learned counsel further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioners.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent police, as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringhttp://www.judis.nic.in investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused persons thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.16.06.2020 ssb/kp N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J ssb To1.The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai (Satisfaction Court)3..Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri (Dismissal Court).4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.8763 of 2020 16.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,567,926 | In all five accused had been tried for offences under Sections 302/307/120-B, IPC.Accused Rajender Kumar died during the course of the trial.The entire case revolves around an incident which took place on 6th October, 1982 at 7.45 p.m. inside the Palika Bazar an underground airconditioned market located at Connaught Place, New Delhi.The complainant party consists of three brothers, namely, Ashok Kumar, Naval Kumar and Mukesh Kumar.In the incident Mukesh died as a result of two bullet injuries received by him.Ashok also received two bullet injuries.He was lucky to have survived.Two shots were allegedly fired at the third brother also but he escaped them.Besides the bullet injuries the two surviving brothers also received some other injuries.Ajay Kumar Singh who had allegedly fired the shots was apprehended alongwith a revolver in his hand while he was fleeing from the scene of crime.He was arrested then and there and the revolver was seized from him.The other accused succeeded in their escape from the scene of occurrence.The aforesaid persons, just after reaching there, started giving beatings to both my brothers Ashok and Mukesh with buttons and leather belt, saying that we the three brothers have no power to stop them from taking away customers and further threatened that they would finish we the three brothers.Actual words being "TUM TEENO BHAION MEIN KYA TAQAT HAI JO HAMAIN GRAHAK LEJANE SE ROKTE HO.AAJ TUMHARA TEENO KA NIPTARA KAR DANGE"."I also came out of the shop and a scuffling and quarrel started.Narinder and Mohinder exhorted Ajay @ Ajji to shoot and finish all the three that day itself.So that the daily quarrel my come to an end.Rajan also instigated Ajji and said that why he was delaying; shot at once.Thereupon Ajay took out a revolver from the dub of his pants and fired a number of shots consecutively one after the other at me and my brothers.As a result whereof, my brothers Ashok Kumar and Mukesh Kumar sustained injuries.As and when Ajay Singh tried to flee away, I followed him and overpowered Ajay Singh alongwith revolver near Air-conditioning Plant.He, in order to free himself, bit with his teeth on the dorsum of my left hand.I also bit him on the back portion of his arm and tightened my grip.Meanwhile, you reached there with the accompanying police persons from front side and overpowered Ajay.You snatched the revolver from his right hand.Rajan, Narinder and Mohinder fled away from the spot.Rajan, Narinder and Mohinder and Ajay with common intention have made attempt to murder us by way of firing shots.Ashok and Mukesh, my injured brothers were taken to the Hospital by my father who had happened to reach the spot in the car.The aforesaid entire incident has been witnessed by Shri Mohinder Singh, s/o Arjan Singh, r/o Vikas Studio, National Highway, Shakarpur, Delhi and Rakesh Kapoor, s/o Jagdish Kapoor of shop No. M-13, Palika Bazar, New Delhi whose names and addresses have now been learnt.Legal action may be taken in the said regard.I have heard the statement and the same is correct."SI Gurdeep Singh who had recorded the statement of Naval Kumar on the basis whereof the FIR was recorded, happened to be present in the Palika Bazar in connection with some other inquiry.On hearing the sound of gun shots and noticing the resultant commotion, he alongwith his accompanying police officers rushed towards the place from where the sound of gun shots had been heard.When he reached near the air-conditioning plant he saw the complainant Naval Kumar having caught hold of accused Ajay Kumar Singh.Ajay was having a revolver in his right hand.SI Gurdeep Singh snatched the revolver from Ajay's right hand.Ajay was handed over to the other police officers accompanying SI Gurdeep Singh.Investigations followed.As per the prosecution case in the presence of independent eye witnesses Mahinder Singh PW-2 and Rakesh Kapoor PW-5 and complainant Naval Kumar PW-1, SI Gurdeep Singh effected certain recoveries, prepared the memos which were got signed from these witnesses.He opened the revolver which had been snatched from the hand of accused Ajay and found six empty cartridges in it.A sketch of the revolver was prepared.The cartridges were allowed to remain inside the chambers.Its recovery memo is Ex. PW-1/C. A rough site plan prepared by the IO is Ex. PW-13/B. The scene of occurrence was photographed.Blood samples were lifted from outside shop No. 2, shop Nos. 3 and 4 and shops No. 161 and 162 and were taken possession of as per respective recovery memos.Blood was also lifted from the trail of blood leading to shops 161 and 162 and kept in a sealed phial.From near the pillar of shop No. 34, a bullet was recovered and kept in a sealed cover.Its recovery memo is Ex. PW-1/J. A broken piece of danda was recovered from the stairs near shop No. 9 and was taken possession of vide a recovery memo.Personal search of accused Ajay was conducted and a recovery memo was prepared.Clothes of Ajay were found blood stained.His T-shirt Ex. P-4, Banyan Ex. P-3 and Pant Ex. P-5 were taken into possession vide Ex. PW-1/M. On his return from the hospital the blood stained T-shirt of Naval (Ex. P-6) was taken into possession vide Ex. PW-1/N.SI Mahinder Ram PW-19 who had accompanied Mukesh and Ashok to the hospital was handed over the clothes of Mukesh and Ashok duly sealed.They were taken into possession.S.I. Gurdeep Singh prepared an inquest report about the death of Mukesh Kumar.Two bullets recovered from the body of Mukesh by Dr. L.T. Ramani who performed the post mortem were handed over to the police in a sealed packet.The post mortem report is Ex. PW-13/A. Dr. L.T. Ramani also handed over sample blood of Mukesh to the police officer.The two brothers who had been injured in the incident were taken to the Willingdon Hospital by their father Govind Ram PW-21 in his car.Sudhir had started that business about one and half years to two years prior to the date of incident.Before starting the business at shop No. 4 Sudhir was having a Counter at shop No. 9, Palika Bazar, where accused Rajinder, Narinder and Mahinder were doing business.These three accused were real brothers.Their business was that of art printing.Naval stated that he knew accused Ajay Kumar Singh prior to the date of the incident.According to Naval, Narinder generally used to sit at shop No. 4 run by accused Sudhir.Narinder used to take away the customers coming to the shop of complainant party to the shop of Sudhir.Naval stated that he had asked Narinder not to entice away customers from his shop but Narinder did not bother.According to Naval, Narinder did not pay any heed to what Naval had asked him and rather adopted a confrontationist attitude.At that time one customer was coming to my shop and that customer was taken away by accused Narinder Kumar to the shop of accused Sudhir Kumar.When I tried to advise Narinder not to do so he started quarrelling.At this time one Mukesh Sood who has his shop at M-12, Palika Bazar also came there and he and other 2-3 persons intervened.I did not go to police station.Accused Narinder Kumar moved an application against me in the police station.When I went to my house, I told regarding this incident to my father who advised me not to involve in any dispute."Narinder Kumar complained about this incident to the police on 1st October, 1982 vide Ex. PW-9/A. This complaint was made at 9.00 p.m. As per the complaint Narinder was beaten by Naval etc. in the presence of his wife and children.He further complained that such type of incidents had taken place many a times between Naval's party on the one hand and Narinder's party on the other.This complaint appears to have been marked to SI Mahender Ram, PW-19. Naval went on to state that SI Mahender Ram had visited him at about 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. on 3rd October, 1982 at their Panchkuin Road shop in connection with the inquiry."On 6.10.82 I was sitting at my shop No. 33, Palika Bazar and then one Constable from P.S. Connaught Place had come who had told me that SHO Sahib was calling me.I went to Police Station, Connaught Place alongwith my father Shri Govind Ram and reached there at about 3 -4 p.m. When we reached there, we found that accused Sudhir Kumar, Rajinder, Narinder and Mohinder were already there.In the police station, SHO Sahib enquired from me regarding the complaint dated 1.10.82 of Narinder Kumar.At that time, accused Rajinder Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Mahinder Kumar became aggressive (Garmi Karne Lage).S.H.O. Sahib told that in case the parties would be fighting, he would arrest both the parties.Just after their arrival at our shop, I heard accused Narinder, Rajinder and Mahinder saying, "Tumhare Teeno Bhaiyon Ki Kya Takat Hai Ki Hamen Grahak Le Jane Se Rokte Ho.Aaj Hum Teeno Bhaiyon Ka Nibtara Kar Hi Denge." Accused Narinder and Mahinder with dandas, accused Rajinder with belt and accused Ajay Kumar by fist and kicks, started beating my brothers Ashok Kumar and Mukesh.I also came out side the shop and they also attacked me.We were empty-handed.These four accused continued beating us.I and my brothers received injuries.Accused Narinder and Mahinder exhorted Ajay Kumar by saying that, "Aaj Goli Chala Kar In Teeno Bhaiyon Ko Khatam Kar Do Taki, Roj Roj Ka Jhagra Aaj He Khatam Ho Jai".Q. Whether these words were said by them jointly or simultaneously or one after the other ?First of all it was said by accused Narinder and simultaneously, it was said by accused Mahinder.After that, accused Rajinder said, "Jaldi Goli Chala.Der Kyon Karta Hai."After that, accused Ajay Kumar took out a revolver from the dub of his Pants and fired shots one after the other several times on me and my brothers.He fired 6 shots and emptied his revolver.My brother Mukesh received two bullet injuries -one on the stomach and the other on thigh.My brother Ashok received one bullet injury on his chest and another bullet injury on his finger.On receiving bullet injuries, my brothers Mukesh and Ashok Kumar were injured.All the four accused persons, who were present there started running.After that, I gave my statement to Gurdip Singh S.I. regarding the incident of that very moment and that statement was recorded by S.I. Gurdip Singh."His answer was that at that time he did not know how many bullets had hit Mukesh and how many had hit Ashok and where.These facts came to his knowledge later on in the night.He denied the suggestion that he did not have blood stains on his clothes.In cross-examination also he described how his father had removed his brothers Mukesh and Ashok to the hospital.He stated that he saw his father removing his brothers Ashok and Mukesh to the hospital when he returned after handing over Ajay to the police officers.According to him the blood on the clothes of Ajay could be that of Mukesh, Ashok or of his own.According to him Mukesh fell down first in front of shop No. 33 after receiving the gun shots.Then he again fell down near the water cooler, i.e., near shops 161 and 162 when he was giving a chase to the accused.Duli Chand was the allottee of shop No. 9 but he was not working there.Duli Chand had given that shop to accused Narender, Mahender and Rajender.According to Ashok when Sudhir Jain was working at shop No. 9 he had informed Ashok about accused Ajay that he used to study with Sudhir in DAV College, Sriniwas Puri, Delhi and was supplying jewellery to Sudhir.He added that he had seen all the five accused taking liquor together at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar and shop No. 9, Palika Bazar prior to the date of incident.On how the trouble started between the two groups Ashok had this to say: "When S.K. Jain had started business in shop No. 4, Palika Bazar, accused Narender Kumar generally used to come to that shop and he generally used to intercept customers coming to my shop and he used to take the customers to the shop of S.K. Jain.He also sometimes used to take the customers when they used to come out of my shop No. 33 and he used to take those customers to the shop of S.K. Jain accused.I several times advised accused Narender Kumar not to do so but he did not desist.On this, we had several times verbal altercation with him".Whatever happened at the police station on 6th October, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m. was not within the personal knowledge of this witness.Of course in his statement he mentioned about what had transpired at the police station but according to him his knowledge about this was derived from Naval and Gobind Ram.He had seen in front of shop No. 4 accused Narender, Mahender, Rajender, Sudhir Jain and Ajay.These five persons were talking to each other at that time.He says that in fact they were whispering.Ashok went on to say that the closing time at Palika Bazar during those days was 7.30 p.m. Sudhir Jain always used to close his shop at 7.30 p.m. However, on 6th October, 1982 Sudhir Jain closed his shop at 6.45 p.m. and had gone away.Thereafter accused Narender, Rajender, Mahender and Ajay went back to shop No. 9, Palika Bazar.At 7.45 p.m. this witness Ashok and his brother Mukesh were standing outside their shop No. 33 and Naval (PW-1) was packing up and was counting the cash for closing the shop.Then he proceeded to give a detailed account of the main incident in the following words:"At that time accused Narinder Kumar armed with one danda, accused Mahinder Kumar armed with one danda and accused Rajinder Kumar, armed with one belt and Ajay Kumar Singh came to my shop where we were standing.In cross-examination this witness stated that he was not unconscious when he reached the hospital.This is supported by the MLC of this witness where it was stated that he was conscious.He explained that this was because SI Gurdeep Singh had put only two questions referred to above and those were answered.He further admitted that prior to the incident there had been quarrels between the parties on several occasions.He was questioned about his having mentioned only four shots fired during the incident in his statement dated 7th October, 1982 (Ex. PW-3/DA).His reply was that he had stated that bullets had been fired one after the other at all the three brothers.He was operated in the night between the 6th and 7th October, 1982 and the bullet which was lodged in his chest was taken out.According to him blood was oozing out from his both bullet injuries.The other injuries received by him were not bleeding.He stated that he chased the accused for about 90 to 100 steps after he had received the bullet injuries.He denied the suggestion that his injuries other than the bullet injuries were caused by running and falling.The information about apprehension of Ajay was received by this witness in the hospital.He stated that he could identify Mahender Singh PW-2 but at the time of the incident he did not remember his name.The name of PW-2 was disclosed to Ashok by his brother Naval.He identified both the other eye witnesses, i.e., PW-2 and PW-5 through their photographs.He described how and in what manner his father Gobind Ram had removed his brother Mukesh and him to his car for taking them to the hospital.Mahender and Rakesh Kapoor, PW-2 and PW-5 remained standing near the water cooler when these injured persons were removed to the car for being taken to the hospital.Mukesh was lifted by his father Gobind Ram and he had supported Mukesh by putting his hand below the back of Mukesh.Mukesh was bleeding profusely.This witness and Mukesh were on the back seat of the car.Mukesh was lying with his head in the lap of this witness Ashok.In an answer to the question as to whether he continued to wear blood stained pant and underwear till the time when he had handed over them to Inspector Mehta, his reply was that he had changed his clothes in the meanwhile but kept the blood stained Pant and underwear in the Almirah after wrapping them in the newspaper.He replied that there was no time to do this.Everything happened so fast.He knew all the three brothers belonging to the complainant party and their father Gobind Ram.He came to know accused Ajay after his apprehension on the date of the incident.He stated that he saw dandas in the hands of accused Narender and Mahender and belt in the hand of accused Rajender.According to this witness these three were beating Ashok and Mukesh and Naval with dandas and belt.When this beating was going on Narender and Mahender accused gave an exhortation for killing all the three brothers by firing bullets so that the daily quarrels would be over.This was followed by exhortation by accused Rajender to fire quickly and not to delay.These exhortations were being given to Ajay and Ajay accordingly took out from the right dub of trousers a revolver and started firing towards all the three brothers.Mukesh and Ashok were injured in the firing.Naval, Ashok and Mukesh chased them.Mukesh and Ashok chased upto the water cooler plant where Mukesh fell down.Ashok who was following Mukesh stopped to help Mukesh by supporting him to get him up.Ajay was apprehending near the air-conditioning plant, i.e., near shops No. 161 and 162 by Naval.There was grappling between Ajay and Naval.In this grappling Ajay had received injuries.When grappling was going on between them SI Gurdeep Singh and SI Mahender Ram and two constables reached there.SI Gurdeep Singh snatched he revolver from the right hand of accused Ajay.The seal after this was handed over to Naval.The six empty cartridges remained inside the revolver put in the seal by SI Gurdeep Singh.A memo was prepared about taking the revolver into possession Ex.P-1/C. It is signed by the witness.He came on the scene soon after the incident and his role as per his statement consists of removing his both injured sons to the hospital in his car.He stated that he was the owner of shop No. 33, Palika Bazar in which he and his son Ashok were partners.He stated that his son Naval and Mukesh used to help in the said business at Palika Bazar.The name of the shop was given as 'Gem Palace'.They dealt in precious and semi-precious stones.They had similar business as that of the complainants.Earlier accused Sudhir Jain was also working at shop No. 9 on a counter.He stated that he knew accused much prior to 6th October, 1982 by face.He came to know his name only after the incident.Ajay used to supply precious and semi-precious stones etc. to Sudhir Jain.He had also seen Ajay drinking liquor in shop No. 4 and earlier in shop No. 9 along with other accused persons.He admitted that he had a shop at Panchkuin Road also which he himself looked after.As per practice he stated that he used to come to Palika Bazar in his car after closing his shop at Panchkuin Road to pick up his sons for going home in his car.He said tha this son Ashok had informed him about the incident dated 1st October, 1982 involving accused Narinder.According to him Narinder used to remain sitting at shop No. 4 of Sudhir Jain.This was the root cause of the quarrels between the two groups.He had advised his sons not to quarrel on this issue.He had been informed by his son Naval on 3rd October, 1982 that police had come to the Panchkuin Road shop in connection with inquiry about the incident dated 1st October, 1982 which took place in the Palika Bazar.In connection with incident dated 1st October, 1982 this witness stated that he had gone alongwith his son Naval to the SHO, Police Station, Connaught Place because he had been called there by the SHO.When he alongwith son Naval reached there they found that accused Narinder, Mahinder and Rajender and Sudhir Jain were already sitting with the SHO.These four persons lost their temper.The SHO scolded them and said if they would lose temper he would arrest all of them.In view of this they calmed down and agreed for a compromise.The compromise could not be finalised because these persons insisted that Ashok should also be a party to the compromise and Ashok was not available.SHO called them alongwith Ashok to the police station next morning at 9.00 a.m. When this witness alongwith his son Naval reached near the gate of the police station, Narinder and Sudhir Jain were ahead of them.They were heard saying "POLICE KO KUCHH NAHIN KARNA, HAMNE KHUD HIINSE NIBATANA PADEGA".On hearing this, this witness alongwith his son Naval went back to the room of the SHO but the SHO had gone somewhere else in his jeep in the meanwhile.They returned to the Palika Bazar shop.Thereafter this witness left for his shop at Panchkuin Road.On 6th October, 1982 at 7.45 p.m., this witness came from Panchkuin Road to Palika Bazar as usual at about 7.45 p.m. to take his sons alongwith him to their residence.When he reached Palika Bazar he found persons coming out running from inside the Palika Bazar.On inquiry he was told that firing had taken place inside.He immediately rushed inside the Palika Bazar where he came to know that his sons had been shot at.He found Ashok and Mukesh in injured condition.He saw Mukesh lying in injured condition near the water cooler, Ashok was near him and was helping Mukesh to get up.Rakesh Kapoor and Mahender Singh supported Mukesh to get up.This witness testified that he lifted Mukesh in his arms with the help of some other persons.He had taken Ashok and Mukesh to his car parked outside Palika Bazar.From there they were taken to the Willingdon Hospital.PW-19 SI Mahender Ram had also gone in that car alongwith them.Ashok on the way to the hospital informed this witness that the person who had fired gun shots had been arrested.He also reiterated that he had taken Mukesh from the place from where he had fallen to the car in his arms while Ashok had gone on his feet with support of this witness's shoulder.Once they reached the hospital, the injured persons were removed from the car by the staff of the hospital.He admitted that his shirt and Pant got blood stained with the blood of Mukesh.He stayed in the hospital till 4.00/5.00 a.m. and then went to his house.A long bruise extending from back to the arm right side.Punctured wound on the chest on the left side about 3" above the nipple and about 1/2" cm in diameter.There was surgical emphysema.There was punctured wound on the index finger of the left hand.Swelling over proximal phalanx index finger."An incision about one and half inch long was made over the inter-coastal space.The incision was deepened upto the inter-coastal muscles.A bullet was felt in the inter-coastal muscles and was removed.The wound was stitched in layers.He was disoriented pulse and blood pressure was not recordable.There was an entry wound in the epigastria near the mid line on right side about 1/2 cm in diameter with surrounding skin charred and tattooing.The patient could not be X-rayed because he was in a state of severe shock.The doctor tried to resuscitate the patient by transit using I.V. fluids by making cut down on both lower and upper limbs.PW-8 Dr. Jayanti Chatterjee was the Radiologist in the RML Hospital at the relevant time and she had done the X-ray on Ashok.The body was sent to Dr. Ramani by SI Gurdeep Singh through the police constables of Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi.The dead body was identified by Govind Ram, father of the deceased.The deceased was wearing an underwear and Pants.Both of them were blood stained.There was a collar of abrasion 2 mm wide all around the wound.There was no evidence of tattooing or burning effect around the wound.There was no other external mark of injury on the body.The internal examination of the deceased revealed that abdominal cavity was full of fluid and clotted blood.Injury on the abdomen communicated with abdominal cavity where it had perforated to transverse colon omentum pancreas and descending arota.A bullet was found lodged in the muscles of the abdomen posterior wall.On dissecting the muscles of the left thigh, a bullet was found lodged in the muscles of the buttock where it had got embedded after being deflected from inchmeal tuberosity.Both the bullets were 5.3 cm long and have 5 mm diameter base.The bullet recovered from the abdomen had slightly deformed base.Time since death was about 18.00 hrs.The doctor proved his post mortem report as Ex. PW-13/A. The application for conducting the post mortem (Ex.PW-13/B) alongwith 14 other papers was eceived in the Mortuary on 12.10 p.m. on 7th October, 1982 regarding which an endorsement was made on the application itself.This doctor was asked to give opinion as to whether after receiving the bullet injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report and the MLC of Mukesh and Ashok could they run as suggested by the prosecution? The opinion of the doctor in this connection is Ex.PW-13/F. The doctor opined:"After going through the MLC and reports regarding injured 'Ashok Kumar and post mortem report of Mukesh (deceased) I am of the view that the deceased and injured Ashok Kumar could follow (move) the accused persons a distance of about 60 -70 yards".This brings us to the statement of PW-18, Shri B. Moitra, Sr.Scientific Officer (Gr.I) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi.B. Moitra is the Ballistic Expert who appeared as a witness in this case.He stated that on 16th October, 1982, 18 sealed parcels were received from ACP, Crime Branch, Delhi.They were received in the office of the CFSL, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.The sealed parcels were bearing Nos. 1 to 12, 12-A, 13 to 16 and 16-A. The seals of the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seals of the parcels.The witness stated that he had opened parcel Sr. No. 1 and found one .32 bore Webley Scot revolver.If two persons are grappling and one of them is having a revolver and the other is trying to snatch that revolver, and if in such circumstances there will be firing from that revolver, and if that will hit one of these persons, who were grappling or the other person who was having the revolver, the bullet will hit the person with close range and that bullet injury will produce blackening and charring mark?The blackening and charring will depend upon the distance between the muzzle end of the revolver and the target.(iii) T-shirt Ex. P10 belonging to Mukesh was stained with 'AB group blood (which is of Ashok Kumar).Banian Ex. P7 belonging to Mukesh was without a result of blood, because blood was 'interfered';(iv) Pant Ex. P8 and underwear Ex. P9 belonging to Mukesh was found to be stained within 'A group blood' (which is of Mukesh himself)The sample of blood taken from the trail of blood from shop Nos. 33 and 161 was found to be of blood group 'AB' which was the blood group of Ashok.It is in evidence that Ashok had chased accused Ajay upto shop No. 161 and, therefore, the blood being found of 'AB' group stands explained.The blood sample taken from outside shop Nos. 3 and 4 gave inconclusive result.Blood of Mukesh as well as Ashok which had fallen at that spot lifted in one phial and must have got mixed up as a result of which the results could not be obtained.66. PW-6, Ram Niwas, was a Clerk working in the Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi.He appeared as a witness to prove the MLCs of Ashok and Mukesh.These MLCs were prepared by Dr.Vivek Misra who had by then left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.The witness stated that he was familiar with the hand-writing and signatures of Dr. Vivek Misra as well as Dr. J.P. Gupta of RML Hospital, both of whom had left the service in the hospital.The medical report of Ashok was identified by the witness and was proved as Ex. PW-6/A. A portion of this MLC encircled and marked 'A' was proved by the witness as in the handwriting of Dr. J.P. Gupta.The MLC of Mukesh was also proved by this witness as Ex. PW-6/C. The witness identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Vivek Misra on the MLC.This MLC also at point 'A' was identified as having been written by Dr. J.P. Gupta.Police Witnesses.1. PW-35, SI Gurdeep Singh2. PW-36, Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta3. PW-19, Mahender RamPW-24, Constable Mehtab SinghPW-35, SI Gurdeep Singh was the first I.O. of this case and he was the first to reach the spot after the incident alongwith his team of police officers.He was already in the Palika Bazar in connection with some other inquiry and, therefore, as soon as he heard the sound of gun shots he rushed towards from where the sound of fire shots was heard.when the police party reached near the air-conditioning plant SI Gurdeep Singh saw the complainant Naval Kumar having caught hold of accused Ajay Kumar Singh from behind in a bent position.Accused Ajay was having a revolver in his right hand.This witness snatched the said revolver from the hand of accused Ajay.The remaining police personnel over powered the said accused.The witness further stated that he opened the revolver smelled it and found therein six empty cartridges.Naval told the police officer that Ajay had come after injuring his brothers.SI Gurdeep Singh stated that public witnesses S/Shri Mahinder Singh and Rakesh Kapoor came over there and told him that the father of the injured persons was taking them to the hospital.It is further stated by the witness that he detailed SI Mahender Ram (PW-19) to go to the hospital alongwith the injured persons.Naval Kumar took him to the spot where the incident had taken place.He also noticed people near shops No. 161 and 162 and trail of blood near the passage from shop No. 161 to shop No. 33, Palika Bazar.He also found the lead piece of bullet near shop No.34 towards the stairs near the entry gate.The statement is Ex. PW 1/A. He made an endorsement and sent the Rukka (statement of Naval) for registration of an FIR through constable Mehtab Singh.The witness prepared a sketch of the revolver which was marked as Ex. PW-1/B. The revolver was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW 1/C. He prepared a rough site plan with marginal notes and the same is Ex. PW 35/B. Photographer was called to photograph the scene of occurrence.He took blood sample into possession from shop No. 33 vide recovery memo Ex. 1/D as also from opposite shops No. 3 & 4 as Ex.1/E. These were put in sealed parcels.Blood was also picked up from shop Nos. 161 and 162 and put under seal.About this recovery the memo is Ex. PW 1/K. Blood was also taken from the trail leading from shop No. 33 to shop No. 161, 162 vide memo Ex.The piece of broken danda was also taken into possession and converted into a sealed parcel.The witness was shown all these articles in Court and he identified the same.It is significant to note that this witness stated that at about 8.00 p.m. while he was making inquiries from Naval before registration of F.I.R., ACPs Ascharaj Lal Chadha and Narinder Singh came over there.This means that the two ACPs reached the place of occurrence within 15 minutes of the occurrence because the occurrence is stated to have taken place at 7.45 p.m. The S.H.O. of Police Station, Connaught Place in fact came 15 minutes after the ACPs had already arrived.The witness stated that while Naval Kumar was narrating the incident of 1st October, 1982 he was told by the ACP to be brief and be confined to the incident in question.He admitted that initially Naval was telling the incident of 1st October, 1982 but then he omitted the same.He stated that the injury statement of Naval was prepared by him at night and it was done in a hurry.However, according to him it was prepared after physical verification of the person concerned.He stated that the seizure memo regarding the shirt of Naval was prepared at police station at about 2.00 a.m. when Naval had returned to the police station after his medical examination.Mahinder Singh (PW-2) had accompanied this witness from the spot to the police station and had witnessed the said recovery memo.He admitted that he did not mention the name or position of the accused persons other than Ajay in the site plan.According to him he omitted to do so, then said "had forgotten to do so".In reply to a question regarding shop No. M-13 where witness Rakesh Kapoor (PW-5) was said to be working, remaining closed, the witness stated that he had seen Rakesh Kapoor working in shop No. M-13 during those days.He denied the allegations that he was interested in the complainant party at the time when he was investigating the case.He stated that he went in search of the co-accused taking accused Ajay and complainant Naval along besides some other persons.He had left the police station for, the search of the other accused at 2.00 a.m. He returned to the police station at about 7.00 a.m. He was questioned about not having lifted the finger prints from the revolver allegedly snatched by him from the hand of accused Ajay.His explanation was that he did not think it necessary at all to lift the finger prints from the revolver because the accused Ajay had been arrested alongwith the revolver in question.He had smelt the barrel of the revolver and found that it had been recently fired.The witness stated that there is a distance of about 20 feet between shop No. 33 and shops 3 and 4 situated opposite each other.He admitted that he had not shown the position of Naval in the site plan.In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Ajay this witness stated that he had taken the revolver from accused Ajay and thereafter had put it in a piece of cloth and sealed it at the spot.The piece of cloth was available in the investigation bag with the witness.He denied the suggestion that finger prints were not lifted from the revolver because it did not contain any finger prints of Ajay.The crime team had not examined the revolver because it had been put in a sealed cover before its arrival.The witness denied any suggestion regarding delay in recording the FIR.The witness reiterated that he had completely recorded the Rukka at 9.05 p.m and that he came to know about the death of Mukesh at about 10.30 p.m. Accordiny, to this witness accused Ajay did not have any bleeding injury.There were blood stains on the clothes of Ajay which includes his Banyan, T-shirt and trousers.His Banyan and T-shirt were little torn.The buttons of T-shirt were also torn.When Ajay was sent for medical he was not wearing the blood stained clothes.Naval was sent for medical in his blood stained clothes.He admitted that he had not considered it necessary to record the presence of all the police officers who had arrived at the place of occurrence which included ACPs Narinder Singh and A.L.Chadha.By that time he noted that Sudhir Jain had not even been interrogated by the local police.He also found that accused Sudhir was still absconding.He recorded supplementary statement of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 11th October, 1982 he had visited the spot and made spot inquiries from the neighbouring shop keepers.There he met Mukesh Sood, PW-4 and recorded his statement.He arrested accused Rajinder on 12th October, 1982 at 6.00 p.m. on information that he was present near the Golcha Cinema.Rajinder was interrogated by him.According to this witness accused Rajinder made a disclosure statement which is Ex. PW-36/D and got a belt recovered.The witness continued to give details in the manner in which he conducted further investigation.Naval was got medically examined afresh by Inspector Mehta.The injury statement prepared by him before sending Naval for fresh medical examination is Ex. PW 36/A.The witness further stated that the recorded the statement of Naval for the first time on 10th October, 1982 at about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. He admitted that he did not record the statement of ACP Naredner Singh and ACP A.L.Chadha under Section 161, Cr.P.C.PW-19, Mahender Ram was posted at Police Station, Connaught Place at the relevant time.The application of accused Narinder dated 1st October, 1982, (Ex. PW-9/A) was made over to him on 2nd October, 1982 for purposes of inquiry, 2nd October, 1982 was a holiday on account of Gandhi Jayanti.On 3rd October, 1982 which was a Sunday when Palika Bazar remains closed he had gone to Naval at Panchkuin Road shop in connection with inquiry and had recorded the statement of Naval.On 4th October, 1982 he had gone to shops No. 4 and 9, Palika Bazar in connection with said inquiry.At shop No. 4 accused Sudhir and his partner Manmohan had met this witness while at shop No. 9 accused Narinder, Mahinder and one Duli Chand had met the witness.He made inquiries from all these persons but none of them gave statements inspite of request.The report is Ex. PW-19/B. On the report there is all endorsement of the S.H.O. of the police station, namely, Kanchi Singh.He had instructed two constables to ensure that both the parties were present before the S.H.O. as per the directions of the S.H.O. He admitted that he was present in the Palika Bazar in connection with some other matter.At about 7.45 p.m. when he was near shop No. 144, Palika Bazar, he heard the sound of firing which was followed by stampede.On this, he alongwith SI Gurdeep Singh rushed to the Central Hall.Thereafter he recounted the events in the same manner as SI Gurdeep Singh had done which has already been mentioned hereinbefore.He admitted that on direction of SI Gurdeep Singh, he went alongwith the injured persons to the hospital.He wanted to record their statements but the injured persons were not fit for statement.He also admitted having signed some of the recovery memos prepared by SI Gurdeep Singh.He stated that he had stayed at the place where accused Ajay had been apprehended and where some other public witnesses were there for 2/3 minutes whereafter he had left in order to accompany the injured persons to the hospital.He also described how the injured were taken to the hospital in the car.Mukesh was lying on the back seat of the car where injured Ashok was sitting.Govind Ram was also on the back seat.The witness did not have any talk in the car.He received the MLCs of both the injured persons.He left the hospital at about 9.45 p.m. and reached Palika Bazar at 10.20 p.m. Personal search or accused Ajay was conducted in his presence after he had returned from the hospital to the spot.He denied the suggestion that Govind Ram had not accompanied the injured persons to the hospital.In shop No. 33 the complainants had been doing their business in precious, semiprecious stones and jewellery since long under the name and style of "Gem Palace".It is unnecessary to repeat the same.Mukesh and Ashok who had received gun shot injuries in the incident were immediately removed to the RML Hospital.Immediately thereafter Ajay took out a revolver from the dub of his pant pocket and started firing.The clothes of Mukesh were handed over to the police after his post mortem.It starts with Sudhir Jain running his own counter at Shop No. 9, Palika Bazar where Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder were doing their business of art printing.The record shows that friendship between Sudhir and Narinder etc. started from atleast then onwards.The evidence of this friendship is available not only from the statements of witnesses about all the accused being seen taking liquor together on various occasions but also from the fact that Narinder had to go to attend the birthday party of a child of Sudhir on 1st October, 1982 and for that purpose he had called his wife and child to his shop so that they could accompany him to the place where Sudhir's party was to be held.The incident of 1st October, 1982 between Narinder and Naval is an admitted fact in view of Narinder's own complaint to the police Ex. PW-9/A. From this it also becomes clear that there used to be frequent quarrels between Narinder and Naval etc. and the cause of these quarrels was Narinder enticing away customers coming to the shop of Naval to the shop of Sudhir.This would also render lifting of finger prints from the revolver futile.SI Gurdeep Singh has deposed that after seizing the revolver from the hand of accused Ajay, he opened it and smelt it.The act of Narinder in enticing away customers from the shop of complainant party to the shop of Sudhir was the root cause for the conflict between the two sides and this conflict had been going on since long.The best proof for the fact that the conflict had been going on since long is the complaint of Narinder himself to the police which is Ex. PW-9/A. On 1st October 1982 there was a fight on this very account between Narinder and Naval etc. and Narinder made a written complaint to the police.He was allegedly beaten by Naval in the presence of his wife and children.In this complaint, Narinder had alleged that such facts had taken place many a times before and police had not been doing anything in the matter.The enquiry in connection with this complaint was entrusted to PW-19 S.I. Mahinder Ram who went to the Palika Bazar on 4th October 1982 for making on the spot enquiries.When SI Mahinder Ram was at shop No. 9 making enquiries from Narinder etc., Sudhir reached there on his own.This shows the personal interest of Sudhir in the whole affair.Naval's T-shirt was taken into possession same night after his return from the police station where he had gone for his medical examination.He returned from the police station around 12.30 or 1.00 a.m. on the night between 6th and 7th October, 1982 and immediately his T-shirt was taken into possession by the police.The blood on Naval's T-shirt was found to be of group AB.This blood could be that of his brother Ashok because Naval had helped Ashok during the main incident and Ashok's blood could have come on Naval's T-shirt, Ashok being a very tall person Mukesh's blood was of group A. This was ascertained from the blood found on Mukesh's underwear.The same is the position about various blood stained clothes recovered by the police.All the recovered articles which were deposited in the Malkhana remained in the Malkhana as per the deposition of PW-16 Raj Pal Moharar Malkhana.The DD entry Ex. P'W-13/D-7 shows that at 7.05 p.m., PCR message was received in the Police Station, Connaught Place about this incident in Palika Bazar and police party was despatched to the place of occurrence.(1) On 6th October, 1982 at about 7.30 p.m. Ajay had gone to supply jewellery to Sudhir.He carried the jewellery with him in a thaila (bag).(2) Ajay found the shop of Sudhir closed.He inquired from Ashok about this.Ajay warned Ashok to speak properly.Still Ashok further abused him.Mukesh who was inside his shop No. 33 shouted to Ashok to catch hold of Ajay who was a well wisher of Sudhir.Ashok chased Ajay and assaulted him.