id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
93,705,766 |
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.The facts of the case are as below:(i) On 09.03.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., a Van bearing RegistrationNo.The medical certificate indicates that P.Ws.1,4,6,7,10,11,12 and 16 sustainedsimple injury and other five persons, P.Ws.2,3,5,8,9 sustained grievous hurt.To prove the case of the prosecution, 24 witnesses were examined and 23exhibits were marked along with one Material Object (Broken Glass Pieces ofthe offended Van).(ii) The trial Court, after considering the nature of the injurysustained by the victim passengers as well as their evidence coupled withwound certificates marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.16 and the Post Mortem report ofKumar marked as Ex.P21, had convicted the accused / the driver of the Van foroffences under Sections 279, 337 (8 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) IPC.Sentence of one month SI and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, 2 weeks SI foroffence under Section 279 IPC, sentence of two weeks SI and a fine ofRs.500/-, in default, 1 week SI for offence under Section 337 IPC (8counts), one month SI and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 2 weeks foroffence under Section 338 IPC (5 counts) and two years SI and a fine ofRs.5,000/-, in default, 3 months SI for offence under Section 304(A) IPC wasimposed.(iii) On appeal, the appellate Court set aside the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellant with regard to the offence under Section338 IPC (5 counts) holding that the grievous injury caused to the fivepersons is not proved and converted the punishment into conviction underSection 337 IPC (5 counts) and reduced the sentence for a period of two weeksSI for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count, in defaultone week SI.Against which, the revision petitioner has preferred thiscriminal revision case on the ground that the Courts below have not takennote of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors' evidence, which is probabilized thatthe accident might have caused due to the cut in the steering joint and onthe ground that P.W.3 and P.W.5 have not spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the accused / petitioner.3. Perused the records and submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent.The trial Court, while considering the death of Kumar, grievousinjury of five persons and simple injury of eight other persons, whotravelled in the Van bearing Registration No.TN-72-Q-5832 whether due to therash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner herein, has found theaccused / revision petitioner herein guilty and convicted for offence underSections 279, 337 (8 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) IPC.The appellate Court had considered the appeal in a very cavaliermanner and the appellate Court, without discussing anything about the findingregarding 304(A) IPC, had simply modified the sentence in respect of 338 IPC(5 counts) by altering it into 337 IPC (5 counts) and reducing the period ofsentence and fine amount.There is no discussion about the convictionimposed under Section 304(A) at all.The appellate Court while confirmed thefinding of the trial Court with a modification, the conviction and sentencefor offence under Section 304(A) IPC is conspicuously silent.Therefore,this Court is constrained to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.37 of2012 and remand the matter back to the appellate Court for freshconsideration.In the result, the revision case is allowed.The judgment inC.A.No.37 of 2012 dated 01.10.2012 is hereby set aside.Registry is directedto send the records to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,Thoothukudi, forthwith.On receipt of the records, C.A.No.37 of 2012 shallbe restored on file and hear afresh and dispose the appeal preferable withintwo months from the date of receipt of the records.1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kayathaur Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.4.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,710,948 |
The conviction and sentence dated 21.3.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.5 of 2005 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.The said Car has been driven by the defacto complainant by name Senthoor Pandian.The defacto complainant has met the first accused and he introduced himself as Ismail.The remaining accused have also boarded into the car.Instead of going to Airport, Chennai, they directed the defacto complainant to drive the Car towards Cuddalore from Meenambakkam and accordingly, the defacto complainant has done it.On Kumbakonam to Panrutti Road, near Vadalur, all the accused have joined together and pushed the defacto complainant from the Car and subsequently stealthily taken away the same.On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer, viz., P.W.20, has taken up investigation.The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Cuddalore, after considering the facts that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the court of Sessions, Cuddalore Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.5 of 2008 and subsequently made over to the trial court.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant records, has framed a charge against the first accused under Sections 395 and 397, against the accused Nos.2 to 5 under sections 395 and 397 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 21 have been examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.20 and Material Objects 1 and 2 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant evidence available on record, has found all the accused guilty under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused as appellants.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the first accused, viz., Raja Mohammed, by way of posing himself as Ismail has placed an order to Sun Cabs Travels on 18.2.2002 at about 7 p.m through telephone and accordingly, the defacto complainant has been given a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. T.N 09-R 6874 and on 20.2.2002, he met the first accused and the first accused introduced himself as Ismail and directed the defacto complainant to go to Airport and on the way to Airport, the remaining accused have boarded in the Car and all of them have directed the defacto complainant to drive the Car towards Cuddalore and accordingly, the defacto complainant has driven the same and on Kumbakonam to Panrutti Road, near Vadalur, all of them have joined together and pushed out the defacto complainant from the Car and subsequently taken away the Car.The trial court has relied upon the averments made in the complaint, which has been marked as Ex.Before conducting Identification Parade, the defacto complainant has seen all the accused in the Police Station and therefore, no proper Identification Parade has been conducted and the trial court, without considering the same and also merely on the basis of alleged recovery of M.O.1, Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. T.N 09-R 6874, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence against the appellants/accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also equally contended to the effect that in the instant case, after giving Ex.Further, as stated earlier, the accused 1 and 2 have been arrested on 8.11.2002 by P.W.17, but their identification has been done on 29.11.2002, after a lapse of 21 days.The main contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused is that before conducting Identification Parade, the defacto complainant has seen all the accused in Police Station.Since the alleged Identification Parades have been done belatedly and since the defacto complainant has already identified the accused 3 and 4 on 13.11.2002 at the time of their arrest, the Court cannot completely believe the alleged identification of the accused done by the defacto complainant.Even assuming without conceding that the prosecution has adduced consistent evidence with regard to recovery of Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. T.N 09-R 6874, the same evidence is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that all the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 395 of IPC.Further, it is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of material objects as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not at all sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the particular accused has committed particular offence and some more evidence is required in connection with alleged recovery.The trial court, without considering the infirmities found on the side of the prosecution has invited conviction and sentence against the appellants/accused.In view of the discussions made earlier, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are not factually and legally sustainable and altogether the same are liable to be set aside.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,725,226 |
Applicant- Bittu Rawat seeks bail in Case Crime No. 2459 of 2018 under Sections 354, 354A,354C, 504, 506, 376, 384 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act , Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that as per the FIR version, the offence is continuing since 2015, but no date or time is specified; that as per the FIR and GD entries, the report was registered on 28.12.2018 at 16.22 hours but from a perusal of parcha no.1 of the case diary, the investigation has started on 26.12.2019 and the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,588,529 |
(2) The prosecution story is that the accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta was the tenant of Shiv Adhar Mishra, father of the deceased-Vinod Mishra.All the accused were friends and sat and moved together.Vinod Misra was aged about 30 years at the time of occurrence.He was the only son of Shiv Adhar Mishra.P. W. 10 Km.Kamal was the daughter of Shiv Ahdar Mishra and was aged about 16-17 years.All the above mentioned accused, Uttam Singh, Ashok @ Pappu and Rja Bahadur Singh used to pass filthy remarks at P. W. 10 Km.Kamal whenever she went outside her house.Ramesh Chandra Gupta had his clinic in the same locality in front of the house of the deceased.On 17.6.1983, it was about 11:30 A.M. when P. W. 10 Km.Kamal was going to purchase some articles; the accused misbehaved with her and passed filthy remarks.When objection was raised by Vinod Misra, the accused became angry and became ready to cause injuries to Vinod Misra.Besides they threatened to kill him.(3) On the same day i.e. 17.6.1983 at about 5 P.M. Vinod Misra was lying on a cot near his house.Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with his licensed gun came alongwith accused-Uttam Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Ashok @ Pappu and started abusing him.When Vinod Misra tried to get up, on the exhortation of accused-Uttam Singh accused-appellant Ramesh Chandra Gupta fired at him.Raj Bahadur Singh exhorted Ramesh Chandra Gupta to fire again.At that time Shiv Adhar Misra and his wife Smt. Shakuntala were sitting under the neem tree.On their alarm, witnesses Bal Bhaddar Singh and Jamuna Prasad Dixit came there.The accused were successful in running away from the spot.Thereafter Shailendra Kumar, a relative of the deceased came there.He had come there in connection with marriage of his daughter.F.I.R. was written by Shailendra Kumar on the dictation of Shiv Adhar Misra.Vinod Misra was brought at P.S. F.I.R. was lodged there.After report was lodged Vinod Misra was brought to U.H.M. Hospital.After Vinod Misra was admitted, the doctor declared him dead.According to the prosecution the deceased was wearing Baniyan and underwear at the time of the occurrence.(4) Chik F.I.R. was written by H.C. Ganesh Bahadur Singh on 17.6.1983 at 5:45 P.M. and its G.D. and prepared by him on the same day at about 8:05 P.M. Accused-appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with his gun and along with accused-appellant-Ashok @ Pappu were lodged at the police station by P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari.The postmortem examination was done by Dr. Sushil Kumar on 18.6.1983 at 5 P.M. On external examination, the doctor found the body of the deceased of average built; eyes were partly open; mouth was also partly open; blood was coming out from nose.Rigor mortis had passed away from upper limbs.Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm, circular in shape, inverted margin, on left side of the shoulder at joint of neck on front.Scorching and tattooing present around the wound 8 cm outer and above medial end end of clavicle, 6 cm downward from left angle of lower jaw, 10 cm downward from left ear, 10 cm medial to the top of left shoulder.Five pellets were recovered from posterior chest wall of right side.Two big pellets were recovered 32 cm away; one pellet 38 cm away; total five pellets were recovered.5th and 6th right ribs of back were fractured.3rd and 4th ribs were also fractured and left clavicle was fractured on middle 1/3rd.(5) Undigested food material 8 ounces was present in the stomach.Sealed bundle of clothes containing Baniyan and underwear and Tahmat and an envelope containing five big pellets were produced by the constable before the doctor at the time of postmortem examination.