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar, J.This murder reference and the connected appeals arise from the judg-ment dated 28th May, 1996 passed by a learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi.All the remaining four accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment etc. Accused Ajay Kumar Singh was also awarded death sentence under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Mukesh Kumar.For the offences under Sections 120-B and 307/34, I.P.C. he was awarded sentences for life imprisonment besides fines.He was also awarded the sentence of imprisonment for seven years and fine for conviction under the Arms Act. Accused Sudhir Jain was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 120-B, IPC besides fine.Accused Narinder and Mahinder were convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC etc. and were awarded life imprisonment besides fines.Murder Reference No.1/96 is the reference made to this Court by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge under Section 366, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to accused Ajay Kumar Singh.Ajay Kumar Singh has also appealed against the judgment of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and his appeal is Crl.The other three appeals, i.e., Crl.A.102/96,107/96 and 108/96 are the appeals filed by accused Sudhir Kumar Jain, Mahinder Kumar and Narinder Kumar respectively against the said judgment of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.However, they were arrested later.SI Gurdeep Singh accompanied by Naval had gone in search of the other accused who had fled from the scene of occurrence.They went to their residence at Joshi Road where they were not found.However, the complainant party was not satisfied in the manner in which the Investigation was being conducted and they approached the Commissioner of Police on 8th October,1982 and also filed an application before him in this connection which is Ex. PW-1/P. On 9th October, 1982 as per orders of Commissioner of Police the investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch.Naval Kumar, PW-1, one of the brothers belonging to the complainant party made a statement before the IO, SI Gurdeep Singh, which formed the basis of the FIR.The statement was recorded soon after the incident by the Investigating Officer.The incident took place at about 7.45 p.m. The endorsement of the Investigating Officer while despatching the statement from the place of occurrence to the police station for registering the F.I.R. shows that it was despatched at 9.05 p.m. Thus the statement was recorded within an hour of the incident.The statement of Naval Kumar Ex. PW1/A gives a vivid description of how the incident occurred.It runs as follows:I reside at the above noted address and run a jewellery shop under the name & style of 'Gem Palace' at No. 33, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place alongwith my two brothers namely Mukesh Kumar @ Pappu aged 22 years, Ashok Kumar aged 28 years and father Shri Gobind Ram.Opposite my shop, is shop No. 4 under the name & style of 'Gem Treasures' at Palika Bazar, Connaught Place.One of its partners is Sudhir.He also runs a jewellery shop like us.Sudhir is friend of all the three brothers namely Rajan, Narinder and Mahinder of Shop No. 9, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place.I and my brothers have admonished him a number of times but he did not desist himself from the said act.They were having grudge on account of business.Today at about 7.45 p.m., I and my two brothers were present at our shop.I was inside the shop whereas my brothers Mukesh and Ashok were standing outside the shop.In the meantime, Rajan, Narinder, Mahinder and their friend Ajay Singh @ Ajji who resides in Gali Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi and usually visits them in order to supply jewellery (came there).Rajan was holding a leather belt whereas Narinder and Mahinder were armed with button and Ajay was empty handed.SI Mahinder Ram, PW-19 accompanied them in the car.The MLCs of the injured were prepared at the hospital.The MLC of Mukesh is Ex. PW-6/C/Ex.It shows the time of arrival at the hospital as 8.15 p.m. Further it shows that the patient was brought by the father.It is recorded in the MLC that he is alleged to have sustained injury by gun shot.He syas conscious at the time of arrival.The MLC was prepared by Dr.Vivek Misra.It is also noted on the MLC that the T-shirt and the Banyan of the patient were sealed and handed over to the police.As per the MLC Mukesh had a punctured wound in epigastrium near midline of about 1/2 cm diameter.Mukesh died soon after.His post mortem was conducted on 7th October, 1982 at 2.30 p.m. by Dr.L.T. Ramani.The MLC of Ashok Kumar is Ex. PW-6/A/ Ex. PW-20-A/Ex.PW-20-B. His arrival at the hospital is also shown as 8.15 p.m., brought by his father.He was also alleged to have sustained injury by gun shot.He was conscious at the time of arrival in the hospital.He was declared unfit to give a statement at 8.40 p.m. Dr. Vivek Misra had prepared the MLC.Ashok was saved by the timely efforts of the doctors.He was discharged from the hospital after about ten days.He was sent for medical examination at the police hospital where Dr. J.K. Handa PW-29 examined him at about 12.00 mid night.In the morning SI Gurdeep Singh informed Naval Kumar that Dr. Handa had noted three injuries on his person.As per this examination seven injuries were reported on Naval.There is some controversy about the injuries suffered by Naval to which we shall advert later.The controversy arises because as per the defense version Naval was not present at the scene of crime at the relevant time.While on the MLCs we may note that accused Ajay was also got medically examined on 7th October, 1982 at 10.00 a.m. The following injuries were recorded:1. Bruise on the face on the right side one and half inch below the right eye.Size 2" x 1" incised reddish blue in colour.Surface was abraided.A bruise on the forehead just above the right eyebrow.1/2" x 1/2" in size.Lacerated wound on the left border of the tongue in the middle 1/4" X 1/4" in size.Abrasion on the left hand back side below the thumb.1" x 1/2" in size.Teeth bite on the back of left arm.9" above the elbow joint.Skin deep, one and half inch in diameter.Teeth bite on the back below the left scapula -skin deep one and half inch in diameter.Further it is noted that the patient complained of bleeding per nose, no visible injury.It was opined -injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 -simple, caused by blunt object.Injury Nos. 5 and 6 -simple, caused by teeth bite.The MLC is Ex. PW 17/A. Dr. R.P. Arya had prepared this MLC.The prosecution examined several witnesses to prove its case.Since the number of witnesses is large, it will be appropriate to categorise the material witnesses and thereafter consider their evidence.(1) Complainants/injured witnesses -PW-1 Naval and PW-3 Ashok both brothers of deceased Mukesh.(2) Independent eye witnesses -PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor.(3) Supporting witnesses -PW-4 Mukesh Sud about the evidence prior to the main incident.PW-21 Gobind Ram father of the complainants and the deceased who performed some role after the incident.Both these witnesses are not eye witnesses of the main incident.(4) Medical evidence -Regarding Mukesh and Ashok -PW-7 -Dr.S.D. Gupta/PW-20 -Dr.J.P. Gupta/PW-8 -Dr.Jayanti Chatterjee/PW-6 -Ram Niwas, Clerk/PW-13 -Dr.L.T. Ramani.Regarding Naval -PW-29 -Dr.J.K. Handa/PW-17- Dr. R.P. Arya Regarding Ajay -PW-17 -Dr.R.P. Arya (5) Expert evidence -PW-18 -B.Moitra.(6) Police witnesses -PW-35 SI Gurdeep Singh is the I.O. PW-36 Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta, second I.O. PW-19 SI Mahender Ram.PW-24 Constable Mehtab Singh.PW-1 Naval Kumar is the main prosecution witness in this case.He is one of the three brothers who were allegedly involved in the incident.He is the maker of the FIR.His statement is of great significance.He is intimately connected with all the important events of the case.According to him shop No. 33 in Palika Bazar stood allotted in the name of his father Gobind Ram.His elder brother Ashok Kumar (PW3) was a partner in the shop.Mukesh is their third brother.According to him he and Mukesh were helping their elder brother Ashok in his business at shop No. 33, Palika Bazar.The shop was in existence since 1968 in the name and style of "Gem Palace".They were running the business of precious stones and semi-precious stones and jewellery in the said shop.His father Gobind Ram also had a shop at Panchkuin Road, New Delhi which was being looked after by the father himself.In shop No. 4 accused Sudhir was doing similar business as that of the complainants in partnership with one Manmohan under the name of "Gem Treasure".The business of Sudhir was the same as that of the complainant party.After this all the three brothers became peaceful "Thande Ho Gaye".They agreed for compromise.But they insisted that in the compromise, Ashok Kumar be also included.SHO Sahib tried to call Ashok Kumar by telephone but he was not available.SHO Sahib directed both the parties to come next morning at 9 a.m. He also directed me to bring Ashok Kumar.Before my coming out from the police station building, Sudhir Kumar, Narinder Kumar, Mahinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar came out.When I was passing by them alongwith my father, we heard accused Sudhir Kumar Jain and accused Narinder Kumar saying, "In Police-Walo Ne kuch Nahin Karna.Abhame Khud He Nibtara Parega." On hearing this, I and my father went back to see S.H.O. but before we reached to his room, he left in a jeep to some place.We came back to our shop at Palika Bazar.After staying for about 30 minutes at Palika Bazar shop, my father Govind Ram went to Panchkuin Road shop.On 6.10.82 at about 6.15 p.m., when I was at my shop No. 33, Palika Bazar, I saw accused all the five accused present in the Court standing outside the shop No. 4 and they were talking.During those days, the closing time of the shops at Palika Bazar was 7.30 p.m. Sudhir Kumar Jain accused closed his shop on that day at about 6.45 p.m. and went away.Sudhir Kumar Jain accused had scooter as a means of transport and perhaps he has also a car.When the five accused persons were talking outside the shop of Sudhir Kumar Jain, I had not paid much attention because SHO Sahib had called us on 7.10.82 at 9 a.m. At that time, my other two brothers Ashok Kumar and Mukesh were also present on our shop.On 6.10.82 at about 7.45 p.m., I was inside my shop and my brothers Ashok Kumar and Mukesh were standing in front of the gate of my shop, was counting and collecting cash of my shop and the jewellery of my shop and hence my two brothers were standing there.I saw accused Narinder and Mahinder armed with dandas.Accused Rajinder was armed with a belt.Accused Ajay Kumar was empty handed.In the beginning all the four had run together towards shop No. 9 and later on from the central hall, accused Ajay Kumar Singh ran towards Janpath Gate and the remaining three accused ran towards Regal Gate.I chased them.Afterwards, I came to know that my two brothers who were injured, had also followed me, for chasing.l apprehended accused Ajay Kumar Singh near the air-conditioning plant.Shops No. 161 and 162 were near the place where accused Ajay Kumar Singh was apprehended.I caught hold Ajay Kumar Singh from behind.At that time, accused Ajay Kumar Singh was having revolver in his hand.When I had caught hold accused Ajay Kumar Singh, he had bitten my left hand to get himself released.I strengthened my hold and I had also bitten Ajay Kumar Singh on his back.When I and Ajay Kumar Singh were grappling, I fell him down and at that time, S.I. Gurdip Singh alongwith his staff reached there.S.I. Gurdip Singh snatched the revolver from the hand of accused Ajay Kumar Singh.He entrusted accused Ajay Kumar Singh to the constables who were with him.Rakesh Kapoor and Mahinder Singh had also come there.Rakesh Kapoor had his shop at Palika Bazar.Before chasing Ajay Kumar Singh, I tried to help my brother Mukesh who had received the bullet injuries and at that time, his blood also came on my clothes.When I was coming back towards my shop, I was informed by Rakesh Kapoor and Mahinder Singh that my father had taken my brothers Ashok Kumar and Mukesh to hospital.After apprehending Ajay Kumar Singh near Air Conditioning Plant, he was brought under police custody, at the spot.On the spot, A.C.P., SHO, and other senior officers had come there.The name of A.C.P. was Shri Ascharaj Lal Chadha.A.C.P.S. Narinder Singh had; also come on the spot at that time.A.C.P. Sardar Narinder Singh had a talk with A.C.P. Ascharaj Lal Chadha.I had narrated the incident and all the facts in presence of the police officers.After the above statement, Naval went on to refer to whatever SI Gurdeep Singh had done during the course of investigation.The items recovered during investigation were shown in the Court to Naval for purposes of identification and he correctly identified the same.He also gave detailed description of how he alongwith his father and uncle met the Commissioner of Police and complained about the unsatisfactory and biased manner in which the investigation was conducted in the case.They moved an application before the Commissioner.On their said application the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch and was conducted by Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta.Naval was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination conducted by four Counsel appearing for different accused persons.The cross-examination could not shake Naval nor any significant contradiction could be extracted.Naval firmly stood his ground so firm as the main events and incident of the case is concerned.Attempt was made to discredit him by showing his involvement in petty cases.The main attempt on the part of defense was to establish that Naval was not present at the time of the incident.This attempt started with the suggestion that Naval in fact worked at the Panchkuin Road shop belonging to his father and not at the Palika Bazar shop.This is belied by the suggestions made to Naval in his cross-examination as well as by Narender's own document, i.e., Ex. PW-9/A, his complaint to the police.Naval was injured in the incident and this fact would establish the presence of Naval on the scene of occurrence.To dislodge this the defense disputed the fact that Naval received injuries.An alternate theory was also advanced that injuries on Naval could be self-inflicted.Naval's injuries are established by his medicals at the police hospital.Naval was holding on to accused Ajay when the police arrived.Thereafter Naval was all alongwith the police.It would have been impossible to self-inflict the injuries.Naval reiterated in his cross-examination that 10-12 times Narinder had taken away his customers to the shop of Sudhir.About the main incident he repeated that when the fight started Mukesh fell down and Ashok covered him by lying over him.Rajinder by belt, Narinder and Mahinder by dandas and Ajay by kicks and fists were assaulting them.Naval had also joined in the scuffle which was going on.The whole incident took about 4-5 minutes.Firing started within a minute or so.According to Naval after the firing there was no beating by dandas or belts or fists or kicks.All the three brothers belonging to the complainant party were empty handed.They did not inflict any injury on the accused persons.He described the presence of PW-2 and PW-5 at the time of the incident.He also reiterated that firing started after exhortations from accused Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder.According to him Ajay fired all the six bullets from one place but during the firing of the bullets he moved one or two paces forward or backwards.In cross-examination by Counsel for Sudhir he repeated that he had told SI Gurdeep Singh about having seen all the five accused talking outside shop No. 34 on 6th October, 1982 at 6.15 p.m. He added that this fact was not recorded by the IO because of the instructions of ACP Chadha.In response to a question from Counsel for Ajay he gave details of injuries suffered by him as a result of the incident.He stated that none of Ajay's wounds was bleeding.He, however, admitted that he had seen the blood stains on the clothes of Ajay.About the presence of A.C.P. Narender Singh and A.C.P. A.L.Chadha, he stated that they came to the spot within 10-15 minutes of SI Gurdeep Singh reaching the spot.He added that A.C.P. Chadha stayed at the spot for about one and half to two hours while ACP Narender Singh stayed there for about 30-45 minutes.The next injured eye witness is Ashok Kumar PW-3, one of the three brothers belonging to the complainant party.The presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence is beyond dispute because the witness received two bullet injuries in the incident.He was lucky to have survived inspite of the fact that one of the bullets had hit him on the chest on the left side about 3" above the nipple.Thus this is a very important witness for the purposes of this case.Ashok Kumar stated that he was doing jewellery business in shop No. 33, Palika Bazar.Mukesh and Naval were his real brothers and they used to sit along with him at the said shop.He clarified that Panchkuin Road shop was in the name of his father and his father Govind Ram mostly carried on his business there.Sometimes Naval used to go to help his father at that shop.Ashok stated that he knew all the five accused in this case.Sudhir Jain was earlier having a counter at shop No. 9 where Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder used to carry on business of art printing.Later Sudhir Jain started his business at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar in the name of "Gem Treasure" about one and half to two years prior to the date of incident.In shop No. 4 Sudhir was a partner along with one Manmohan and his real brother.After this, Narinder Kumar and Mahinder Kumar, by dandas and Rajinder Kumar by belt and accused Ajay Kumar Singh by fists and kicks, started beating me and Mukesh Kumar.Seeing this "Maar-Peet", Nawal Kumar came out of the shop.They also started beatng to Nawal Kumar.There started grappling on the one side we three brothers and on the other side those four persons.During this, accused Narinder Kumar and Mahinder Kumar loudly said, "Goli Chala Kar In Teeno Bhaiyon Ko Aaj Khatam Kar Do Roz Roz Ka Jhagra Hi Aaj Nibat Jaye." Accused Rajinder Kumar also said to Ajay Kumar Singh accused, "Jaldi Goli Chala, Der Kyon Kar Raha Hai." On this, accused Ajay Kumar Singh who is present in the Court had taken out the revolver from his right dub of the Pant and fired successive shots at me and my brothers.One of the bullet fired by Ajay Kumar Singh, hit on my left chest near the nipple.One bullet of Ajay Kumar Singh hit me at my first finger which is near the thumb of left hand.I remained standing and my brother Mukesh Kumar also received two bullets, one at his abdomen and the other at his left thigh.Mukesh Kumar fell down and was supported/helped by Nawal.Ajay Kumar Singh had also fired two shots towards Nawal Kumar but he escaped.Nawal Kumar chased them followed by me and Mukesh Kumar.Near shops No. 161-162, Mukesh Kumar fell down.I tried to support him.Shops No. 161-162 are near water Cooler Plant.Nawal Kumar, while chasing, succeeded in apprehending accused Ajay Kumar Singh near Air Conditioning plant, along with the revolver which was in the hand of Ajay Kumar Singh.After crossing Shop No. 9 while running away and after passing the Central Hall, accused Narinder Kumar, Mahinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar went towards the gate of Palika Bazar which is towards Regal building, but accused Ajay Kumar Singh, for some distance in the Central Hall was together with other three accused but from the Central Hall itself, he proceeded towards the Janpath Gate of the Palika Bazar.At that time, I had seen Mohinder Singh and Rakesh Kapoor also who were present there.At that time, my father Govind Ram also came there.He took me and Mukesh Kumar in his car to Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi.Doctor Sahib had examined me in the hospital and he had got removed my shirt and Baniyan from my person.I was treated there.During this incident, I had received other injuries also which were in addition to bullet injuries.I had received one injury at inner side right wrist.I had received two injuries at the inner side of the right elbow.I had also received one injury on the back of the right shoulder.These four injuries I had received by dandas and belt.Due to bullet injury, my finger in which bullet injury was received, has been impaired.Now I cannot bend this finger properly."The witness identified the revolver Ex. P-11 as the one having been used by Ajay at the time of the incident.He also identified the piece of broken danda Ex. P-1 as having been used for beating them.The statement of this witness was recorded by SI Gurdeep Singh on 7th October, 1982 in the Willingdon Hospital in the morning at 7.00 a.m. About the statement recorded by Gurdeep Singh the witness stated that he was asked only two questions by the Sub-Inspector, namely, on what account there was enmity between the parties and details of the 'marpeet', firing and the incident.On 11th October, 1982 he gave his Pant and underwear which were blood stained to Inspector Mehta.The revolver Ex. P-11 which as per the prosecution story was snatched from the hands of Ajay was shown to the witness and he identified the same.He also identified the piece of broken danda, Ex. P-1 which was used for beating the complainants.However, at the time of recording of his statement by SI Gurdeep Singh on 7th October, 1982 he was wearing the same Pant and underwear.The Inspector had not asked him to remove and hand over the same to the police at that time.SI Mahender Ram, PW-19 had accompanied them to the hospital in the car.He admitted that blood was oozing from his injuries as well as injuries of Mukesh while they were being taken to the car.The witness admitted that he had not told SI Gurdeep Singh in his statement dated 7th October, 1982 that the five accused were standing in front of shops No. 3 and 4 on 6th October, 1982 at 6.15 p.m. and whispering.The witness reiterated that Sudhir Jain used to close his shop at 7.30 p.m. but on the fateful day he closed his shop at 6.45 p.m. and after he had gone away.He also reiterated that Sudhir Jain had told him about doing business with Ajay who was studying with him in the DAV College, Delhi and that Ajay used to supply jewellery to him.He maintained his stand taken in the examination-in-chief about having seen all the five accused taking liquor together at shop No. 4 and earlier at shop No. 9, Palika Bazar prior to the date of incident.He also maintained his stand about the exhortation imputed to accused Rajender, Narender and Mahender during the course of the main incident.He did not remember whether the blood which was oozing out from his injuries and the injuries of Mukesh had fallen in the car in which they were going to the hospital.He stated that accused Ajay was a Judo champion.This was as per information given by accused Sudhir to this witness.He was asked as to why he did not raise any hue and cry at the time of the incident.This witness along with his other two brothers resisted the attack mounted upon them by the four accused who had come to their shop on the fateful day.In the process 'Hathapai' had taken place and there was grappling.According to this witness grappling took place for about one and half to two minutes.He stated that the three brothers of the complainant party were without any arms while accused Narender and Mahender had a danda and accused Rajender had a belt in their hands.There were no injuries on the person of the accused persons.He could not say if Mukesh received any injuries by dandas or belt during the scuffle.He volunteered that Mukesh was lying on the ground and he lay upon him.Therefore, this witness received the danda and belt blows.Regarding the stage from firing onwards this witness had to say this:"When Mukesh Kumar received the bullet injuries he was standing at a distance of about one or two feet from the place where he was earlier lying.Mukesh Kumar had fallen down at the place where he had received injuries by bullet when he was in standing position.When Mukesh Kumar had fallen down on the ground, Nawal Kumar had lifted him and made him stand.When Mukesh Kumar was made to stand, he remained in the standing position for about half a minute and then he followed the accused persons.When Mukesh Kumar was made to stand, after that accused persons started running from there.I cannot say if there was lot of blood at the places where Mukesh Kumar had fallen down or received injuries.""After receiving the injuries, I had not fallen on the ground.Nawal Kumar had not given support to me anywhere.Before the firing started, in addition to Rakesh Kapoor and Mahinder Kumar, some other persons were also present at the spot but on starting of the firing, there was Bhagdar."The witness admitted that his father had got a licence for a revolver and he owned a revolver.He denied the suggestion that Gobind Ram used to keep revolver with him whenever he went out of his house.The witness stated that whenever Gobind Ram went out of Delhi he used to take the revolver alongwith him.He denied the suggestion that the complainant party was having a grudge against Ajay because Ajay used to supply jewellery to Sudhir.He also denied the suggestion that Naval PW-1 generally used to sit at the Panchkuin Road shop.The witness maintained that he knew PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor from before the incident.He was cross-examined about his uncles, i.e., his father's brothers.He stated that his father had five brothers but he is not on visiting and speaking terms with three of them which included Jagdish Rai, the alleged allottee of shop No. M-13, Palika Bazar where PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor was said to be working.The defense tried to suggest links of this witness with the police.This shoe had come out from the foot of Mukesh during the scuffle.We have recounted the salient features of the evidence of these two most important witnesses of this case.These witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination and, therefore, the aforesaid narration has been slightly long.38. PW-2 Mahender Singh has been cited as an independent eye witness of the incident.Govind Ram father of Ashok and Mukesh removed them to the hospital.He opened the revolver in front of shop No. 33 and found that there were six empty cartridges in the revolver.Naval was also there.SI Culdeep Singh recorded the statement of Naval Kumar in his own hand.After recording the statement of Naval Kumar SI Gurdeep Singh had prepared a sketch of that revolver.The witness identified his signatures and the signatures of witness Rakesh Kapoor on the sketch Ex. PW-1/B. Thereafter the revolver was put in a packet of cloth and was sealed with a seal of Gurdeep Singh.The witness identified the revolver and the empty cartridges.He testified about the remaining police investigation conducted at the site because he was present throughout and signed various memos as a witness.He stated that the size of the danda carried by accused Mahinder and Narinder could be around two and half feet.He stated that he had seen the injuries on the person of Naval and Ajay.This witness has also identified the dead body of Mukesh.This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.The effort was to show that he had old links with the complainant party and, therefore, was trying to help them by becoming a witness in this case.He had tried to conceal his links with the complainants and had also tried to conceal his address etc. This witness was a student of the same school in which the complainants had also studied and, therefore, the attempt was to show their past ties.Further the attempt of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons was to establish that this witness was not present at the time of the occurrence and had become a witness in this case only to help the complainant party with which he had an old association.Testimony of Rakesh Kapoor PW-5 is on similar lines.He was having a counter at shop No. M-13, Palika Bazar, New Delhi where he used to sell audio tapes.On 6th October, 1982 he closed his shop at about 7.45 p.m. He was coming down the stairs to the ground floor when he saw a quarrel was going on at shop No. 33, Palika Bazar.He stated that at that time Mahinder Singh PW-2 was also on the stairs.He knew the complainants as also accused Sudhir Jain, Rajinder, Narinder and Mahinder.He stated that Sudhir was working at shop No. 4 and Rajinder, Mahinder and Narinder were working at shop No. 9, Palika Bazar.He saw accused Ajay for the first time on 6th October, 1982 during the incident.About the incident he gave a similar version as the one given by PW-2 Mahinder Singh.In similar manner he stated about how the accused persons ran away and were given chase by the complainants.He stated about the grappling between Naval and Ajay at the time when Naval apprehended Ajay.Naval had caught hold of Ajay in his grip from the back side of Ajay.He assisted Ashok in lifting Mukesh for taking him to the car.Gobind Ram, father of Mukesh was also there.Gobind Ram took Ashok and Mukesh to the hospital.This witness remained in Palika Bazar.Rest of the things which took place after apprehension of the accused have been spoken about by this witness in the same manner as the other witnesses have done.This witness had tried to conceal his address on the ground that he was afraid of the accused persons.He denied the suggestion that he was related to the complainants.He said that he did not know if Jagdish Rai, the allottee of shop No. M-13 where he was working was a real uncle of the complainants.The witness admitted that he was not given any receipt for the rent which he was paying to the allottee with respect to the shop where he was working.He added that nobody gives receipt in Palika Bazar.He said that he was paying Rs. 2,000/- per month to Jagdish Rai allottee of the shop.The rent was paid in cash.The statement of this witness was recorded after the incident of 6th October, 1982 at about 11.30 p.m. by SI Gurdeep Singh.He denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded at the police station.The attempt to dislodge the witness in cross-examination about the main incident totally failed.The witness stuck to his guns.He reiterated whatever he stated in the examination-in-chief about the main incident.Rest of the attempt was to discredit the witness on account of concealment of his residential address.Secondly by establishing link of this witness with the complainants through the uncle of the complainants being allottee of shop No. M-13 where this witness was working.The defense proved certain electricity bills relating to shop No. M-13 to show that the shop remained closed throughout the relevant period.The electricity bills purportedly showed that there was no consumption of electricity at the shop.The cross-examination of this witness showed that he knew about the various other shops in Palika Bazar which would in turn show that the witness was familiar with the surroundings.He stated about the injuries of Ajay.He added that none of the injuries of Ajay was bleeding.He correctly described each part of the body of Mukesh and Ashok where the bullet injuries were caused.He gave a precise description of how Mukesh had fallen on the ground after receiving bullet injury.His back side was touching the ground and the face was towards the sky.He denied the suggestion that he was an old friend of the complainant party and as such was an interested witness.He denied the suggestion that shop No. M-13 was closed since 1981 and he never worked there.PW-4 Mukesh Sood is a witness from the same market.He had been doing business in Palika Bazar since long.At the relevant time he was doing electronic business as well as running a Restaurant at shop No. M-13 Palika Bazar.He stated that he knew all the five accused persons.In the year 1979 when accused Sudhir Jain was closing the business of jewellery on a counter at shop No.9 for two months this witness worked as a salesman for Sudhir Jain at his said counter.So at least since then this witness knew all these four persons.During that time this witness further came to know the fifth accused i.e., Ajay who according to this witness used to visit at counter of shop No. 9 and he used to supply jewellery to Sudhir.This witness further stated that in 1982 Sudhir Jain was doing jewellery business at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar.He also stated that Sudhir Jain had informed him that accused Ajay was studying with Sudhir in the DAV College.Sudhir Jain and Ajay were friends.This witness has seen the altercation which took place between Naval and Narinder on 1st October, 1982 at about 7.00 p.m. in Palika Bazar.He stated that at that time he was going back to his house.The witness and some other shopkeepers intervened and the altercation was brought to an end.The other important fact about which this witness testified is about having seen all the accused persons standing in front of shop No.4 talking to each other on 6th October, 1982 at about 6.15 p.m. Shops No. 33 and 4 fall in the main gangway leading to the main gate of the Palika Bazar.He stated that when he was going to his house he saw the accused, i.e., Sudhir, Narinder, Ajay and Mahinder in front of shop No. 4 the remaining name he could not recall.He could not hear anything as to what they were talking about.He stated that Inspector Mehta was making enquiries in the Palika Bazar and surveying the place of occurrence and in course of that he came to this witness and there after his statement was recorded by him.He reaffirmed that before 11th October, 1982 he had not talked to anybody about the incident of 1st October, 1982 and 6th October, 1982 referred to above.About the incident of 1st October, 1982 he stated that no 'Maarpeet' (beating) had taken place in his presence.The witness testified to having lodged a report in Police Station Shakarpur under Section 506, IPC on 23rd June, 1984 regarding the threats held out to him by accused Rajender.This Shows that as per the defense's own suggestion this witness had been working in Palika Bazar since long.While appearing in Court about the incident of 6th October,1982, i.e., the witness seeing the accused persons standing in front of Shop No.4 it was stated by this witness that they were talking to each other and on seeing him they became silent.He was confronted with a statement to the police Ex. PW-4/DA where this part.i.e., "they became silent" was not contained.An objection was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons that this was an improvement by the witness.In view of this objection the learned Special Public Prosecutor conceded that this part of his statement, i.e., "they became silent" may be ignored.The witness replied that this was not correct and that he had seen Rajender there.Further about 6th October, 1982 he stated that when he was going to his house he had seen shops No.39 and 33 open but he do not remember whether shop No.4 was also open.About 1st October, 1982 he stated that besides accused Narinder he had seen one lady and one child standing near him in Palika Bazar.He could not say whether the lady and the child were the wife and son of accused Narinder.He denied the suggestion that he had seen accused Ajay on 6th October 1982 for the first time.He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-4/DA where it was recorded that he had good relations with Naval, Ashok and Mukesh.He denied the suggestion that he had never worked at the counter of Sudhir Jain.He is a witness of certain supporting facts pleaded by the prosecution.The next supporting witness is PW-21 Gobind Ram.He is the father of Ashok, Mukesh and Naval.Mukesh was wearing a wrist watch when he was put on the stretcher.That watch got untied and this witness removed the same and put it in the pocket of Mukesh's Pant.The witness also testified to the fact that he had met the Commissioner of Police on 8th October, 1982 for transfer of the case.He had also moved an application for this purpose.His younger brother Charanjeet Lal had accompanied him at that time.Charanjeet Lal had written the application Ex. PW-1/B and this witness Gobind Ram appended his signatures thereon.He admitted that he had given a statement to SI Gurdeep Singh on 7th October, 1982 which was Ex. 21/DA.His detailed statement was recorded by Inspector Mehta subsequently.In cross-examination this witness admitted that SI Mahender Ram who had accompanied him to the hospital had told him on the way that the accused had been arrested alongwith the revolver.He had not given his blood stained clothes to the police.He changed his clothes at his residence.His explanation for not giving his blood stained clothes to the police was that the police never asked for the same.His first statement was recorded by the police on 7th October, 1982 at about 9.00/10.00 a.m. in the Mortuary.At that time he was not wearing the blood stained clothes because he had changed his clothes in the meanwhile when he had gone to his residence.An attempt was made to show the proximity of the complaint party to the police by suggesting to this witness that he knew ACP Tek Chand Chopra of the Crime Branch.The witness denied having known the said person.He also denied the suggestion that ACP Chopra had helped in getting the investigation of the case transferred to the Crime Branch.On the contrary this witness alleged collusion between accused persons and the local police of Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi.He denied the suggestion that he used to carry the revolver with him whenever moving around Delhi city.He volunteered that he used to keep the revolver at his residence wider lock and whenever he went outside Delhi he used to carry the revolver with him.He denied the suggestion that Naval Kumar used to sit at the Panchkuin Road shop.He also denied that immediately after shooting he had run away from the spot in order to conceal his revolver.His grievance against the local police was spelled out from his following statement:"In my statement which I had given before SI Gurdeep Singh I had given the name of Sudhir Kumar Jain and whatever I have stated in my examination-in-chief regarding Sudhir Kumar Jain I had told the same to him (volunteered) the name of Sudhir Kumar Jain and whatever I had stated about Sudhir Kumar Jain was not recorded by the SI Gurdeep Singh.Whatever was written in my statement by SI Gurdeep Singh was not read over to me".This witness admitted that he had been asking SI Gurdeep Singh to arrest Sudhir Kumar Jain in this case.Till 8th October, 1982 neither Sudhir Jain nor Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder had been arrested.This was also the grievance of the complainant party which led them to approach the Commissioner of Police for transfer of the investigation of the case from local police to the Crime Branch.He examined Naval, PW-1 who had been referred to the police hospital by SI Gurdeep Singh regarding the injuries suffered by him.SI Gurdeep Singh had sent an application Ex. PW-1/R in which he had noted the injuries suffered by Naval.The report of Dr. Handa regarding the injuries of Naval is Ex. PW1/S. Dr. Handa found the following injuries on the person of Naval:1. Contusion on the left chest back of the size of 2" x 1/2".2. Abrasion on left arm, posterior side, on the lower 1/3 area of the size1 x 1/10".3. Contusion on the left hand dorsum of the size 1/2" x 1/3", which was alleged to be due to teeth bite.On 12th November, 1982 at about 10.00 a.m. Dr. Handa had again examined Naval.Medical opinion about injuries No. 1 and 2 was that they were simple in nature having been caused by some blunt object.Regarding injury No. 3 Dr. Handa had sought dental surgeon's report.Ex. PW-29/A is the report of Dr. Handa after the second medical examination.In cross-examination the doctor opined that injury No.1 mentioned in his report could be caused by any danda or hard substance.Injury No. 3 was possible from teeth bite.He replied that he had seen only those three injuries which were mentioned in Ex. PW-29/A. He added that he had not paid any attention to any other injury.He also stated that nobody complained to him that he had not shown all the injuries on Naval in his report.About the injury No. 2 he stated the same could be caused by a danda blow depending upon the force used.He could not deny the suggestion that injuries No.1 and 2 could be caused by fall on a hard and rough substance.PW-17 is Dr. R.P. Arya who was then working as Medical Officer in the Police Hospital, Delhi.He examined Ajay on the morning of 7th October, 1982 at about 10.00 a.m. and had prepared a medical report which is Ex. PW-17/A. The report is in the hand of Dr. Arya.Dr. Arya noted the following injuries on the person of Ajay:"1. Bruise on the face on the right side.1 1/2" below the right eye.Size 2" x 1".Reddish blue in colour.Surface was abraided.2. Abrasion on the forehead just about the right eyebrow.1/2" x 1/2" in size.Lacerated wound on the left border of the tongue in the middle.1/4" x 1/4" in size.Abrasion on the left hand, vex side below the thumb 1" x 1/2" in size.Teeth bite on the back of left arm.9" above the elbow joint.Skin deep. 1 1/2" in diameter.Teeth bite on the back below the left scapula skin deep 1 1/4" in diameter circular in shape.Patient complained of bleeding per nose but no injury on the nose was visible."Injuries 1, 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature caused by blunt object while injuries 5 and 6 were simple in nature caused by teeth bite.The doctor opined that injuries 1 to 4 could have been caused during scuffle by fist blows.Injury No. 5 could have been caused by the tongue coming between the teeth.A second medical examination was conducted by one Dr. G. Sudershan who had by the stage of recording of evidence left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.The MLC Ex. PW-17/B was proved by Dr. Arya who said that he was familiar with the hand writing of Dr. Sudershan the then Medical Officer, Police Hospital, Delhi as he had worked with Dr. Arya.He also identified the signatures of Dr. Sudershan.This brings us to the doctors in the RML Hospital (previously known as the Willingdon Hospital) who had attended on Ashok and Mukesh, the two unfortunate victims of the crime in this case.He stated that on 6th October, 1982 he was working as Sr.Medical Officer in the R.M.L. Hospital under professor Dr. S.D. Gupta (PW-7).Ashok, son of Gobind Ram was brought to the hospital by his father at 8.15 p.m. with the alleged history of having sustained injury by gun shot.He was conscious at that time.His pupils were reacting to light and were normal.Pulse was 150 per minute.Respiration was 20 per minute.Blood pressure was not recordable.He had the following injuries :1. Bruise on the right arm.Swelling over the nose bridge.Dr. Gupta stated that these findings were recorded by the Casualty Medical Officer Dr.Vivek Misra on that day.However Dr. Gupta had also observed the injuries.On the same day Dr. Gupta had opined at 8.40 p.m. that the patient was unfit to give statement.This endorsement was made on the MLC Ex. PW-6/A under signatures of Dr. Gupta.Next day at 7.00 a.m. Dr. Gupta had declared Ashok fit for statement.In response to a question Dr. Gupta stated that there was surgical emphysema on the left side with bleeding from the entry wound.This entry wound was 5 cm in diameter with blackening and tattooing of the surrounding skin.About left index finger of Ashok the doctor opined that there was a fracture and X-ray of chest as well as left hand was advised.This doctor stated that he was present during the operation performed at 11.30 p.m. on 6th October, 1982 on Ashok.The operation was performed by Dr. S.D. Gupta (PW-7) who was the senior surgeon on duty on that date.Dr. J.P. Gupta had assisted the senior surgeon in performing the operation on Ashok.The bullet coincided with the bullet seen in the X-ray.The repeat X-ray was advised by the doctor performing the operation." The operation notes by Dr. S.D. Gupta in her own hand writing are Ex. P-7/A. So far as the index finger of Ashok is concerned the orthopaedic surgeon was advised to immobilise the same.There was no exit wound on the bullet injury received by Ashok.About Mukesh Dr. J.P. Gupta stated that he was brought to the hospital at 8.15 p.m. with gun shot injuries.The MLC of Mukesh is Ex. PW-6/C. Mukesh was declared unfit for statement and as per endorsement made on the MLC itself under signatures of Dr.Gupta the general condition of Mukesh was stated to be very poor.Blood samples were taken for grouping and matching.Blood was also arranged from the hospital blood bank.The patient was given medicines also.However Mukesh expired due to cardiac arrest at 8.45 p.m. He prepared the death certificate of Mukesh in his own handwriting and signed the same.The certificate is Ex. PW-20/J. The teeth summary of Mukesh is also in the handwriting of this doctor and is signed by him.The same is Ex. PW-20/K.The following question was put to the doctor and his reply to same has some relevance in connection with the arguments raised by the defense Counsel and, therefore, needs to be reproduced:"Ques: You had seen tattooing, blackening and charring.Tell the distance from which this injury had been caused with a pistol or a revolver, on both the patients (Mukesh and Ashok)?Ans: Keeping in view the nature of injuries, I am of the view that these injuries must have been caused to them with a pistol or a revolver from a short distance which may be within one feet."PW-7 Dr. Saraswati Devi Gupta (Dr. S.D. Gupta) was working as Professor of Surgery in the R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi at the relevant time.She stated that before Mukesh could be operated upon he had already died.However, she had performed the operation on Ashok the same night and she proved her report as Ex. PW-7/A. She stated that Dr. J.P. Gupta PW-20 was working under her in the same hospital.About the chest injury of Ashok she described that there was opening which is called the entry wound .There was tattooing mark surrounding the opening.There was surgical emphysema and some swelling.She detailed the various steps taken in the course of operation performed on Ashok.Ashok was discharged from the hospital around 16th October.The discharge slip is Ex. PW-7/C and is in the hand of Dr. Pathania who was a Post-graduate student working under Dr. S.D. Gupta.The bullet recovered from the body of Ashok was put in a sealed cover.It was handed over to the police vide memo Ex. PW-7/E. The memo was signed by Dr. S.D. Gupta at point 'O'.Dr. Gupta opined that the injury on the chest of Ashok was dangerous in nature and could have been fatal if not operated upon.It could be fatal for the following reasons:(a) There was surgical emphysema.(b) There was haziness of the lung field shown in the X-ray meaning thereby that there was some lung injury.In response to a question she admitted that she had not specifically mentioned about the lung injury in the admission or discharge record of Ashok.However, she added that the chest injury and the surgical emphysema have been mentioned which included the lung injury.She also stated that all injuries connected with lungs lead to surgical emphysema.Dr. Gupta stated that when she saw Mukesh he was already dead.The opinion of the doctor was sought in cross-examination as to whether bruises could be caused on human body by friction or by rubbing against a hard object.She replied that one cannot get bruises by rubbing against a hard object but she admitted that bruises could be caused if a person who is running falls.There was a tear near the left side of the Pants' pocket corresponding to the injury on the left thigh.There were surgical presence over epigastria region and on both ankles.The following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:1. Rounded punctured wound of 0.5 cm.diameter in epigastric region 8 cm.above the umbilicus.Margins of the wound were inverted.2. Rounded punctured wound on the upper part of left thigh lateral aspect, 15 cm.below the anterior superior iliac spine.Size of the injury was 0.5 cm.in diameter, there was collar of abrasion all around the wound more on the lower medial aspect.No burning or tattooing effect was present around the wound.Both the bullets were sealed and clothes and sample of blood were also sealed and handed over to the police.Both the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by fire arm.Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Death was due to haemorrhage shock.The revolver was marked W-1 by the witness.A sealed parcel containing a revolver was opened in Court and shown to the witness.After seeing the same the witness stated that Ex. P-11 was the revolver which was in sealed parcel No. 1 referred to by him.He had noted the number of the revolver in his report and the same tallied with the number on the revolver Ex.The cartridges were also placed before the witness which otherwise bore the following exhibit numbers -Exs.In the parcel bearing Sr.No. 2 one lead bullet of .32 bore was found.The other sealed parcels contained the clothes recovered by the police and which had been sent for examination to the CFSL.In sealed parcel No. 8 two .32 bore fired bullets were found.These bullets had been given numbers BC/2 and BC/3 by the witness for the purposes of his own examination.These bullets were also identified by the witness in Court.From sealed parcel No. 16, one .32 bore fired bullet was taken out and it was marked by this witness as BC-4 for his own purpose.This bullet was taken out from the sealed packet in the Court for purposes of identification and the witness identified the same.The other sealed parcels were sent to the Biology division by this witness.The witness stated that he carried out the laboratory tests including test firing and the microscopic examination of these articles and had come to the following conclusions:(1) that .32 revolver marked W-1 of parcel No. 1 is in working order and had been fired through.The report of this witness is PW 18/A.The following excerpts from the testimony of this witness need to be reproduced for purposes of subsequently dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants:"Q. In the injury statement of Ashok Kumar and that of Mukesh, there is the metion that there was blackening and tattooing around the wound of entrance of Ashok and Mukesh.What must have been the distance of the fire arm of calibre of .32 bore from the seat of the injury to produce such symptoms at the injury?Ans: Generally blackening occurs with the fire arms pistols and revolvers when such fire arm is fired from a distance of about 6 inches from the target.As regards tattooing is concerned, it is caused when fire arms like pistol and revolver are fired at a distance of about 18 inches maximum, meaning thereby that in no case the distance of the target will be more than 24 inches if the tattooing is there around the entry wound when a revolver of .32 bore had been used.If on the entry wound, there is blackening/charring and also tattooing, in such circumstances, if a .32 bore revolver has been used, then maximum distance of the fire arm used will be 6 inches from the entry of the wound.But it is certain that if the fire arm revolver of .32 bore has been used, if that has been used beyond six inches from the target, there can never be blackening/charring at the entry place of the wound (target).Q: I show to you the case history of Mukesh deceased in which there is a mention that there was charring and tattooing at the wound of entry in the epigastrium near the midline on the right side.But the doctor who performed the post mortem, copy of which was also sent to you had written that there was no evidence of tattooing or charring effect around the wound.Would you kindly opine as an expert in which circumstances and conditions the effect of charring or tattooing may not be visible to the doctor conducting the post mortem examination ?Ans: It is better that the doctor conducting the post mortem should he consulted on this point.But I am of the opinion that if the deceased was wearing clothes, then the blackening/charring and tattooing may not be visible at the time of post mortem examination.TO COURT: If the injured was having clothes at the place where the bullet had hit, blackening/charring and tattooing will not come on the body because in such circumstance, it will come on the cloth itself where the bullet had touched first.Whatever he was deposing about these aspects was as per the question put to him in cross-examination.Further the witness stated:Volunteered, regarding these fired bullets BC/1 to BC/3, I could not ascertain if they were fired from the revolver Ex.Hence they could have been fired by this revolver or by some other revolver.Further volunteered, regarding these fired bullets BC/1 to BC/3, sufficient datas were not available and hence, I could not give my opinion.The witness stated that all the parcels had their seals intact.This fact is also borne out from the CFSL report Ex. PW 18/A which notes that the seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seals.The parcel pertaining to arms and ammunition were examined by Mr. B. Moitra, PW-18 and we have already referred to his evidence.These articles were:"(i) Revolver Ex. P-11 and 6 empties Ex. P-12/1-6 taken from the hand of Ajay Kumar.(ii) Lead bullet Ex. P-13 recovered from near the pillar of shop No. 34 adjoining shop No. 33, belonging to the complainant party.(iii) Shirt Ex. P15 and Banian Ex. P-16 of Ashok Kumar.(iv) T-shirt Ex. P10 and Banian Ex. P9 of Mukesh deceased.(v) Pant Ex. P8 and underwear Ex. P7 of Mukesh.Shri B. Moitra examined these arms and ammunition as well as clothes mentioned above and gave his report Ex. PW18/A. His opinion was as follows:(i) Revolver was in working order and had been fired through.(vi) holes in the shirt of Ashok, holes in the shirt and Banian of Mukesh and hole in the pant of Mukesh could have been caused by this type of bullet, i.e. bullet of .32 calibre.""The blood groups of blood on clothes of different persons mentioned above:(i) Bush-shirt Ex. P15 and Banian Ex. P16 of Ashok Kumar were found stained with 'AB group blood' (which is of Ashok Kumar himself).(ii) Ex. P17 and underwear Ex. P18 belonging to Ashok Kumar were be smeared with 'AB group blood' (which is of Ashok Kumar).(v) T-shirt Ex. P16 of Naval was found to be stained within 'AB group' (blood of Ashok).(vi) T-shirt Ex. P4 of Ajay Kumar was stained with 'AB group blood' (that of Ashok Kumar) Ajay Kumar claims that it is his own blood.Banian Ex. P3 belonging to Ajay did not give any result of blood, being 'interfered'.Pant Ex. P5 belonging to Ajay Kumar was found to be stained with "A group blood' (that of Mukesh).(vii) Post-mortem sample blood on Mukesh was found 'putrefied' and no opinion could be given about it."A piece of danda lying close to shop No. 9 in Palika Bazar.lt was a freshly broken danda.SI Gurdeep Singh further stated that he started noting the statement of Naval.ACP Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh reached there.They started making inquiries from Naval and directed SI Gurdeep Singh to record the statement of Naval only about what had happened just then.Accordingly the witness recorded the statement of Naval with regard to the main incident only.The statement was read over to Naval who signed the same in token of correctness thereof.The witness testified about preparing the injury statement of Naval (Ex. PW 1/R) and the injury statement of Ajay (Ex. PW 35/C).Naval was sent for medical examination.On his return after medical examination the T-shirt of Naval (Ex. P-6) was taken into possession vide Ex. PW 1/N. Supplementary statements of Naval, eye witnesses Mahender Singh, Rakesh Kapoor and constable Mehtab Singh, SI Mahender Ram were also recorded.After getting the news of death of Mukesh at about 10.30 p.m. on 6th October, 1982 he added Section 302, I.P.C. in the FIR.The application for post mortem of Mukesh is Ex. 13/B prepared by this witness.Before conducting the inquest proceedings the witness stated that he had recorded the statement of Ashok after obtaining doctor's opinion "fit for statement".Clothes of Mukesh were received by him from the Mortuary, through constable Ram Singh and the recovery memo is Ex. PW 25/A. The wrist watch of Mukesh was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW 25/B. Accused Ajay was interrogated on 7th October, 1982 by this witness.Accused Mahinder was arrested on 8th October 1982 and was subjected to interrogation on 9th October, 1982 by the S.H.O. of Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi in presence of this witness.On 9th October the investigation was handed over by him to the S.H.O. of the police station and it was taken over by Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta of the Crime Branch.He further added that four fired bullets had been recovered till the time the investigation remained witn him.According to the witness Naval, PW-1 met him for the first time at 7.45 p.m. On 6th October, 1982 and he remained with him till his statement was completed at about 9.05 p.m. Prior to that the S.H.O. and ACPs came to the spot who made the preliminary inquiry and there was disturbance all around.Before starting writing down the statement of Naval verbal inquiries were made by the witnesses from Naval in which Naval had stated how he sustained the injuries.Naval had requested for being medically examined.There was no bleeding injury on the person of Naval.He admitted that in the FIR this fact had not been mentioned that Naval had sustained injuries except there is mention of tooth bite on Naval's left hand given by accused Ajay.Naval was sent for medical examination at about 12.00 in the night to the Police Hospital and he returned at about 2.35 same night after medical examination.He denied the suggestion that Govind Ram had run away from the spot.He also denied the suggestion that Govind Ram reached the hospital when witnesses were being admitted.He further stated that on 5th October, 1982 he sent messages to both the parties to appear before the S.H.O. and not him.These messages were sent through the constables orally.Statement of PW-24, constable Mehtab Singh is relevant only for a limited purpose because he was present alongwith SI Gurdeep Singh in the Palika Bazar immediately after the occurrence.This witness also stated about the arrival of ACP A.L. Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh at the Palika Bazar soon after the incident.According to the witness ACP Chadha had stated to Naval that "Pichhle Halaat Chhoro, Haal Ke Likhao" (leave the incidents of past, talk about the present incident).This witness further stated that ACP Chadha had told SI Gurdeep Singh to note down the facts of the present incident and as per instructions SI Gurdeep Singh recorded the statement of Naval.This witness further stated that he used to be on duty generally in the Palika Bazar and, therefore, knew Govind Ram, father of Naval.He also knew Naval, Mukesh and Ashok prior to 6th October, 1982 because he had seen them sitting in the shop at Palika Bazar.He also knew accused Rajinder.At the time when ACP Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh arrived, the revolver was in the hands of SI Gurdeep Singh.By the time these ACPs arrived, SI Gurdeep Singh had not started recording the statement of Naval, only oral inquiries were going on.According to this witness he had not seen any injury on accused Ajay from which blood was oozing out.This is a brief resume of the statements made in Court by the important prosecution witnesses in this case.From this evidence the following facts emerge:"Sudhir, Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder on the one hand and Naval, Ashok and Mukesh belonging to the complainant party on the other hand were carrying on their independent businesses at the Palika Bazar, New Delhi since much prior to the main incident and were well known to each other.Earlier Sudhir was having a counter from which he conducted his business at shop No.9 Palika Bazar where also the other accused Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder used to do their business.Though accused Narinder etc. have denied working at shop No. 9, there is ample evidence on record which establishes that this denial on the part of accused Narinder etc. is wrong and the fact is that Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder were working at shop No. 9, Palika Bazar.PW-3 Ashok Kumar has testified about this fact.PW-1 Naval Kumar has also said so.PW-29 Gobind Ram, father of the complainants has supported this fact.PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor who is also a shopkeeper in the Palika Bazar area has said so.Same is the version of PW-2 Mahinder Singh on this aspect.PW-19 SI Mahinder Ram who had been in routine performing his duty at Palika Bazar also testified about this fact.PW-19 is an independent police witness and had no reason to lie or take sides.This leaves no manner of doubt that Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder were working at shop No. 9, Palika Bazar.So far as the fact that the three brothers belonging to the complainant party were working at shop No. 33, there is ample evidence on record to support it.Besides Naval and Ashok who have said so, the other independent witnesses, namely, PW-2 Mahinder Singh, PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor had deposed to this effect.SI Gurdeep Singh who is an independent police witness stated that he had seen Naval working on shop No. 33 in Palika Bazar.To the same effect is the statement of another Police Officer PW-24 Mehtab Singh and PW-19 SI Mahinder Ram who has said so in his enquiry report Ex.About Sudhir Jain having his jewellery business at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar there is no controversy because the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in these various appeals did not dispute it.Since about one and half to two years prior to the date of the incident Sudhir started doing business at shop No. 4 Palika Bazar in partnership with one Manmohan.Shop No. 4 is opposite to shop No. 33 in Palika Bazar.PW-1 Naval, PW-3 Ashok and PW-21 Gobind Ram have testified about this fact.PW4 Mukesh Sood, an independent witness belonging to the business community at Palika Bazar has also deposed about this fact.Ajay and Sudhir were in the same college, i.e., DAV College simultaneously at least for three years.PW-12 Mohan Lal was the Principal of DAV College who deposed that Ajay and Sudhir were students of that college during the particular period.Ajay was a judo and wrestling champion of the college and was well known.Even the accused Ajay and Sudhir admitted that they were in the DAV College during the same period.This was for about three years.Ajay has further admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in reply to question No. 13 that he had come to supply jewellery to Sudhir on the fateful day which shows that the two had business dealings with each other.This admission on the part of accused Ajay supports the statements of Naval and Ashok etc. about their being business dealings between accused Ajay and Sudhir.This business rivalry had taken an ugly shape inasmuch as it was the grievance of the complainant party that Narinder, one for the accused used to practically sit at shop No.4 of Sudhir and entice away the customers coming to the shop of the complainant party to the shop of accused Sudhir.PW-1 Naval testified about this.PW-3 Ashok has supported Naval on this point.Further in this connection the statement of Naval recorded by SI Mahinder Ram on 3rd October, 1982 in pursuance of the enquiry entrusted to him on the complaint of Narinder is significant.The said statement is Ex. PW-1/DD in which Naval has made a grievance of this fact, i.e., Narinder taking away his customers to the shop of Sudhir.The statement Ex. PW-1/DD was made three days prior to the main incident and, therefore, has lot of force.It can be safely concluded on the basis of all this evidence that the root cause of the entire dispute was the business rivalry between the two groups and accused Narinder enticing away the customers coming to the shop of the complainants.Besides the complainants, PW-1 Naval and PW-3 Ashok having testified about this, PW-4 Mukesh Sood mentioned this fact.This fact again is noted in the enquiry report of PW-19 SI Mahinder Ram.The report is Ex.PW-19/B. The complainant party had warned Narinder regarding this but that had no effect.On 1st October, 1982 at about 7.00 p.m. an unfortunate incident had taken place involving the two sides about which Narinder had made a complaint to the police vide Ex. PW-9/A. According to this complaint.Narinder was beaten by Naval in the presence of his wife and children.In this very complaint Narinder himself stated that such incidents had taken place many a times between Naval and his brothers on the one hand and Narinder and other co-accused on the other hand.This written complaint by Narinder to the police is a document beyond any dispute and shows the acrimony prevailing between the parties on account of business rivalry.In connection with this written complaint a police enquiry was held by SI Mahinder Ram PW-19 and a statement of Naval was recorded on 3rd October, 1982 which is Ex. PW-1/DD.Besides the proceedings in pursuance of the said enquiry and the enquiry report, there is independent evidence on record about the incident of 1st October, 1982 in the shape of statement of Naval PW-1 as to what had happened on that day.PW-4 Mukesh Sood has also testified about the incident of 1st October, 1982 because he was an eye witness of the same.In pursuance of the said enquiry both the parties visited the police station on 6th October, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m. where the SHO tried to work out a compromise between both the groups.This is aIso recorded at the end of the document containing the enquiry report under the signatures of the SHO and has been marked as Ex. PW-19/C. The parties were directed to appear on 7th October, 1982 for finalising the compromise.On behalf of the complainant party Naval and his father Gobind Ram had gone to the police station while from the side of the accused Narinder, Mahinder and Sudhir were present before the SHO.The presence of these persons is recorded by the SHO in his noting Ex. PW-19/C on the enquiry report.But according to Naval and Gobind Ram they were very much in the police station.Various suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination by the Counsel appearing for the accused persons suggest the presence of these accused in the police station on that date.Particularly it was put to PW-1 Naval that Narinder etc. had not agreed for any compromise or that they had not insisted of the presence of Ashok Kumar.These suggestions show the presence of accused persons at the police station.Another question was put to Naval in cross-examination that "Rajinder accused was not present before the SHO".Of course Naval denied the same but from this question it can be inferred that at least presence of the other accused was not disputed" The accused were dissatisfied with whatever had happened at the police station and Naval and Gobind Ram stated that they heard accused Sudhir and Narinder saying outside the police station "IN POLICE WALON NE KUCH NAHIN KARNA.AB HAMEN KHUD HI NIBTANA PAREGA." (The police will not do anything.We will have ourselves to sort out things now).Of course in the statements dated 6th October, 1982 these aspects were not there which was so because as per the case of the complainants the investigation on 6th October, 1982 was not going on right lines and was proceeding as per the instructions of the two ACPs who were present at the spot.In a situation where the initial investigation did not proceed on right lines the subsequent statements assume importance and cannot be ignored.Ganeshlal Vs.State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cr.L.J. 1545 and Radhey Shyam Vs.The evidence further shows that at 6.15 p.m. all the accused including accused Ajay were seen together outside shop No. 4, i.e., the shop of accused Sudhir.PW-1 Naval has deposed about this fact as having witnessed it with his own eyes.He was questioned in cross-examination as to why he did not mention this fact in the Rukka, i.e. this initial statement to the police and his reply was that SI Gurdeep Singh who had taken down that statement did not want to make a note of any fact other than the main incident of shooting.To the same effect is the deposition of PW-4 Mukesh Sood on this point.It is further established from evidence that on 6th October, 1982 accused Sudhir closed his shop early, i.e., by about 6.45 p.m. though the usual closing time in Palika Bazar was 7.30 p.m. those days.PW-1 Naval has said so.PW-3 Ashok has corroborated the statements of Naval in this behalf.Naval was sent for medical examination after recording of his statement and also after completion of certain formalities in relation to the investigation of the case at the spot.Accused Ajay was also sent for medical examination and the details in this behalf have already appeared in the resume of the medical evidence given hereinbefore.On the basis of the evidence on record the Trial Court found accused Sudhir Jain guilty of the charge of conspiracy and convicted him under Section 120-B, IPC.Accused Ajay Kumar Singh was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him and was convicted under Sections 302/307 and 120-B, IPC.Accused Narinder and Mahinder were convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC.Their presence at the scene of occurrence along with accused Ajay Kumar Singh was found established and they were held to have exhorted accused Ajay to fire the shots one of which proved to be fatal qua Mukesh.They were also held to have given danda and belt blows to Naval and Ashok, two brothers of the complainant party who received injuries in the incident but survived.All the four eye witnesses are consistent in saying that Narinder, Mahinder, Rajinder and Ajay came together from the side of shop No. 9, Palika Bazar.Narinder and Mahinder had danda in their hands while Rajinder had a belt in his hand.Accused Ajay appeared to be empty-handed.First the accused persons started beating Ashok and Mukesh with fists and kicks and dandas and belt.There was grappling between the two sides for about a minute and half or so.This was followed by exhortation to Ajay by Narinder and Mahinder followed with exhortation by Rajinder to shoot.All the four eye witnesses of the main incident have deposed about the exhortation given by Narinder and Mahinder and thereafter by Rajinder to Ajay to fire.The version of the incident given in the FIR corroborates these statements regarding exhortation made by the four eye witnesses in Court.The shots were fired one after the other successively.Two shots were fired at Mukesh; two were fired at Ashok and two were fired at Naval.The shots fired at Mukesh and Ashok had hit both of them while Naval escaped both the shots fired at him.The exhortation given by Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder shows that all of them knew that Ajay was carrying a revolver with him.This also explain why Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder did not carry with them any lethal weapons and were satisfied with carrying dandas and belt.It is nobody's case that the complainant party had any weapons nor any such suggestion was put to the prosecution witness.Of course we may note here that on behalf of accused Ajay a defense was set up that Mukesh had a revolver with him.Besides this defense it is nobody's case that the three brothers of the complainant party were carrying any weapon.From there they parted course.Accused Ajay went towards the Air-Conditioning Plant, i.e., towards shops No. 161-162 while the other three accused ran towards the other side.Ajay was chased by all the three brothers of the injured party.The two brothers who received gun shot injuries could not run as fast as their third brother Naval.Naval succeeded in catching hold of accused Ajay.There also some scuffle took place between the two but Naval maintained his grip over Ajay from back side of Ajay, inspite of them having given teeth bites to each other.Soon SI Gurdeep Singh reached there alongwith his other policemen and Ajay was handed over to the police.The revolver was taken from his right hand by SI Gurdeep Singh.The investigation and seizure of certain articles.The other shoe of Mukesh was found near shop No.161, 162 where Mukesh had finally fallen down.Ajay's baniyan and T-shirt were in a torn condition which must be the result of scuffles in which he was involved.It is in evidence that Ajay did not have any bleeding injury.This has been deposed to by many witnesses including SI Gurdeep Singh who was the initial investigating Officer and who had first opportunity to see Ajay accused because he had arrested him at the spot.Therefore, the blood on Ajay's clothes had to be that of others.The first shot fired at Mukesh was during the course of scuffle between Mukesh and Ajay which means that the shot must have been fired from a very close range.The injury was bleeding and the blood on the pant of Ajay must be from that injury of Mukesh.The blood group of Mukesh was 'A' and as per the CFSL report the blood found on Ajay's pant belonged to group 'A'.Ashok had received the gun shot on his chest.That injury was bleeding and the blood on Ajay's T-shirt must be that of Ashok.As per the CFSL report the blood group of blood found on Ajay's T-shirt was 'AB' which was the blood group of Ashok.Ajay was medically examined at 10.00 a.m. On the next day and none of the injury suggests that it was bleeding injury.No question was put to the doctor whether any injury of Ajay was bleeding.This fact coupled with the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly that of SI Gurdeep Singh leaves no doubt about the fact that Ajay did not have any bleeding injury.From this it follows that Ajay could not have his own blood on any of his clothes.It is to be noted that there is no evidence on record to establish the blood group of accused Ajay.Similarly clothes of Ashok were also taken into possession.A question was raised that PW-21 Gobind Ram who removed his two sons to the hospital must have received blood on his clothes and why his clothes were not taken into possession by the police? On this Gobind Ram had deposed that he had received blood on his clothes while he was in the process of removing his sons Ashok and Mukesh to the hospital.He also stated that he stayed in the hospital that night upto about 4.00 or 5.00 a.m. wearing those very blood stained clothes.When he went home after 5.00 a.m. in the morning he changed his chothes.While he was in the hospital nobody asked him to hand over his blood stained clothes and, therefore, his blood stained clothes never came in possession of the police.Non-recovery of blood stained clothes of Gobind Ram is not material in the facts of the case since Gobind Ram never took part in the incident.He came on the scene after the incident was over.His evidence is corroborative of the facts after the arrival of the police on the scene.On various important aspects of the case the eye witness account gets support from the suggestions made to the witnesses in their respective cross-examinations.To illustrate lot of controversy was raised regarding PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor doing business at shop No. M-13, Palika Bazar.However, a suggestion came in cross-examination of PW-1 from the defense side about Rakesh Kapoor in the shape of a question:- "He was running electronic shop." This shows that what was questioned was whether Rakesh Kapoor was running an electronic shop or was selling cassettes from his shop.The fact that he was doing business there was thus not disputed.Again it was suggested to Naval by Counsel appearing for accused Rajinder that Rajinder had been falsely implicated because he was known to accused Sudhir.This shows an admission that accused Rajinder and accused Sudhir were known to each other.In the context of denial of any business dealings between accused Ajay and accused Sudhir, a suggestion put by the learned Counsel appearing for accused Ajay to PW-1 Naval to the effect that Ajay had gone to supply jewellery in a thaila on 6th October, 1982 is significant.On some of the important aspects even the statements of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. corroborate the prosecution version.All the four eye witnesses of the main incident, i.e., PW-1 Naval, PW-3 Ashok, PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor have given the account of the main incident in similar terms without there being any material contradiction which makes their evidence trustworthy and beyond any manner of doubt.Besides the evidence of these main eye witnesses of the incident, there is supporting evidence of PW-35 SI Gurdeep Singh, PW-19 SI Mahinder Ram and PW-24 Constable Mehtab Singh.Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in these appeals raised various points to challenge the findings of the Trial Court.The main arguments were:1. PW-1 Naval, PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor were not at all present at the time of the incident and were, therefore, not eye witnesses of the incident.They are planted witnesses and their evidence ought to be discarded.2. PW-1 Naval and PW-3 Ashok are interested witnesses and their evidence ought to be considered keeping this fact in mind.3. PW-4 Mukesh Sood is a planted witness and his evidence should be discarded.Omissions, improvements and contradictions in the evidence of main prosecution witnesses.Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder were not present at the time of the incident and were falsely implicated.Finger prints were not lifted from the revolver which was allegedly seized from the hands of Ajay at the time of his apprehension and arrest.Expert evidence (Medical as well as Ballistic Experts) does not support the prosecution case.Conspiracy is not established and ingredients of Section 120-B IPC are not satisfied.No case for conviction under Section 34 IPC is made out as common intention is not established.Absence of motive.Miscellaneous Points.The investigation was unfair which resulted in miscarriage of justice.There is no evidence of promptly delivering the special report to the Area Magistrate as required under Section 157 Cr.P.C.Point 1:PW-1 Naval, PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor were not present at the scene of crime.PW-3 Ashok, PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor have all deposed about the fact that Naval was present during the incident at the scene of crime.The three police officers, i.e., PW-35 SI Gurdeep Singh, PW-19 SI Mahinder Ram and PW-24 Constable Mehtab Singh have testified about the presence of Naval when they came on the scene at the time of apprehension of Ajay and subsequent events which followed.These police officers have no reason to tell lies.Besides the oral testimony of all these witnesses there is other ample evidence on record to establish Naval's presence at the scene of crime.This is:(A) Naval had apprehended Ajay when he was trying to escape from the scene of crime.He was holding Ajay in his grip when police officers arrived and took Ajay in custody.(B) Ajay's list of injuries shows teeth bites on his back.These teeth bites establish the credibility of prosecution story of Naval holding Ajay in his grip from behind.While doing so Naval must have given teeth bites on the back of Ajay in response to the teeth bite given on the dorsum of the left hand of Naval by Ajay.Teeth bites on the back of Ajay is a very important piece of evidence establishing presence of Naval.None else could have given these teeth bites on the back of Ajay.(C) Naval had received injuries on his person, most of which are contusions.Such injuries could not have been self-inflicted.In the medical examination the injuries on his person were duly noted.Moreover, the doctors who deposed about Naval's injuries were not cross-examined as to whether the injuries on Naval could he self-inflicted.(D) The T-shirt of Naval which was taken into possession by the police on that very night was found to be blood stained.(E) Naval made the first statement to the police which formed the basis of the FIR and this statement was recorded shortly after the incident because the time of its despatch for purposes of recording of FIR is shown to be 9.05 p.m. PW-5 stated that SI Gurdeep Singh started recording Naval's statement at 8.15 p.m. The time of the incident is 7.45 p.m. The statement contains such details about the incident which could not have been given except by a person who was personally involved in it.(F) Naval had participated in the investigation on the spot and signed several recovery memos.The recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana alongwith recovery memos that very night.This obviates any argument about the recovery memos being prepared subsequently.(G) The statement of SI Gurdeep Singh as PW-35 shows that before proceeding to record his statement he had made certain enquiries from Naval on the spot.SI Gurdeep Singh had also prepared the injury statement of Naval.(H) Some of the injuries on Naval can only be explained to danda blows which he would have received during the main incident.(I) Naval was subsequently also medically examined because he had made a grievance that the earlier medical examination did not record all his injuries.In the first medical examination only three injuries were shown while in the medical examination conducted on 10th October, 1982 seven injuries were shown.Without entering into the controversy about the number of injuries what is important is that Naval had received injuries in the course of incident.His blood stained T-shirt was taken into possession that very night when he was returning from the hospital at 1.00 a.m. The most important fact to be noted is that if Naval was not on the scene, who was responsible for Ajay's apprehension and arrest? The entire incident was over within minutes and accused persons immediately after the firing fled from the scene of crime.Unless Naval was already present on the scene of crime he could not have chased and apprehended and got arrested Ajay.No police officer or any other witness has said that he had chased Ajay and apprehended him when he was running away from the scene of crime.Thus there could be no doubt about the resence of Naval at the scene of crime.The defense started laying foundation for the plea that Naval was not present at the scene of crime by saying that Naval used to work at Panchkuin Road shop of Gobind Ram and did not work at the Palika Bazar shop of the complainant party.This foundation is knocked off by their own written document, i.e., Ex. PW-9/A -a complaint to the police by Narinder in which he refers to Naval as one of the owners of shop No. 33 with whom he alleged that he had quarrels several times.This document besides other evidence on record establishes that Naval very much used to work at shop No. 33 and, therefore, in normal course of events he should have been present at the time of incident specially when it was the closing time of he shop.PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor while discussing about the presence of Naval we have noted that Naval's first statement i.e., the Rukka was recorded soon after the incident.PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor are named in the said statement of Naval.Naval states in the said statement that these two persons were present at the time of the incident.In view of the proximity between the incident and this statement of Naval any possibility of Naval having consulted these witnesses before naming them in the Rukka is totally ruled out.The statements of these witnesses were recorded by the police the same evening.The version of the incident and the main events given by these witnesses is fully consistent with the version of other eye witnesses.Therefore it is impossible to say that these witnesses are planted witnesses or that they were not present at the scene of crime or that they did not witness the events with their own eyes.Further these two witnesses participated in the police investigations which followed the incident.They are signatories to various seizure memos.This shows their involvement right from the initial stage.This rules out any possibility of they being planted as witnesses in the case.The memos to which these witnesses are signatories get sanctified from the fact that articles seized by virtue of the memos were deposited in Malkhana that very night.It is not possible to say that the memos could be prepared subsequently.The allegation of the complainant party is that in the initial investigation the police was being unfair to the complainants.In the face of such an allegation it would be difficult to say that the police would become party to falsehood by allowing PW-2 and PW-5 to be planted.The fact that these witnesses participated in the investigation right from the beginning leaves no manner of doubt about their presence at the scene of crime.Further the way these witnesses have given the eye witness account of the main incident and the events which followed leaves no manner of doubt about their presence and credibility.In the lengthy cross-examination to which these witnesses were subjected they could not be dislodged.An attempt was made to discredit PW-2 Mahinder Singh by saying that he tried to conceal the fact that he was an old friend of the complainant party and was a class-mate of one of the brothers of the complainant party.Evidence was brought to establish this fact.It is true that from the evidence that has been brought on record it appears that Mahinder Singh tried to conceal these facts and projected himself as if he was a totally unknown person the question which arises for consideration is whether on account of this the witness should be totally discredited and his evidence be thrown overboard? When we are satisfied about the presence of this witness at the scene of crime we do not consider it justifiable that his entire evidence should be rejected.His evidence has great corroborative force.Similarly attempt was made to discredit PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor by showing that he never worked at shop No. M-13, Palika Bazar.Be that as it may as already held Rakesh Kapoor's presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted.Assuming that the witness was not working at shop No.M-13 yet his evidence shows his total familiarity with Palika Bazar and some of its shop keepers.He may not be a wholly reliable witness.But his deposition about the incident has great corroborative value specially when it is established that he was present at the scene of crime.To sum up, the names of these two witnesses are given in the Rukka as well in the FIR.Their names and positions are shown in the site plan proved on record.Their statements were recorded that very evening and subsequent statements were also recorded by Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta.Upto 11.00 p.m. as many as 14 memos had been prepared during the course of investigations and these persons had witnessed the same.The recovered properties were deposited in the Malkhana on the basis of such memos that very night between 11.00 to 12.00 p.m. The extract from the Malkhana register is Ex. PW-16/A.In the three categories of witnesses propounded by the Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs.State of Madras, i.e., a wholly reliable witness, a wholly false witness and a witness who may be partly true and partly false, these witnesses fall in the third category.The evidence of such witnesses to that extent it is considered reliable and corroborative can be taken into consideration.Therefore, we need not totally discard the evidence of PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor.Their evidence has corroborative value.The evidence of Mahinder Singh was also attacked on the ground that as per the site plan he was at least at a distance of 55 feet from the place of occurrence and, therefore, he could not have properly witnessed the incident.This argument is totally misconceived.Firstly in a well-lighted place like the Palika Bazar it is not difficult to see events from a distance of 55 feet.PW-11 had deposed about the fact that the place was fully lighted.Secondly the distance of 55 feet was sought to be worked out on the basis of the site plan prepared by the draftsman.The distances shown in the site plan were not put to the draftsman when he appeared in the witness box.These distances shown on the site plan could not be taken as gospel truth.It was also argued that PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor was not prepared to disclose his residential address.For this the witness had a justifiable explanation i.e. fear from the accused persons and, therefore, this ground is not sufficient to discard his testimony.In order to show that he was not working at shop No. M-13 he was cross-examination about payment of rent of the shop.The witness stated that he was paying rent in cash and he went on to explain that because the subletting was unauthorised rents were paid in cash only.We would like to note and emphasise at this stage that actually there are four eye witnesses of the incident.This includes these two witnesses, i.e.. PW-2 and PW-5 about whom the defense has sought to cast doubts.As a matter of law conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eye witness.In the present case the evidence of two eye witnesses, i.e., Naval and Ashok, about whose presence there is no manner of doubt whatsoever, is sufficient to uphold the prosecution case even if for the sake of argument the evidence of these two witnesses, i.e., PW-2 and PW-5 is to be rejected.About the presence of Ashok PW-3 nobody has raised any doubts.That is so because Ashok had received gun shot injuries, one of which was on a vital part of his hody, i.e., chest and it was a miracle that he survived.It follows from the above discussion that the argument raised on behalf of the appellants that witnesses Naval, Mahinder Singh and Rakesh Kapoor were not at all present at the time of the incident is wholly untenable and misconceived.We are satisfied from the evidence on record that these witnesses were present at the scene of crime and are, therefore, eye witnesses of the occurrence.It is wrong to say that they are planted witnesses.Point No. 2PW-1 Naval and PW-3 Ashok being the brothers of deceased Mukesh and themselves being the complainants are interested witnesses.No doubt PW-1 Naval and PW-3 Ashok are the complainants in this case and are also real brothers of deceased Mukesh.They were jointly doing the jewellery business in shop No. 33, Palika Bazar.But these facts do not mean that their evidence ought to be discredited or should not be given the weight it deserves.We have already discussed the evidence of Naval and Ashok.We have also accepted the prosecution version that Naval was present at the scene of crime.Both these brothers are injured witnesses.So far as Ashok is concerned, his presence at the scene of crime has not even been challenged by anyone.He received two gun shots -one on his chest and the other on his finger.The Ballistic Expert PW-18, B.Moitra gave a definite opinion that the bullet recovered from the body of Ashok was fired through the revolver Ex. P-11, the one snatched from the hand of Ajay at the time of his apprehension and arrest Ashok received several injuries out of which two were by bullets and the rest by danda and belt blows.He was operated upon that very night and a bullet was extracted from his chest.The appellants tried to attack the antecedents of Ashok and Naval in order to show that they were not credible witnesses.Law is that bad antecedents alone do not make a witness unreliable: Dalbir Singh Vs.Rup Singh Vs.L.J. 2082 and Ramaswami Vs.State of T.N., that a witness injured in the incident is the best eye witness.Ashok and Naval both the brothers were injured in the incident and they are the best eye witnesses.Both gave a similar version of the entire incident though they hardly had any occasion to exchange notes.This we say in order to rule out an argument that the brothers had consulted each other before making statements to the police after the incident.By the time Naval made his statement it cannot be said that had occasion to talk to Ashok before hand.Naturally all the three brothers were involved in the incident.The attack was directed at all of them and they being real brothers were trying to defend each other against the attack.Apart from this the version of the incident given by all these four witnesses is corroborated by the police witnesses from the stage of arrival of police onwards.We find that Naval and Ashok are wholly reliable witnesses and their evidence is wholly trustworthy and free from any doubts.They are witnesses injured in the main incident and, therefore, their testimony stands at a much higher footing and such arguments cannot create any dents.It stands fully corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses including police witnesses and other facts on record.Point No. 3PW-4 Mukesh Sood was a shopkeeper in Palika Bazar during the relevant period.10th October, 1982 was a Sunday and the Palika Bazar was closed.On 11th October 1982 he visited Palika Bazar for the first time and in the course of spot enquiries he came across this witness and recorded his statement.His non-availability or not coming forth to depose can also be explained to the fact that on 6th October, 1982 he rushed to his house on getting the news of serious sickness of his father and while going to his house he had seen the five accused outside the shop of accused Sudhir Jain talking to each other.Moreover, as stated by Naval the Inspector conducted the investigations on 6th and 7th, October and was not interested in nothing any statement about anything other than the events pertaining to the main incident.Mukesh Sood as already stated was not a witness of the main incident and, therefore, in any event for SI Gurdeep Singh who was the initial investigator this witness was wholly irrelevant.Further the credibility of Mukesh Sood was sought to be challenged on account of some alleged bad antecedents or on account of his having joined the custom authorities as witness in some cases pertaining to Palika Bazar.Rather this shows that this witness was very much connected with the Palika Bazar since long and knew a lot about the said Bazar and the shopkeepers working there.Mukesh Sood has only deposed about two things.One -the incident of 1st October, 1982 involving accused Narinder and PW-1 Naval about which Narinder made a complaint to police.Mukesh Sood had witnessed this incident.This incident is not in dispute and, therefore, the testimony of this witness satisfies the test of credibility.The only difference was that previously he did not say that "On seeing him the five accused stopped talking or became silent".The learned Counsel for the prosecution conceded that the part that "five accused stopped talking or became silent" may be ignored.We have seen that Mukesh Sood talked only about two facts pertaining to this case out of which one at least is not in dispute.It follows that witness cannot be said to be a planted witness.We find no merit in this ground.The evidence of Mukesh Sood on both the points deposed by him appears to be reliable and trustworthy.Point No. 4Omissions, improvements and contradictions.In their effort to dislodge the eye witnesses the learned Counsel for the appellants tried to highlight certain omissions, improvements and contradictions in their statements.The prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examinations by different Counsel appearing for different accused persons.The record shows that recording of statement of PW-1 Naval started on 4th December, 1984 and the statement was concluded on 17th May, 1985, running into about 150 pages.This witness was examined on various dates.The predicament is that if witnesses give exactly similar account of the incident they are accused of being tutored.If they speak naturally and give eye witness account in their own words, there are bound to be slight variations.One cannot lose sight of normal human behaviour.Each individual has his own perception of an event and likes to describe it in his or her own way.Coupled with this, the lapse of time between the incident and the stage for appearing as a witness in Court also accounts for some minor variations and discrepancies.Thus discrepancies are bound to be there in statements of even most honest and truthful witnesses.State of Rajasthan Vs.Kaiki, 1981 Crl.L..J. 1012, State of U.P. Vs.Ballabh Das, .What is important in this connection is to find out if there are any material discrepancies.If the discrepancies go to the root of the matter they will have some bearing on the prosecution case.The learned Counsel appearing for all the appellants have failed to point out any material discrepancy in the statement of eye witnesses or any such discrepancy which may go to the root of the matter.Only two important improvements in the statement of the eye witnesses were pointed out, i.e., the statement about the accused being seen in a black Ambassador car outside the Connaught Place Police Station after the main incident on 6th October, 1982 and the statement that when all the accused were seen outside shop No. 4 at 6.15 p.m. they were talking together and on seeing Mukesh Sood they stopped talking.Both these points were conceded by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and, therefore, we have not taken into consideration either of these two aspects and have proceeded as if they do not form part of the record.A question may arise that can for this reason the entire statement of the witness be discarded? We are of the view that entire evidence of the witness concerned is not liable to be thrown over-board for this reason.The offensive part can be ignored.The background events were contained in the statements of witnesses recorded on 6th or 7th October, 1982 by SI Gurdeep Singh.This has been answered by the witnesses by stating that in view of the instructions of ACP A.L.Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh who were present on the spot after the incident on 6th October, 1982, the I.O. was not prepared to record anything other than the facts about the main incident.Point No. 5Presence of Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder and their involvement in the incident.This shows the closeness between Sudhir and Narinder.On 1st October, 1982 Narinder was beaten by Naval in the presence of his wife and child which left stronger bitterness in Narinder against Naval and party.In pursuance of the complaint of Narinder dated 1st October, 1982 Narinder and his brothers alongwith Sudhir had visited the police station on 6th October, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m. While coming out of the police station, Narinder and Sudhir were heard saying, "IN POLICE WALON NE KUCHH NAHIN KARNA.AB HAMEN KHUD HI NIBTANA PAREGA".This shows that Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder were fully involved with Sudhir in his cause, i.e., his business rivalry with the complainant party, i.e., Naval etc. Narinder and his brothers were fighting the battle of Sudhir with Sudhir in the background.This is an important fact to be noted that events from 1st October, 1982 onwards show that Sudhir always tried to remain in the background while Narinder etc. remained in the fore-front.The direct evidence of presence of Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder at the scene of crime and their involvement in the incident is available from the injuries on the person of Ashok and Naval.Many injuries on these two brothers are relatable to danda and belt blows.Rather Ajay appeared to be empty handed when he arrived at the scene of crime.Therefore, the danda and belt injuries on the two victims clearly suggest presence of other attackers who had such weapons in their hands and these persons could be Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder only and none else.Besides the evidence of injuries on Ashok and Naval which proved the presence of other persons in the attack apart from Ajay, there is clear, cogent and reliable evidence of the four eye witnesses which has already been referred to above about the presence of Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder at the scene of crime and the role they played in the incident.We have no doubt about the presence of these three persons at the time of the incident and the role played by them in the incident as deposed by the eye witnesses.An argument was raised that if they were present at the scene of crime and played a role in the incident, why they were not noticed by the police witnesses because none of the police witnesses spoke about their presence.The answer to this argument is that they had succeeded in their escape before the police arrived.It is only because of their successful escape that this argument is being raised.On successful escape the Supreme Court observed in Kartarey Vs.State of U.P., :"Nor could the circumstances of these appellants' successful escape be a ground to disbelieve the eye-witnesses and to doubt the appellants' participation in the commission of the crime."Further act to be observed in this connection is the conduct of these three accused soon after the incident.None of them was available at their residence that night or on the next day.This conduct may not by itself be of a grave consequence, yet it is relevant and need not be ignored.Kartarey Vs.L.J. 13 Gurnek Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 1989 SCC (Cri.) 70=1988 Supp.SCC 807 and Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs.Mr. B.R. Handa, learned Counsel appearing for accused Narinder and Mahinder also argued that the theory of presence of Narinder and Mahinder at the scene of occurrence and their involvement in the crime is rendered wholly unacceptable by the fact that these persons are alleged to have carried small dandas in their hands as weapons.He argued that a danda is hardly a weapon to be carried on such a serious mission.The answer to this argument is that they knew that their companion accused Ajay was carrying a fully loaded revolver with him.This was their confidence and, therefore, even if they do not carry a danda, that would not matter.Actually their weapon was Ajay.This finds support from the fact that the initial scuffle or beating with danda etc. went on hardly for about one and half minute or so.This means that just after starting the fight accused Narinder etc. gave exhortation to Ajay to fire.The initial fighting or the use of danda was thus just a starter.The real thing came out within one and half minutes or so.In view of these facts we have no doubt about the presence of Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder at the scene of occurrence and about the role played by them in the main incident.Not lifting of finger prints from the revolver seized from Ajay.The revolver was seized from the right hand of Ajay when Ajay was apprehended.This was done by SI Gurdeep Singh.Thus the police officer who seized the revolver believed that he had caught the accused red-handed with the revolver.He, therefore, did not consider it necessary to lift finger prints from the revolver.The revolver was handled first by SI Gurdeep Singh and thereafter by the senior police officers also as shown by the evidence on record.It smelt as having been freshly fired.The apprehension of accused Ajay and seizing of revolver took place in open and in the presence of public witnesses as well as several police officers.Planting of any other revolver on Ajay in such circumstances would be out of question.Public witnesses PW-2 Mahinder Singh and PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor had observed that senior police officers had examined the revolver.In a situation where the weapon is handled by so many persons the need for lifting finger prints is rendered futile.Shamim Rahmani Vs.State of U.P., .The present is a case of the weapon being handled by so many others.SI Gurdeep Singh denied the suggestion that he did not lift finger prints from the revolver because it did not contain accused Ajay's finger prints.He explained that he did not feel it necessary to lift finger prints from the revolver in view of the fact that the revolver was seized from accused Ajay at the time of his arrest and also for the reason that he found the revolver having been recently fired from.SI Gurdeep Singh had actually sealed the revolver before the arrival of the crime team at the spot.In view of the peculiar facts of the case we do not attach much importance to non-lifting of finger prints from the revolver.We have believed the eye witness account of the incident according to which Ajay had fired six shots from his revolver, i.e., he emptied his fully loaded revolver.We have also believed the fact that when Ajay was arrested, he was holding the revolver in his right hand.As per the evidence of Shri B. Moitra PW-18, the Ballistic Expert, the revolver Ex. PW-11 was found in working order and had been fired through.It will be recalled that PW-35 SI Gurdeep Singh stated that immediately after seizing the revolver from the accused he had opened it and smelt it.The revolver smelt as having been freshly fired through.Further, six empty cartridges were noticed inside the revolver.As per the oral evidence already referred to, in all six shots were fired in the incident.Regarding the other three bullets he opined that the same could have been fired from the same revolver but he was not in a position to give a definite opinion for want of sufficient data.The clothes worn by Ashok and Mukesh were also sent to the Ballistic Expert for opinion regarding the holes in the clothes corresponding to the areas of the bodies where the gun shots had hit.The expert opined that the holes could have been caused by the passage of .32 bullets.The medical evidence shows that PW-7 Dr. S.D. Gupta and PW-20 Dr. J.P. Gupta had found some blackening and tattooing on the surrounding skin near the entry wound of Ashok.Dr. J.P. Gupta also said the same about the entry points of gun shot injuries received by Ashok.Opinion of Dr. J.P. Gupta was also sought about the distance from which a shot should be fired in order to leave charring/blackening and tattooing marks at the entry point of the wound.His opinion was that the firing has to be from a short distance which may be with in one feet.Similarly PW-18 Mr. B. Moitra, the Ballistic Expert opined that the blackening and charring depends upon the distance between the muzzle end of the revolver and the target.If during grappling when the firing is from the revolver, the end of muzzle is upto six inches from the target there will be blackening at the entry wound and if the end of the muzzle of the revolver is more than six inches from the target, there will be no blackening.For charring effect he opined that the end of the muzzle of the revolver should be only two inches from the target.For tattooing marks as per expert opinion the distance between muzzle end of the revolver and the target can be upto one and half feet to two feet.In the background of this evidence the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that as per the site plan Ex. PW-15/A the distances between place of firing and the target are over ten feet which is much beyond the limits given by the Ballistic Expert.Shots fired from such distances could not leave behind charring/blackening and tattooing marks.It was sought to be made out that there was a clear conflict between the expert opinion and the evidence on record and the benefit of this should go to the accused persons.Reference in this connection was also made to statement of PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor where he stated that firing took place from a distance of about five and half to six feet.In this very connection the learned Counsel for the appellants also relied upon the evidence of PW-13 Dr. L.T.Ramani who had conducted the post mortem on the body of Mukesh.Dr. Ramani stated that there was no evidence of tattooing or burning effect around the wounds of Mukesh.According to expert opinion if the wound is treated the tattooing mark could disappear.Dr. L.T. Ramani stated that wound of Mukesh had not been treated.However, Dr. Ramani mentioned presence of surgical dressings around the wounds of Mukesh.In fact the doctor who attended to Mukesh when he was admitted to the hospital had also stated that they tried to stop the bleeding from his wounds.From this at least one thing becomes clear that the attempt by the doctors to stop bleeding from the wounds of Mukesh by applying surgical dressings etc. must have resulted in such marks to disappear from around his wounds.It is also admitted by expert opinion that these marks can disappear for such reasons.In this context we may also note that Dr. Misra who had prepared the MLCs of Mukesh and Ashok did not mention about any charring, blackening or tattooing around the wounds of these two injured persons.This can be explained by the fact that Dr. Misra might not have so closely scrutinised the wounds of the injured persons specially when the cases were being referred to experts for further management.Dr. J.P. Gupta who later took up these cases had noted such marks around wounds of both the brothers.Now remains the main aspect of this argument, i.e., the distances from which the shots were fired.The oral evidence about the main incident has already been noticed at length.In view of that evidence which we have already found to be credible and trustworthy we are unable to place much reliance on the site plan Ex. PW-15/A, so far as the distance indicated in it are concerned.These distances are being counted on the basis of positions of different persons shown on the site plan.These positions are based on estimations.They can never be precise.Moreover the draftsman was not cross-examined with reference to the position of various persons shown on the site plan and the distances which can be worked out from the scale used for preparing the site plan.The thrust of the argument on behalf of accused persons is that the shots were fired from distances much longer than required for purposes of leaving behind such blackening, charring and tattooing marks.The prosecution case is that the shots were fired from a very close range and, therefore, such marks were found on the victims wounds.It will be recalled that when the scuffle started there was grappling between persons involved.Within one and half to two minutes the firing started.The shots were fired successively one after the other.All the eye witnesses have stated that accused Ajay fired all the six bullets from one place but while firing the bullets, he moved one or two paces forward or backward.No question was put in cross-examination to PW-1 and PW-3, i.e., Naval and Ashok who are the injured witnesses about the distance from which the shots were fired.Only PW-5 Rakesh Kapoor was cross-examined about the distance and he replied that it could be five or six feet.This we feel is purely based on estimation and Rakesh Kapoor is not correct while mentioning the distance as 5/6 feet.The firing took place when grappling was still going on.Therefore, Mukesh got both the shots from a very close range which could be even two inches and that is why he had charring and tattooing around his wounds as mentioned by Dr. S.D. Gupta and Dr. S.P. Gupta.So far as Ashok is concerned, there was tattooing, which could be from upto a distance of two feet between the end of the muzzle and the target.The first bullet which Mukesh received could be from a distance of even two inches between the end of the muzzle and the revolver and the injury.This fact is corroborated by another fact that blood of group 'A' was found on the trousers of Ajay.This establishes the closeness between the two during the firing.The signs of charring on the wounds of Mukesh could have disappeared during the course of efforts to stop bleeding as already observed.This is in substance the argument regarding alleged conflict between the expert evidence and the prosecution case.In order to satisfy ourselves we have discussed this aspect above and we find that the learned Counsel for the appellants have failed to make out a case of conflict between the expert evidence and the prosecution case in this behalf.We would like to note here that it is settled law that if the eye witness account of an incident is found to be satisfactory, trustworthy, reliable and natural, the expert medical opinion or the opinion of the Ballistic Expert cannot override such evidence of eye witnesses.In AIR 1993 SC 1233, it was also observed that the expert evidence is most of the time based on hypothetical facts.The experts give their opinion on the basis of hypotheses.Direct evidence of eye witnesses was available.Inconsistency relating to distance from which shots were fired as per the medical expert and the eye witness account was found to be no consequence.In State of U.P. Vs.Krishnagopal, , it was observed: "It is trite that where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice".From the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court the law on this aspect appears to be well settled.The rival businesses are owned by accused Sudhir along with his partner on the one hand (run at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar).On the other hand the rival business was owned by Naval, Ashok and Mukesh in shop No. 33, Palika Bazar, New Delhi.Shops No. 4 and 33 are located opposite each other.(B) Accused Narinder etc. were directly involved in the incident.Somebody was needed to organise the matters from behind the curtain.Sudhir was to perform this role.This shows the closeness between all the accused.(D) There is also sufficient cogent and reliable evidence to show that accused Ajay used to supply jewellery to Sudhir at his counter at shop No. 9 and there after at shop No. 4, Palika Bazar.In fact in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Ajay stated that on the fateful day he had gone to supply jewellery to Sudhir in a thaila (bag).All the eye witnesses of the incident have referred to the close association between all the accused persons and their being seen drinking liquor together.We may note here that Narinder and Mahinder tried to disassociate themselves from shop No. 9 by showing that they had no connection with the same.In fact the complaint of accused Narinder to the police dated 1st October 1982 (Ex. PW-9/A) which is much prior to the incident contains admission on the part of Narinder of being owner of shop No. 9 alongwith Mahinder etc. Another proof of association between accused Ajay and accused Sudhir has emerged from the evidence on record showing that both were students of the same college i.e., DAV College Srinivaspuri, New Delhi during the same period.In fact in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both accused admitted being students of the DAV College during same period.(E) Next important point is accused Narinder used to sit at shop No. 4 of Sudhir and used to entice away customers from the shop of Naval to the shop of Sudhir.PW-1, PW-3, PW-21 have particularly mentioned about this fact in their depositions.The same is Ex. PW-1/DD.In this Naval has stated about this fact.(F) When the rival parties were called at the police station on 6th October, 1982 in the afternoon alongwith Narinder and Mahinder Sudhir was also present before the SHO.The enquiry report is Ex. PW-19/B while the SHO's note is Ex. PW-19/C. The SHO in his own hand has noted the presence of the three accused, i.e., Sudhir, Narinder and Mahinder.It is interesting to note that these accused denied the fact that they had gone to the police station on 6th October, 1982 in the afternoon and appeared before the SHO.In fact before the SHO also, Sudhir was not called and he had gone on his own.The presence of Sudhir before the SHO, has been categorically mentioned by PW-1 and PW-21 in their statements in Court.These facts lead to following inferences:(1) It was only Sudhir who was to gain from customers being enticed away to his shop from the shop of the complainant party by accused Narinder.(2) At least on 4th October, 1982 and 6th October, 1982, Sudhir's presence in connection with enquiry about Narinder's complaint dated 1st October, 1982 is established.It is significant to note that Sudhir was present on both the occasions without being specifically called or summoned by the police.Sudhir's personal interest in the on going conflict between Narinder and Naval is established.(a) Proceedings before the SHO in which there is evidence that Narinder etc. had got enraged and they calmed down only when the SHO threatened to arrest all of them.(b) When the parties came out of the police station, Sudhir and Narinder were heard saying "IN POLICE WALON NE KUCHH NAHIN KARNA, AB HAMEN KHUD HI NIBTANA PAREGA".(These police people will not do anything.We will have to sort out this thing ourselves).The learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons argued that the proceedings before the SHO show that the matter was being compromised, which means they were satisfied.Therefore why should the accused make such a statement imputed to them by PW-1 and PW-21 ? A simple answer to this is that they were not satisfied with the compromise.Before the SHO also they were enraged and they calmed down only when they were threatened with arrest.They got the proceedings before the SHO adjourned on the pretext of absence of Ashok on that date before the SHO.(c) On the day of the occurrence all the five accused persons were seen outside Sudhir's shop No. 4 at 6.15 p.m.(d) Sudhir closed his shop early on that day at about 6.45 p.m.(e) The arrival of two ACPs at the spot within fifteen minutes of the incident and their role in guiding the investigation in particular direction shows that somebody was working behind the scene.He was Sudhir.We have already held that these facts stand established.All these facts clearly bring out the involvement of accused Sudhir in the entire incident.From the evidence on record Sudhir emerges as the kingpin in this case.The agreement to commit an offence can clearly be deduced from the fact that the accused persons came out of the police station totally dissatisfied, disgruntled dejected and frustrated on 6th October, 1982 and accused Sudhir and Narinder were heard saying "IN POLICE WALON NE KUCHH NAHIN KARNA, AB HAMEN KHUD HI NABTANA PAREGA." (The police will not do anything.We will have to sort out the matter ourselves).This is the decision of both the accused to take law in their own hands and settle scores with the opposite party on their own.The agreement to commit an offence can clearly be inferred from the statement.This is followed by all the accused being seen together outside shop No. 4, Palika Bazar of accused Sudhir at 6.15 p.m. This again is a clear manifestation of the agreement between all the accused persons to commit offence.What started with the utterance outside the police station got a concrete shape with other accused joining hands.Secondly, the presence of the two senior police officers, i.e., ACP A.L. Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh on the spot within 10-15 minutes of the occurrence shows that there was somebody who was trying to organise the matter after the crime for the accused persons.These ACPs as per the evidence of the other police officers were interfering in the proceedings in the investigation of the case.They tried to manipulate the statements in a manner so as to leave scope for accused Sudhir to remain clean.They insisted that statements of witnesses should be recorded only to the extent that they were referring to the main incident of that night.They did not allow the statements regarding background facts to come on record.If all of them had got involved in the incident, there would be nobody left to organise the matter from behind the curtain.Point No. 9They would have been properly armed.The main blows were the gun shot injuries.Ajay was their old friend and all of them used to be together and take liquor together.Narinder etc. had developed a long standing enmity with the complainant party.Narinder was particularly hurt on account of the incident dated 1st October, 1982 in which he had been beaten by Naval in the presence of his wife and child in a public place, i.e., the Palika Bazar market.All the accused came together from one direction at 7.45 p.m. to the shop of the complainant party and started the quarrel.All the accused launched the attack together and started beating the three brothers belonging to the complainant party.Ajay fired six shots from his revolver following the exhortation.All the accused ran away from the place of occurrence together.After covering some distance they escaped.These factors clearly make out a case for invocation of Section 34 IPC and we are of the view that the Trial Court rightly convicted accused Narinder and Mahinder invoking Section 34, IPC for offences of murder of Mukesh and attempt to murder Ashok and Naval.Point No. 10In the present case it is not difficult to find the motive for the crime.Motive is the previous enmity between the two groups.The root cause of the enmity was the business rivalry between Sudhir and Naval.It was for this reason that Narinder had been quarreling with Naval etc. since long.The best evidence for previous enmity is available from an admitted document which is Narinder's own complaint to police Ex. PW-9/A. In this complaint Narinder has made a grievance about many previous instances of conflict between Narinder and party and between Naval's party.The statement of Naval (Ex. PW 1/DD) recorded on 3rd October, 1982 in pursuance of an enquiry pursuant to the complaint gives a clear picture of the previous enmity between two sides.Further the accused brought on record their own telegrams sent to the DCP, Connaught Place, New Delhi and the SHO, Police Station, Connaught Place after the incident in which they stated that ue to enmity with the complainant party they had been falsely implicated in the case and they wanted to surrender to the police.Narinder and party were not at all happy with what the police was trying, to do.Absence of Ashok provided them an excuse to get the matter adjourned to another date.The next date was fixed on the next day itself.Thus the accused party got a short adjournment and were left with only the evening of 6th October, 1982 to do whatever they wanted to do on their own and that is why they got together soon after coming out of the police station; planned their next move and executed the same that very evening.This explains why the plan/the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons was executed on the evening of 6th October, 1982 itself.From this discussion it follows that the matter did not stand settled between the rival groups with the intervention of the SHO, Police Station, Connaught Place.The extent of dissatisfaction about the meeting with the SHO at the police station on 6th October, 1982 at about 4.00 p.m. is further evidenced by the fact that accused Narinder, Mahinder as well as Sudhir even denied having visited the police station on that day and that hour.When these accused deny even having visited the police station, where is the question of any amicable settlement arrived at between the parties at the police station? This much is on motive.Point No. 11Miscellaneous points raised on behalf of the Appellants.The argument is that neither the daily diary of the Police Control Room (PCR) was produced to prove the relevant entry therein nor the daily diary entry regarding recording of substance of the FIR was produced from Police Station, Connaught Place.Regarding the PCR daily diary, the learne Counsel for the State explained that the PCR records are destroyed within two years as per rules.He referred to Ex. PW-38/1 to shows the order regarding destruction of records and Ex PW-38/2 the certificate regarding destruction of records of PCR.This entry notes receipt of information through PCR at 8.05 p.m. The telephonic message received from the PCR at Police Station, Connaught Place gives information regarding the shooting having taken place in Palika Bazar.Regarding, the DD entry for purposes of recording substance of the FIR, PW-22 Mehak Singh stated that the concerned daily diary had been destroyed.Of course this could be said to be a lapse on the part of the prosecution but this type of a lapse cannot be allowed to prejudices the prosecution case on merits.Further it is to be noted that the daily diaries are not case properties.Case properties are the articles subject matter of the case like the weapon of offence, clothes of the victims of the crime or the accused etc. etc. These are generally articles used in connection with the crime.The daily diaries maintained by the police are not, therefore, case properties as such.(ii) Clothes of Gobind Ram not taken into possession Gobind Ram had stated that he had received blood stains on his clothes.This happened while he was helping his injured sons to the car to take them to the hospital.Gobind Ram stayed in the hospital till about 4.00 or 5.00 a.m. as per his own statement.He continued to wear the same clothes all along.He was asked this question as to why his clothes were not taken into possession by the police? His reply was that nobody asked for his clothes and, therefore, he continued to wear them till he went home in the morning of 7th October.1982 and changed his clothes.At best this could be termed as a fault of the I.O. but nothing turns on it.Mukesh's post mortem was conducted on the 7th October in the afternoon while Naval's T-shirt had been taken into possession on the night between 6th and 7th October.Thus Mukesh's blood could not come on Naval's T-shirt nor it could be planted thereon.The blood of Mukesh which was handed over to the police after the post mortem could not be examined because it had got putrefied by then.(iv) No injury found on Mukesh which could be imputed to danda blow.The answer to this is that as per the evidence on record Mukesh was covered by Ashok for purposes of protection and, therefore, he did not receive any danda blows.(v) Delay in sending articles to the CFSL.All the articles were properly sealed and the seals were found to be intact.Two bullets extracted from the body of Mukesh by Dr. Ramani who conducted the post mortem were duly sealed and handed over to constable Ram Singh who in turn handed over the same to SI Gurdeep Singh vide seizures memo Ex. PW-25/A. Both the bullets in sealed cover were deposited in sealed cover in the Malkhana.The bullet recovered from the body of Ashok was sealed with the seal of Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and was handed over to inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta who deposited the same in the Malkhana that very night.The fourth bullet from near the pillar from shop No. 34 was sealed with the seal of S.I. Gurdeep Singh and deposited in the Malkhana that very night.The revolver taken into possession by S.I. Gurdeep Singh was sealed then and there and duly deposited in the Malkhana.This witness stated that all the goods remained intact and untempered till they were in the Malkhana.These articles in sealed condition were sent to the CFSL on 16th October 1982 through PW-28 S.I. Om Parkash.The seals were checked in the CFSL and were found intact as per the CFSL report Ex. PW-18/A. The seals also tallied with the specimen seals.In the face of this evidence the argument suggesting tempering with the seized articles has no merit nor can we subscribe to the argument that there was unreasonable delay in sending the articles to CFSL.Unfair Investigation.Both the parties have made allegations regarding unfair investigations.The complainant party, i.e., Naval etc. alleged that the initial investigation started by S.I. Gurdeep Singh was tempered and controlled by the ACPs, i.e. ACP A.L. Chadha and ACP Narinder Singh who had arrived at the spot within 10-15 minutes of the occurrence and who were directing the investigation in a particular manner.To substantiate this allegation it was alleged that as per the direction of the ACPs, the I.O. was not prepared to record any background incident or fact and insisted on noting only the facts about the main incident which occurred that night.Further it was alleged that he was right from the beginning shielding accused Sudhir Jain and that is why inspite of several things mentioned against him in the FIR he had not been interrogated by the police.Thirdly the delay in arrests of the accused persons is urged as a ground by Naval etc. to show unfair investigation.The evidence on record including that of the police officers on the spot on the night of the incident clearly establishes the arrival of the two ACPs within 10-15 minutes of the incident on the spot.This was not without any meaning or purpose.In fact it is shown that ACP Narinder Singh who also arrived at the spot on that day was posted as ACP in the Delhi Armed Police.He had no reason to be present on the spot.All the same he was present and the two ACPs remained on the spot for sufficiently long time.On the contrary the accused party alleged unfair investigation by stating that the investigation was being guided by a senior and well-known Counsel who also took upon to be the Special Public Prosecutor in this case at a token fee.The accused party also tried to show that some senior police officer in the Crime Branch tried to help the complainant party in the matter of investigation but these were mere suggestion put in the cross-examination of a couple of a prosecution witnesses which the witnesses denied.There is nothing beyond this on this aspect.We have noted the allegations and counter allegations about the investigation but we would like to leave them alone here.We would prefer to confine to the material on record rather than get bogged down in such allegations.The evidence on record has been found to be very clear, cogent, reliable, trust worth and convincing and we feel it safe to rely on the same for purposes of arriving, at our conclusions.Point No. 13In fact S.I. Gurdeep Singh along with other police officers were already present in connection with some other enquiry and as soon as he heard the sound of gun shots, he rushed towards the place from where the sound had come and found Naval standing at the back of accused Ajay and holding into him by putting his arms around him tightly.Ajiay was apprehended then and there and a revolver was seized from him.Thereafter Naval was first interrogated and the recording of his statement started at 8.15 p.m. The statement (Rukka) was despatched by S.I. Gurdeep Singh to the police station at 9.05 p.m. for registration of the FIR.At 9.15 p.m. the FIR was registered at the Police Station.Connaught Place.In these facts the argument about delay in registering FIR is not at all tenable.S.I. Gurdeep Singh has stated as PW-35 "I also continued making verbal enquiries from Naval Kishore till the start of his statement at about 8.15 p.m." Further he has stated that the statement was completed at 9.05 p.m. and endorsement on the Rukka shows that it was despatched at 9.05 p.m. for registration of the FIR.Naval was sent for medical examination at 11.30 p.m. that very night.Till that time the I.O. was effecting various recoveries and preparing recovery memos.The recovery memos are signed by Naval.There are at least 14 recovery memos.All these must have taken time.About the despatch of the FIR to the Area Magistrate the following facts are to be noted:PW-26 Kartar Singh stated that the FIR was registered at 9.15 p.m. He prepared three copies for delivery to three persons.Two copies were delivered that very night.The third copy could not be delivered that night because the house of the Area Magistrate could not be located by the delivery constable.He returned at 3.15 a.m. PW-23 Constable Risal Singh stated that on 7th October, 1982 he was posted as a constable in Police Station, Connaught Place.Shri Jaswant Singh was the Ilaqua Magistrate.Risal Singh was the Niab Court of Shri Jaswant Singh.He further stated that on 7th October, 1982 he had gone to the Police Station, Connnaught Place at about 8.00 a.m. The Duty Officer had given him at that time a copy of the FIR No. 918/92 (FIR in this case) after taking the same from Constable Kartar Singh.He further stated that the same could not be delivered to the Ilaqua Magistrate because Constable Kartar Singh could not locate his house that night.He brought the copy of the FIR to Patiala House Courts and presented the same to Shri Jaswant Singh, the Ilaqua Magistrate.This witness was not cross examined by Counsel for accused Sudhir Jain on this point.He stated in cross examination on behalf of another accused that Kartar Singh was present in the police station when the special report was given by the Duty Officer to him for delivery to the Ilaqua Magistrate.He further stated in cross-examination that the FIR was inside an envelop which had been handed over to him by the Duty Officer and he handed over the envelop to Shri Jaswant Singht, the Magistrate, in Court and in his presence the Magistrate opened the envelop and made an endorsement on the FIR.He also stated that the envelop was handed over by him to the Magistrate at about 9.30 or 9.45 A.M. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence.Thus through cross-examination all the relevant facts have been brought on record.A suggestion was put in cross-examination of Risal Singh that the envelop which was handed over to him by the Duty Officer for delivery to the Magistrate was empty.To say the least, this was a preposterous suggestion.There was no reason that the police officers should try to withhold the special report.Strangely the learned Counsel for the appellants did not advance any argument that the special report purportedly was not sent to the Ilaqua Magistrate nor the usual argument was raised that in order to make improvements or embellishments the copy of the FIR was withheld.The argument was mainly about non-compliance of Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code.On this Ashok gave the reply in an abusive manner.Mukesh in the mean while came out of his shop alongwith a revolver.(3) Ashok caught hold of hand of Mukesh in which he was having a revolver and started twisting and bending the same in order to ensure that the revolver is released but could not succeed.During this scuffle Mukesh gave a teeth bite on the body of Ajay.Ashok rushed towards Govind Ram.Govind Ram had a Webley Scot revolver with him and on asking of Ashok Govind Ram took out his revolver.Ashok told Govind Ram that Ajay would snatch the revolver from Mukesh and would kill him, therefore Govind Ram should fire quickly (Hurry up) Govind Ram took out his revolver and fired twice.The shots hit Mukesh.Govind Ram was about to fire the third builet when Ashok pushed him saying "Babuji what are you doing.The bullet had hit Mukesh".(5) During the struggle between Ajay and Mukesh two shots from Mukesh's revolver went off and hit Ashok who was standing near shop No. 33 at that time.(7) Govind Ram ran away from the spot alongwith his revolver in order to conceal the same somewhere.(8) Police removed the injured Ashok and Mukesh to the hospital.Govind Ram after hiding his revolver reached the hospital at the time when Ashok and Mukesh were being admitted to the hospital.Before adjusting the same as false we may note that earlier when this case on behalf of Ajay was put across by way of cross-examination by prosecution witnesses it was the stand on behalf of Ajay that two shots went off from the revolver of Mukesh.In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Ajay changed his stand from "two shots" to "some more shots".This charge in the stand became necessary in view of the opinion of Ballistic Expert that in the revolver Ex.11 (which according to Ajay was the revolver of Mukesh) six empty cartridges were found in its chamber and all had been fired through.The above defense of Ajay is completely knocked off in view of the following facts:In the MLC of Mukesh and Ashok the time of arrival of patients is shown as 8.15 p.m. Both Ashok and Mukesh were shown to have been brought by their father, i.e. Govind Ram.If Govind Ram had run away from the spot to conceal his revolver and he had not removed Ashok and Mukesh to Hospital how could he reach the hospital just at the appropriate time when Ashok and Mukesh were being admitted.Govind Ram would not even know the name of the hospital to which his two sons were taken there being several hospitals in Delhi.He could not guess to which hospital he should go.From this it follows that Govind Ram must have taken his two sons to the hospital.Apart from the evidence of the eye witnesses the evidence of police officers also is to the effect that Govind Ram had taken his two sons to the hospital.He never went away alone anywhere much less to conceal his revolver Govind Ram is alleged to have fired two shots in the first instance and both hit Mukesh.If his first shot had hit Mukesh, i.e. his own son he would not have ventured to fire another shot in the same direction in order to avoid the risk of hitting Mukesh again.Two shots which allegedly went off from the revolver of Mukesh could not have hit Ashok.In the course of scuffle and grappling which was going on between Ajay and Mukesh there was no possibility of a perfect aim towards Ashok.Govind Ram stated that he had got blood on his clothes and this must have come when he helped his two sons to take them to the hospital.Assuming that Govind Ram had fired shots which hit Mukesh Govind Ram would not first think of concealing his revolver.He would first try to assist Mukesh and rush him to the hospital to save his life.Mere refusal to supply jewellery would be no reason for Ashok and Mukesh to kill Ajay.Distance between shops No.3 and 4 and shop No.33 which are opposite each other is at least 20 feet.As per the Ballistic Expert and the medical opinion a shot fired from a distance of about 15 to 20 feet could not leave charring and tattooing marks around the injuries of Mukesh or Ashok.As per medical evidence these marks were present on Mukesh and Ashok.Revolver Ex.P-11 could not be that of Mukesh.It had six empty cartridges and had been freshly fired through.As per the case of Ajay only two shots had gone off from the said revolver.It was later on when realising this difficulty in his case Ajay added that some more shots were fired from that revolver.If more bullets were fired from this revolver, at least some of them would have been found from the spot.As per evidence none was found.Planting of Mukesh's revolver in the hands of Ajay would even otherwise be not possible in the presence of so many policemen and the two ACPs.Ajay had been apprehended at a distance from the place of occurrence.Police found Naval holding Ajay in his arms in a tight grip.It is nobody's case that police had first gone where the incident had taken place or where Mukesh fell.How could the police carry Mukesh's revolver with them and plant it on Ajay at the time of his apprehension and arrest? Was the police interested party? Was there pre-planning involving the police? Rather it is in evidence that after the arrest of Ajay, Naval had taken S.I. Gurdeep Singh and party to the spot where the incident had taken place.Therefore, the question of Mukesh's revolver coming into the hands of the police or Naval for being planted on Ajay could not arise.Thus Ajay's defense is demonstrated to be palpably false.Then there are certain wholly untenable denials on the part of other accused.Accused Sudhir denied having known Ajay earlier and also stated that he had no business dealings with Ajay.Both of these have been found to be totally false.Accused Sudhir also denied having any friendly relation with Narinder, Mahinder and Rajinder.This also has already been demonstrated to be false.Narinder denied having any friendly relations with Sudhir.Apart from other facts, it is Narinder's own complaint to the police, Ex. PW-9/A in which he stated that he was going to attend birthday party hosted by Sudhir along, with his wife and child on the date of the incident subject matter of the said complaint.Sudhir also denied having accompanied Narinder to the police station on 6th October, 1982 at 4.00 p.m. The record of the proceedings by the SHO on the date shows vide Ex. PW-19/C that Sudhir was present in the police station.Besides these facts there is so much evidence on record to show that accused were on friendly terms with each other and used to take liquor with each other in shops No. 4 as well as No.9, Palika Bazar.Evidence shows that both accused Ajay and Sudhir were students of DAV College during the same period.PW-12 Mohan Lal, Principal DAV College has proved that both Ajay and Sudhir were the students of the college.Sudhir was one year senior to Ajay.Similarly business dealings between Sudhir and Ajay are established from Ajay's own reply in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. which has been referred to by us earlier.Accused Sudhir earlier used to work at the counter of shop No. 9 where Narinder, Mahinder etc. were working, a fact also found by us to be established on record.Denial of their involvement in the main incident of 6th October, 1982 by accused Narinder, Mahinder has also found to be totally false by us.Accused Narinder etc. had showed ignorance about Sudhir running his business at shop No.4 and dealing in precious stones and jewellery.This ignorance is completely falsified by the evidence on record.This fact even Sudhir has accepted in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.Narinder and Mahinder even denied running business of art printing, at shop No.9, Palika Bazar.The reply by way of denial under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is vague.In the reply they added that Duli Chand ran this shop.It is to be seen that Duli Chand was an allottee of that shop while evidence has shown that business was run by these persons in that shop.These are some of the examples of the false stand taken up by the accused persons on various aspects.We believe that the eye witness account of the main incident.Before reaching the conclusion we have satisfied ourselves by cross checking the version of the incident as given by each eye witness.The cross check coupled with the corroborative evidence of the police witnesses and the expert evidence leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the prosecution case stands proved beyond any doubt and there is no hypothesis suggesting innocence of any of the accused.The result of the above discussion is that we find no merit in any of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants in these appeals.We are unable to find any thing against the findings of the Trial Court contained in the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 1996 convicting all the accused persons.All the appeals are dismissed subject to what remains to be said about the sentences awarded by the Trial Court to the appellants.Point No. 14This shows that the trial lasted about fourteen years.Accused Ajay has remained in custody almost throughout, which means that he has already undergone incarceration for about fifteen years.Without going into the question as to who was responsible for the delay in trial, the fact remains that the accused remained in custody for such a long period.For this reason the death sentence awarded to accused Ajay is converted into the sentence for life imprisonment. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,793,966 | Pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 17.11.2014, neitherhas any case been registered nor an investigation conducted.Hence, thepetitioner has preferred the present petition, seeking a direction toregister the case.C.T.SELVAM, J.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents.3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that based onthe complaint of the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.69 of2015 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. r/w109 I.P.C. on the file of the second respondent police.4.Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the Criminal Original Petition stands closed.28.01.2015Index : Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NosjTo1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.CRL.O.P.(MD)No.23562 of 2014 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