(6) In the opinion of the doctor, at the time of postmortem examination, the injuries were found about one day old, death did took place due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gunshot injury.He started investigation.He also recorded the statement of other witnesses of the occurrence, went on the spot, prepared site plan, took bloodstained and plain earth and string of cot and sealed them.He alongwith S.I. D.D. Dixit arrested accused-Ashok @ Pappu.S.I. D.D. Dixit arrested accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alongwith gun and cartridges.First gun and cartridges under sealed cover were sent to Ballistic expert on 29.8.1983 but they were returned because crime number mentioned on the Fard and gun did not tally.(21) P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra in his statement recorded during the trial had stated that his son-Vinod Misra on the date of incident was aged about 30 years.P. W. 10 Km.Kamal was his daughter and at the time of the occurrence, she was aged about 16-17 years.Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta was his tenant.He had his clinic in front of his house.He along with three other accused-Uttam Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Ashok @ Pappu used to pass filthy remark about his daughter-P. W. 10 Km.Kamal to which he and his son objected many time.Even though Raj Bahadur Singh and Uttam Singh were the real brothers but they were vagabonds and they did not care upon the reputation of others.On the date of incident, all the four accused had tried to misbehave with his daughter, heated arguments took place between deceased-Vinod Misra and the accused who had threatened to kill him but their threat was not taken by the deceased seriously.On 17.6.1983, during summers while Vinod Misra was lying on a cot in front of the door of his house near the neem tree.At about 5:30 P.M., appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with a gun and other accused who were empty handed came there and made exhortation and opened fire causing injuries to Vinod Misra.The accused-appellants thereafter ran away from the place of incident which was witnessed by P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh, Jamuna Prasad Dixit and many others.The written report of the incident was scribed by Shailendra Kumar who lived in the same locality and was a relative of the informant on the dictation of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, and lodged at police station which was at a distance of about 5-6 furlongs from the place of occurrence.At About 5:30 P.M. a car was arranged and the victim was taken to the Ursala Hospital where he was declared brought dead.Thereafter postmortem was conducted on the dead body.(22) P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh in his statement recorded during the trial stated that on the date of incident at about 5:30 P.M., he was standing under the neem tree.Vinod Misra son of Shiv Adhar Misra was lying on a cot.Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed came there with a gun but he did not see him opening fire at Vinod Misra or causing injuries to him.P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh was declared hostile on the request of the D.G.C. (Criminal) and was cross-examined by him.In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the three other accused at the place of incident.At about 5:45 P.M., the F.I.R. Ext. Ka1 was lodged at P.S. on the basis of which he prepared chik report Ext. Ka2 and made entries in the G.D.He brought the corpse of Vinod Misra along with papers to mortuary for postmortem examination.(25) P. W. 5 Dr. Sushil Kumar stated that on 18.6.1983 at 5 P.M. he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.He found some ribs fractured.Five pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased.There was no exit wound.Undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased.No wad or foreign material was fond on the body of the deceased.(26) P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari stated that on 5.7.1983, he started investigation.He recorded the statement of P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and submitted charge-sheet because earlier part of the investigation was conducted by P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari.(27) P. W. 7 S.I. Munni Lal Tiwari stated that he was posted as S.I. at P.S. Babupurwa.He recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and took bloodstained and plain earth from the spot and rest of the investigation was done by P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari.(28) P. W. 8 Om Prakah Mani Tripathi, Ballistic expert, stated that on 1.9.1983 Constable Durga Prasad Srivastava brought before him one sealed envelope and one sealed bundle.There were five big cartridges which were recovered from the bundle.Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.We then passed the following order :-"Heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 1987, Sri Jagat Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 1987, Sri Rahul Misra and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of 1987 and Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I on behalf of the State in all the appeals.We are making the operative order here and now.We will give reasons later.Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 1987 is dismissed.The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Gupta is on bail.He shall be arrested forthwith and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence.Criminal Revision No. 1895 of 1987 is dismissed.Criminal Appeal Nos. 2184 of 1987 and 2188 of 1987 are allowed.The appellants, Ashok @ Pappu in Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 1987 and Uttam Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of 1987 who are on bail, need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged.However, they shall comply with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.The impugned judgement and order dated 25.08.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 393 of 1983 stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.There shall however, be no order as to costs."Here are the reasons :-On internal examination, the following antemortem injuries were found :-Again on 1.9.1983, they were sent to Ballastic expert who gave his report that the empty cartridge found inside the gun was used and gun was fired.Previously the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. on 17.6.1983 but when the victim died, the offence was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.(8) After all the accused were arrested and the investigating officer had completed the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against all the accused before C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar.(9) Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions Judge, C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar where case crime no. 211 of 1983 was registered as S.T. No. 393 of 1983 (State Vs.Ramesh Chandra and others) and made over for trial from there to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar who on the basis of the material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta while appellants-Ashok @ Pappu, Uttam Singh and co-accused Raj Bahadur Singh was charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial.(10) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal were examined as witnesses of fact while P. W. 3 Ganesh Bahadur Singh who had prepared the chek report Ext. Ka1 and the relevant G.D. entry, P. W. 4 Constable Lalmani who had brought the corpse of Vinod Misra along with papers to mortuary for postmortem examination, P. W. 5 Dr. Sushil Kumar who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and prepared his postmortem report Ext. Ka7, P. W. 6 S.I. R.N. Tiwari, the second investigating officer of the case who after completing the investigation had filed charge-sheet against the accused, P. W. 7 Munni Lal Tiwari, the first investigating officer of the case, P. W. 8 O.P.M. Tripathi, the ballistic expert, P. W. 9 S.I. D.D. Dixit who had arrested appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta along with a gun, P. W. 11 Constable Durga Prasad who had delivered the gun used in the commission of the murder to the ballistic expert, were produced as formal witnesses.(11) The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their participation in the crime.According to appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta, he was a tenant in a shop of which P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra was the owner.Shiv Ahdar Misra wanted to evict him and with that object in mind he was falsely implicated by him in this case.The licensed gun which was alleged to have been used in committing the crime in question was recovered from his house.(12) The accused-appellants Uttam Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were real brothers.They stated that they had also been falsely implicated due to enmity.They also stated that although an order was passed for the investigation by C.B.C.I.D. but the charge-sheet was submitted earlier before C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar.Ashok @ Pappu further stated that Shiv Adhar Misra was inimical towards him as he was the Member of Youth Congress Committee and on noticing his growing importance in the district level politics, Shiv Adhar Misra had started harboring ill feelings towards him and had falsely implicated him in the instant case.(13) The accused-appellant examined one Dr. H.L. Bani, a ballistic expert as D. W. 1 who gave evidence that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were not caused by the gun of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta.Only five pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased and no wad or foreign material was found in his corpse and according to him such injury could be caused only by a country made pistol.(14) Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, convicted all the accused and awarded aforesaid sentences to them.(15) Hence this appeal.(16) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that out of three eye-witnesses of the incident produced by the prosecution during the trial, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh having failed to support the prosecution story and declared hostile, the recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal who being the father and real sister of the deceased being inimical towards the accused-appellants were highly interested witnesses, without seeking corroboration from the evidence of any other independent witness cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.(17) He next submitted that it is evident from the prosecution story that appellants-Ashok @ Pappu and Uttam Singh neither had any motive to commit the murder of the deceased nor they had caused any injury to the deceased and hence their conviction recorded by the learned trial judge by invoking aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. is per se illegal.It is apparent that they were falsely implicated because of the political rivalry between the first informant-Shiv Adhar Misra and appellant-Ashok @ Pappu and appellant-Uttam Singh being a close friend of appellant-Ashok @ Pappu.The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the ocular version.Such being the state of evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the sentence awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.(18) Per contra Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. I submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the motive for as well as complicity of the appellants in committing the murder of Vinod Misra.It being settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of the witnesses who are related to the deceased without seeking corroboration from any other circumstances, if the court finds such witnesses to be a wholly reliable.There is nothing in the statements of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km.There is no material conflict between the medical evidence and the eye-witnesses account.This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.(19) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.(20) As already noted, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra, P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal as witnesses of fact.In cross-examination, he has stated that first these articles were sent to him on 29.8.1983 but they were returned because seals of the bundle in which gun was brought were not intact, though this fact has not been written in the report.Later on, it was sent on 1.9.1983 and report was submitted by him.He went there and was told that someone had fired at Vinod Misra and was running towards Azad Nagar.He along with different persons chased the accused and in front of country made liquor shop in Bagahi.Azad Nagar Kanpur Nagar, he arrested the accused-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alongwith gun.Search was made in the presence of witnesses-Shri Krishna, Sheo Prasad and Laxman Singh and gun and cartridges were recovered.(30) P. W. 11 Constable Durga Prasad has stated that he had carried gun on 29.8.1983 and 1.9.1983 to the Ballistic Expert.(31) P. W. 10 Km.Kamal whose evidence is on the point of motive and occurrence deposed that the accused used to chase her and tried to misbehave with her.She also stated that when shot was fired, she was at her door and saw the occurrence.(32) On the point of motive, P. W. 10 Km.Kamal further deposed that the accused used to follow her and tried to misbehave with her about since before 3-4 months of the incident and although her father and brother-deceased-Vinod Misra had objected but they did not pay any heed.On the date of incident, at about 11:30 A.M. when she had gone to buy some articles from the market, all the four accused-appellants had misbehaved with her on which Vinod Misra, her brother had come out of the house and had asked them not to misbehave with his sister on which they started abusing him.On the intervention of the residents of the locality, they went away threatening Vinod Misra with dire consequences.On the same day, at about 5:00 P.M. when she was in her home, all the three accused-appellants, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Uttam Singh and Ashok @ Pappu and non-appellant-Raj Bahadur Singh came in front of her house where her brother-Vinod Misra was lying on a cot.Appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta who was armed with a gun while the other accused were empty handed and on the exhortation of appellant-Uttam Singh, appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta had fired at her brother.(33) Thus, from the evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Prasad Misra and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal, we find that the role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased has been attributed to appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta alone.As far as the other two appellants are concerned, the role of exhortation has been attributed to appellant-Uttam Singh and no specific role has been assigned to appellant-Ashok @ Pappu.P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh was declared hostile as he in his evidence had proved the presence of Ramesh Chandra Gupta armed with a gun alone at the place of incident and the fact that at that time the deceased was lying on a cot but denied having seen appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta firing at the deceased.As regards the other accused-appellants, he had categorically deposed that he had not seen any of them at the place of occurrence.The law is settled that even the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the Court to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution or defence.(34) Thus, upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987 had committed the murder of Vinod Misra on 17.6.1983 at 5:30 P.M. in front of his house of 132/693 Munshi Purwa, P.S. Babupurwar, district Kanpur.The evidence of P. W. 1 Shiv Adhar Misra and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal on the point of complicity of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta in committing the deceased's murder is throughout consistent and clinching.But the prosecution version and the evidence on record qua Ashok @ Pappu and Uttam Singh, appellants in criminal appeal nos. 2184 and 2188 of 1987 respectively neither inspires confidence nor appears to be probable.The evidence of D. W. 1 Dr. H.L. Bani, ballistic expert produced on behalf of the accused-appellants is in the nature of opinion and not binding upon the Court especially when there is direct evidence of two eye-witnesses conclusively proving that it was appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta who had shot at the deceased with his licensed gun which we have already found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy qua involvement of appellant-Ramesh Chandra Gupta in the occurrence.While Uttam Singh, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2188 of 1987 has been assigned the role of exhortation by P. W. 1 Shiv Ahdar Misra and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal but P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh has denied his presence at the place of occurrence in his cross-examination by the D.G.C. (Criminal) after he was declared hostile.Moreover, Ashok @ Pappu, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2184 of 1987 has not been assigned even the role of exhortation by any of the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence and his presence at the place of occurrence has also been denied by P. W. 2 Balbhadra Singh.(35) It is noteworthy that there is absolutely no evidence on record indicating that there was any prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack which is the most essential ingredient of Section 34 I.P.C. Hence the learned trial judge was not at all legally justified in convicting appellants-Uttam Singh and Ashok @ Pappu under Section 302 I.P.C. by invoking the aid of Section 34 I.P.C.(36) Thus, in view of the above, the possibility of Uttam Singh, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2188 of 1987 and Ashok @ Pappu, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2184 of 1987 being falsely implicated in the present case by P. W. 1 Shiv Ahdar Misra and P. W. 10 Km.Kamal on account of their being close friends of Ramesh Chandra Gupta, appellant in criminal appeal no. 2189 of 1987 cannot be ruled out.Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that they were present at the place of incident, admittedly they were neither armed nor any overt act of any kind has been attributed to them nor they had any motive to participate in the crime, hence in our opinion they are entitled to benefit of doubt.(38) We have perused the memorandum of criminal revision no. 1895 of 1987 as well as the impugned judgment and order.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,597,346 |
Heard on admission.The applicant has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.6.2008 passed by JMFC, Hata in Criminal Case No. 1037/2007 whereby the application under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. Filed by the applicant was dismissed.The applicant has also challenged the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No. 147/2008 whereby the revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed.Also the charge sheet was filed against 11 persons.Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by applicant Chandan Singh is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,597,541 |
After the death of Imrat in the year 2002, the name 2 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012 of Shantibai was mutated in the revenue records.It was alleged that in fact Shantibai (Munnibai) was not the original wife of Imrat but she was wife of elder brother of Imrat namely Raghunath.However, Munnibai after residing with Imrat started claiming herself to be Shantibai.The mutation of the name of Shantibai in the revenue record was done by the then Patwari Lachhiram Sahu who did not take this aspect into consideration that in fact Shantibai, the original wife of Imrat had already expired in the year 2002 and the lady who is residing with Imrat is Munnibai, the wife of his elder brother, Raghunath.Lachhiram Sahu, the then Patwari has already expired.The said land remained recorded in the name of Shantibai widow of Imrat.(06/04/2017) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.460/2011 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and all other consequential proceedings.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a Government lease was granted in favour of Imrat S/o Panna Mehtar in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No.1/1/17 area 0.500 hectares and from the year 1984-85 it was so recorded in the revenue records.It was alleged that the name of the wife of Raghunath was Munnibai who after the death of Shantibai, the first wife of Imrat, started residing with Imrat as her husband Raghunath had already expired.On 20.2.2008 Shantibai (Munnibai) filed an application before the Court of Collector, Guna seeking permission to sell the land.The matter was sent to the Tahsildar Guna for submitting its report.Smt. Shantibai (Munnibai) filed an affidavit before the Tahsildar Guna.The applicant, who was working as Patwari at the relevant time submitted his report on 11.4.2008 and the allegation is that he too did not bring this fact to the knowledge of the Collector that in fact the application has been filed by Munnibai and not Shantibai.Accordingly, the Collector granted permission to sell the land by order dated 26.5.2008 and on the basis of said permission Shantibai (Munnibai) executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma on 2.7.2008 and the necessary mutations have been done in the revenue record.2 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012Thus, it is the prosecution case that after the death of Imrat, the then Patwari Lachhiram Sahu wrongly mutated the name of Munnibai by showing her to be Shantibai widow of Imrat whereas she was the wife of Raghunath, the elder brother of Imrat.Accordingly, FIR on 28.9.2011 was registered against the applicant and other persons.In short the 3 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012 allegation against the applicant is that he also did not bring this fact to the knowledge of the superior authorities that Munnibai is not Shantibai and the name of Munnibai has been wrongly mutated in the revenue record showing her to be Shantibai.3 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012As there was nothing on record to show that Shantibai widow of Imrat had died in the year 2000, therefore, this Court by order dated 11.1.2017 granted permission to the State counsel to seek instructions with regard to the death of Shantibai in the year 2000 and to obtain necessary authentic documents in that regard.After several adjournments, the State has filed the enquiry report.According to this enquiry report, it is submitted by the police that the name of the first wife of Imrat was Shantibai who had expired prior to the death of Imrat Mehtar.After her death, Imrat Mehtar kept another lady as his wife and she too was renamed as Shantibai.During the enquiry it was revealed that after the death of Imrat, the second wife of Imrat namely Smt. Sheelabai @ Shantibai has remarried to one Chanda Mehtar.The statement of Sheelabai @ Shantibai at present wife of Chanda Mehtar residing at village Tilikheda, P.S. Bajranggarh at present village Jamra, P.S. Myana, District Guna has been recorded and who has stated that after the death of first wife namely Shantibai, Imrat performed second marriage with her and she was renamed as Shantibai.The member of society started calling her as Shantibai.Two daughters namely Reena and Radha were born from Imrat and after the death of Imrat she has remarried with Ramcharan @ Chanda Mehtar.One daughter has also born from Ramcharan @ Chanda Mehtar.Accordingly, the police came to a conclusion that Smt. Shantibai W/o Imrat Mehtar had expired about 16 to 17 years prior to the death of Imrat and after the death of Shantibai the lessee Imrat remarried with Sheela @ Shantibai Mehtar and 4 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012 the correct name of the second wife of Imrat is Sheela Mehtar but in village Tilikheda she is known as Sheela @ Shantibai.The crux of the matter is that the name of first wife of Imrat was Shantibai.After the death of first wife, Imrat performed second marriage with Sheelabai and renamed her as Shantibai who is still alive.The only allegation against him is that when an application was filed in the year 2008 before the Collector, Guna seeking permission to sell the land, the present applicant who at the relevant time was posted as Patwari submitted its report merely on the basis of the revenue record and did not bring to the notice of the concerned authorities that Shantibai widow of Imrat is in fact Sheelabai.Once it is found that the name of Shantibai W/o Imrat was already mutated in the revenue record and even according to the police report the second wife of Imrat was also known as Shantibai and she is still alive, thus, this Court is of the view that even if the entire allegations made against the applicant are accepted in toto, then there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had deliberately did not bring it to the notice of the Collector that Shantibai W/o Imrat, whose name is recorded in the revenue records is in fact is the second wife of Imrat.As there is no allegation that the applicant mutated the name of second wife of Imrat as Shantibai widow of Imrat, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any offence under Sections 467, 468, 5 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012 471 of IPC.It is clear that he had simply forwarded the report to the Collector on the basis of the revenue records.Under these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC is made out against the applicant.5 MCRC No. 4907 of 2012Because of the interim order passed by this Court, the charge sheet could not be filed.Under these circumstances, the FIR in Crime No. 460/2011 registered for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC against the applicant is hereby quashed.The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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.