156,798,668 | 2. Facts, briefly stated, are thus :-Prosecutrix was resident of Savitribai Fule Nagar Zopadpatti (hutments) at Nagpur.Her husband had deserted her as he had left home and did not return.Her mother-in-law was residing with her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::During the intervening night of 27/08/1991 and 28/08/1991, at about 1.00 a.m., the appellants had entered in the house of the prosecutrix and wielding knife, they had threatened to kill the prosecutrix and one after the other, committed rape upon her and left the house.The prosecutrix lodged complaint (Ex.40) at Police Station, Ajni in the morning.F.I.R. No. 356 of 1991 was recorded against both the accused.Statements of witnesses including children of the prosecutrix were recorded.The spot panchnama was drawn.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::The Appeal is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 04/04/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.490 of 1992, whereby the respondent/accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 448, 506 (II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code and each were sentenced to suffer R/I. for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo further R/I. for six months for the offence of gang rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code; R/I. for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo R/I. for one month for the offence of Criminal trespass punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and R/I. for two years each and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo R/I. for one month for the offence of Criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.The accused were arrested and their clothes as well as knife - weapon of offence - were also recovered.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur.Charge was framed under Sections 376 (2) (g) , 448, 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution.No defence evidence was led.Prosecutrix Manorama (PW-1) deposed about the incident of rape.Her evidence indicates that, after her husband left them, she, along with her mother-in-law and her two daughters and a son, were residing together.The prosecutrix knew the accused as they were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 5 residing in the same locality.On the night of the incident, while Manorama was sleeping with her children and her mother-in-law in the house, the accused entered in the house.Accused Dinesh came first and threatened the prosecutrix by putting knife at her neck and started outraging her modesty.He, after removing his clothes, raped the prosecutrix.Accused Rajkumar had also come and at the touch of a knife, he outraged the modesty of the victim.When the prosecutrix shouted, he ran away.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the Investigating Officer did not record statement of neighbourers of the prosecutrix for to get corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix and, therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the trial Court against the prosecution.It is further submitted that the incident occurred in a hut which was latched from inside and therefore, the prosecution story that the accused entered inside the hut is not probable.Her son and daughter though examined, did not support as far as the manner of incident stated by the prosecutrix is concerned.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has deposed about the incident after a period of six years from the date of incident and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 6 therefore, the story narrated by her ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court.Presence of abrasion on the arm of the prosecutrix could not have been considered as an incriminating evidence for proving the offence of commission of rape.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::The Learned A.P.P. supported the impugned Judgment and order on the ground that none of the submissions can help the appellants as there was no any fatal defect in the case of the prosecution.It was a case of trespass and rape upon helpless victim during the midnight hours.The prosecutrix was the only natural and best witness to depose as to what had happened with her and there was sufficient corroborative evidence to support her version.Regarding submission as to delay in lodging the F.I.R., It may not always be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 7 significant for the prosecutrix and her family to lodge the F.I.R. There is another argument as to why the prosecutrix did not raise shouts.In a given situation, when knife was pointed out, such incident, when happens, becomes a matter of shame.They are in unpleasant situation, therefore, the victim is reluctant to approach the police station and to report the incident to police.In a given case, it can not be disputed that the testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon even without corroboration provided that it inspires confidence in the judicial mind.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::Prosecutrix was cross-examined at length.She answered all the questions, though put in by the defence with a view to impeach her character.Sudarshan, her son was hardly 11 years at the time of the incident, but it came in his evidence that the accused were sleeping on the person of his Mother.Sudarshan had also visited the police station along with his mother.According to him, his mother was about to commit suicide, but after he gave her understanding, they came to the police station and lodged the report.Daughter of the prosecutrix was also examined.The prosecutrix was raped at the point of knife.The criticism that the door of the hut was closed from inside when the incident happened is explained from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix that the door of the hut was made of tin and, therefore, opening of such door from outside was not improbable.The prosecutrix and her family ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 8 members were not allowed to shout as the prosecutrix was put in fear of knife.Medical evidence as deposed by Dr. Mrs. Shirpurkar indicates that the sexual intercourse was possible.The medical evidence has corroborated the case of the prosecutrix.Injury to the hand of the prosecutrix is corroborative of the version of the prosecutrix that she resisted the sexual aggression at the time of the incident.Sudarshan stated that the accused before the Court were the same accused who were sleeping on the person of his mother.According to Sudarshan, his mother was thinking to commit suicide, but, after persuasion by him and his grandmother, his mother desisted and then they went to the police station.The evidence of the son and daughter of the prosecutrix supported the evidence of the prosecutrix.Children Sudarshan and Shilpa, aged 11 years and 7 years respectively may not have intellectual capacity to know that their mother was raped, but their evidence do broadly disclose as to what had happened.According to Sudarshan, police had made an inquiry with his mother and whatever his mother told, the police had reduced it into writing.PSI Salunke deposed that he had recorded the F.I.R. (Ex 42).No woman residing with her children and aged mother-in-law would implicate herself in the unpleasant incident of rape to take revenge upon the accused.Moreover, during medical examination of the victim, fresh abrasion was found on the hand ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 9 of the prosecutrix, blood stains were observed on medial aspect of both thighs and pubic hairs were seen matted.On internal examination of the prosecutrix, the blood stains discharge was seen out of her opening of uterus, which appeared antiverted of normal size, firm, mobile and non-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::tender indicative of the possibility of sexual intercourse.Medical evidence, as deposed by Dr.Mrs.Shirpurkar reveals that the said Medical officer had recorded history of rape at midnight.There was no reason for the Medical Officer to depose falsely.The report from forensic Science laboratory mentioned that the semen stains were observed on jangya (underwear) and saree of the prosecutrix.According to the evidence of PSI Salunke, the weapon of offence - knife and Gupti were recovered after arrest of the accused under the Panchnamas (Exhs. 71 and 72).Learned Advocate for the Appellants contended that the prosecutrix was not supported in her evidence as daughter of the prosecutrix Shilpa (PW-3) and panch witnesses Prabhakar (PW-4) and Milind (PW-5) were declared hostile on the ground that they did not support the prosecution story.This submission is not convincing as even evidence of a hostile witness may be looked into and carefully scrutinized to accept dependable portion thereof to the extent it has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: 10 supported the prosecution case instead of enblock rejection thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::Both the Appellants, who had entered into the hut of the prosecutrix to rape her by putting her under the fear of weapons, were rightly held guilty and punished.Hence, no interference is called for.The instant Criminal appeals are, therefore, dismissed.JUDGE At the stage of pronouncement of the Judgment, the learned Advocate for the appellants submits that both the appellants are on bail and they intend to challenge the order.The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer, so made.Since the appellants are on bail, they are permitted to surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.JUDGE jaiswal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:22:41 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
1,568,108 | The case of the prosecution, shorn of unnecessary details, could be stated thus : Accused 1 to 3 are brothers and they are sons of one Chinnasamy.P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased Subramani.P.Ws.3 and 4 are their sons and P.W.6 is their daughter.The deceased Subramani was having a brick chamber.The deceased used to store fire wood at the brick chamber.P.W.1 Selvam, P.W.2, Anusuya and one Mala are the employees of the deceased for the purpose of preparation of soil to be used for the manufacture of brick.They all belong to Idayankulam village near Kamavanpettai.P.W.5 Pushpa's father Narayanan was murdered by Chinnasamy, the father of the accused.On 09.06.1999 P.W.1 Selvam came to the chamber by 03.00 am for preparing the soil to be used for manufacturing brick.By 05.00 am, P.W.2 Anusuya and Mala joined with P.W.1 in the preparation of soil.The deceased Subramani was also there.At that time the first accused came through the eastern side of the brick chamber.On seeing the first accused, Subramani tried to escape from the place through the western side, but accused 2 and 3 came from the western side and all the accused surrounded him.The third accused made a heavy blow on the head of the deceased and accused 1 and 2 also joined him in attacking the deceased on his head.The deceased fell down.On seeing this, P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased which is situated nearby and informed P.W.5, the wife of the deceased and their children.Immediately, P.W.5 accompanied by her children, P.Ws.3, 4 and 6, came to scene of occurrence and on seeing them, the second accused assaulted P.Ws.3 and 4; the third accused assaulted P.W.3 and the first accused assaulted P.W.6 with sticks they had in their hands.The accused ran away from the place of occurrence.On information, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.22 reached the place of occurrence and obtained statement, Ex.He came back to the police station and registered a case in crime No.356/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The printed first information report is Ex.P.22 which was sent to Court and to higher officials for investigation.P.W.23, the investigating officer took up investigation in the case and rushed to the scene of occurrence, where he made an inspection of the scene and prepared Ex.P.11, observation mahazar and seized blood stained and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He also drew rough sketch, Ex.He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Subramani and prepared Ex.P.23 report.He further enquired P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.Following the same the dead body was sent for postmortem with the requisition, Ex.6. P.W.13, Dr.P.3, postmortem certificate.P.W.23 further examined the witnesses Mala, Lakshmi, Saraswathi and recorded their statements.He also visited the Government Hospital and enquired P.W.5, Pushpa and recorded her statement He enquired the doctors who treated them and obtained Exs.P.5 to 7 accident registers in respect of their injuries.On 10.06.1999 at 10.00 am he arrested all the accused near Kaniambadi bus stand.All the accused gave confession statements in the presence of witnesses, the admissible portions of which are marked as Exs.The third accused was found injured and he was sent for treatment to the Government Hospital and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.The material objects seized under mahazars were sent to Court.The properties were sent to the Forensic Department through Ex.P.18, covering letter of the Court and the reports received are Exs.The learned Sessions Judge is directed to secure the custody of the appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore, Vellore District.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore dated 26.03.2004 made in Sessions Case No.127 of 2000, the appellants have filed this appeal.Before the trial Court, accused 1 and 3 were charged under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused was charged under sections 302 and 307(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code.The trial Court found all the accused guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months.Accused 1 to 3 were acquitted of the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.Instead, accused 1 and 3 were convicted for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the second accused was convicted for the offence under section 324 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The second accused was sentenced to undergo a similar sentence for each count.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the final report in Court against the accused.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and marked 28 exhibits and eight material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied them as false.No witness was examined on the side of the accused.After completion of the evidence and arguments on either side, the trial Court, on considering the arguments and upon perusing the materials available on record, found that the prosecution has proved the charges against all the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above.In so far as P.W.1 is concerned, he is the author of the complaint, but the circumstances point out that P.W.1 could not have been present at the place of occurrence.According to P.W.1, he witnessed the occurrence and immediately he left for his house and he came to the place only after P.W.22 came to the scene of occurrence, who enquired him and got Ex.The conduct of P.W.1, who was employed under the deceased, was not natural and this would go to show that he could not have been in the place and his services could have been taken by the police subsequently for getting Ex.P.1 report from him.There is discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 regarding the place of attack on the deceased and therefore, P.W.1 could not have seen the occurrence.In the instant case, the first information report, as claimed by the prosecution, came into existence at 08.15 am at the police station and reached the Court at 07.00 pm.The place of occurrence is situated 22 kms away from the police station, but the police station and the Judicial Magistrate's Court are situated in the same compound.P.W.1 went to the place of occurrence and took Ex.P.1 report at 07.30 am, and the case was registered at 08.15 am.If to be so, the delay in the first information report reaching the Court at 07.00 pm when the Court is situated in the same compound, is not explained and this would be indicative of the fact that the first information report now before the Court was an embellished version and developed one.According to the prosecution, all the accused came to the place of occurrence armed with sticks, but the evidence would show that they took the fire wood, which was available at the place of occurrence.In the instant case, the third accused also is shown to have sustained injuries, that too on the vital part, i.e., on the head, which was treated by P.W.16, the doctor and Ex.P.10 accident register has been marked in this regard.If to be so, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to explain as to how the injury was sustained by the accused in the course of the same transaction.No injured witness has spoken about the injury sustained by the third accused on his vital part, which is fatal to the prosecution case.Learned counsel would further add that the prosecution relied on and the lower Court also accepted that all the three accused were arrested on 10.06.1999 and pursuant to the confession statements given by them, the weapons of crime were also recovered.The doctor's certificate, Ex.P.10, which was given for the injuries sustained by the third accused would clearly show that the third accused was medically examined by the doctor on 09.06.1999, but he was arrested and put behind the bars on 10.06.1999 and this would destroy the alleged arrest and confession and the consequential recovery of the weapons of offence.The prosecution did not come with the true version with regard to the place of occurrence with acceptable evidence and also the non explanation of the injury on the third accused would all go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants/accused are entitled for an acquitted at the hands of this Court.The learned counsel added further that in any event, the act of the accused in attacking the deceased, assuming that the prosecution case is true, would not come under the penal provisions of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not in dispute that Subramani, the husband of P.W.5 died on account of homicidal violence.The inquest made by the investigating officer and the postmortem conducted by the P.W.13 and the certificate, Ex.P.3 to the effect that the death was on account of shock and haemorhage and this fact was never questioned by the accused either before the lower Court or before this Court and hence it could be recorded that the deceased died a homicidal death.In order to substantiate the accusation made against the accused, the prosecution marched P.Ws.1 and 2 as eye witnesses and P.Ws.3 to 6 as injured witnesses.At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that this is a case where the injured witnesses are before this Court and strong circumstances are noticed from their evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence.It is true that three witnesses, P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are the children of the deceased and P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased.But according to P.Ws.1 and 2, when they were working along with the deceased in the brick chamber at the early hours on the date of occurrence, all the three accused came there and attacked the deceased.Immediately, P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased, which is a reasonable conduct, and informed the family members and brought them to the scene of occurrence.When the family members, P.Ws.3 to 6 came to the place of occurrence, they were also attacked by the accused.They were sent to the doctor, P.W.15 for being medically examined and the wound certificates in respect of their wounds have been marked as exhibits as referred to above.Thus, the earliest documents to come into existence are the wound certificates for the injuries sustained by P.Ws.3 to 6 wherein it is found noted that P.Ws.3 to 5 have spoken about the occurrence that had taken place, the place of occurrence and the other details.It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the conduct of P.W.1 going to his house immediately after the incident shows that he could not have seen the occurrence and therefore, his evidence has got to be rejected.It is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 has given explanation that after seeing the occurrence he was shocked and therefore went to his house.In a given case, when a number of persons are witnessing the occurrence, one cannot expect the same reaction from every body as each and every individual would react according to the frame of mind either to come to the rescue of the victim or to run away from the place or to give a complaint or inform the relatives of the victim.It would all depend upon the mental frame of each and every individual.In the instant case, P.W.2 went and informed the family members of the deceased, but P.W.1 went to his house, but later he came to the place to give Ex.The details regarding the occurrence as found in the wound certificates corroborate with the details found in the first information report, which, though reached the Court much later.It is true that there are minor discrepancies with regard to the overt act, but it should be remembered that the occurrence has taken place in the early morning of September.Hence, one could not expect either the eye witness or the injured witness to give a clear narration of the incident.It is to be pointed out that the evidence of eye witnesses and the injured witnesses would clearly show that it was the accused who attacked the deceased on his head with fire woods and caused his death and also in the course of the same transaction, attacked P.Ws.3 to 6 and caused them simple injuries.The medical evidence stands corroborated by the ocular testimony.In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at 05.00 am and the place of occurrence is the brick chamber of the deceased, where the accused came and took out fire woods from the place where P.Ws.1 and 2 were working and went and asked the deceased as to the dispute regarding the ridge, which dispute was prevalent for a long time and following the same, the occurrence has taken place on the next day morning.Thus the Court is able to see that there was a pending dispute between them and there were wordy quarrels that had taken place on the previous night.That was the reason for the occurrence on the next day morning.At this stage, it is to be pointed out that the accused 1 to 3 came to the place of the deceased to question him and took out fire wood from the place of occurrence and the act perpetrated by the accused was neither deliberate nor intentional, but at the same time they used only sticks to cause the injuries.Accordingly, the conviction of all the accused for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead they are convicted under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, for which they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore Taluk police station, Vellore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.[PRV/8187] | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,383,146 | 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant is the brother of one Muthusamy (deceased).Both of them belonged to Hindu-Madari community which comes under Shedule Caste.The appellants herein, who are arrayed as A2 & A3 respectively in this case, along with the 1st accused went to the house of the said Muthusamy and abused him and his wife by referring their caste name, for which deceased Muthusamy committed suicide.The appellants, who were arrested on 29.06.2018 for the offence under Sections 174 Cr.P.C., subsequently altered into 448, 294-B, 306 of I.P.C and Section 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (iii), 3(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 in Crime No.142 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.Immediately, after the arrest, the appellants filed a bail application before the lower Court in Crl.The lower Court considering the matter elaborately dismissed the bail application against which the present appeal is filed.3.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the material available on record.4.The appellant is under incarceration for more than 55 days.Considering the nature of the case and the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellants on imposing certain conditions.5.Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond each for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and on further condition that:(a)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the concerned Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(b)the appellants shall report before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;(c)the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(d)the appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants released on bail by the learned Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs.State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;(f)if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.21.08.2018gmd/vsg1Internet :Yes/noIndex:yes/noSpeaking order/Non Speaking OrderTo2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.DHANDAPANI, J.,gmd/vsg1Crl.A.No.443 of 201821.08.2018 | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,385,743 | The above noted FIR was registered when two Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and stated that despite being juvenile they were being permitted smoking hukka at Keeva West Gate Mall.A raid was conducted at the premises and on inspection two hukkas and one packet of Alladin flavoured tobacco was found available in the restaurant which was seized and sealed.Based on this information received and the raid conducted wherein two hukkas and one BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 1 of 11 packet of flavoured tobacco were found FIR No. 690/2017 was registered under Section 77 of the JJ Act.BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 2 of 11 which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend up to one lakh rupees.BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 2 of 11Pursuant to Section 77 of JJ Act a notification has also been issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in respect of violations being conducted in respect of vulcanised solution/sulochan etc. for the reason they also have stupefying affect.Notification No. F. No. 7(15)/2012/Misc/DHS/SHS/Pt.file-III/1229-1239, dated 31st July, 2017 of the Government of National Territory of Delhi reads as under:Whereas Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt of India vide Notification F. No. X. 11029/6/2010-DDAP Dated 17th July, 2012 has imposed certain ban with regards to production and sale of Bottled Correction Fluids as well as Bottled Thinners, of any chemical composition, both for erasing purposes as well as for use as Nail Polish removers and similar other purposes for retail sale which are chemical substances generally used in offices but reportedly being widely misused by children/street children as intoxicating substance/drug by inhaling them to get stimulating effects like drugs;Whereas as per Orders of Hon'ble Juvenile Justice Board in FIR No 422/16 U/s 379/411 IPC, Government of NCT of Delhi has been directed to issue appropriate instructions by way of Notification, circular or otherwise, banning the sale of correction fluids/whiteners, thinners/diluters and vulcanized solution/sulochans to children below the age of 18 years unless the child is accompanied by parent guardian or has a letter from the school authorities signifying their assent to purchase the same;Now, therefore, Government of NCT of Delhi hereby orders the implementation of the following measure with immediate effect:-BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 3 of 11(i) Banning of production of Bottled Correction Fluids as well as Bottled Thinners, of any chemical composition, both for erasing purposes as well as for use as Nail Polish removers and similar other purposes for retail sale.(ii) Banning of sale of Bottled Correction Fluids as well as Bottled Thinners, of any chemical composition, both for ink erasing purposes as well as for use as Nail Polish removers and similar other purposes.(iii) Permitting sale of Correction Fluids as well as Thinners, of any chemical composition, both for ink erasing purposes as well as for use as Nail Polish removers and similar other purposes in the form of pens or similar devices which allow limited amounts of the chemicals to come out of those devices when used.(iv) Mandatory warning should be made on the application devices (pens or otherwise) of correcting fluids'/thinners and vulcanized solution/sulochans regarding the effects on health on inhalation of vapor/consumption of the chemicals contained therein.(v) Ban on the sale of correction fluids/whiteners, thinners/diluters and vulcanized solution/ sulochans to children below the age of 18 years unless the child is accompanied by parent guardian or has a letter from the school authorities signifying their assent to purchase the same.They fall in the categoies of inter alia inhalants, cigarettes and tobacco products, alcohol, narcotic drugs, synthetic drugs and pharmaceutical drugs.There is a need to evolve a mechanism to tackle this menace on all the fronts.Till further BAIL APPLN.(i) Vide Government notification dated 31.7.2017, the Delhi Government has banned the sale of inhalants like correction fluids, whiteners, thinners etc. to children below the age of 18 years and has directed a District Task Force to be constituted headed by the DCP concerned and the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue).The notification be enforced strictly.(ii) A Drug Enforcement directory be created containing Zone wise/District wise names and contact details of all stakeholders.(iii) In order to facilitate sharing of information and coordination, regular meetings and training programmes should be jointly held between officers of the DRI, Delhi Police, NCB, Excise Department, Customs Department etc. A common data base should also be created whereby dossiers of drug peddlers be regularly updated and shared amongst all agencies.(iv) Each school under the Government of NCT of Delhi should be provided with medical and para-medical staff as well as counselors duly trained to identify early detection of the children indulging in substance abuse.(ii) The role of CWC would not be limited to treatment of the CNCP but also in ascertaining the source of supply of drugs.The CWC may devise their own methods of ascertaining such sources.334/2018 Page 8 of 11(iii) U/s 29 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, the CWC is empowered to take requisite steps for inter alia treatment and rehabilitation of CNCP.Further, u/s 51 (1) r/w.Sec. 2 (27), the CWC should endeavour to recognize "fit facilities" being run by the government or other NGOs for reception and treatment of children.Further u/s 30 (xii) the CWC is empowered to take suo motu cognizance of cases and reaching out to children in need of care & protection who have not been produced before the committee.In this regard, the CWC may make a schedule of spot visits within their area for the purposes of identifying such vulnerable children.(i) The Child Welfare Police Officers.(CWPOs), who prepare the Social Background Reports (SBRs) of the CCLs, should be instructed to identify children into contraband abuse and to record the source of procurement of the contraband by the children in the SBRs.BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 9 of 11(v) Standard operating procedures be framed to curb the menace of contraband abuse and actions to be taken thereon by the Commissioner of Police to be circulated to all police officers of Delhi Police.entire territorial area of NCT of Delhi under whose jurisdiction there are more than 20,000 licensed Chemists.There is thus an urgent need to strengthen the cadre of Drug Inspectors.(ii) Traditionally the Drug Inspectors have confined their role in suspending or cancelling licenses of Chemists under Rule 65 and Rule 66 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.However, since the chemists are selling drugs, including Schedule H-1 Drugs, which are also falling in the category of BAIL APPLN.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 01, 2018 'vn' BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 11 of 11BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 11 of 11Upon identification of suspected drug peddlers or the persons who supply contrabands to the children, the CWC shall forward a complaint in this regard to the concerned JJB, who shall order the police to register an FIR against suspected drug peddlers for the commission of offence u/s. 77/78 of JJ Act.(ii) In order to protect the identity of the minor complainants, instructions should be issued to the concerned police officers to abstain from uploading the FIRs u/s 77 and 78 JJ Act on the concerned websites.(iii) The Beat staff should also be instructed to keep stringent checks especially on Chemists, at the time of unloading of supply of medicines and syringes so as to prevent violation of license conditions.(iv) Various hot spots have been identified after a detailed study by the Government of NCT of Delhi along with AIIMS, and it is imperative that the police initiates necessary action on supply of contrabands especially in these areas.334/2018 Page 10 of 11 psychotropic substances under Schedule 1 of NDPS Act, 1985, to children, the Drug Inspectors should take action under Section 18 r/w.Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act against the erring chemists, so as to deter the sale of such substances to minors.BAIL APPLN.334/2018 Page 10 of 11A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Police to be circulated to all concerned departments and districts and to the Director of Prosecution, Delhi to Sensitize the Public Prosecutors.Copy of this order shall also be circulated amongst all Judicial Officers through respective Ld. District & Sessions Judges.Petition is disposed of. | ['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,387,011 | The informant subsequently came to learn that it was not a natural death.Rohila Khatun was about 17-18 years old at that time.After the information regarding the death of Rohila Khatun was lodged by Nausad Ali on 02.10.1980, U.D. Case No. 22/1980 dated 02.10.1980 was started.The inquest was held in presence of the Executive Magistrate.This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 52 of 1990 sentencing thereby each of the accused persons to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and also to suffer rigorous 2 imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The prosecution case, in short, is that one Nausad Ali lodged complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Kaliachak Police Station alleging that his sister Rohila Khatun was married with Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu.On 30.09.1980 at night Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu came to the house of the informant and took back his wife to his own house.On the next morning, the informant came to learn that Rohila Khatun died and the family members of Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu buried her in the village.Thereafter taking permission of S.D.O. the dead body was lifted from the graveyard.After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.The Learned Trial Judge framed charges under Section 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired.It is contended that at the time of burial of the deceased, the villagers were present and till the completion of inquest report there was no specific complaint with the P.S.Mr. Basu contends that the dead body was highly decomposed and Autopsy Surgeon opined that it appeared to be a case of homicide.It is contended that visceras were sent for chemical examination and the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon was kept pending till the receipt of such 4 report.It is submitted that the report on examination of visceras was not produced and there was no final opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon regarding the nature of death of Rohila.Mr. Basu has referred to the decision reported in 2007 (15) SCC 773 (Suraya Yoganand alias Chitti - Vs - State of Andhra Pradesh); AIR 1983 (SC) 66 (Mayur Panabhai Shah - Vs - State of Gujarat)Mr. Ganguly appearing on behalf of the State submits that the husband of the victim came to the house of the informant and took back Rohila with him to his house.Mr. Ganguly thus contends that there is evidence to show that the deceased was last seen with her husband, that is, Sannu.Mr. Ganguly submits that the I.O. did not get report on the examination of visceras.The Learned Judge passed the impugned judgement holding that the accused persons completed the act of burial of the dead body of Rohila hurriedly without informing the father of Rohila.The Learned Judge held that the facts and circumstances of the case spoke unmistakably that the accused persons knew that Rohila was murdered by them and they intentionally buried the dead body of Rohila hurriedly in order to remove the evidence of murder.The Learned Judge further held that the evidence on record indicated that up to the time of 'salish' P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were in suspicion as to unnatural death of Rohila and they suspected the accused Sannu and his family members for murder of Rohila as they were not allowed to see the dead body of Rohila.The Learned Judge under the circumstances held that there was no unnatural element in the holding of 'Salish'.The Learned Judge thus held on the basis of evidence on record that accused persons caused the murder of Rohila Khatun by way of throttling and after committing murder they threw the dead body of Rohila in the water of Jenala Purti.P.W. 1 who lodged the First Information Report has stated that on receipt of the post mortem report and on perusal of the opinion of the medical officer that death in question was homicidal in nature, he registered a suo motu case being P.S. case No. 10 dated 10.10.1980 under Section 302/201, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.P.W. 2, Nausad Ali, brother of the deceased, has stated that before marrying Rohila Khatun , accused Sannu married another girl Atu, but, he divorced her; after divorcing Atu, accused Sannu married Rohila Khatun.It is in his evidence that his sister Rohila and accused Sannu were in good relation for about two months of their marriage, but, thereafter accused Sannu was found leaning towards his divorced wife again.P.W. 2 has stated that some days before her death Rohila came to his house and stated that she was not pulling well with her husband; Sannu was called and P.W. 2 tried for settling the matter between them.P.W. 2 has further stated that he entertained Sannu in his house and thereafter Sannu left his house with Rohila at night on the previous day of the death of Rohila.It is in his evidence that on the following day he was informed that the body of a woman was found floating in the tank named Jenala Purti, but he did not go there to see the floating body.P.W. 2 has further stated that he came to know afterwards that his sister Rohila was murdered and he called a 'salish', but, the accused persons did not attend the same; subsequently he reported the matter to the police station and thereafter the dead body was lifted from graveyard and he identified the dead body as that of Rohila.It is in his cross examination that he went to his work and returned therefrom at about 12 noon / 1 P.M. 7 and thereafter he came to learn that dead body of Rohila was buried by many people of the village.It is in his cross examination that when the accused persons did not attend the 'salish' he suspected the accused persons for the death of Rohila.It is significant to note that P.W. 2 wanted to establish that at the time of recovery of the dead body from the tank and subsequent burial he was not present.But he has stated in cross examination that he saw the accused persons from a distance of 8/9 'rahis' to get the dead body of his sister buried.In this connection P.W. 7 has stated that Rohila went to the house of her husband on 30.09.1980 at night and on the next morning he came to learn from Nausad, (P.W. 2) brother of Rohila that the dead body of Rohila was floating in the water of Jenala Purti ; hearing this he went to his school as usual; returning home at about 1 P.M. he came to learn that accused Sannu and the members of his family buried the dead body of Rohila.It is, therefore, clear that on 01.10.1980 in the morning Nausad was well aware of the death of Rohila and he informed P.W. 7 regarding the death of his sister.It is in the evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 before being declared hostile that Sannu and his mother also came to the tank hearing the news that the dead body of Rohila was found floating in the tank.P.W. 6 has stated that on the next day at about noon after returning home from work he was informed by Nausad Ali that Rohila was murdered and she was buried.Hearing this he went to the house of accused Sannu, but, none was found there except his mother.In the cross-examination he has stated that it was their impression that the accused persons committed murder of Rohila.P.W. 7 has stated that there was a 'salish' in the village on 01.10.1980 in the evening and in that 'salish' he, the accused persons, and many others of the village were present; a proposal was there in the 'Salish' to the accused persons to give one bigha of land to the father of Rohila, but, this proposal was not accepted finally.It is worth mentioning here that P.W. 2 has stated that the accused did not attend the 'salish', but, P.W. 7 has stated that accused persons and many others were present in the said 'salish'.The evidence of P.W. 7 about the proposal to transfer one bigha of land by the accused persons to the father of Rohila indicates that the accused persons were put under threat and they were pressurized for the transfer of one bigha of land in favour of the father of Rohila.This conduct on the part of the informant and his family members casts a serious doubt in regard to the veracity of the prosecution case.As regards the nature of death of Rohila, P.W. 12, the Autopsy Surgeon, has noted following injuries : -"1. Lacerated wounds both ears.Lacerated wound on the tip of the nose.3. Abrasion on the olecranon process of left elbow.Faint markings seen on the anterior surface of neck.On dissection hyoid bone seen broken If a man or woman is throttled to death injuries are expected around neck, face and other parts of the head. "P.W. 12 has stated that hyoid bone can be fractured if a man or woman is throttled to death.He has stated that fracture of hyoid bone along with associated injuries mentioned above gave indication or clue of the death having occurred by throttling.He has opined that it appeared to him to be a case of homicide.It is in his evidence that the dead body was highly decomposed and no definite opinion could be given, but suggestive opinion of homicide by throttling was there.He has stated in cross examination that fracture of hyoid bone was not the cause of death because a man could survive with fracture of hyoid bone.He has stated that he did not get the report on examination of visceras of the deceased.From the evidence of P.W. 12 it is clear that his final opinion as to the nature of death was not given.According to P.W. 12 it appeared to be a case of homicide and at the same time because of fracture of hyoid bone there was suggestive opinion of homicide by throttling.P.W. 12 has stated that before death the victim might have consumed water.The I.O. (P.W. 10) has stated that visceras of the diseased were sent from the hospital and he tried to collect the memo number of the letter under which visceras were sent, but, he could not collect the same.P.W. 10 has further stated that he did not get it clarified from the doctor as to whether the death of Rohila was due to drowning and he made no investigation on the point of drowning.From the evidence it is clear that the dead body was floating in the tank and accused persons were also present there.The members of the family of the deceased had also seen the burial of the dead body in the graveyard.There was no specific complaint till the holding of the inquest.The circumstances, therefore, cumulatively suggest that possibility of death due to drowning cannot be ruled out.It is significant to note that P.W. 2 Nausad Ali lodged the information regarding the death of Rohila on 02.10.1980 on the basis of which the U.D. Case was started.It was alleged in that information that death of Rohila was not under normal circumstances.In that information there was no whisper about the ill relation between Rohila and Sannu or that Rohila was ever subjected to torture in her matrimonial home.There was no specific complaint from the family members of the informant regarding the death of Rohila.It is in the evidence of P.Ws that they had the impression 11 that the accused persons had committed the murder of Rohila.This impression or suspicion by itself, is not sufficient to substantiate the allegation under Section 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code.The evidence of the P.W.s at the time of trial regarding the ill treatment meted out to Rohila in her matrimonial home, being made for the first time at the time of trial, indicates embellishment and fabrication.The prosecution case rests on the theory of last seen together as submitted by Mr. Ganguly.Not only that, from the evidence it is clear that the accused persons and the members of the family of the informant along with other villagers were present at the time of burial, and till the time of inquest there was no specific complaint from anybody.Raisuddin, P.W. 3, although signed the inquest report did not lodge any specific complaint.This abstinence on the part of the informant's family casts serious doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case.The I.O. P.W. 10 has stated that the information regarding the unnatural death of Rohila given by Nausad was not sufficient to constitute cognizable 12 offence and, as such, no specific case was started against the accused persons.Mere suspicion is not sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused persons The evidence of P.W.s that Rohila was last seen together with Sannu, therefore, in absence of other corroborative and link evidence, would not come in the aid of the prosecution.After considering the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of evidence on record we are of the considered view that there is no evidence that the accused persons committed murder of Rohila.The Learned Trial Judge was not justified in passing the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence.We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgement.The appellants are acquitted of the charges.The appeal is allowed.Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.(Kalidas Mukherjee, J. ) Md. Abdul Ghani, J.I agree, 13 (Md. Abdul Ghani, J. ) | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,388,671 | BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) Vide this petition, quashing of FIR No. 498/2017, registered at police station Kalyan Puri, Delhi for the offences under Sections 308/427/34 IPC is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed 14th January, 2019 reached between the parties.W.P.(Crl.) 672/2020 1Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 498/2017, 308/427/34 IPC, registered at police station Kalyan Puri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.This petition and application stand disposed of accordingly.(BRIJESH SETHI) JUDGE MARCH 11, 2020 r W.P.(Crl.) 672/2020 2W.P.(Crl.) 672/2020 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