|
1,035,983 |
The case of the prosecution against the respondents was that on 2-9-1998 at about 8.00 P.M. in Village Gardha in the farm-house of contractor Chhotelal, the accused persons accosted complainant-Ramesh Kumar, Kashiram, Ajab Singh and Munnalal and asked for money and when Munnalal refused to give them any amount, they assaulted him with sword and lathi causing injuries on his back, neck, right hand and head.Munnalal was taken by his companions to a factory where they narrated the incident to Har Prasad.He was thereafter rushed to the Police Station where report was made which was recorded at Serial No. 110 of the Rojnamcha from where he was forwarded for medical examination.Upon trial, the learned Judge found that the offences alleged against the respondents were proved and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,603,646 |
Item No. 23And In the matter of: Sahinur Islam Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya Mr. Arnab Saha For the Petitioner Mr. Soubhik Mitra For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ellam Bazar Police Station Case No. 188 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011 under sections 404/409/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The Petitioner is not named in the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The Petitioner shall be present before the concerned Court within seven days of being released on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,604,479 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 07.06.2016 relating to Crime No.06/2016 registered at Police Station - Dheerpura District Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 294, 436, 307, 302, and 506-B of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The deceased Thakurdas died due to six injuries specially head injury caused by sharp cutting weapon.Name of 13-14 persons were implicated in the crime.It was not alleged against the applicant that he had any sharp cutting weapon at the time of incident.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused, who killed the victim Thakurdas with a sharp cutting weapon.Prima facie no offence under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.It is also not alleged against the applicant that he set fire on any house.Hence, prima facie no offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for 2 M.Cr.C. No. 7048/2016 the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.2 M.Cr.C. No. 7048/2016Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,607,958 |
(Delivered by Umesh Kumar, J)This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.8, Bareilly in S.T. No. 83 of 2014 ( State Vs.Pratap Singh and another) convicting the appellant (Pratap Singh) under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation.However, he was exonerated for the offence under Sections 498A, 304-B, IPC and Section ¾ D.P.Act.2012, but her in-laws were not happy and soon after her marriage, they started hurling taunt about dowry; that her son-in-law Pratap Singh, mother-in-law Lalan Devi, Jethani- Mithilesh wife of Sukhpal and married Nanad Mithilesh asked to bring Rs. Two lacs and a motor cycle for doing business; that her daughter told this to him, upon which he went to settle the things on many occasions, but the in-laws of her daughter continued to torture her; that about 8 days prior to the incident, his son Pramod Kumar went to the house of her sister to inquire about her, then she told that her in-laws are torturing her and they can take away her life any time; that on return, his son told this fact to him; that on 19.9.2013, at about 8.00 A.M., his relative Om Dutta son of Raj Kumar gave him the information that her daughter-Shashi has died in her in-laws house; upon which information, family members of the informant reached the in-laws house of her daughter at about 9.00 A.M. and saw that dead body of his daughter was lying in the courtyard; the informant named his son-in-law Pratap Singh, mother-in-law Lalan Devi, Mithelesh wife of Sukhpal and Nanand Mithilesh for committing murder of his daughter by strangulation.On the aforesaid information/report, necessary entry was made in G.D. No. 24 at 10.00 A.M.19.9.2013 (Ex.Ka.4) and a Case under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act was registered at Case Crime No. 1800 of 2013 (Ex. Ka.3).Investigation of the case was entrusted to Circle Officer, P.W.6 ( Asit Srivastava), who visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan (Ex.Ka.7), conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased, prepared necessary police papers viz. Photo nash, challan nash, letter to C.M.O. and R.I.(Ex.Ka.9 to Ex.Ka.13), he took in his custody one rope (Ex.Ka.6) from the place of occurrence.P.W.5 Ram Murti Lal is the witness of recovery of plastic rope.He has proved recovery memo (Ex.Ka.6).P.W.6 Asit Srivastava is the Investigating Officer of the case.After completing necessary formalities, dead body was sent for post mortem.The post mortem was conducted by P.W.4- Dr. Anil Kumar Agrawal at District Hospital, Bareilly, who found following injuries on the body of deceased;^^1& fyxspj ekdZ xnZu ds pkjksa rjQ] XykfVl ds yscy ij tks nka;s dku ls 6 lseh uhps] ck;sa dku ls 05 \ lseh uhps vkSj fpu ls 5 lseh uhps [kky ds uhps fyxspj ekdZ ds vUnj bdkbeksfll ekStwn FkhA IySfVLek ely esa bdkbeksfll ekStwn FkkA Fkk;jkbM cksu VwVh gqbZ ik;h x;hA Size 27 cm x 1 cm 2& uhyxw ds lkFk [kjk'k dk fu'kku] ckW;s dU/ks ds Åijh o ihNs dh rjQ Size 10 cm x 6cm A '''ko ds vkUrfjd ijh{k.k esa efLr"d conjusted Fkk] daB uyh rFkk Loj xzfUFk conjusted Fkh vkSj gok ds lkFk E;wdl feyk gqvk ekStwn FkkA nksuksa QsQM+s congested FksA fny nk;h rjQ Hkjk gqvk Fkk vkSj ckW;h rjQ [kkyh FkkA vkek'k; [kkyh FkkA ;d`r congested Fkk vkSj otu 01 fdyks FkkA frYyh congested Fkh vkSj otu 110 gm FkkA nksuks xqnsZ congested Fks vkSj otu 200 gm FkkA esjh jk; esa e`rdk dh e`R;q xyk nckus ds dkj.k ne ?kqVus ls yxHkx vk/ks fnu igys gqbZDuring investigation, the I.O. arrested appellant-Pratap Singh on 21.9.2019, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected evidence and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka.8) against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304-B, IPC and Section ¾ D.P.Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.Alternatively, learned Trial Judge also framed charge against the appellants under Section 302 IPC; which are quoted here-in below;1& ;g fd izkFkhZ@oknh jktsUnz dqekj us viuh iq=h 'k'kh dk fookg vki izrki flag ds lkFk fnukad 28-04-12 dks fd;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh vki yksx 'k'kh dks ngst ds fy, rkus nsrs Fks rFkk rax] ijs'kku rFkk mRihfM+r djrs Fks rFkk blds }kjk vkius Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 498 , ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k] tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku ds v/khu gSA 3& ;g fd vki yksxksa us ngst esa nks yk[k :i;s rFkk eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax dh rFkk blds }kjk vkius ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3@4 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks bl U;k;ky; ds laKku ds v/khu gSA eSa blds }kjk funsZ'k nsrk gwW fd vkidk bl U;k;ky; }kjk mDr vkjksi ij fopkj.k fd;k tk;sA ¼lS0 ljoj gqlSu fjtoh½'' vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0&8] cjsyhA vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkjksi i<+dj lquk;k x;kA vfHk;qDrx.k us vkjksi dks Lohdkj ugh fd;k vkSj fopkj.k fd;s tkus dh ekax dhA fnukad% 10-03-2014 ¼lS0 ljoj gqlSu fjtoh½'' vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0&8] cjsyhA^^ ...........;g fd fnukad 19-09-13 dks vkius vius ?kj fLFkr xzke t:uxyk] Fkkuk ckjknjh] cjsyh esa] 'k'kh dh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls Qkalh yxkdj gR;k dj nhA vkidk ;g d`R; /kkjk 302 Hkk0n0la0 ds v/khu n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku ds v/khu gSA eSa blds }kjk funsZ'k nsrk gwW fd vkidk bl U;k;ky; }kjk mDr vkjksi ij fopkj.k fd;k tk;sA ¼lS0 ljoj gqlSu fjtoh½'' vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0&8] cjsyhA vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkjksi i<+dj lquk;k x;kA vfHk;qDrx.k us vkjksi dks Lohdkj ugh fd;k vkSj fopkj.k fd;s tkus dh ekax dhA fnukad% 21-11-2014 ¼lS0 ljoj gqlSu fjtoh½'' vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0&8]The charges were read over to the accused.They denied the prosecution version and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses.P.W.1-informant Rajendra Kumar- father of deceased; P.W.2 Madan Lal, P.W.3 Satya Pal, P.W.4 Dr. Anil Kumar Agrawal who conducted post mortem, P.W.5 Ram Murati Lal, P.W.6 I.O. Asit Srivastava, P.W.7 Raja Ram Singh Yadav and P.W.8 Laxmi Shanker Singh.Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that witnesses of fact have turned hostile even then, the appellant has been convicted; learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence; the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the punishment awarded under Section 302 IPC cannot sustain, the presumption of Section 106 Evidence Act drawn against the accused-appellant is improper and unjustified, thus, the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Judge is liable to be set aside and the appellant be set at liberty.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant; supporting the judgment has submitted that the conviction is based on material evidence available on record by giving proper reasoning and the same is not liable to be interfered with.We have heard Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.11. P.W.1 informant, father of deceased-Shashi in his examination in chief has supported the prosecution version and has proved written report (Ex.Ka.1).But when he was examined the other day, he turned hostile.12. P.W.2 Madan Lal real uncle of the deceased(Shashi) is the witness of inquest.He has stated that inquest proceedings were conducted in his presence and he has put signature thereon.He has proved inquest report (Ex.Ka.2).13. P.W.3 HCP Satyapal Singh has proved chick report (Ex.Ka.1) G.D. entry No. 24 and FIR (Ex.Ka.3).14. P.W.4 Dr.Anil Kumar Agarwal who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased-Shashi has proved post mortem report (Ex.Ka.5).During examination, he found thyroid bone fractured and ligature mark around the neck, stained blood was present in the mouth.He has opined that death is caused due to strangulation.He has proved police papers/documents exhibited in the case.P.W.7 S.I. Raja Ram Singh Yadav in his statement has stated that on receipt of the written report dated 19.5.2013, he visited the spot and prepared inquest report in presence of Luxmi Shanker Singh, Addl.City Magistrate, Bareilly.He has proved inquest report (Ex.Ka.2) and other relevant police papers (material Exhibits 7 to 13).P.W.8 Luxmi Shanker Singh, Addl.City Magistrate is the witness of inquest and he has proved inquest report (Ex.Ka.2).Learned Counsel for the appellant has given much stress on his arguments that it is a suicidal death and not homicidal one and the P.W.1- informant, P.W.2- Madal Lal (father and uncle of deceased) have turned hostile.It has been observed by the Trial Judge that mother-in-law of deceased-Shashi was residing along with her elder son Sukh Lal in village Purnapur, P.S. Bithri Chainpur which is 7 Km.Away from the place of occurrence.Moreover, P.W.1 Rajendra Kumar and P.W.2 Madan Lal have also accepted the fact that Lalan Devi used to live at Purnapur along with family of his elder son.After taking into consideration, all these facts, learned Trial Judge has acquitted Lalan Devi (mother-in-law) for the charges and no State Appeal has been filed against her acquittal.In so far as submission of learned Counsel for the appellant in relation to hostility of the informant (P.W.1) is concerned, suffice to say that during examination in chief, he has endorsed the factual aspects mentioned in the FIR, the mode, manner, motive and the accused who have committed the offence.The fracture of thyroid bone is suggestive of compression of neck by external force.In the case in hand, death is caused by throttling with a rope of plastic.Thyroid bone is fractured and abraded contusion on the shoulder was found.Inquest report was conducted at the residence of appellant, and during inquest, he was absconding from the scene, which casts serious doubt on the conduct of a husband,specially when the occurrence took place inside the house where, the appellant and his wife deceased(Shashi) were residing.From scrutiny of entire evidence, we are unable to find any satisfactory explanation from the accused to the effect that at the time of occurrence, he was not present in the house.The explanation given in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was of a loose character, is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.In the present case, husband has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife and then hanging her in his house.The law does not enjoin a duty on prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led.The duty on prosecution is to lead such evidence which is capable of leading having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.Here it is necessary to keep in mind the Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.Where an offence like murder is committed secretly inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, cannot be of the same degree as it required in other cases of circumstantial evidence.The burden would be comparative of a lighter character.In view of Section 106 of Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premises that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution to offer any explanation.(See.Sandeep Vs.In this case, the attending circumstances led to irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the appellant as to how the dead body was found in side the house and this was within his personal knowledge, but the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was not discharged by the husband(appellant) and a false explanation has been given by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Drawing adverse inference, the Apex Court confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC.( See Joshinder Yadav Vs.In Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar Vs.Learned Trial Judge has elaborately discussed the evidence.The findings are based on material available on record.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,611,083 |
The prosecution's story, in short, is that on 15.9.1993 at about 11:00 AM the victim Gokul (PW-5) with 2 Cr.A.No.306/1997 his grazing bullocks was at Bhatiya (a land which was kept for use of public in general) near the village Devgaon (Police Station Ajaygarh District Panna).At about 11:00 AM the appellants went to the spot and objected as to why his bullocks were grazing in that land.The complainant argued that it was a public land, and therefore the appellants could not raise any objection.Thereafter the appellants assaulted him with kicks & fists and shoes.Shivbalak (PW-6) tried to save his son Gokul, then he was also assaulted by the appellants.The appellants took the victim Gokul to the house of the appellant Lalaram and again he was assaulted there.The bullocks of the complainant were sent to cattle pound.After 4:00 PM in the evening the complainant and his father were released by the appellants.The complainant had lodged an FIR Ex.P-8 at Police Station Ajaygarh on the same day at about 8:30 PM.He was directed for his medico legal examination.U.K.Gupta (PW-9) examined the injured persons Gokul and Shivbalak and gave his report Ex.(Delivered on the 24th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1/2/1997 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.74/1993, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- each and one month's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for each of them.P-10A and P-11A. Nine injuries were found on the complainant Gokul.He had a continuous swelling on his back specially in the lumber region, whereas the victim Shivbalak sustained three injuries found by Dr. Gupta (PW-9) and he was also complaining about the pain in his right hand.The complainant had also intimated that he was Kori by caste, and therefore a scheduled caste person, and he was deprived of the use of that place Bhatiya on the 3 Cr.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court, Panna.2 Cr.3 Cr.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that neither the complainant Gokul was denied from grazing his bullocks in the Bhatiya nor his bullocks were kept in the cattle pound.On the contrary, Gokul had tried to solve the quarrel between both the bullocks and thereby sustained some injuries.In defence Raja Bhaiya (DW-1), Babbu (DW-2), Babulal (DW-3) and Barra (DW-4) were examined.The appellant Pushpendra also took a plea of alibi, and therefore the Postman Babulal (DW-3) was examined to show that the appellant Pushpendra was in the post office upto 1:30 PM on the date of incident.The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act read with Section 149 of IPC, but convicted them for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the victim Gokul sustained injuries due to quarrel of bullocks.He was never restrained from grazing his cattle in the Bhatiya.His bullocks were never confined 4 Cr.A.No.306/1997 in the cattle pound and no incident took place on the basis of the caste.It is specifically submitted that the complainant implicated so many persons without their fault.Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the appellants be acquitted.In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 19 years, and therefore a lenient view may be taken in imposing the sentence looking into their harassment of attending the various Courts in last 19 years.4 Cr.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.He has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference may be warranted from the side of this Court.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered that as to whether the appeal of the appellants may be accepted? And whether the sentence directed against the appellants can be reduced?In the present case Gokul (PW-5), Ramratan (PW-3) and Shivbalak (PW-6) were examined as eye- witnesses.Looking at the evidence given by Shivbalak it appears that he reached to the spot after sometime.However, Ramratan and Gokul have sated that the 5 Cr.A.No.306/1997 complainant Gokul was grazing his bullocks in the public land Bhatiya and thereafter the appellants assaulted him with shoes, sticks and kicks & fists.It is also stated by Gokul that the appellant Ramsuphal assaulted him by the back of an axe.Thereafter Shivbalak came to the spot to save his son Gokul, but he was also assaulted.Ultimately the victims were taken to the house of Lalaram and again they were assaulted in the house.They were confined upto 4:00 PM and thereafter they were released.The appellants took a defence that they did not prohibit the complainant from grazing his bullocks in that land and he sustained injuries due to a quarrel of bullocks.However, two defence witnesses viz. Raja Bhaiya (DW-1) and Babbu (DW-2) were examined in support of the defence story.5 Cr.Looking at the evidence of Dr. U.K.Gupta (PW-9), so many injuries were caused to the complainant.He had a continuous swelling on his back specially in the lumber region.Such injuries could only be caused by a number of assault done by someone on his back and therefore the defence taken by the appellants appears to be unnatural that the victim Gokul sustained injuries due to fall.Similarly, the appellants gave an explanation by the witnesses Raja Bhaiya (DW-1) and Babbu (DW-2) that the complainant Gokul sustained injuries due to fall, but they did not give 6 Cr.A.No.306/1997 any explanation to the injuries caused to the victim Shivbalak.Under such circumstances, it would be clear that witnesses Raja Bhaiya (DW-1) and Babbu (DW-2) are telling a falsehood before the trial Court.6 Cr.By the evidence of Dr. U.K.Gupta (PW-9), the testimony of the complainant Gokul and the victim Shivbalak appears to be trustworthy.However, there are some contradictions between the evidence given by Ramratan, Gokul and Shivbalak and also there is some contradiction between the evidence of the complainant with his FIR Ex.According to the witnesses, the victims were released at about 4:00 PM in the evening, and therefore they could lodge an FIR soon after the incident, but the FIR was lodged at about 8:30 PM, and therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out that after discussion and conferencing with others, the complainant and his father could have added the names of the accused persons in their FIR otherwise it is proved beyond doubt that the complainant Gokul and his father Shivbalak were assaulted by the appellants.Gokul and Shivbalak have stated that the appellants assaulted the victim Gokul by shoes, but it is nowhere confirmed by the witness Ramratan (PW-3), and therefore it appears that Gokul and his father told the story of assault by shoes to make the case of insult of a person belonging to scheduled caste, but it is not correct.7 Cr.A.No.306/1997 Similarly, Ramratan, Gokul and Shivbalak have stated in omnibus manner against the seven persons that they assaulted the victim Gokul.Looking at the injuries upon the victim Gokul, it is possible that he was assaulted by 4-5 persons, but it is also possible that the names of the appellants were added by the complainant though they were not present at the spot.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses Ramratan, Gokul and Shivbalak should be considered with some caution.7 Cr.According to the witness Ramratan (PW-3), appellant Lalaram was present at the spot, who directed others to beat Gokul.He did not state any specific overt-act of any of the particular appellant.He has accepted in para 14 of his statement that he saw the incident taking place at Bhatiya, but he did not visit with the appellants to the house of appellant Lalaram.The complainant Gokul has stated that the appellants assaulted him, but he also alleged in omnibus manner.As discussed above, it is found that none of the appellants had assaulted the victim by shoes, and therefore specific overt-act of the appellants should be told by the victim.Gokul has stated that the appellants Lalaram and Ram Niranjan had sticks and they assaulted by the sticks.He has categorically stated that the appellants Lalaram and Ram Niranjan assaulted him at his soles of feet and appellant Ramsuphal assaulted by back of an axe.But if the details of the statement given by the complainant are 8 Cr.A.No.306/1997 perused, then it is apparent that he has specifically alleged against 3-4 appellants including the appellants Ram Niranjan, Lalaram, Ramsuphal and Lala Bhaiya.He has stated against Lala Bhaiya that he assaulted him by pelting stones.In this context, if the evidence of witness Shivbalak (PW-6) is perused, then he has also stated against the appellants in omnibus manner.If these appellants had assaulted either the complainant Gokul or victim Shivbalak, then they should have told their specific overt-act.Looking at the injuries of the complainant Gokul, such injuries could be caused by 4-5 persons, but it was not necessary that all the seven appellants were involved in causing him injuries.8 Cr.The defence witness Babulal (DW-3) has stated that the appellant Pushpendra Singh was a Postmaster in the post office, and therefore it was expected from the appellant Pushpendra Singh that he was occupied with his duties in his duty hours, and therefore the testimony of Babulal (DW-3) can be accepted and it appears that appellant Pushpendra Singh was not present at the time of incident and he was falsely implicated in the matter by the complainant.Similarly, no overt-act of the appellants Sardar Singh or Munshilal is stated by any of the eye- 9 Cr.A.No.306/1997 witnesses, therefore by such statements, it cannot be said that the appellants Sardar Singh and Munshilal were involved in the crime.Since the FIR was lodged with some delay and the complainant had sufficient time to enhance the names of the culprits, therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that the names of the appellants Sardar Singh, Munshilal and Pushpendra Singh were added without their presence.If they would had assaulted the victims, then a particular type of assault should be remembered by the witnesses and a statement could be given of that assault in the trial Court.However, it is proved that the appellants Lalaram, Ramsuphal, Ram Niranjan and Lala Bhaiya assaulted the victims causing them simple injuries.9 Cr.There is no specific charge framed by the trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, however the cause of action of assault was that the complainant was grazing his bullocks on a land Bhatiya and the appellants wanted to deprive him of such a facility.A suggestion was given to the various eye-witnesses that there was an adverse possession of the appellant Lala Bhaiya on that land and he was the owner of the land, and therefore he was prohibiting every one in the village to graze their cattle on that land.Initially it is admitted that it was a Government land.As per the witness Ramratan, that land Bhatiya was kept for funeral purposes, therefore it was a public land and it was for the appellants to prove that an 10 Cr.A.No.306/1997 adverse possession was created by appellant Lala Bhaiya and the complainant was prohibited to graze his bullocks on that land, because the appellant Lala Bhaiya was the owner of the land.But no revenue record was placed before the trial Court to show that the appellant Lala Bhaiya had an adverse possession on that land.It was not established by the appellants that anyone of the village was prohibited to graze his cattle.It is accepted by the witnesses that all the appellants were grazing their cattle on that land, and therefore if that land was of the appellant Lala Bhaiya, then why others were not prohibited from entering their cattle on that field.10 Cr.In the present case, it is established that the complainant Gokul was Kori by caste, and therefore he was a scheduled caste person, which was admitted by the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereas it is also established that the appellants were not of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.Therefore, intention of the appellants is not at all material in the case.It is established that some of the appellants prohibited the victim Gokul to graze his cattle on the land Bhatiya which was a public land whereas the complainant Gokul was of scheduled caste.Therefore offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act is duly constituted against the appellants Lala Bhiya, Lalaram and Ramsuphal and Ram Niranjan.The learned Special Judge has rightly convicted these appellants 11 Cr.A.No.306/1997 for the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act. However, a doubt is created that the appellants Sardar Singh, Pushpendra Singh and Munshilal were not present at the spot, and therefore their common intention or object cannot be presumed with other appellants.11 Cr.So far as the unlawful assembly is concerned, it is not established that more than four persons had participated in the crime, therefore no unlawful assembly was created.However, it is apparent that the appellants had committed the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act and charges were framed against them for their own deeds as well as the deeds of their co-accused, and therefore they had opportunity to contest for their own liability as well as joint liability.Therefore, if the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act with the provisions of Section 34 of IPC, then no prejudice would cause to them.So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has imposed minimum sentence upon the appellants.It is true that the appellants have faced harassment for appearing before the various courts in the trial and appeal 12 Cr.12 Cr.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants Sardar Singh, Munshilal and Pushpendra Singh is allowed.Their conviction as well as sentence for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby set aside.They are acquitted from all the charges appended against them.They would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited the same before the trial Court.The appellants No.1 to 4 are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith so that remaining sentence can be executed against them.13 Cr.13 Cr.At present the appellants Sardar Singh, Munshilal and Pushpendra Singh are on bail.A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,614,686 |
P.C for grant of bail made by applicant Sunil s/o Pahadsingh in connection with crime No.62/2018 registered at Police Station Kasrawad, district Khargone for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n), 342, 506-B of the IPC and under section of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty renew the prayer after recording the statement of prosecutix.On 23.06.2018 the Court statement of prosecutrix was recorded.-2- MCRC NO.24700/2018 that the applicant Sunil s/o Pahadsingh 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 surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his regular appearance before him or the trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court during trial.It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.MCRC No.24700/18 stands allowed and disposed of.C.c as per rules.(P.K.JAISWAL) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair hk/ Date: 2018.07.06 10:39:28 -07'00'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,616,091 |