733,929 | Charges 1, 4 and 10 were held not proved; it is pertinent here to note that charge 4 was the most serious of the subsidiary irregularities alleged.Charges 2, 3 and 5 to 9 were held proved.The problem involved is whether, when a Criminal Court acquits a Government servant upon grave charges involving offences under the Penal Code, and the acquittal is not upon some collateral ground, such as the absence of due sanction or a technical plea of defence, but substantially on the merits, a Domestic Tribunal, such as a higher authority exercising disciplinary jurisdiction, would be justified in disregarding the acquittal altogether, or in recording a conclusion inconsistent with the acquittal, and finding the Government servant guilty of the identical charges, upon identical facts.The matter arises against the following background of established facts.From the year 1956, he was serving as Sub Postmaster at various places.On 9-3-1959, while he was serving at Arni, he received a notice with regard to ten charges framed against him.It is important, for our purpose, to scrutinise the substance of those charges.Charges 1 and 4 to 10 related to irregularities, mostly of a subsidiary character; charge 4, which appears to be the most serious, related to alleged incorrect entries in and attendance register from 8-1-1959 to 14-1-1959, regarding the permanent E. D. D. A. Charges 2 and 3 were very serious, taken together, and it is not disputed that upon the facts, which formed the basis of those charges, the Departmental authorities gave a complaint to the police to the effect that the writ petitioner was guilty of offences under Ss. 409, 467 and 471 I.P.C. The petitioner alleges that he took up the stand that he should be first prosecuted in the Criminal Court, and that the departmental authorities should abide by the decision of the criminal court.On 23-1-1960, by order of the Superintendent of Post Offices first respondent) the petitioner was dismissed from service.Under the Central Civil (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal, and in April 1960 the director of Postal Services (second respondent) dismissed the appeal.A petition to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, also failed.The petitioner drew the attention of the authorities to the fact that with regard to charges 2 and 3, which were grave, he had been acquitted by the Sessions Court, of the criminal offences involved, on the very facts.The parties will bear their own costs. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,400,195 | The appeal under Section 44 of the Code was accompanied by the application for condonation of delay.Thus, there is nothing to presume that this document was made by the accused.Though, it has accompanied the appeal under Section 44 of the Code purportedly filed by the accused. | ['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,402 | Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission of appeal.This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgmentorder dated 15.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge/F.T.C., Court No. 4, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 834 of 2009 (CrimeNo.693 of 2009); State Vs.Abhishek Raidas, under Section 304 IPC, P.S.Pihani, District Hardoi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge heldthe accused-appellant guilty under Sections 304 part 2 IPC, 4/25 Arms Actand sentenced to undergo different terms of rigorous imprisonment along withfine with default stipulation.The maximum sentence awarded by the trialcourt is 10 years under Section 304 part 2 IPC.The appeal involves arguable point of law.Summon the trial court's record.Learned A.G.A. may file objection on the prayer of bail within two weeks.List just after receipt of trial court's record on the prayer of bail.Order Date :- 10.8.2010Santosh/- | ['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,403,184 | O.P.No.29308 of 2019 27.11.2019 5/5http://www.judis.nic.inAs against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl.The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.In the instant case, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 307 and the compromise has been arrived at the appellate stage.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.29308 of 2019 In view of the above decision, the prayer sought for in the present petition to compound the offence, cannot be sustained.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.27.11.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no hvkThe Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.29308 of 2019 M.S. RAMESH,J.hvk Crl. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
73,405,003 | Being aggrieved by the order Annexure A/1 dated 6.9.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in UN-CR/UR/2015 rejecting the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as ''Cr.P.C''), this petition under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant/complainant. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,454,171 | Panna Lal Sharma, APP with SI Lokesh Singh, PS Bharat Nagar.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant on 05.04.2014 went to buy milk and at about 07.28AM when he reached near H.No 202, Bharat Nagar, Romil Sehgal who resides on the floor below of the complainant, caught hold of the complainant and along with the accused/petitioners started giving beatings to him.On raising an alarm and on being informed, wife and son of the complainant also reached the spot and the wife of the complainant was attacked on her chest, and her clothes were torn by the accused/petitioners.The complainant and his wife and son were also attacked with sticks and lathis by the accused/petitioners.The complainant after the above series of events got registered the complaint in the present matter.Respondent no.2 and 3 in person with Mr.K.K. Vijay and Mr.Asheem Bhardwaj, Advs.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.Sanjay Sehgal and Romil Sehgal for quashing of FIR No.189/2014, under Section 341/323/354/354-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi on the basis of an amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 namely, Sh.Yogesh Lakhotia and Smt. Gayatri Devi.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the criminal complaint in question.M.C. 1009/2017 Page 1 of 7In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondents, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.189/2014, under Section 341/323/354/354-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Crl.M.C. 1009/2017 Page 6 of 7 Bharat Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.M.C. 1009/2017 Page 6 of 7 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,455,385 | P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.461/2016 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali District Rewa (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 294, 323, 506B of IPC.Applicant's custody is not needed for custodial interrogation.Hence he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application stating that applicant has criminal antecedent and the manner in which the incident has been committed applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.If he is released on bail he will influence the prosecution witnesses.Hence his bail application be rejected.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun | ['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 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. |
74,457,633 | (i) The sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 166 of 2014, which the applicant has yet not undergone, stands suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.(ii) The applicant Adhik Sadashiv Mohite be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety in the like amount.(iii) The applicant shall not contact the first informant Ranjana Ajit Kagi, nor cause anyShraddha Talekar PS 4/4 14-appa-1040-2018.doc harassment to Asmita Adhik Mohite, injured.(iv) The applicant shall attend Vishrambag Police Station, Sangli on the first Sunday of January and July, each year, to mark his presence only, till further orders.(v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.The application stands disposed of. | ['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,445,883 | Apprehending arrest in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 1144 of 2015 dated 30.10.2015 under Sections 420/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2378 of 2015, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in connection with this case and they are innocent.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 | ['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,465,980 | The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:(a) That on 20.9.2011 at about 9.15 p.m., the appellant assaulted Sandip with a knife.This incident was witnessed by PW 2 Ankush, PW 3 Shaikher and PW 4 Raju.Thereafter, Sandip was rushed to the hospital where he admitted.While undergoing treatment, he expired in the hospital.Meanwhile, PW 2 Ankush lodged FIR.Thereafter, investigation commenced.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.PW 2 Ankush has stated that the incidenttook place on 20.9.2011 at about 9.00 to 9.15 p.m. He alongwith PW 3 Shaikher, PW 4 Raju and deceased Sandip hadgone to collect contribution for Ganesh festival.At that time,the appellant along with original accused No. 2 came thereon motorcycle.They started talking with Sandip.A quarreltook place between Sandip and the accused persons.Theyheard loud noise, hence, PW 2 Ankush, Shaikher and Rajuwent towards Sandip.PW 2 Ankush has stated that he sawthe appellant giving blows with knife on the chest, right handand on left rib of Sandip.PW 2 Ankush has further statedthat the appellant attempted to assault him and Shaikherwith knife.Thereafter, the appellant ran away in a rickshaw.Thereafter, PW 2 Ankush and PW 4 Raju took Sandip to CityLife Hospital in a rickshaw.cri apeal 815-14 (j).docPW 3 Shaikher has stated that on the day of theincident at about 9.15 p.m., he along with PW 2 Ankush, PW4 Raju and deceased Sandip had gone to collect thecontribution of Navratra in the area of Azadnagar.At thattime, exchange of words took place between deceasedSandip and the appellant.They separated the quarrel.Thereafter, Shaikher, Raju, Ankush and Sandip proceededtowards Azadnagar.Thereafter, the appellant along withanother person came on motorcycle.They took Sandip withthem at some distance.Thereafter, the appellant assaultedSandip with a knife on his stomach and hand.At that time,the appellant also tried to assault Shaikher with a knife,hence, Shaikher ran away.PW 4 Raju and PW 2 Ankush tookinjured Sandip to the hospital.Sandip expired in the hospitalwhile undergoing treatment.ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :By jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docthe said judgment and order, the learned Session Judgeconvicted the appellant for the offence punishable underSection 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced him to sufferrigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- indefault, R.I. for three months.Charge came to be framed against the appellant -original accused No. 1 and co-accused No. 2 under Sectionsjfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).doc302 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.They pleaded not guilty tothe said charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence wasthat of total denial and false implication.After going throughthe evidence adduced in this case, the learned SessionsJudge acquitted accused No. 2 of all the offences butconvicted and sentenced the appellant as stated inparagraph 1 above, hence, this appeal against his convictionand sentence.We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellantand the learned APP for the State.After giving our anxiousconsideration to the facts and circumstances of the case,arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge andthe evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we areof the opinion that the appellant assaulted Sandip with aknife which led to his death.jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docIn order to support the conviction, the prosecution hasmainly relied on the evidence of PW 2 Ankush, PW 3 Shaikherand PW 4 Raju.Thereafter, Ankush lodged FIR.jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::PW 4 Raju has stated that on the day of the incident atabout 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., he along with deceased Sandip, PW2 Ankush and PW 3 Shaikher had gone to collect thejfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).doccontribution at Azadnagar.At that time, a quarrel took placebetween the appellant and deceased Sandip.Theyseparated the quarrel.Thereafter, PW 4 Raju, Ankush,Sandip and Shaikher were proceeding towards Azadnagar.The appellant was standing near the police chowki.Theappellant called Sandip.The appellant then assaultedSandip with a knife on his chest and hand.The appellantalso attempted to give blow of knife to PW 3 Shaikher,however, he avoided the same.The appellant alsoattempted to assault PW 2 Ankush with knife.The appellantthen went away in a rickshaw.Ms. Kunder, the learned counsel for the appellantsubmitted that as far as PW 2 Ankush and PW 4 Raju areconcerned, the appellant was not known to them prior to theincident and these two witnesses have directly identified theappellant before the Court.She submitted that in view of thefact that the appellant was not known to PW 2 Ankush andPW 4 Raju prior to the incident, holding of test identificationjfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docparade was necessary.He hasclearly stated that the appellant also attempted to assaulthim and PW 3 Shaikher with knife.Ankush in his FIR which isrecorded at 11:30 p.m. has categorically stated the name ofthe assailant as Sanjay @ Sanata, hence, this decision wouldnot apply to the facts of the present case.The Supreme Court has considered the evidentiaryvalue of identification of an accused by a witness in the1 (2002) 7 SCC 295jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::The Supreme Court observed that as thewitnesses were injured in the incident, they could have easilyseen the faces of the accused persons who assaulted themand the appearance and identity would remain imprinted inthe minds of the witnesses especially when they were2 (2000) 1 SCC 358jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::It falls in the realm ofinvestigation.Theidentification of the accused by a witness if he had anopportunity to interact with him or to notice his distinctivefeature lends assurance to his testimony in Court andabsence of corroborative evidence by way of testidentification parade would not be material.Bothjfoanz vkacsjdj 10 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docthese witnesses had directly identified the accused for thefirst time in court.The evidence of both these witnesses wasrelied upon by the prosecution to show that the accusedpersons had come to the bungalow of the deceased on thenight of the incident.The evidence of both these witnesseswas accepted by both the trial court as well as the HighCourt, that the accused persons were seen entering thebungalow of the deceased on the previous night.TheSupreme Court has observed that both the courts below hadrightly accepted the identification of the accused by thesetwo witnesses.The accused persons were not known to bothPW-29 and PW-34 prior to the date of incident, however, boththese witnesses had a talk with the accused when theaccused came to the bungalow.Some talk took placebetween the witnesses and the accused for about 7-8minutes.Thereafter, the accused persons entered into thebungalow.On the next day, the inmates of the bungalowwere found dead.The Supreme Court held that identificationof the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity tojfoanz vkacsjdj 11 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docinteract with him or notice his distinctive features lendsassurance to his testimony in court and that the absence ofcorroborative evidence by way of TIP would not be material.In the present case, it is seen that the witnesses did notjust have fleeting glimpse of the accused persons but in facttheir evidence shows that little time prior to the incident, aquarrel had taken place between the appellant and deceasedSandip.This quarrel was separated by these witnesses.Thereafter, these witnesses along with deceased movedahead to Azadnagar.There the appellant came on4 (2012) 7 SCC 646jfoanz vkacsjdj 12 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docmotorcycle and thereafter the incident occurred.Duringthe incident also, the appellant gave not just one blow but hegave as many as four knife blows to the deceased and healso attempted to assault PW 2 Ankush and PW 4 Raju.Allthese would certainly have taken some time and would nothave taken place in just few seconds, hence, there wassufficient opportunity for the witnesses to observe theassailant that is the appellant and to correctly identify himlater on.It has also to be borne in mind that the FIR islodged just two hours after the incident and in the FIR, theappellant has been named.Moreover, what is morepertinent to note is that PW 3 Shaikher knew the appellanteven prior to the incident which fact is admitted by thedefence.Even if the evidence of PW 3 Shaikher is taken intoaccount, it would be enough to sustain the conviction,however, we are of the view that the evidence of PW 2Ankush and PW 4 Raju is also cogent and reliable, hence, wehave placed reliance on the same.jfoanz vkacsjdj 13 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docMs. Kunder pointed out that the evidence of theinvestigating officer PW 9 PI Dharmadhikari shows that theFIR was sent after 24 hours to the Magistrate.On the basisof this fact, she pointed out that the appellant has beenimplicated by way of an after thought.Ms. Kunder submittedthat the fact that the FIR was sent after 24 hours to theMagistrate shows that there was enough time formanipulation and to concoct a false story against theappellant.As far as this contention is concerned, we find that thestation diary entry Exh 44 which is an ongoing register showsthat at 11.30 p.m., the name of the assailant is shown asthat of the appellant.The incident has taken place at about9.30 p.m and at 11.30 p.m. in the station diary, the name ofthe appellant is reflected as the person who assaultedSandip with a knife.There is no scope for manipulation inthe station diary entry as it is an ongoing register and thereis no possibility of any interpolation in the same.The stationdiary entry, a photo copy of which is on record, shows thatjfoanz vkacsjdj 14 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docthere was no possibility at all of interpolation or adding thename of the appellant later on.Thus, the name of theappellant was revealed within two hours to the investigatingagency and in view of the station diary entry, the fact thatthe FIR was sent after 24 hours looses significance.Inview of the facts and circumstances of this case, late sendingof FIR to the Magistrate does not support the contention thatthe appellant was falsely implicated by way of an afterthought.As far as the station diary is concerned, Ms. Kunder, thelearned counsel for the appellant submitted that there isoverwriting in the station diary entry as far as the date'20.9.2011' is concerned.She submitted that there isoverwriting in the station diary entry in the date figure "20".As stated earlier, the station diary is a register which is anongoing register.It is serially numbered and timing thereinjfoanz vkacsjdj 15 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docis also one after another, the entries are also one afteranother, hence, there is no scope of interpolation therein.Looking to all these facts, we are of theopinion that no importance can be given to the fact thatthere is overwriting in the date "20" which is on the top ofthe register.Thereafter, Ms. Kunder submitted that the appellanthas not been named in the FIR and thereafter the witnesseshave taken the name of the appellant by way of an afterthought.On perusal of the FIR, we find this contention to beincorrect because the appellant's name is very much there inthe FIR and also the fact that he assaulted Sandip with aknife.Thus, there is no merit in this contention.Thereafter, Ms. Kunder submitted that as far as thethree eye witnesses are concerned, there is contradiction injfoanz vkacsjdj 16 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).doctheir evidence inter se.This shows that these are all got upwitnesses, hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon.Onperusal of the evidence of these three eye witnesses, we findthat all of then have consistently stated that the appellantassaulted Sandip with a knife.Ms. Kunder has pointed outthat PW 2 Ankush has stated that the appellant assaultedSandip with a knife on the chest, right hand and left ribwhereas PW 3 Shaikher has stated that the appellantassaulted Sandip with knife on stomach and hand.Kunder further pointed out that PW 4 Raju has stated thatthe appellant assaulted Sandip with knife on the chest andhand.She pointed out that this discrepancy shows that noneof the eye witnesses were present at the spot otherwise theywould have given consistent version if they really witnessedthe incident.Deceased Sandip has in fact sustained injurieson his chest and hand.He has also sustained injuries on thestomach.When the assault started, these three witnesseswere little away.The evidence of PW 2 Ankush shows thaton hearing loud noise, he rushed to where Sandip was beingjfoanz vkacsjdj 17 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docassaulted.In such case, it is not possible for all the threewitnesses to have witnessed the entire assault.It alsodepends on the power of observation of a witness and fromwhat point of time, he witnessed the assault.Looking to thefact that the injuries are consistent with the medicalevidence, we are not inclined to give any importance to allthese aspects of the matter.Ms. Kunder submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be believed because they have stated onlyabout three assaults by the appellant on the deceasedwhereas seven injuries were found on the body of thedeceased which is clear from the evidence of PW 8 Dr.Shinde who conducted the postmortem on the dead body ofSandip.As far as this aspect is concerned, no doubt Dr.Shinde found seven injuries on the body of Sandip.Out ofthese, two are stab wounds which were over ziphisternumand at left lateral parasternal region.In addition, two incisedwounds were found on the chest and on the right antecubitaljfoanz vkacsjdj 18 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docarea.The other three injuries are minor in nature i.e CLWs.These could have occurred when the deceased fell downafter he was assaulted.This is because none of the eyewitnesses made an effort to save Sandip from beingassaulted.The evidence of PW 2 Ankush shows that in fact,the appellant also tried to assault him and PW 3 Shaikherwith a knife.Shaikher then ran away from the spot.Lookingto the weapon in the hand of the appellant and the fact thatthe appellant did not stop assaulting just Sandip but was alsoinclined to assault anyone who intervenes like Ankush orShaikher, no witness would gather courage to save Sandip.Looking to the sequence of events which took place in thiscase, we do not find the conduct of these three witnesses injfoanz vkacsjdj 19 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docnot saving the deceased from being attacked as unnaturalconduct.Theevidence of PW 3 Shaikher shows that exchange of wordstook place between the appellant and deceased Sandip.They separated the quarrel.Thereafter, they wereproceeding towards Azadnagar.The appellant and anotherperson came there on motorcycle.The appellant tookdeceased Sandip a little distance away from Shaikher andother witnesses.Then the appellant assaulted deceasedjfoanz vkacsjdj 20 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docSandip with knife on his stomach and hand.The evidence ofPW 4 Raju shows that at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., a quarreltook place between the appellant and deceased Sandip.They separated the quarrel.Thereafter, he, PW 2 Ankush,PW 3 Shaikher and deceased Sandip were proceedingtowards Azadnagar.The appellant was standing near policechowki.The appellant called Sandip.Thereafter, theappellant assaulted Sandip with a knife on chest and hand.The appellant also attempted to give blow to PW 2 Ankushand PW 3 Shaikher.Thus, it is not a sudden quarrel and thatthe incident occurred during a sudden quarrel / fight but infact, the quarrel took place some time prior to the incidentwhich quarrel was separated and thereafter, this incident hasoccurred.Thus, it is seen that at the time of the incident,there was no sudden quarrel.No doubt, there was a quarrelbut that was sometime before the incident.This quarrel wasseparated and thereafter, the appellant came and took thedeceased a little distance away and then assaulted him.Even as far as the evidence of PW 2 Ankush is concerned, hejfoanz vkacsjdj 21 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docstated that there was a quarrel between the appellant anddeceased Sandip.They heard loud noise, hence, they wenttowards the appellant and deceased Sandip and at that time,the appellant gave blow with knife on the chest, right handand left rib of Sandip.Exception 4 toSection 300 of IPC reads as under:-jfoanz vkacsjdj 22 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).doc In the present case, it is seen that Sandip and hisfriends were all unarmed whereas the appellant came onmotorcycle and assaulted Sandip with a knife.The appellantdid not stop by giving one blow but he gave four blows onthe vital parts of the deceased.In such case, it can be saidthat the appellant has taken undue advantage of thesituation, hence, the present case would not be covered byException 4 to Section 300 of IPC.It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaultedSandip with a knife which led to the death of Sandip.This iscorroborated by the medical evidence.PW 8 Dr. Shinde whoconducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sandipfound three CLWs.In addition, Dr. Shinde found thefollowing injuries:-i) Stab wound over ziphisternum size 2.5 x 1 x 1/4 cm.Cavity deep with piercing at left of liver;ii) Stab wound at left lateral parasternal region at 5th inner coastal space size 2.5 x 1 x 5 cm;jfoanz vkacsjdj 23 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).dociii) Incised wound on chest above left nipple extending from midsternum to infra axillary;iv) Incised wound over right antecubital force size 6 x 1 x 1 cm.Dr. Shinde has stated that the injuries found on thedead body are possible by knife.He has further stated thatthe cause of death is due to cardio respiratory failure due toinjury to vital organs.On going through the record, we are of the opinion thatthere is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonabledoubt that the appellant committed the murder of Sandip byassaulting him with knife.Thus, we find no merit in theappeal.The appeal is dismissed.Before parting with this judgment, we must record ourappreciation for Advocate Ms. Shivani Seena Kunder who wasappointed to represent the appellant.We found that she hadmeticulously prepared the matter and she has very ablyargued the appeal.We also record our appreciation for thejfoanz vkacsjdj 24 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 :::cri apeal 815-14 (j).docvaluable assistance rendered by learned APP Mr. Arfan Sait.::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 11:47:26 ::: | ['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,471,764 | This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, Salem District to consider the petitioner's bail application on his surrender in Crime No.598 of 2018 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294-B, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Amendment 2015 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the respondent.Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem District, is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in connection with Crime No.593 of 2018 pending on the file of the respondent police, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consider the same in accordance with law on the same day.With this observation, this criminal original petition is disposed of.09.07.2018Internet : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non-speaking ordermkNote: Issue order copy on 10.07.2018ToThe Principal Sessions Judge Salem District.The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH,J,mk Crl.OP.No.17268 of 201809.07.2018 | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,483,208 | As per Shri Atul Agrawal a Medical Board was formed and that Medical Board found that petitioner's daughter is under severe depression and that may be detrimental to her life.When such situation is confronted, this Court requested Dr. Gour, In-charge Professor to meet the girl in question again and ascertain her desire so also her mental and physical status.Dr. Gour on our request spared her valuable time and had met with the girl and expressed that she is anaemic and may require blood transfusion.She further submits that it is a case of high risk termination and either case, termination or continuation, may pose high risk as per the text books of Obstetrics so also her long experience of over 25 years.She also expressed that three problems will be confronted if her pregnancy is to be terminated; the legal impediment, (ii) risk to the victim herself and (iii) future of foetus if it is delivered live.Petitioner and his wife have been consulted by the amicus curiae Shri N.K.Gupta and both of them alongwilth the girl in question have communicated their desire to undergo termination of the pregnancy under the Court order and they are ready to face the consequences at their own risk.It is their contention that since they come from very humble background cost may be borne by the State. | ['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,487,044 | Item No. 11In Re.:-An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.2.2014 in connection with Bhagwanpur Police Station Case No. 145 of 2013 dated 20.10.2013 under Sections 498A/326(A)/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code.In re.: Rabindranath Giri ...Petitioner Mr. Sandip Kundu ...for the Petitioner Mr.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, ) (Ishan Chandra Das,J.) 2 | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,490,272 | The hymen was found intact.ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J.)The State is aggrieved on account of fact that in spite of convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. attempt to rape, the Respondent has been let off on probation by extending the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 Cr.P.C.The reason why the learned trial Judge has given said benefit of probation is the age of the Respondent when the crime was committed.As per the evidence on record his age was 21 years when the crime took place.::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 19:48:07 :::(204) Apeal 569-01FIR was registered on 17.04.1999 when the prosecutrix (PW-1)came with her mother and relatives to the police station and made astatement.The statement records that on 15.04.1999, as the prosecutrixwas returning from the house of her grandmother to the house whereshe lived with her parents, at 8.00 p.m. the Respondent who was drivingan auto rikshaw offered a lift to her and her sister Roshani (PW-2).Hetook them to a lonely place and attempted to rape her.The MLC : Ex 34, of the prosecutrix shows no injury on the bodymuch less around the genitals. | ['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,492,364 | And In the matter of : Jamtu Baski & Ors.Mr. Prasenjit Mukherjee ...For the petitioners Mr. Sushil Kumar Mahato ... For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Rampurhat P.S Case No. 131 of 2010 dated 08.08.2010 under Sections 376/511/354/294/525/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.(Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) (Raghunath Ray, J.) 2 | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
744,989 | JUDGMENT Daud, J.This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The couple were in the employ of P.W. 2 Raju Patil who was doing dairy business in the name and style of Kapila Dairy Farm at Mundhava, Pune.Patil owns a big herd of buffaloes and the business being on a somewhat large-scale, requires a retinue of servants.Relations between Jeevan and Ratan were strained and not cordial.Jeevan was addicted to drinking and possibly drugs also.He had a suspicious nature and was always short of money.The natural peevishness used to be given expression at all times irrespective of the place and situation.On 12-7-1987, the couple had been to a movie and the boorishness exhibited by Jeevan on that occasion had led to a heated exchange between the spouses.The quarrel continued even after the couple returned home.Within two or three minutes of their return to room No. 2, at about 2-30 p.m., Ratan came running out of the room engulfed in flames and shouting that her husband had burnt her.Jeevan and several others made an attempt to stamp out the flames and after that was done, Jeevan reached Ratan to the room of her brother.This brother, Yuvraj was living in another room of the servant quarters with his wife Sonabai (P.W. 9).Ratan was removed for treatment to the Sassoon Hospital and it was found that she had sustained 30% burns.In her dying declaration recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate of Pune, which is at Exhibit 15, Ratan said that the frequent beatings inflicted on her person by Jeevan and his remarks about her unchastity etc., had constrained her to sprinkle kerosene on her person whereupon the appellant had flung a lit matchstick setting her person on fire.Death was due to shock following the burn injuries sustained by her.Jeevan had decamped and it was only on 17-1-1988 that he could be apprehended.The investigation and committal proceedings over, Jeevan came up for trial before an Additional Sessions Judge at Pune.Jeevan pleaded not guilty.He denied that he was a drunkard or he used to ill-treat his wife or that his behaviour was such as to compel Ratan to pour kerosene on her person.He further denied that he had flung a lit matchstick on her kerosene-smeared body.The learned trial Judge held that Jeevan had flung a lit matchstick on the kerosene soaked person of his wife and this had led to the burns sustained by her, which burns, in turn, had resulted in her untimely death.Jeevan was found guilty under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.In appeal, Mr. Deshmukh appointed to prosecute the same on behalf of the appellant, raises two points.The first submission is that there was no evidence to show what had taken place inside room No. 2 just before Ratan came running out engulfed in flames.The appellant was not guilty and in fact had tried to stamp out the flames enveloping the person of Ratan.Therefore, the appellant was entitled to an exoneration.He next submits that it was improbable that the appellant had to do anything to set Ratan on fire.That lady had in fact sprinkled kerosene on her person and was capable of setting herself on fire for all that remained to be done after the preparatory step taken by her was to get a match box, light a matchstick and apply the same to her kerosene soaked person or clothes.In this setting, her declaration of Jeevan having burnt her were not to be taken in the literal sense.What she was saying was that the alleged course of conduct followed by Jeevan in his dealings with her had compelled her to attempt to put an end to her life, and it was in that sense, that the burns had to be construed.We find great substance in this contention.Of course, we are also required to consider the first point raised by learned Counsel and we proceed to do that now.What occurred inside the room is of course not known, for the only adult members inside the house had come to at 2-30 p.m. were Jeevan and Ratan.The latter is dead and gone and Jeevan has taken the stand of denying everything that has been put to him to explain the circumstances appearing against him.What we know is that the couple had come quarrelling and that Jeevan had made life difficult for his wife by his constant taunts, beatings and demands.Ratan speaks of there being an increase in the number and intensity of beatings inflicted on her by the appellant in the four days preceding and inclusive of that on which she was brought to the hospital.On 12-7-1987 itself, Jeevan went drunk and had beaten her and at about 3-30 p.m. or so, had snatched Rs. 70/- which Ratan received by way of wages.At about 3-45 p.m. Jeevan accused her of being unfaithful to him and this remark was accompanied by a fresh round of beating.The lady had enough of her husband and she, therefore, poured kerosene on her person.It is the next step in the account given by Ratan which is difficult to accept.Jeevan had made life difficult for her to such an extent that she had decided to put an end to her life.This being the object, she soaked her person in kerosene.Nothing further was required to be done except light herself.This was not beyond Ratan, for the household had the requisite material for the purpose.The house was used as a residence where the couple were living and there, surely, must have been a match box within easy reach.It is not difficult to believe that the natural thing for a person placed in the position of Ratan was to fetch a match box, flush out a matchstick therefrom light it and apply the light to her kerosene-soaked body.Jeevan had behaved atrociously and a long suffering woman was made to end her life with her own hands because of the cruelty perpetrated upon her day in and day out by the appellant.This incessant cruelty cannot be mat by the trifling sentence of four years.A sufficiently deterrent sentence has to be imposed and in our view, the proper sentence would be one of seven years R.I. Hence the order.Appeal partly allowed.The conviction of the appellant converted to that falling under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.Appeal partly allowed. | ['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