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.04.09 17:47:14 +05'30'The lawyers are reported to be abstaining from work.sh Applicant- Dharmendra Sharma is present person.e Respondent No.2 Smt. Sandhya Sharma is present in ad person.Pr This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been a filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.11/2018 registered at hy Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offence under ad Sections 323, 294, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of M Dowry Prohibition Act ,on the ground of compromise.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present of application in short are that the respondent No.2 lodged a FIR rt on 05/01/2018 against the applicant for the above-mentioned ou offence.It is alleged in the FIR that the respondent No.2 was C married to the applicant on 15/02/2004, as per Hindu rites and h rituals.However, for the last two years her husband is ig threatening her to kill and is constantly demanding share in H the property of her father.The respondent No.2 has one son and one daughter.However, very frequently, the applicant used to beat her.On this complaint, the police has registered the FIR as Crime No.11/2018 at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior.This Court by order dated 20/03/2018 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the verification of factum of compromise.The Principal Registrar of this Court, after recording the statements of the parties, has given the following report:-
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
103,628,422 |
The facts necessary for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 lodged a F.I.R. against the applicants as well as against Saurabh (Husband), Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod (Mother-in-law) alleging that She is married to Saurabh as per Hindu rites and rituals.At the time of marriage, her father had given Rs. 1,11,000 in cash, apart from Fridge, Washing Machine, Double Bed and all other household articles and gold ornaments.Her in-laws kept her properly for near about 3-4 months but thereafter the applicants and her husband and parents-in-law started demanding Rs. 50,000/-.After some 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 time, all started demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle.When her parents refused to give the same, all her in-laws started harassing her for want of dowry.They used to beat her and even food was not given properly, and they used to say that till, the respondent no.2 do not bring dowry, they will continue to harass her.On 25-8-2012 She came back to her parents house.She gave birth to a female child but no body came there to see her.A panchayat was convened and thereafter She came back to her matrimonial house.The general allegations which have been levelled by the complainant/respondent no. 2 are that after marriage for few months, she was kept properly 12 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 and thereafter, her in-laws including the applicants started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they started demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle.It is alleged that when She gave birth to her girl child, nobody came to see her.Her mother spent Rs. 4 lacs for the treatment of her child which were saved by her mother for the marriage of her younger sister.When she went back to her matrimonial house, again all her in-laws demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle and said that either She should bring the amount and a motor cycle or else she should give divorce to Saurabh.As she had caught both of them red handed, therefore, earlier She was beaten for this reason.She further alleged that the applicant no.2 is a lady of loose character and her father-in-law has also illicit relations with her.On 26-7- 2015 while She was doing her household work in her matrimonial house, then her husband again demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle and when She refused to fulfill his demand then She was beaten by her husband by means of a lathi and all of her in-laws slapped her.(09/03/2017) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2338/2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Distt.Morena for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.On 26-7- 2015, again all of her in-laws started harassing her and beating her and a report was lodged by her.As She is still being harassed by her in-laws therefore, F.I.R. was lodged.The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the applicants and against Saurabh (Husband), Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod (Mother-in-law).2 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is elder brother-in-law (tsB), applicant no.2 is the wife of applicant no. 1 (tsBkuh), applicant no.3 is sister-in- law (uun) and the applicant no.4 is the husband of applicant no.3 (uunksbZ).It is submitted that the applicants no. 1 and 2 are residing in Ahmedabad (Gujarat) where the applicant no.2 is doing Sewing Course and his son Kunal is studying in Class 3rd in R.H. Kapdia Primary School, Thaltej, Ahmedabad.The certificate and the fee card of the child have also been placed on record.Similarly the applicant no.3 is working as Asstt.Teacher, Primary School Magarpura (Dabar) Kshetra Nadi gaon, Jalon (Utter Pradesh).The appointment order and the certificates have also been placed on record.The applicant no.4 is working in a private company and at present he is residing in Flat No. 4, Wahid Manzil, Near Jalram Mandir, Anand Nagar, Vapi, distt.The appointment order, time statement etc. have also been placed 3 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 on record.It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been made against the applicants and only vague and omnibus allegations have been made.It is further submitted that the case of the near and distant relatives of Husband stand on a different footing and therefore, unless and until there are specific allegations against them, they should not be compelled to face the trial and a tendency is increasing in the society to falsely and overimplicate the relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the husband.3 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016Though a criminal complaint lodged before 4 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of court.* * *Therefore, in the considered view of this Court this petition is maintainable also even when trial is at advance stage.The question is answered accordingly."Thus, it is held that during the pendency of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if the charges have been framed and even if some of the witnesses have been examined, the 8 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 petition can be decided on merits.8 M.Cr.The applicants no.1 and 2 are the residents of Ahemdabad whereas the applicant no.3 is working on the post of Asstt.Teacher and is based in Jalon (U.P.) whereas the applicant no.4 is working in a private company and is residing in Balsad (Maharashtra).If the allegations made against the applicants are considered, then it is clear that only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicants.The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific 10 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 material.Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations.Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.10 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr.Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case."* * * * * *We must, at the outset, state that the High 11 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view.However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed.The allegations are extremely general in nature.In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3."11 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the only intention of the respondent no.2 13 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016 is to some how prosecute as well as to defame them.12 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 201613 M.Cr.C. No. 3658 of 2016
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,409,443 |
This first bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 227/2018 U/s 147, 148, 149, 353 and 307 of IPC registered at Police Station- Rajgarh, District- Rajgarh.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.There is no evidence against him.Conclude of trial is likely to take time.The applicant is permanent resident of Rajgarh.There is no possibility of his absconding.He is ready to furnish adequate security.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.According to the prosecution case, on 22.04.2018 at about 8-9:00 in the night, the police party lead by Sub- Inspector Mohar Singh had gone to search stolen property Buffalos in connection with crime no.100/2018 under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.It is alleged by the police party that while they tried to search the stolen property Kailash, Bharatsingh, Mangu @ Mangya assaulted and fired gun shot with intent to kill them.So far as the present applicant is concerned he is not named in the FIR and nothing has been recovered from him.In view of the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.20325/2018 accused on bail.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,754,115 |
JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship rejected the writ application filed by the appellant in which the appellant prayed for setting aside the decision taken by the Railway Authority to cancel his selection to the post of "Commission Agent" for Badalpur Passenger Halt and to hold a fresh selection.Subsequently, by a further letter dated 22nd December, 2004, the said Senior Divisional Manager informed the appellant that the competent authority had decided to cancel the previous order awarding contract in his favour.It was further informed that the authority had taken the decision for fresh selection of Commission Agent for Badalpur P.H. through a further notification which would be published shortly.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision informed by the letter dated 22nd December, 2004, the appellant filed the writ application before the learned Single Judge thereby praying for setting aside the said decision on the ground that neither any reason was assigned to him before cancelling the previous order awarding contract nor was any opportunity of hearing given to him controvert any allegation against him, if any, and at the same time, he described the action of the Railway Authority as a mala fide one.In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,412,143 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10919/2020 (Raju Mehtar @ Rajesh Patwana s/o Ramlal Mehtar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 18.03.2020 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix regarding criminal intimidation and commission of rape, the case has been registered against the present applicant.The prosecutrix has already been examined before the trial Court on 27.02.2020 and she does not support the prosecution story and turns hostile.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,412,641 |
This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail who apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.328/2015 registered at police station, Kampu, district Gwalior for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 324, 336, 506-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution story is that the complainant Rajesh lodged the First Information Report against the accused persons on 17.6.2015 that accused person namely Mannu had hired D.J. and during the course of programme, a dispute ensued between them and the complainant.Thereupon, all the accused persons started beating the complainant with iron rod, axe, lathi and pelted stones as also hurled abuses on the complainant.From the M.L.C. report, four injuries have been found on the person of the complainant.However, after the C.T. Scan, taking into account the nature of injury sustained by the complainant, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was added.I have considered the submissions advanced on both sides.C. No.12895/15, shall be released on bail on her furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the application so far as it relates to applicant No.2 Smt. Muvina Begum in M.Cr.However, the bail applications of the remaining applicants are rejected.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK ARADHE)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,418,308 |
I. Both the anticipatory bail applications are hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 03:30:43 :::c) The applicant in anticipatory bail application No. 70 of 2019, namely, Sunita Shivaji Bankar shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigating officer for further investigation, if any.The anticipatory bail applications are accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 03:30:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 03:30:43 :::
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,426,019 |
The term 'harassment' by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the police officer.In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelineshttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7729 of 2020 are issued:a)While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such person through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.b) The respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainantc)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.O.P.No.7729 of 2020 22.05.2020http://www.judis.nic.inSince there are constant disputes between the petitioner's family and the family members of 3 to 8 respondents, the respondent police has referred the matter to the Tahsildar for conducting a peace committee meeting.In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seek for this Court's intervention by way of a direction.d)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.e)The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.22.05.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No kashttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7729 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA .J., kas1.The Inspector of Police Vedaranyam Police Station Nagapattinam District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 00 104 Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,427,227 |