745,053 | JUDGMENT G.L. Oza, J.This is an appeal submitted by the three appellants against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol.The prosecution case at the trial was that the deceased Ganga was the real brother of Sihrital (P. W. 1) and the appellant Bablu and the two other appellants, Kodu and Rampallu alias Pallu are sons of appellant Bablu.Sankhu (P. W. 4) is the daughter of the deceased Ganga and Ramkaliya (P. W. 5) is the wife of the deceased.It is alleged that on 26-6-1979, the deceased was working in his Badi in the afternoon and suddenly, the deceased was attacked by the three appellants, by lathi, axe and spade, Sankhu (P. W. 4) saw the occurrence and raised an alarm.After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the learned Court below convicted the appellants as mentioned above,The learned Court below placing reliance on the testimony of Shankhu (P. W. 4) came to the conclusion that all the three appellants attacked the deceased and also came to the conclusion that on account of earlier disputes the relations were strained and on any excuse, the trouble could start.It has also been found that there was some trouble resulting in a verbal quarrel and thereafter, the incident resulted in the injuries on the person of the deceased.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the evidence does not disclose as to how the trouble started between the two parties and it was also contended that it appears that the deceased himself was carrying the Fawda, which is alleged to be an instrument of offence, as he was working in the Badi.It was, therefore, contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not appear to be reliable.It was also contended that it appears that on some hot exchange, the deceased himself attempted to use the Fawda which he was carrying and it was snatched from him and injury was inflicted with the bald side of the Fawda.It is no doubt true that the learned Judge himself felt that as a result of some verbal quarrel on the spur of the moment, trouble started and the Fawda which was with the deceased himself may have been snatched by one of the appellants. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,517,119 | Item No. 55And In the matter of: Sujit Neogi & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No.550 of 2013 dated 14.09.2013 under sections 341/323/504/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 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 and other relevant material including the seizure list.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) | ['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,519,171 | The appellant is a very qualified and senior medical practitioner.In 1987, he obtained the MBBS degree from the Medical College, Kolkata.Thereafter, in 1992, he got the DCH qualification from Chittaranjan Seva Sadan, Kolkata.In 2009 he obtained MD in Pediatrics and DM in neurology from PGIMER, Chandigarh.He worked in the Dhanbad Railway hospital as paediatrician and thereafter with B. R. Singh Hospital.Now, he specialises in neurology and works with K. G. Hospital, in Chittaranjan, district Bardhaman.It so happened that on or about 24th December, 2010 the regular ward doctors of the hospital were on leave.The appellant was in charge, although he was a specialist in neuroscience.On that day, a young girl Purbasha Das of about 19 years of age was admitted to the hospital.Such admission was made on the advice of the out-door doctor.She was suffering from fever for two or three days accompanied by loose motion and nausea.The hospital had no blood testing facility.On clinical examination of the patient, the appellant prescribed a combination of two antibiotics and supporting drugs and IV fluid, namely, Cefotaxime, Ofloxacin, Rantac injection Paracetamol and IV fluid.Later, on 25th December, 2010 on receipt of blood test reports, including the report of Widal test he advised the addition of a third antibiotic, Chloromycetin, suspecting typhoid.According to the statement made by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in the case subsequently started against him, CC Case No.40 of 2012, "the patient was responding to the treatment and her condition quite stable and improving till 26th December, 2010."From 27th December, 2010 the appellant relinquished charge of the ward.Dr. Dipanjan Basak took charge of the patient.She developed acute respiratory complication.A chest x-ray was performed.She was then released from K. G. Hospital by her family and taken to Mission Hospital, Duragapur.She was admitted there on 30th December, 2010 in the very early hours, at 12.40 a.m. This hospital made the diagnosis that she was suffering from septicemia with multi organ failure.The chest x-ray and CT scan revealed pulmonary oedema and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).She expired that very night at 4.50 a.m. In the death certificate the cause of death was stated to be acute respiratory distress syndrome together with sepsis plus multiple organ dysfunction syndromes.On 12th January, 2011 Mr. Himangsu Kumar Das father of Purbasha Das made a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Chittranjan Police Station, Chittaranjan, West Bengal against the appellant, alleging criminal negligence.On 13th January, 2011 the police drew up an FIR (FIR No.1 of 2011 dated 13th January, 2011) against him and Dr. Dipanjan Basak alleging commission of death by negligence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.This is quite contradictory to other records.According to the appellant and not contradicted by any record that the patient was admitted to K. G. Hospital with three to four days history of vomiting, loose motion and fever.A widal test performed on the patient stated prior to admission to the hospital stated that there was an indication of Typhoid or enteric fever.At any rate there was no blood testing facility at the hospital.It is an approved practice amongst responsible medical practitioners possessing ordinary skill to use this kind of combination drugs to treat enteric fever or typhoid, according the appellant.Thereafter, the doctor who was originally in charge of her Dr. Dipanjan Basak took over her responsibility on 27th December, 2010 at about 9 a.m. If at all the condition of the patient deteriorated it was after the appellant relinquished charge of the patient.From 27th onwards she was admittedly not under the appellant.Her treatment was regulated by the regular doctor at the ward.On 24th December, 2010 a nineteen year old girl was admitted in the female ward of Kasturba Gandhi Hospital, Chittaranjan, Burdwan with symptoms of fever, loose motion and vomiting which according to her father had been continuing for three to four days before such admission.The appellant though attached to the said hospital as Neurologist was in charge of the female ward of the said hospital on and from 24th December, 2010 to 26th December, 2010 as the regular in-charge Dr. Dipanjan Basak was on leave.The girl was examined by Dr. Ajay Kumar at the outpatient department and on his advice the girl was admitted in the hospital.The appellant examined her clinically and administered drugs like Cefotaxime, Ofloxacin, Ondansetron, Ranitidine and Paracetamol as he was of the opinion that the patient was suffering from typhoid fever.At the time of admission the father of the girl handed over certain pathological reports which also suggested that the girl was suffering from enteric fever.According to the appellant the condition of the girl improved upon administration of the aforesaid medicines and he included another drug namely Chloramphenicol as he came to a fair conclusion that the patient was suffering from typhoid.On 27th December, 2010 the regular in-charge Dr. Dipanjan Basak resumed his duties and took over charge of the female ward where the patient was admitted.The appellant did not have any occasion to treat the patient any further.On and from 28th December, 2010 the condition of the patient deteriorated and on 29th December, 2010 the girl had serious respiratory problem.X-ray was conducted which revealed that one of her lungs was severely damaged and the other was seriously affected by pneumonia.The girl was referred to Mission Hospital, Durgapur.As the question before the learned Court whether the death of the girl was due to rash and negligent act of the doctor required specialised skill the learned Court referred all the medical documents in connection with the treatment of the victim girl to the Chief Medical Officer, Burdwan for his comment who in turn forwarded all the said documents to the Additional Chief Medical Officer of Health, Asansol who constituted a medical board consisting of himself and two other doctors.The board unanimously opined that the medication in the doses mentioned would have in the normal course of the event be sufficient to cure both the enteric fever and pneumonia.Ms. Manisha Bhowmick, Mr. Biplab Guha.I have had the privilege of going through the draft judgment prepared by my sister Amrita Sinha, J. I agree with the conclusions reached by her ladyship.Nevertheless, since this matter is of great importance I would like to deliver a separate concurring judgment.On 18th March, 2011 the family of the deceased addressed a complaint to the Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council and others, including the Medical Council of India.Now, further to the complaint of Mr. Himangsu Kumar Das the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol on 2nd April, 2013 constituted a Medical Board consisting of the ACMOH, Asansol, Dr. Nilanjan Chattopadhya and Dr. Srikanta Gongopadhya.This Medical Board opined that the medicines prescribed by the appellant were adequate for enteric fever and pneumonia.The family of the deceased did not stop there.They moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.They did not prosecute the matter there and the complaint was dismissed.On 19th August, 2014 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the appellant as prima facie no negligence could be attributed to him.After an enquiry, on 2nd August, 2016, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the West Bengal Medical Council.It was issued under Section 17 read with Section 25 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914, The charge-sheet was as follows: "It appeared that there was some commission of errors in medical management of one patient, young girl, Purbasha Das at K.G. Hospital, Chittaranjan, which let to her death in multi-organ failure with respiratory complications, even though the case was initially appeared to be a case of Enteric Fever.Even though she was admitted with the diagnosis of RTI, no blood count or chest x-ray was performed.On 29-12-2010 the patient developed acuite respiratory complications and then chest x-ray was performed.She was subsequently referred to Mission Hospital, Durgapur where the diagnosis came out to be septicaemia with multi-organ failure.This quick onset indicated that between 27th and 29th December, 2010 there might be some errors in patient surveillance and on this score, you cannot be absolved of your responsibilities and that in relation there to you have been found prima facie guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect."" There seems to be contradiction at the initial stage of the proceedings.The charge-sheet dated 2nd August, 2016 stated that the patient was admitted to K. G. Hospital "with the diagnosis of RTI" (respiratory tract infections).It simply said that on 29th December, 2010 the patient developed acute respiratory complications.X-ray and CT scan were carried out which revealed the existence of pulmonary oedema and ARDS.On 25th August, 2016 the appellant gave a detailed reply to the charge-sheet.His main points of defence were i) by specialisation he is a neurologist.As no regular doctors were available he was put in charge of the ward where the patient was kept.ii) the patient was admitted into the hospital with symptoms of vomiting and loose motion.There was a pathological report accompanying her which indicated that she suffered from typhoid.In those circumstances, the appellant administered the combination of three antibiotics.The treatment that was given to the patient by the appellant could not have been the cause of her death.On 21st August, 2017 the appellant received a communication from the Council dated 18th August, 2010 attaching its decision to remove his name from the register of medical practitioners by the required majority of 2/3 of the members present and voting, for a period of one year.The appellant was found guilty of infamous conduct.The Council made the following observations:a) The appellant was "not rational" in treating the patient with three antibiotics;This order was not complied with, by the appellate authority.In those circumstances the appellant moved the writ application (WP No.28956 (W) of 2017).On 5th December, 2017 the appellant duly appeared before the appellate authority.On 7th December, 2017 the Joint Secretary (Medical Administration) department of health and family welfare passed an order upholding the decision of the West Bengal Medical Council.It held that between 24th December and 26th December, 2010 the patient was substantially under the care of the appellant.Hence, the appellant ought to have availed of that remedy.An appeal lies to the Central Government under the Central Medical Act, 1957 read with Rule 27 of the Central Medical Council Rules, 1957 against removal of a doctor's name from the register.In my opinion, removal of name means permanent removal from the register.He prayed for an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-opposition.I reject the contention.In this appeal we propose to dispose of the writ application for the following reasons.The suspension of registration was for a period of one year.They would be available on filing of affidavits.The writ also involves substantial questions of law.When it is possible for us to dispose of the entire controversy between the parties on the basis of the papers before us we do not think that this Court should observe the formality of inviting affidavits and sending the matter to the first Court for adjudication, thereby delaying justice to the point of defeating it.He was not charged with having administered three antibiotics negligently.Yet he was tried for it.Using his clinical judgment, he prescribed three antibiotics.It is not controverted that the appellant was not the regular doctor at the ward where the patient was admitted.He was a neurologist.He said that there was no scope under the said Act to give reasons.I am unable to agree.First of all, the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 is a very ancient Act. The principles of administrative law were just about germinating at that point of time.The facilities at the hospital of Chittaranjan were limited.At the end I note that the victim patient's family was not represented in Court.On several occasions we had enquired of learned counsel for the appellant whether the victim had been noticed.I set aside the impugned order of suspension of the appellant's right to practise for a period of one year made by the respondent council by its decision dated 18th August, 2017 and affirmed on 7th December, 2017 by the appellate authority, by quashing the same.The appellant will be entitled to resume practice immediately.I have not gone into the question of any loss and damage suffered by the appellant for being denied the right to practice from 18th August, 2017 till the date of this judgment and order.Such right of the appellant is kept open to be urged in a separate proceeding if he wants to initiate the same.(I.P. Mukerji, J.) Amrita Sinha, J.:-This appeal has been filed at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 3rd January, 2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31338 (W) of 2017 refusing to pass interim order in the matter.The appellant a medical practitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the West Bengal Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as "WBMC" for the sake of brevity) contained in memo bearing no. 3165-C/28-2011 dated 21st August, 2017 and the order dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Appellate Authority of WBMC.The father of the victim girl lodged a complaint against the appellant before the West Bengal Medical Council on 12th January, 2011 as well as before the Officer-in-Charge, Chittaranjan Police Station, Burdwan on 13th January, 2011 praying for taking legal action against him and for cancellation of his medical registration.The father of the victim being dissatisfied with the final report tendered by the police in the said case filed a Narazi petition before the learned Court which was taken up for consideration and further re- investigation was directed to be conducted by the police.The final report of the police was accepted and the appellant was discharged from the said case.The victim's father lodged another complaint against the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal praying for taking legal action against the appellant and for cancellation of his medical registration.However, vide order dated 11th March, 2016 the said complaint case being no. CC/40/2012 was dismissed for non-prosecution.The appellant had been advised to submit his original medical registration certificate to the West Bengal Medical Council for the next course of action.As the said appeal was kept pending for a considerable period of time accordingly the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being W.P. 26252 (w) of 2017 and vide order dated 10th November, 2017 this Hon'ble Court passed necessary orders upon the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order.As the Appellate Authority did not consider and dispose the appeal within the time specified by this Hon'ble Court the appellant filed a second writ petition praying for passing necessary order for disposal of the appeal.The learned Single Judge vide order dated 3rd January, 2018 had issued direction to file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks and reply thereto within two weeks thereafter.The point of maintainability of the writ petition had been kept open.The learned Single Judge felt prudent not to grant any interim order at that stage.Being aggrieved the writ petitioner filed the instant appeal praying for necessary orders.Submissions on behalf of the appellant :-The primary charge framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 2nd August, 2016 issued by the Registrar, WBMC was as follows:-"It appeared that there was some commission or errors in medical management of one patient, young girl Purbasha Das at KG Hospital, Chittaranjan which led to her death in multi-organ failure with respiratory complications even though the case was initially appeared to be a case of enteric fever.Even though she was admitted with the diagnosis of RTI, no blood count or chest x-ray was performed.This quick onset indicated that between 27th and 29th December, 2010 there might be some errors in patient surveillance and on this score you cannot be absolved of your responsibilities and that in relation thereto you have been found prima facie guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect".The appellant had been requested to bring the certificate of registration in original and also updated registration certificate and to submit the same before start of hearing failing which his case would be heard and decided ex parte.The charge was pre-determined and biased.Admittedly blood tests were advised by the appellant when she was admitted at the hospital.The order of penalty speaks otherwise.It states that the appellant was not rational in continuation of the treatment of the patient with three antibiotics at the initial stage.The appellant was not given any opportunity to meet the charge of using three antibiotics for treatment of the patient.The charge of administering three antibiotics was not mentioned in the charge memo.The appellant did not have any chance or scope to deal with the said charge.The appellant ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity to defend his stand.This in my view is serious violation of natural justice.It appears from records that on the complaint lodged by the father of the victim before the police station the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol referred the medical documents in respect of the victim to the Chief Medical Officer Health, Burdwan who forwarded the papers to the Additional Chief Medical Officer of Health, Asansol.A medical board was constituted consisting of the Additional Chief Medical Officer of Health, Asansol along with two other doctors.The board unanimously opined that the medication in the doses mentioned would have in the normal course of the event the sufficient to cure both the enteric fever and pneumonia.As regards observation of not advising chest x-ray of the patient the appellant had already dealt with the same in his show cause.He has specifically stated that chest X-ray was not done as there was no symptom of Respiratory Tract Infection (RTI).It has been strenuously submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent that the appellant had filed three writ petitions on the self-same cause of action.This appeal arises out of the third writ petition filed by the appellant.It has been mentioned earlier that the first writ petition was filed praying for expeditious disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order of the West Bengal Medical Council.In that view of the matter this court vide order dated 23rd.April 2018 proposed to hear the appeal finally and dispose of the same on merits on the papers of the stay petition.It is pertinent to mention that the writ petition along with all annexures have been annexed with the application for stay.The decision of the West Bengal Medical Council contained in memo bearing no. 3165-C/28-2011 dated 21st August, 2017 and the order dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Appellate Authority of West Bengal Medical Council are set aside.The West Bengal Medical Council is directed to re-enter the name of the appellant in the register of medical practitioners immediately without any delay and preferably within a period of forty eight hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The appellant is at liberty to resume practice forthwith. | ['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,519,739 | The matter has been heard through video conferencing.Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate, along with Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Jitendra Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station - Sikandarabad, District - Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:(i) against FIR lodged on 7.1.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 17.1.2020;(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;(iii) as to criminal history, it appears that along with the present case, certain other cases have already been registered against the applicant;(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, in the present case crime number, the main accused are Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal, who were the beneficiaries of the lease deed claimed by them.The present applicant was neither a lessee nor he had executed that deed nor he was a marginal witness to the same.Merely because he is a husband of one of the beneficiary i.e. Geeta Devi, he cannot be accused of manipulation in the lease deed claimed by Geeta Devi.Second, it has been submitted, in any case, co-accused Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal have approached this Court by means of Crl.M. Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2020, wherein this Court had stayed the arrest of co-accused Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal during pendency of the investigation.The Court has observed as under:"The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner has obtained an interim order in Writ C No.9354 of 2018 whereby the respondents have been restrained from demolishing or interfering in the possession of the petitioner over plot No.633/2 area 0.6.0 biswa.It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the lodging of the F.I.R. is not justified at all and if the respondents are aggrieved, then they should have filed an application for vacation of the interim order."(v) The investigation is stated to be still pending.As to the execution of the lease deed, it has been submitted that none of the deed has been executed by the applicant but by his father.The matter is also stated to be subjudice in certain writ petitions and, therefore, the applicant claims that he has become entitled to bail.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 27.5.2020 Prakhar | ['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,520,269 | It is submitted that daughter of informant was in affair with son of applicant.Both are major in age.They decided to perform the marriage.They are living happy marrital life.The applicant apprehending arrest in connection with the offence punishable u/s 366,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 23/2020 with Umri police station, Taluka Umri, District Nanded, preferred this application for anticipatory bail.Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent - State.Perused the F.I.R. and the Order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 :::2 935 Cr. ABA 301.2020In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is likely to be arrested and humiliated for no offence committed on her part.Being annoyed, the informant lodged false complaint alleging that his daughter was kidnapped and abducted.Pursuant to the complaint lodged by informant, the offences u/s 366, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against her son and family members.It is submitted that son of applicant was arrested and released on bail.The applicant apprehending arrest approached Sessions Court, Nanded for pre-arrest bail.By order dated 20/03/2020, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application.It is submitted that if the overall allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken to their face value and were accepted in its entirety, still it makes out no offence u/s 366 of Indian Penal Code.The victim i.e. daughter of informant who is major in age given statement before police that she has left the house of her father i.e. informant on her own and performed the marriage with Faiz, the son of applicant as per her will and desire.In that view no offence u/s 366 of Indian Penal Code attracted against the applicant.In this::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 ::: 3 935 Cr.ABA 301.2020 back-ground, learned counsel urged to extend protection u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. to applicant.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 :::On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposed the application with contention that applicant is habitually indulging in commission of such type of offences.She is also an accused in Crime No. 67/2019 registered for commission of offence u/s 376 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against her another son Sk.He too kidnapped a minor girl belonging to Hindu religion and committed rape on her.The applicant assisted him in kidnapping the victim girl.The applicant found to be in regular contact with the main accused.Because of the incident, there is likelyhood of communal tension as the girl belong to Hindu religion.On due consideration of submissions advanced, I am of the view the case is made out to grant protection to the applicant u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is mother of main accused who alleged to have kidnapped the daughter of informant.It is apparent from the record and more particularly the school leaving certificate that the victim girl is major in age.The victim girl alleged to be in affair with the son of applicant and claimed to have performed marriage with the son of applicant.At the time of performing marriage, the daughter of applciant has attained the age of majority.In that view, applicant::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 ::: 4 935 Cr.ABA 301.2020 deserves protection u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. The grant of anticipatory bail would not affect the on-going investigation.Custodial interrogation of applicant is not required for investigation of the case.I am, therefore, inclined to allow the application and pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 :::with the offence punishable u/s 366,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 23/2020 with Umri police station, Taluka Umri, District Nanded, the applicant be released on furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] with one surety in like amount on following conditions.[a] The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 15/06/2020 at 11.00 a.m. and co-operate in investigation.[b] From 16/06/2020 onwards till conclusion of investigation, the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.[c] Pending hearing and decision of case, the applicant shall not indulge into act amounting to pressurizing the informant and prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 :::In the event of breach of any of the condition, the bail granted to applicant liable to be cancelled.The application disposed of in above terms.[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE KNP::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 08:22:20 ::: | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,520,432 | Applicant is a student of M.B.A. IInd year in United Institute of Management, Allahabad.Applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 5.2.2020, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. | ['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. |
745,230 | The petitioner, who is the second accused in a case pending in C.C.No.3646 of 2007 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in respect of alleged offences under Section 420 I.P.C. seeks to quash the proceedings against him.The complaint avers as follows:That during the middle of the year 2003 the complainant decided to enter into real estate business and hence he told his interest to enter into the real estate business to one Mr. G.BABU, Son of G.Gurunathan, Hindu aged now about 35 years, residing at premises bearing Municipal Door No.8, 3rd Street, Thillaigar Nagar, Ennore, Chennai-600 057 who was to known to the complainant for the past five years.And he took the complainant on 15.8.2003 to A1 and he introduced the complainant to A1 signifying his interest in the real estate business.That A1 introduced himself the complainant as a real estate broker and he further told the complainant that there was one property on an extent of forty five grounds, comprised in T.S.No.87, Block No.24, adjacent to K2 Ayanpuram Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023, belonging to one Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR, Son of Late Lakshmana Chettiar, Hindu, then aged about 68 years, residing at premises bearing Municipal Door No.652, Dr.A1 further represented that the said property of Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR had come for sale and the said Mr. L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR had constituted A1 as his Attorney vide a Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 27.3.2002 registered as Document No.320 of 2002 with the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Mylapore, Chennai authorising him to dispose of the said 45 grounds of land.Accordingly on 31.8.2003 A1 took the complainant to the residence of A2 and introduced the complainant to A2, stating that the complainant came for obtaining legal opinion for the said property.On the request made by A1, A2 agreed to give the complainant his legal opinion on the title of the said 45 grounds of land belonging to Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR but A2 stated that he would give the legal opinion as if the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR applied to him for obtaining legal opinion as he was the owner of the said property.Then A2 asked A1 and the complainant to come his residence on 5.9.2003 to get his legal opinion.That on 5.9.2003, A2 furnished his legal opinion to the complainant on the title of the said 45 grounds of land at Ayanavaram, Chennai which categorically stated that the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR was the absolute owner of the said property.In fact A1 had not introduced Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR to the complainant till to date.That thereafter the complainant could not find A1 for years together.And the complainant did not know what to do with the agreement for sale deed 5.12.2003 that he entered into with Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR through A1 as Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR himself was not known to the complainant in person.That in the meantime on 10.10.2006 the complainant placed an order for printing visiting cards with M/s.Print Mart a priniting press at No.10, Ponnangipuram 1st Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 owned by one Mr.Ravi.When th4e complainant went to said printing press on 14.10.2006 for collecting the printed visiting cards, the complainant shared with said Mr.RAVI, his agony of lossing Rs.10 lakh to A1 by entering into the said agreement for sale deed 5.12.2003 in respect of the said property at Ayanavaram, Chennai belonging to Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR, requesting him to introduce him to a reliable advocate for taking legal action.No sooner than the complainant spoke about the said property, Mr.Ravi told the complainant that the said property was a trust property belonging to "DHARMARAJA PILLAI THANNEER PANDAL CHARITIES" and the said property was not a private property belonging to Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR.And Mr.RAVI further said that he himself was one of the trustees of said trust.Then Mr.RAVI asked the Complainant contact him after 15 days.That subsequently at the end of October 2006 when the complainant contacted the said Mr.RAVI at his printing press M/s.Print Mart, he furnished the complainant the following documents.(i) Xerox copy of the Trust Deed dated 8.7.1992 executed by Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR, and registered as Document No.498 of 1992, speaking about management of the piece of land on an extent of 5 Acres and 8 Cents comprised in T.S.No.76 to 87 and Block No.24 situated in Ayanavaram Village, Madras, belonging to the said trust viz., "DHARMARAJA PILLAI THANNEER PANDAL CHARITIES";(ii) Xerox copy of the order dated 6.11.1992 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.6063 of 1992;(iii) Certified copy of the order dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.9899 of 2003;That only after receipt of the above referred documents during the end of October 2006,the complainant came to understand through his advocate(i) that the said property measuring 4 grounds, comprised in T.S.No.76 to 87 and Block No,24 situated in Ayanavaram Village, Madras, which was a part of the land on an extent of 5 Acres and 8 Cents belonging to the said trust viz., "DHARMARAJA PILLAI THANNEER PANDAL CHARITIES" and said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR was not owner of the said property offered for sale to the complainant;(ii) that A1 filed a case in W.P.No.9899 of 2003 on behalf of said Mr.L.KANNAPPAN and A2 appeared for him in that case arguing that the said property was a trust property belonging to "DHARMARAJA PILLAI THANNEER PANDAL CHARITIES"; andThat in the meantime on 1.12.2006 at about 10 a.m. When the complainant was purchasing sweets at Shanthi Sweets, situated opposite to Egmore Railway Station, Chennai-600 008 he saw A1 going towards Hotel Imperial Residency, at No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008 which was situated adjacent to the said Shanthi sweets.Immediately the complainant ran and caugh A1 and shouted at him stating that he and his Advocate A2 cheated him (the complainant) the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by deceiving him to enter into the said agreement for sale by false representation and false legal opinion that the said property was a private property of the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR deliberately suppressing the fact that it was a trust property belonging to "DHARMARAJA PILLAI THANNEER PANDAL CHARITIES" and hence the complainant asked A1 to return the advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum since the date of said agreement for sale dated 5.12.2003 failing which the complainant threatened A1 with immediate police complaint.Hence said A1 requested the complainant to come in the evening to his said hotel room and collect a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,37,500/- towards the cheated amount of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum thereon for a period of 2 years, 11 months and 25 days since 5.12.2003 on which date the complainant was cheated.That accordingly on 1.12.2006 in the evening at about 5 p.m. A1 issued the complainant a cheque dated 1.12.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, West Mambalam Branch, Chennai-600 033 for a sum of Rs.15,37,500/- in his favour.The complainant presented the said cheque dated 1.12.2006 issued by A1 with his Banker M/s. Indian Overseas bank, Mogappair Branch, Chennai, but the same was dishonoured for the reason INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.That the complainant submit that he was deceived by the false representation made by A1 and the false legal opinion given by his Advocate A2 and thereby the complainant was induced to enter into the said agreement for sale deed 5.12.2003 with said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR through A1 and part with the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- when no such property as described in the agreement for sale belonged to Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR and thus A1 and his Advocate A2 have committed the offence of Cheating against the complainant punishable Under Section 420 I.P.C. Read with Section 34 I.P.C. That the complainant would not have parted with the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by entering into the said agreement for sale if he has known that the said property was a trust property."The Lower Court has taken cognizance of offence under section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.and issued process to the accused.The petitioner herein being the second accused has preferred the present petition.Believing the representation of the first accused as also the said legal opinion, the complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 5.12.2003 with the said L.Kannappa Chettiar represented by the first accused as Power of Attorney of the said person.The complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the first accused at the residence of the first accused. | ['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,527,241 | The relationship between the parties for sake of convenience is that complainant-Seema is wife of Guru Dutt Sharma, Naval Kishore being father-in-law, Rani Devi being mother-in-law and Guru Dutt being husband of the complainant and Preety @ Gudiya and Richa are sister-in-law (Nanad).The factum of marriage of complainant-Seema with Guru Dutt Shukla on 30.04.2002 at Pohri District Shivpuri is admitted fact.As per the prosecution story, a complaint has been lodged on 3 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 30.06.2006 with respect to the incident said to have taken place on 27.06.2006 by complainant-Seema W/o Guru Dutt Shukla stating there in that after her marriage, she remained in her matrimonial house for two months and there was no dispute, but thereafter, her husband along with her in-laws have started abusing and harassing her and started demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-.She was beaten by her husband and in-laws.The information was sent to her father on 08.02.2004, thereafter, father came to her matrimonial house and took her along with him.A maintenance case was filed by the complainant against her husband, which was compromised on 27.06.2006 and she went to her matrimonial house along with her husband from the Court itself.Again she was harassed by the husband and in-laws with respect to demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-.Her brother Pradeep Kumar Shukla and his friend Ravi Kumar came to her matrimonial house and saw that she was being beaten and was pushed out of the house saying that there is no compromise without money (two lacs).She was threatened and was asked to bring Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) from her father, failing which, they will not keep her and will kill her.(Passed on 15th May, 2020) The present revision petition (Cr.R No. 18/2015) has been preferred by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 416/2012 and also the part of judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court whereby, respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC.The present revision petition (Cr.R. 58/2015) Passed by the trial Court confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the judgment of trial Court dated 27.11.2012 whereby, respondent- Richa has been acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A, 294 and 506-B of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid information, an FIR was got registered at Crime No. 298/2006 at police Station Shivpuri for offence under Sections 294, 4 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 506-II and 498-A of IPC.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court.The prosecution has got examined certain prosecution witnesses namely complainant-Seema (PW-1), mother-Munni Tiwari (PW-2), brother- Pradeep Kumar (PW-3), father-Dinesh Kumar (PW-4), Keshav Singh Tomar (PW-5), Ravi Kumar (PW-6), Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-7), Bahadur Singh (PW-8)/head constable and J.S. Yadav (PW-9)- Investigating Officer in support of their case.3 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/20154 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015The learned trial Court after going through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties at length has arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against all the accused persons- respondents under Section 294, 506-II of IPC.Charges under Section 498-A of IPC has not been found proved against Smt. Richa (Sister-in-law of the complainant) and she has been acquitted from all the charges vide judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.2012, but charges under Section 498-A of IPC were found to be proved against Guru Dutt/husband, Naval Kishor Shukla (Father-in-law), Rani Devi (Mother-in-law) and Preety @ Guddiya (Sister-in- law/nand) and accordingly, vide judgment dated 27.11.2012 they were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC for one year RI and fine 5 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.The learned appellate Court after appreciation of all the evidences are available on record has arrived at the conclusion that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting Richa from all the charges and other accused persons for the offences under Section 294 and 506-II IPC, but has committed an error in convicting the appellants/respondents-Guru Dutt Shukla, Rani Devi, Prity @ Gudiya and Naval Kishore for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly, both the appeal decided analogously and decided by common judgment dated 05.12.2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 416/2012 filed by the appellants has been allowed and all the accused/respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and the appeal preferred by the complainant being Criminal Appeal No.419/2012 was dismissed 6 Cr.5 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015R. No. 58/2015Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has 7 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 held that the aforesaid letter was important piece of evidence to corroborate the entire prosecution story.7 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that learned trial Court has placed reliance upon the witness-Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) who is brother of the complainant as well as statement of Ravi Kumar (PW-6) who is his friend, wherein they have categorically stated in their statements that on 30.06.2006 they went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, wherein, they found some altercation taking place between complainant-Seema and her husband and in-laws.They have categorically stated that complainant-Seema was being badly abused and beaten by the accused-respondents and they have made demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- 8 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 in lieu of compromise between the complainant and her husband.The aforesaid statements were duly supported by the statements of father and mother of the complainant i.e. (PW-2) and (PW-4), but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court.It is further argued that the learned Appellate Court has failed to take note of the fact that there was some matrimonial dispute between the parties, owing to which, the complainant went to her parental house and started residing there.Thereafter a maintenance case was filed by complainant-Seema.8 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015P.C claiming maintenance has been closed down by way of compromise, but after closer of the case of maintenance, when she went to her matrimonial house, where again she was harassed and demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made and on 30.06.2006, her brother and his friend came to her matrimonial house to know whereabouts of the complainant and they saw that there was some altercation between the husband, in-laws and the complainant and she was 9 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 beaten and pushed out of the house saying that there cannot be any compromise without money and was asked to bring Rs. 2,00,000/-.He has drawn attention of this Court to para 7 onwards of the judgment of the trial 10 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.9 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/201510 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015Therefore, she prayed for setting aside of the judgment of Appellate Court.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has denied all the arguments which is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that learned Appellate Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the case and appellants- respondents have rightly been acquitted from all the charges.It is further argued that the learned Appellate Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and the respondents have been acquitted from the aforesaid charges, whereas, the factum of charges under Section 294 and 506- II of IPC were not found proved by the learned trial Court, then, there was no occasion to arrive at conclusion that the offence under 11 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 Section 294 and 506-II of IPC are being made out against the respondents except Richa.The learned trial Court has rightly acquitted Richa of all the charges on the basis of evidence available on record.The complainant has written a letter and the same has laid the foundation of the case and thereafter, an FIR has been registered, but the aforesaid letter was neither being produced before the police authorities, nor the same was being produced before the Court by the prosecution.On the contrary, father of the complainant i.e. PW-4 has specifically admitted in para 8 of his cross examination that there was no demand of dowry being made at any point of time.Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to para 12 of the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that the prosecution has not produced any documents (the letter) to show that any demand of dowry was being made by the husband and in-laws of the complainant.The complainant has stated that she has posted a letter to her father informing about the harassment and demand of dowry, but the aforesaid letter neither handed over to the police authorities nor the same was being produced by the prosecution.Even in the statement of the complainant, she has admitted that the police station was just 12 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015 opposite to the post office, from where, she has posted the letter and If there is being any harassment regarding illegal demand of dowry has been made by in-laws, then the matter could have been reported the police station then and there, but the same has not been done and inspite going to police station she has gone to the post office.There is material deference between the aforesaid two amounts.Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court to document filed in defense i.e. judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Shivpuri in Case No. 18/2011 HMA dated 20.08.2013, wherein, marriage between husband and the complainant dated 30.04.2002 has been dissolved.It is argued that the divorce case was filed on the ground of desertion and false allegation being made by the wife/complainant against her husband.They prayed for dismissal of the present criminal revision petition.11 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015R. No. 58/201513 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr.R. No. 58/2015The grounds which have been raised by the complainant as far as reversal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is concerned, it is seen from the record that the complainant has failed to produce the letter which is said to have been posted to her father mentioning all the allegations against in-laws and her husband regarding harassment and demand of dowry.It is further seen from the record that the post office, from where, the aforesaid letter is said to have been posted is opposite to the police station, but the complainant has chosen to post the aforesaid letter and not to inform the police authorities regarding the harassment and illegal demand of dowry.The approach of the complainant appears to be unnatural.Thus, the learned Appellate Court has arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Section 498-A of IPC against the present respondents and has affirmed the finding given by the learned trial Court as far as charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC are concerned.15 Cr.R. No.-18-2015 & Cr. | ['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
745,298 | Applicant and opposite party No.2 is Jija and Shala and there ison going grudge between two.Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.Applicant willhave two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. | ['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,538 | JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:a) The deceased in this case is one Lt.N.K. Madhavan, a retired man, who was staying with his wife P.W.4 and daughter P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar.P.W.1's husband had been at Oman and at that time, P.W.1 along with her daughter was staying with her parents.b) On the fateful day of occurrence which took place on 03.09.1997, P.W.4, the wife of the deceased, had been to recreation club at about 11.30 a.m. P.W.1 and her daughter were inside the house watching T.V. along with the deceased Madhavan .c) At that time, A1 to A3, came to the house and requested the deceased Madhavan to give them drinking water.The deceased went to the kitchen and brought them water and they drank the same.Even thereafter, they were standing near the entrance and watching the T.V.d) On seeing the accused standing near the entrance, under a cloud of suspicion, P.W.1 asked the deceased as to why the accused were standing still.The deceased told her that they were watching TV.In order to make them leave the place, she switched off the T.V. and called her daughter to come inside the house.e) At that point of time, A1 and A2 entered into the house, A1 Prakash took the knife M.O.1 and threatened P.W.1 to part with them the gold and cash.On seeing that, the deceased Madhavan caught hold of the knife and at that time, A2 Sathiya @ Sathyam attacked P.W.1 with M.O.2 hacksaw blade on the back side of her head and on her arms.f) Then, P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar ran inside the bedroom.In the meantime, A1 Prakash stabbed the deceased on his back and stomach with the knife.A2 Sathya alias Sathyam chased P.W.1 towards the bedroom and pushed her on the bed.She managed to get up and take her daughter and went inside the bath room and locked the door from inside.g) Thereafter, P.W.1 shouted for help from the public through the window.In the meantime, the accused persons sped away from the place.h) P.W.1 opened the door and came out of the bedroom and saw her father the deceased coming towards her room from the gate with injuries.i) P.W.3 Gunasekaran, a neighbour and Aruldoss, watchman, chased the accused persons in a Maruthi Car and P.W.2 Vijay Anand, another neighbour, in a Scooter.Ultimately, P.W.2 and Aruldoss caught hold of A.1 Prakash and A.3 Saravanan.j) While catching hold of them, Aruldoss, the watchman, attacked A1 Prakash on his leg with M.O.4 aruval, and his dog had bitten the leg of A3 Saravanan.Then, P.W.2 Vijay Anand snatched the knife from the accused and both the accused were tied up with their shirts and were brought near the house and made them to sit there itself.In the meantime, A2 Sathya alias Sathyam managed to escape and ran away.k) P.W.4 Sethulakshmi, the wife of the deceased, came from the Club and with the help of P.W.3 Gunasekaran, both the deceased and P.W.1 were taken to St. Thomas Hospital.P.W.1 and the deceased were given treatment.l) In the meantime, on receipt of the telephonic message, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, Nandambakkam Police Station, came to the scene of occurrence.He sent a message to P.W.13, Inspector of Police.P.25 is the First Information Report.n) P.W.13 Inspector of Police thereupon came to the scene of occurrence and observed all the formalities.He prepared Ex.P.26 observation Mahazar, drew Ex.P.27 rough sketch, collected bloodstained earth, arrested A1 and A3 and seized M.Os.8, 9 and 11 the bloodstained clothes from them.On their confession, it was found out that A2 Sathya alias Sathyam was also involved in the commission of the offence.o) P.W.13 Inspector of Police received the death intimation of the deceased on the same day at about 3.40 p.m. and thereafter, he altered the offence into one under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P.29 Express Report.p) Thereafter, P.W.13 Inspector of Police held an inquest over the body of the deceased between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., prepared Ex.q) P.W.7 Dr. K.Ravindran attached to the Government General Hospital, Royapettah, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 04.09.1997 at 11.05 am and found as many injuries on the body of the deceased.In Ex.P.12 postmortem certificate, P.W.7 Doctor gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries.r) In the meantime, A1 and A3 who were found with injuries, were sent to the Government Hospital, Chrompet where P.W.5 Dr.Venkatraman gave treatment and issued Exs.P.4 and P.5 wound certificates relating to A1 and A3 respectively.s) P.W.13 Inspector of Police thereupon sent Ex.P.17 requisition dated 05.09.1997 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, requesting him to direct the concerned Magistrate to conduct a test identification parade.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed an order, which was marked as Ex.P.18, directing the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Poonamallee, to conduct test identification parade.Pursuant to the said order Ex.P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar and Aruldoss, the watchman identified all the accused correctly.P.19 is the identification parade report submitted by P.W.11, the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Poonamallee.t)P.W. 14, the Inspector of Police, the successor of .W.13, took up further investigation and examined the other witnesses.In the meantime, P.W.14 arranged to send the material objects for chemical analysis.The appellants in Crl.A. No.527 of 2003 and the appellant in Crl.A. No. 466 of 2003 are A-1 and A-3; and A-2 respectively in S.C. No. 161 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. I, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram Division.They were convicted for the offences punishable (i) under Sections 449 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; (ii) under Section 394 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and (iii) under 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the above appeals.After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 394 r/w 397 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.u) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P1 to P.31 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked.v) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C about their complicity in the crime, they denied the same.However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.w) The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 394 r/w 397, 302 r/w 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as referred to above.Hence, these appeals.Rupert J. Barnabas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (A2) in Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2003, while assailing the judgment of conviction, would make the following contentions:i) Ex.P.31, the accident register relating to P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar would indicate that P.W.1 told Dr.Meenakshi Pande, who gave treatment, that two persons attacked her.Admittedly, A2 was not arrested in the scene.He was arrested only on 04.09.1997 at 7.15 p.m. near Poonamallee.iv) Both the original and the altered first information report reached the Court at the same time and there is no explanation for this delay.This delay also has not been explained.vi) Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar, the Page 1930 daughter of the deceased was present with her female child and there is no explanation as to why the child was not examined.vii) One Aruldoss, the watchman of the Defence Colony, who is the material witness and who chased the accused and caught A1 and A3, has not been examined.The non-examination of the said Aruldoss would affect the case of the prosecution.viii) The evidence of P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar is not in consonance with the deposition of P.W.4 Sethulakshmi.There are variations in their evidence Therefore, A2 is liable to be acquitted by giving the " benefit of doubt".Malarvannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who are A1 and A3, in Crl.A. No.527 of 2003, while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for A2, would submit that A3's presence in the scene has not been established, especially when there is no specific overt act attributed against A3 and in the above circumstance, it cannot be said that he also participated in the commission of the offence.On the above aspects, we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.At the outset, it shall be stated that we are very much impressed by the evidence of P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar, the daughter of the deceased Madhavan, who lodged the complaint with P.W.13 at 12.45 p.m. giving the full details about all the three accused.According to P.W.1, on 03.09.1997, all the accused came to their house at 11.30 a.m. and asked for drinking water; the deceased gave drinking water to them and even after drinking the water, they were standing near the entrance which was questioned by P.W.1 and the deceased said that they were only watching the T.V. Having a cloud of suspicion on the accused, P.W.1 switched off the T.V., and went inside.At that point of time, A1 and A2 came inside the house, A1 Prakash took out knife and threatened P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar to give them her jewels and cash.At that time, the deceased Madhavan intervened and he was attacked by A1 Prakash.Expecting danger to her life, P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar tried to escape by getting into the bedroom and at that time, A2 Sathya alias Sathyam also chased her towards the bedroom, pushed her on the bed, but however, she managed to get up and take her daughter from the bed and rushed to the bathroom and locked the door from inside and shouted for help from the public through the window .In the mean time, A1 Prakash caused further injuries on the deceased.P.12 post mortem certificate says that the deceased sustained more than 12 injuries on all the vital parts of the body of the deceased.After some time, P.W.1 came out and saw the deceased coming from the gate, with so many injuries and thereafter, they were taken to the hospital.All these details Page 1931 have been given in Ex.A.1 complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.13 Inspector of Police at about 12.45 p.m.Much was said about the delay.We are not impressed with regard to the said argument.On receipt of the telephonic message, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police came to the scene of occurrence and then after seeing the accused, who were caught red-handed, sent intimation to P.W.13 Inspector of Police, who, in turn, went to the hospital and immediately, recorded the complaint.In Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.1 specifically mentioned the involvement of the three accused persons in the crime.She also mentioned that one accused attacked the deceased and another accused attacked P.W.1, while A3 was standing near the entrance.Of course, it is true that the first information report had been registered on 03.09.1997 at 12.45 p.m. It is equally true that on 04.09.1997, the altered Express First Information Report had been prepared, after receipt of the intimation that the deceased Madhavan died at 3.15 p.m. and both the reports reached the Court on the same day.However, we should not forget one thing when the original F.I.R. reached the Court, P.W.13 Inspector of Police was able to collect the complete details and materials with reference to the participation of all the three accused.As indicated above, A1 and A3 were caught at the scene and were immediately, arrested by P.W.13 Inspector of Police and on the information given by A1 and A3, A2 was also arrested at Poonamallee on the next day.On the confession of A2, the bloodstained clothes were seized.On a perusal of the records as well as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 13, it is clear that the investigating officer sent the requisition on 05.09.1997 itself to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting test identification parade and in pursuance of the same, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed an order on 08.09.1997 itself.Accordingly, the parade was held on the same day and P.W.1 and Aruldoss correctly identified all the accused.According to the learned counsel appearing for A2, photographs were taken even before the parade and they were shown by the Police to P.W.1 and that is the reason why P.W.1 was able to identify the persons correctly.Unfortunately, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.W.13 Inspector of Police or not even a suggestion was put to him that photographs were taken and they had been shown to P.W.1 before she attended the parade.Curiously, nothing was complained of by A1 and A3 to P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade, after the parade was over.As a matter of fact, the questions put by the Judicial Magistrate to the accused and the answer given by the accused as found in the proceedings would not indicate that they raised any such objection.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, though the accused admitted that P.W.1 identified all the accused correctly, they did not venture to say that already the accused were shown to the witnesses and their photographs had been shown to the witnesses.It is true that one Aruldoss, who is the material witness, has not been examined.As a matter of fact, P.W.2 Vijay Anand is the star witness, who chased the accused and caught them with the weapons.But, after catching them, it is Aruldoss who attacked the accused and caused injuries on them.Thereafter, P.W.13 Inspector of Police, on seeing injuries on A1 and A3, sent them for treatment to P.W.5 Doctor and he found injuries on the body of A1 and A3 and issued copies of the accident register, Exs.P.4 and P.5, respectively.In view of the fact that P.W.2 has been examined during trial, the non-examination of Aruldoss would not affect the prosecution case.In Exs.P.4 and P.5, it is stated that the injuries were caused by unknown persons, while the accused were attempting to run away after committing the crime.No suggestion had been put with reference to the statement made by the accused to the Doctor either by questioning the said statement or disputing the same.Apart from this, we have got evidence for the recovery of the material objects from all the accused.M.O.2 knife contained human blood and M.O.1 and M.Os.8, 9 and 11 the clothes of the accused, contained blood which tallied with the group of the deceased, namely 'O Group'.In the light of the above materials, we conclude that A1 to A3 had participated in the said occurrence.Of course, since the accused were caught red-handed, no parade was necessary.But, since A2 was arrested subsequently in some other place, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer, to confirm the identity of the accused and arrange for the parade.Accordingly, the parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.11, and in that identification parade, P.W.1 Roopa Madhukumar correctly identified all the accused.On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness, P.W.2 and P.W.3 Gunasekaran, a neighbour, it is obvious that they have given clear narration of the occurrence which is corroborated by the medical evidence proving the case of prosecution against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in the above two appeals by the trial Court. | ['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
7,453,985 | This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2020 in connection with Crime No.413/2020 registered at P.S.-Pathariya, Distt.-Damoh, (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 294, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 17.05.2020, at 10 o'clock in the morning, complainant alongwith his cousin Sanjay Kurmi was returning from his field.At that time, petitioner and other co-accused met with the complainant and his cousin at one Sudama Khare's field near peepal tree.Petitioner was armed with axe and other co-accused were armed with stick.They have started abusing to the complainant party on account of dispute of land.Petitioner- accused inflicted injury to complainant's brother Sanjay by means of axe on his neck due to which he fell down on the earth.Co-accused Balram and Tekchand assaulted Sanjay by means of lathi on his head due to which he sustained injury on his head and also on his both hands.At that time, Sanjay's uncles Aanandi, Dindayal, cousin-Devendra came to the spot to save Sanjay then co-accused Balram again inflicted injury to Aanandi by means of lathi due to which he sustained injury on his right wrist.Co-accused Rodhe Patel inflicted injury to Deendayal on his head by lathi, Co-accused Rohit & Hargovind inflictd injury to Devendra.Thereafter, Hariram Kurmi, Giran Kurmi, Narayan Kurmi, Narayan Kurmi & Bhure Kurmi intervened the matter.Complainant party and petitioner party went to hospital for treatment.Complaint was lodged and the aforesaid offence has been registered against the present petitioner-accused and other co-accused Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has submitted that petitioner-accused has been falsely implicated in this case.Petitioner-accused is also injured in this incident.He received grievous injury on his head.A counter case vide crime No. 414/2020 has also been registered against the complainant party by the petitioner-accused.On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. | ['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
74,545,786 | And In the matter of: Sagar Sk. & Ors....... Petitioners Mr. Abdus Salam...for petitioners Mr. R.P. Bhattacharya....for State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Labpur Police Station Case no. 84 of 2010 dated 27.9.2010 under sections 147/148/149/341/186/353/333/323/324/326/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 9(B)(II) of the Indian Explosive Act and 25/27 of the Arms Act.(Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J.) (Raghunath Ray, J.) | ['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
980,112 | JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.The petitioner in this writ petition has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the proceedings of the General Court Martial and the order dated 22.09.1993 whereby and whereunder he was found guilty of committing civil offence, that is to say, murder contrary to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'I.P.C.') and attempt to murder contrary to Section 307 of I.P.c.whereby and whereunder he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and dismissal from service.The petitioner pleaded guilty to the aforementioned charges.Therefore, according to the petitioner, the offence cannot be said to have been committed from the said weapon, which had been produced.5. PW-6, Hawaldar Jagtar Singh, who is witness to the seizure, is said to have stated:-The Civil Police was already present there.The Defending Officer submits that on page dated 26th October, 1992 it is observed that 3 entries have been scored out without any authentication and new names have been entered in their place.Defending Officer also submits that as per the entry in the said page, CTN Karam Chand has signed for accepting the relevant weapon against Serial No. 6 contrary to the sequence of duties." | ['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,014,963 | In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 1, 2016 in connection with Bhawanipore Police Station Case no.437 of 2015 dated 13.12.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ;And In the matter of : Subham Bhattacharya....petitioner....for the petitioner.The victim girl voluntarily left the matrimonial home.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) | ['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,021,565 | 2.The Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town Police Station, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has stated that this petitioner is involved in the following cases.(i) Cr.No.267/2002 and Cr.No.92/2003 u/s.457, 380 of I.P.C at Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District, (ii) Cr.357/2002, u/s.457, 380 of I.P.C at Thiruvennaimuthur Police Station, Sivagangai District, (iii) Cr.No.75/2003 u/s. 457, 380 of I.P.C., at Melur Police Station, Madurai District, (iv) Cr.However, this petitioner is at liberty to renew the writ petition after one year, by maintaining his discipline without involving in any further criminal activities for another period of one year.29.04.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM ToTM W.P.(MD).No.21229 of 2015No.49/2003 u/s. 457, 380 of I.P.C at R.S.Mangalam Police Station, Sivagangai District, (v) Cr.No.92/2003 u/s.457, 380 of I.P.C., at Thirupathur Police Station, Sivagangai District.Hence, history sheet was opened against him.Further, he has stated that the petitioner has not changed his character and even in the year 2018, he has involved in an offence, for which a criminal case has been registered against him in crime No.42 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 363, 379, 307 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the final report has also been filed as against the petitioner and the same is pending in C.C.No.103 fo 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai.3.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.3.The Inspector of Police, Thirupalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.4.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 B.PUGALENDHI, J. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,022,722 | This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 30.10.2018 made in C.M.P.No.2736 of 2018 in Crime No.273 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 2 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District.2.The respondent police filed a case against the petitioner in Crime No.273 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324, 341, 506 (ii) of IPC.The vehicle bearing unregister Swaraj 744FE Tractor with Ch.No.WSCA40622162233 and Engine No.431024/SYA02365 was seized by the respondent police.During the investigation, the petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District under Sections 451 and 457 IPC to return the vehicle.Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has produced the document invoice dated 09.08.2017 and also the loan document and the same was not considered by the learned Magistrate and the same warrants interference of this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 35.Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any Registration Certificate to show the vehicle stands in his name and the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.The only documents produced by him was the invoice and the loan document, which will not create any title or ownership on the date of seizure.Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and there is no merit in this Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.6.Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed.20.02.2019 Index:Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No ebsi/kasThe Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District.The Sub Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam, Vellore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 P.VELMURUGAN,J ebsi/kas Crl.R.C.No.1475 of 2018 | ['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
98,022,769 | ed to be under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C discloses any cognizable offence warranting registration of the First Information Report against the present petitioners, who are the police officers of the Kharghar Police station.He subsequently made calls to his journalist friends to inform them about the incident and asked the officer to register a complaint against the petitioners herein.Since no action was taken, he mailed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, but got no response.The respondent no.2 has further alleged that thereafter the petitioner no.2 came rushing towards him and stated that such evidence would put all the officers in trouble and told him that he had been arrested.1. Rule.Rule is made returnable forthwith.Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.2 and learned APP.The petitioners herein have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR No.22 of 2014 registered against them at Kharghar Police Station under Section 367, 467, 468, 195, 406, 506, 420 and 383 of IPC.The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are attached to Kharghar Police Station as Senior Police Inspector, Police Inspector, and Assistant Police Inspector respectively.Pursuant to the order dated 2.12.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate, 2nd Court, Panvel, on an application filed by the respondent no.2 purported to be under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Crime No.22 of 2014 has been registered against the aforesaid petitioners for offences as stated above.The petitioners have stated pps 2 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order on a copy of the letter addressed to various authorities, without there being any complaint filed before the court and without verifying the veracity or the credibility of the allegations.The petitioners have further stated that the application filed by the respondent no.2 contains vague allegations and does not disclose any cognizable offence.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply as well as additional-He had merely forwarded a copy of the complaint, addressed to the President of India and other Authorities and had called upon the Magistrate to treat the same as an application under Section 156(3) of pps 3 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel Mr.Ponda has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has not verified the authenticity of the complaint and has ordered registration of the FIR without verifying whether the same discloses any cognizable offence.He has submitted that the impugned order reflects total non-application of mind.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::He has further submitted that the petitioners had refused to record the complaint lodged by the mother of a rape victim and had further threatened her not to lodge a complaint.He has alleged that the complainant/mother of the rape victim was being questioned by male officers instead of a woman police officer as required under the proviso to Section 154(1) of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The respondent no.2 has further submitted that the petitioners had obtained the signature of Tarabai, the mother-in-law of the complainant, on a blank paper and on the basis which they fabricated a false complaint and implicated and arrested him in the said false case.The respondent no.2 claims that Tarabai does not know the contents of the said FIR and this is evident from her audio-recorded statement.The respondent no.2 has submitted that the petitioners have misused their powers, kidnapped and arrested him and his friend Prakash Bohra and had further failed to inform his family or friends about his arrest.The acts committed by the petitioners were not in discharge of their official duty and as such, the bar of section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable.He has relied upon the following decisions: (1) Shambhunath Mishra vs. State of U.P. (1997)2 SCR-19-1139; (2) Ramanlal vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::We have perused the records and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 in person.At the outset, it is to be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code, which operates at pre-cognizance stage confers powers on Magistrate, who is empowered to take cognizance of offence under section 190, to order investigation into any cognizable case.In the case of Panchabhai pps 6 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: Popotbhai Bhutani & ors.vs State of Maharashtra [2010 ALL MR (Cri.) 244] the full bench of this court has held that " A Petition under Section 156(3) cannot be strictly construed as a complaint in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code and absence of a specific or improperly worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details would not prove fatal to a petition under Section 156(3), in so far as it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable offence.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate."The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient.He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The respondent no.2 had forwarded a copy of the said complaint, which was on his letterhead, to the magistrate, with a hand written note as -Below the said note, names of the alleged pps 11 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: accused persons were given as "P.P.Patil, Darekar, Mr. Lokhande and 11 Ors."::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::pps 12 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The grievance of the petitioner as voiced in the said application was that on 23.11.2014, on receipt of information of rape of a three years old child, he had visited Kharghar Police Station.He claims that the mother of the rape victim who was at the police station with the victim was being threatened by the petitioner no.3 not to lodge a com-He had informed the petitioner no.3 that it was the primary duty of the police to register the FIR and send the victim for medical examination.He has stated that in total misuse of power, the petitioners arrested and kidnapped him and his friend.He has alleged pps 13 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: that the petitioners had not informed him of his legal rights and had not informed his family or friends about his arrest.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The respondent no.2 has further stated that the petitioners had obtained the signature of Tarabai, the mother-in-law of the complainant on a blank paper, which was subsequently used by the police to fabricate a false complaint.Based on the said false and fabricated complaint crime No.346 of 2014 was registered against him and his friend.He claims that initially the crime was registered for offences under Section 353, 354, r/w. 34 of IPC however, at the time of remand sections 504 and 506 IPC were added.He has further stated that it was mandatory to forward the FIR to the court within 24 hours.He has alleged that he was kidnapped, arrested, and remanded to three days police custody.While he was in custody, he was kept in lock up along with criminals, murderers, and robbers.He was threatened to sign a statement accepting the charge pps 14 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: however, he had refused to sign the same and that this fact can be ascertained from the video recording of lockup room.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The respondent no.2 has stated that his phone was confiscated and he was beaten and threatened that he would be trapped and implicated in cases under the prevention of Atrocities Act. The respondent no.2 has expressed apprehension that the police may tamper with CCTV footage.Based on the said allegations, the learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 2.12.2014, which reads as follows: "Perused the complaint.Heard the complainant in person.The complainant has alleged about the cognizable offence against the accused who are the Senior PI of Kharghar Police Station, PI Crime Branch etc. Hence, the copy of the complaint be sent to concerned police station through the concerned DCP for treating the same as FIR and the PSO of the concerned police station is directed to investigate the matter under 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code.However in the present matter, the complainant has alleged about the cognizable offences against the pps 15 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: concerned Senior P.I. of Kharghar Police Station, therefore the concerned D.C.P. is directed to investigate the matter either himself or through by deputing separate investigation officer or P.S.O. as per rule and submit the report accordingly.The Complainant is directed to produce copies of complainants' application dt. 2.12.2014 and documents on record within two days to send the same to the concerned police station through the concerned DCP."::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Pursuant to the order passed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., FIR no. 22 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioners herein at Kharghar Police Station for offences under section 367, 467, 468, 195, 504, 506, 420 and 383 IPC.The legal mandate requires judicial application of mind pps 16 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: to ascertain whether the facts alleged disclose cognizable offence.In the instant case the order is bereft of any reasons and reflects total non-application of mind.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Be that as it may, the respondent no 2 had sought registration of FIR against the petitioners, on the allegations, which can be broadly stated as follows:a. The Petitioner no.3 had refused to record the complaint lodged by the mother of the rape victim and had threatened her against lodging such complaint.b. The complainant/ mother of the rape victim was being questioned by a male officer.c. The petitioners had obtained signature of the mother-in-law of the complainant on a blank paper and fabricated a false case against him.d. The petitioners had kidnapped and arrested him in a false case.f. That he was beaten and threatened while in police custody.The grievance of the respondent no.2, as voiced in the said application, pertains to the acts performed by the petitioners in discharge of their official duties.At this stage, it would be apt to note that Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. affords protection to Judges, Magistrates and Public servants not removable from office save by or with sanction of the Government.This section bars the court from taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by public servants in discharge of official duty or purported to be in discharge of official duty, except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Sub-section 2 of Section 197 bars cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.pps 18 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: Whereas Sub-section 3 of section 197 provides that the State Govern-::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::ment may by notification direct that the provisions of sub-section 2 shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of the public order as may be specified therein and upon such notification being issued, the provisions of Sub-section (2) will apply as if for the expression 'Central Government' occurring therein, the expression 'State Government' were substituted.In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974), the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that the provisions of sub- section (2) of that Section shall apply to the following categories of the members of the force in the State charged with the maintenance of public order wherever they may be serving, namely:-(1) All police officers as defined in the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom.XXII of 1951), other than the Special or Additional Police Officers ap-pointed under section 21 or 22 of that Act;(2) All Reserve Police Officers as defined in Bombay State Reserve Po-lice Force Act, 1951 (Bom.XXXVIII of 1951)."pps 19 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The grievance voiced by the respondent no.2 in the application and the offences registered against the petitioners relate to the acts performed by the petitioners in the discharge of their official duty and are reasonably connected with their official duties and would therefore attract the bar of section 197 of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Be that as it may, the respondent no. 2 had sought investigation against the petitioners mainly on the ground that they had implicated pps 21 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: and arrested him in a false and fabricated case.If the respondent no. 2 was in fact aggrieved by such action, his remedy was to challenge such proceedings/FIR by filing appropriate proceedings.Instead of resorting to the remedy available under the law, the respondent no. 2 has sought to register FIR against the petitioners for registering a FIR against him.The FIR registered against the respondent no.2 is still under investigation.Subjecting the police officers to unwarranted criminal prosecution for having registered a crime will certainly peril the fair investigation of the said crime.Moreover, allowing the aggrieved or disgruntled persons to hold the police machinery at ransom by unjustifiable vexatious persecution will affect the morale and effective functioning of the police machinery which in turn will have serious and far-reaching adverse impact on the interest of the society.A situation like this therefore demands more cautious and serious judicial scrutiny of all relevant materials and meticulous application of mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether facts disclosed constitute cognizable offence.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::The Apex Court has given the following category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made:::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Thus, the endeavor of the magistrate should be to weed out frivolous and vexatious complaints and send only the deserving cases for investigation.36.In the instant case, the magistrate has passed the order mechanically without referring the case for preliminary inquiry, without examining the facts of the case and the nature of the allegations and without pps 23 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: ascertaining whether the information revealed any cognizable offence.::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 :::Nevertheless, in our considered view, the allegations made in the application, even if taken at face value and accepted in its entirety; do not disclose ingredients of offences under sections 367, 467, 468, 195, 406, 506, 420 and 383 of IPC.Under the circumstances and in view of the discussion supra, the order dated 2.12.2014 and the consequent FIR No.22 of 2014 registered against the petitioners at Kharghar Police Station under Section 367, 467, 468, 195, 406, 506, 420 and 383 of IPC deserves to be quashed.This shall be done as expeditiously as possible.In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and(b).::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2015 00:00:46 ::: | ['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
980,321 | JUDGMENT K.N. Srivastava, J.This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri M. P. Gautam, Magistrate 1st Class, Roorkee, district Sahranpur, acquitting the respondents of an offence under Section 323, I. P. C., and Section 147, I. P. C.The facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as follows.Faiyaz, who is a resident of Sikandarpur, thana Fatehpur, district Sahranpur, lodged a report on 30-1-1965 at thana Fatehpur.The allegations in the report were that a nephew of Faiyaz was taking his bullocks to the field for ploughing.The bullocks damaged the crop of Aziz.The nephew of Faiyaz immediately drove out the bullocks, but he was slapped by Aziz and Idris.Faiyaz asked them not to slap his nephew.Thereupon all the respondents assaulted him with lathis.Faiyaz received a number of injuries.His injuries were medically examined.The Police registered a case against the respondents under Section 147, I. P. C. and Section 323, I. P. C. After completing the investigation, the police challaned the respondents.The parties filed a compromise for compounding the offence under Section 323, I. P, C. This compromise was verified and the trial Court passed the following order:--"The injured complainant Faiyaz has compounded the offence under Section 323, I. P. C. against the accused." Against this order, the State has come up in appeal to this Court. | ['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code'] | Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under. |
96,897,423 | 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 00:02:44 ::: 15 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 ::: 17 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 ::: 11 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 ::: 12 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 ::: 13 Cri WP 1027.15 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2016 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 :::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 00:02:44 :::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. |
Subsets and Splits