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::After the marriage, they resided initially at village Uti, Taluka Mahagaon and then at village Aarni.It is the case of the respondent that after some months of the marriage, the applicant and his family members started illtreating her with a view to compel her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her maternal home.She did not conceive any child for about 7 to 8 months after the marriage.On that count also, she was being taunted by calling her as "wanzoti".It is alleged that in the month of August, 2014, during menses of the respondent, the applicant committed anal intercourse with her against her will.She, therefore, lodged F.I.R. against the applicant on the basis of which a crime has been registered in the Police Station.The respondent was taken by the applicant to his house from her maternal home in the month of October, 2015 on the assurance that he would treat her properly.She has no source of income.She is unable to maintain herself.The applicant is serving as Veterinary Supervisor and getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.He is possessing irrigated agricultural land admeasuring ten acres, from which he earns about Rs.10,00,000/- per annum.The respondent claimed Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance.The applicant has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 1st August, 2017, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Nanded in Petition No.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::3 crirevn135-2018However, after five days of her residence, the applicant again started illtreating her on account of his illegal demand of money.He further prohibited her from talking to her parents on phone.Thereafter, the father of the respondent went to the house of the applicant on 9 th November, 2015 and brought her back to his house.At that time, the applicant had beaten the father of the respondent.It is alleged that the applicant had taken video clips in respect of his sexual acts with the respondent.He threatened her that in case she failed to bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her maternal home or give consent for his second marriage, he would make them viral and defame her and her parents.According to the respondent, the applicant deserted her.He refused and neglected to maintain her.The applicant resisted the petition.He denied all the allegations made by the respondent against him.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::4 crirevn135-2018According to him, the respondent herself was not interested in cohabiting with him.She frequently used to go to her maternal home.He tried to convince her to behave properly, but it was of no use.Ultimately, on 9th November, 2015, the father of the respondent took her to his house.Thereafter also, the applicant tried to bring her back to his house, but she did not respond positively.He filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent and the same is pending.According to the applicant, the respondent left his company at her own without any reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance.The applicant stated that the respondent has done D.Ed.She is giving tuitions and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.She is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, the applicant is the only son of his parents.He has to maintain his parents.He is not in a position to pay separate maintenance to the respondent.He stated that he is still ready to cohabit with the respondent.He denied his income as claimed by the respondent.On these grounds, he prayed for rejection of the petition.The applicant and the respondent examined ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 5 crirevn135-2018themselves before the Trial Court in support of their respective claims.They did not examine any other witness.As such, there is oath against oath between the parties.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::The respondent has specifically stated as to how she was being illtreated by the applicant in connection with his demand for money.She further stated on oath that the applicant had forcibly subjected her to anal intercourse due to which she had sustained injuries.The applicant did not extend any medical treatment to her.He further prepared video clips in respect of his sexual activities with the respondent.He used to threaten her that he would make those video clips viral in case she did not consent for his second marriage or bring rs.5,00,000/-.The respondent has produced the copy of the F.I.R. bearing No.143 of 2016, registered on the report lodged by the respondent against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).The offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC also have been registered against the applicant, his parents and sister.Though these allegations have ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 6 crirevn135-2018been denied by the applicant, it would be improbable on the part of his wife to make such wild allegations against him falsely.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::It has come in the cross-examination of the applicant that in October, 2015, his father and himself went to the maternal home of the respondent and took her to their house on the assurance of treating her properly.This admission itself indicates about previous illtreatment given to the respondent.The version of the applicant that the respondent was not interested in cohabiting with him and she frequently used to go to her maternal home, does not appear to be natural and probable.Had she not been interested in cohabiting with the applicant, she would not have resided with him during the period of one year and nine months, though with some intervals.She would not have at all gone to the house of the applicant if she really had no intention to cohabit with him.The respondent has produced the copy of the FIR lodged by her father against the applicant on 27 th March, 2016 on the basis of which a non-cognizable case for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC was registered against him and others.The applicant is ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 7 crirevn135-2018alleged to have threatened him of dire consequences in case the report lodged by the respondent against him and his family members was not withdrawn.He had further threatened to make the video clips of the respondent viral.From this evidence, it is sufficiently clear that there was illtreatment to the respondent at the hands of the applicant and therefore, she was compelled to reside at her maternal home.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::In paragraph No.4 of his cross-examination, the applicant admits that after 9th November, 2015, he never had gone to the maternal house of the respondent to bring her back to his house.There is nothing on record to show that after 9th November, 2015, the applicant made any provision for the maintenance of the respondent.These facts are sufficient to prove that the applicant refused and neglected to maintain the respondent.Ramesh Dagdu Garje, delivered by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.422 of 2000 on 19th June, 2014 would be of no help to the applicant ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 8 crirevn135-2018to deny the claim of the respondent for maintenance.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::His total salary is Rs. 25,874/-.The amount of Rs.15,000/- seems to have been deducted from his salary towards repayment - instalment of loan taken by him from one Credit Cooperative Society.The applicant stated that he has availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for construction of house at village Uti.However, he has not produced any document to show that he constructed any house by spending about Rs.5,00,000/-.It seems that in order to frustrate the claim of the respondent for maintenance, the applicant has taken advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the pretext of constructing a house.The deduction of Rs.15,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant cannot be said to be statutory deduction.It cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the income of the applicant.Besides the salary income of the applicant, there seem to be agricultural lands standing in the names of his father and grandfather bearing Block Nos.122/2 and 123/2, admeasuring 1 H 62 R and 1 H 61 R respectively from which the family of the applicant must ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 9 crirevn135-2018be getting income.The applicant has not disclosed the income from these agricultural lands, which fact was within his special knowledge.Any way, from the total area of these lands, it can be inferred that the parents of the applicant must be getting sufficient income from these lands to maintain themselves.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::The respondent has come with a case that she has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself.The applicant has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent is having any concrete monetary income, which would be sufficient for her maintenance.In the circumstances, the case of the respondent that she is unable to maintain herself will have to be accepted and accordingly accepted.As stated above, the applicant has refused and neglected to maintain the respondent though he has sufficient means to maintain her.The respondent is unable to maintain herself.The applicant is getting salary of Rs.25,874/- per month.Considering the present ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 10 crirevn135-2018salary of the applicant and the income from the agricultural lands standing in the names of the father and grandfather of the applicant, status of the parties and bare requirements of the respondent for maintenance, in my view, the amount of Rs.5000/- per month would not be excessive or exorbitant.The applicant is liable to pay that much amount to the respondent towards maintenance.::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::The impugned judgment and order need no interference.In the result, I pass the following order:-ORDER The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/crirevn135-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 ::: 11 crirevn135-2018::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2018 02:06:20 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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.
|
175,435,172 |
Shri K.D. Singh, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on this repeat (foruth) application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.265/2019 registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Satna under Sections 353, 332, 294, 506, 327/ 34, 307, 333,147 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The earlier first bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.30042/2019, second bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.37952/2019 and third bail application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.46599/2019 have been dismissed vide orders dated 9.8.2019, 23.9.2019 and 28.11.2019 respectively on merits.Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 10/02/2020 12:48:44 2 MCRC-1424-2020 Consequently, this fourth application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,754,361 |
S.B. SINHA, J :1. Leave granted.Jeeja, the deceased was married on 12.09.1998 with the first appellantherein, Dr. Premkumar at Attingal.They had been residing at Chenkkottah,in the district of Tenkasi in the State of Tamil Nadu.Appellant no.2 herein, father-in-law of the deceased, informedthe Courtallam Police about the said unnatural death pursuant whereto acase being Crime No.64/2003 under Section 174 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (Cr.P.C.) was registered.The body of the deceased wassubjected to inquest by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and 2Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi and an enquiry was conducted by thesaid officer and a report was submitted before the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Tenkasi wherein, inter alia, it was stated :"On the basis of the inquest conducted, and on the basis of the enquiries made with the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, father, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased, and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the reputed locals, and viewing the position and situation of the room in which the dead body was lying and other circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the death of Jeeja by hanging is not one due to dowry based cruelty.I request to make detailed investigation as to under what circumstances Smt. Jeeja died by hanging."The Inspector of Police, Courtallam submitted a report before the Sub-collector and Revenue Divisional Officer stating that Jeeja committedsuicide on account of her mental illness.The investigation pursuant to thereport under Section 174, Cr.P.C. was stopped stating :"It is truly evident that Jeeja, knowing that the fact of her mental illness had come to the knowledge of her husband and parents-in-law, and that despite the homeopathy, ayurveda and allopathic treatment the mental disease had not subsided, became mentally depressed and as a result of the mental agony she had undergone she came to the decision of committing suicide by hanging, and accordingly on 14.2.2003 at 9.00 AM after telling her husband that she would not speak to him, and after the departure of her husband and father-in-law to the clinic 3 at 9.30 AM, she went to wash and dry the clothes at 10.30 AM and after that she went into the first room at the upstairs and after locking from inside the box lock of the wooden plank shutter of the door and placing the key on the table, and locking from inside of the glass windows on the south, lower and north side of the said room, she went into the bed room, and after locking the bed room door from inside, she climbed on the small stool and the cot in the room and after tying a nylon churidar shawl at the ceiling fan clamp at the roof by a knot and tying the other end of the shawl around the neck by making a knot by herself and jumped down from the cot and as a result of hanging the knot around her throat got tightened and caused suffocation that resulted in her death.Father of the deceased, however, lodged a complaint with the KadakkavoorPolice in the State of Kerala on or about 04.03.2003 on the basis whereof aFirst Information Report (for short, `FIR') was lodged for an offencepunishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode (IPC).Appellant no.1 was arrested from his residence at Shenkottai (TamilNadu) and produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Varkkala.Appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.Byreason thereof a new offence was created.A new procedure for trial hasbeen laid down.Three months after the delivery, the petitioners daughter and child were again taken to Shengottai.Another complaint made by the 2nd counter petitioner alleging that the petitioner and the family members have misappropriated some gold ornaments gifted to the child 8 by close relatives.Thereafter there were not much communications and the petitioner was under an impression that things were going on smoothly.During December 2002 the counter petitioners along with the daughter of the petitioner came to their residence at Trivandrum and stayed there for some days.She could not with stand the harassment for longer period during last week of January 2003, the 1st counter petitioner along with Jeeja and child came to the petitioners residence.She came there agreeing the 1st counter petitioner to discuss this issue with the petitioner, but ignoring the said agreement, she did not speak much about the sale of property is sold and the amount is paid to the counter petitioners.The petitioner advised her to relax and stay here for some days.An identical question recently came up for consideration in the caseof Asit Bhattacharjee v. M/s. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors.(ii) Accused/respondents shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and their applications for grant of bail, if any, may be considered by the said court on its own merits.(iii) The accused/respondent shall render all cooperation with the Investigating Officer.Consequently, the charge-sheets filed by Waghodia Police Station stand set aside.The police officer concerned of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law.Any document collected as also the statements of any witnesses recorded by the officer in charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may be sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station."In a case of this nature and following the aforementioned decisionsand particularly in view of the fact that the police at Courtallam, TamilNadu had already been informed, although stricto sensu, the same cannot beconstrued to be an FIR within the meaning of provisions of Section 154, 14Cr.P.C., and, thus, F.I.R. lodged at Kadakkavoor Police Station wasmaintainable, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would besubserved if the investigation and consequent trial is transferred to PoliceOfficer in charge of Courtallam Police Station, Tamil Nadu.All thematerials collected by Kadakkavoor Police Station, Kerala shall betransferred to the officer incharge of Courtallam Police Station, Tamil Nadu.The officer incharge of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Kerala, must ensurethat in the event a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance of offence underSection 304B, IPC is taken, witnesses who are available within hisjurisdiction shall be produced.We have passed this unusual order keeping in view the specific defenceraised by the appellants that the deceased had been suffering from somemental illness.The appeal stands allowed to the aforementioned extent accordingly.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,544 |
Sometime after marriage, respondent No.1 was transferred to Nagaland.Unfortunately, the appellant could not accompany him to Nagaland as a result whereof some dark, portentous cloud started hovering between her and the happiness she had so joyfully anticipated.A Naga woman in the shape of a serpent entered into the paradise of her happiness and her husband (respondent No.1) had fallen.The said Naga woman had stolen away his affection, and by the magical sorcery of the seducer's spell, had transformed his former love into settled hatred and aversion.Respondent No.1, whom she had left so kind, so full of affection, on his posting at Shimla, greeted her with cold indifference and even denied her those matrimonial privileges, which as a legally wedded wife, were her of right to demand.Dispirited and discouraged at the failure to regain her husband's affection, her vision of happiness dissipated and she approached the Army Authorities for maintenance, which was granted.Overpowered by the fascinations of his concubine, respondent No.1 filed a petition against the appellant for dissolution of marriage.By the order dated 20.7.1988 passed by the Supreme Court, the said petition was transferred from Amritsar to Delhi.On 1.12.1988, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming for maintenance pendente lite on the ground that she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain herself and her child.Believing the affidavit filed by the appellant, the learned Addl.Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Supreme Court for transfer of the defamation case pending against her before the Danapur Court.In that application, she stated that she was employed as a teacher in Badal Academy, Faridkot (Punjab).After passing of the modification order dated 22.7.1996, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making an enquiry into the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant under sections 193/199 IPC.The application was opposed by the appellant.The learned Addl.District Judge took the view that it was expedient to make a criminal complaint against the appellant as the materials available make out a prima facie case under Sections 193/199 IPC against her.Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up in appeal before this court.the appellant has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act supported by her affidavit claiming interim maintenance on the ground that she was having no independent source of income or means to maintain her and her child and that interim maintenance was granted to her and her child on the basis of the said averments made in the application.As noticed earlier, during his posting in Nagaland, the respondent No.1 had kept a Naga Woman as his concubine.Thereafter, respondent No.1 initiated divorce proceedings against the appellant.It needs to be highlighted that while vacating the maintenance order dated 22.7.1996, learned Addl.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,754,484 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This criminal revision is directed against 'the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated February 23, 1981, by which he has allowed the criminal revision filed by the complainant and required the Metropolitan Magistrate to serve notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as well.at about 10.00 A.M. was dragged from the staircase leading to the second floor from the first floor and was held out threat that he would not be allowed to go to the second floor at any time and he was given abuses.The Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence had directed for service of notice on the petitioners for an offence punishable bunder Section 506 Part I, IPC and had discharged the accused for offence under Section 341 IPC.(3) The learned counsel for the petitioners has only, contended that the revisional court has no power to direct, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, .the service of notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section , Indian Penal Code and at the most the revisional court could have directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to hold further inquiry into the matter.He has made reference to Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') in this respect.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,362,055 |
This Crl.Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this petition, are as follows:(a) The Government of Tamil Nadu, the Government of India and Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) were providing funds for implementation of various schemes, of which, Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) is one of such schemes introduced in 1975-76, intended for the welfare of children, for which funds are provided by the Government of Tamil Nadu.The object of the said scheme is to deliver a package of services in an integrated manner to the vulnerable children to improve the nutritional and health status of children below six years of age to lay foundation for proper physical and socio-psychological development, to reduce the school dropouts and to enhance the capability of mothers to look after the nutritional and other needs of children.(b) The ICDS was implemented with the assistance of SIDA in 1 to 30 blocks in the composite Chengai-MGR District, later extended to 13 blocks in Pudukkottai and 4 blocks in the Nilgiris District.The Government accorded sanction of Rs.2,042.34 Lakhs to incur expenditure for the period from 01.07.1993 to 30.06.1995 in G.O.Ms.No.235, Social Welfare Department, dated 17.08.1994 and Rs.2,200 Lakhs for the period from 01.07.1995 to 30.06.1997 in G.O.Ms.Till August 1999, the Child Development Project Officers concerned were purchasing the commodity (Sundal, i.e. cooked grain) directly from the Co-operative Societies at the prevailing rate of Rs.15.50 paise per Kilogram.K.Deenadayalan, IAS, (A-1),former Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, in connivance with the then Minister for Social Welfare Tmt.R.Indirakumari and with the active assistance of her former Personal Assistant Tr.Venkat @ Venkatakrishnan (A-12), with an intention to gain pecuniary advantage from the Scheme, directed Tmt.Grace Annabai (A-4), former Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Services, Tambaram to issue necessary instructions to the Child Development Project Officers of the Districts not to purchase the Sundal (cooked grain) from the area Co-operative Societies themselves.The former Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, in contravention of the directions issued in the above said G.O.Ms.No.235 in which it was mentioned that all the purchases like food articles and drugs, etc., shall be made in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Financial Code - Article 125 and in violation of the said Financial Code, the indent orders for supply of Sundal (cooked grain) items such as Peas, Karamani and Gram, were placed with Sriperumbudur Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society (SAPCMS) and with Thiruthani Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society (TCAMS) from September 1994 to May 1996 at the rate of Rs.23/- and Rs.24/- per kg., when the prevailing rate in the market was only Rs.15.50 at that time.(d) Initially, the former Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programe placed indent orders with SAPCMS from December 1994 onwards at the inflated rate of Rs.23/- and Rs.24/- per kg., when the prevailing market rate as stated above was only Rs.15.50 per kg.TCAMS claimed for supply of 72.300 MT of Sundal without actually supplying and caused pecuniary loss of Rs.17,35,200/- to the Government with the assistance of Tr.Kuppusami (A-3), former Assistant Director (Accounts), SIDA and other officials of Pudukkottai District, who had given false stock entry certificates stated to have been obtained by intimidation by Rajendran (A-11), an employee of M/s.J.M.Stores, Poonamalle, run by J.Murugesan (A-9) (first petitioner in this Crl.O.P) and the said Tmt.Grace Annabai (A-4) also issued false stock entry certificate for a quantity of 340 MT worth Rs.81,60,000/- with the active connivance of M.Kuppusami (A-3).Out of 413.000 MT, false stock entry certificates were issued for only 320.800 MT, which were supplied and 93 MT was yet to be supplied.K.Deenadayalan (A-1), Tr.R.Kuppusami, IAS, former Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Tmt.Kamala, former Deputy Director, Tmt.Lalitha Gopalakrishnan, former Deputy Director, Tmt.R.Kannammal, former Deputy Director, Tr.V.P.Venkatachari (A-2), former Assistant Director (Accounts), SIDA, Tr.M.Kuppusami (A-3) and Tmt.Grace Annabai (A-4), are responsible for taking decision for the purchase and payment of money to TCAMS and Child Development Project Officers.O.P. is filed praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-9 and A-10 in C.C.No.73 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai.(e) In respect of the above procurement of "Sundal" (cooked grain) at the highest rates rather than the market value, a complaint was lodged by Mrs.D.Sabitha, IAS, Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Chepauk, Chennai, which was registered by the respondent-Police in FIR Crime No.6 of 1997 on 03.05.1997 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477-A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against 33 accused persons.After completion of the investigation of the above scam in purchase and payment of money causing loss to the Government exchequer, the respondent-Police filed Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which was taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2009 initially before III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and subsequently transferred to the file of the Special Judge for trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and re-numbered as C.C.No.73 of 2011 and necessary documents and list of witnesses were also filed along with the said Police Report against 13 accused persons (including the petitioners (A-9 and A-10 in this Crl.O.P), whom after investigation, were shown as accused from and out of 33 persons against whom initially the FIR was registered.The Police Report was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with 109 IPC read with 34 IPC.The present Crl.O.P. is filed by only A-9 and A-10 to quash C.C.No.73 of 2011 pending on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mainly on the sole ground that there was an inordinate and huge delay of 12 years in completing the investigation, which has infringed the right of speedy trial, thereby, amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-9 and A-10 submitted that the petitioners are individual persons not holding any official post.The allegation against them is that they have obtained pecuniary advantage, thereby causing loss to the Government, in conspiracy with others by quoting inflated rates in respect of obtainment of Peas, Karamani and Gram (Sundal--cooked grains) and in connivance with the higher officials of the Government machinery.It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the alleged offences are said to have taken place during 1994 and 1995 and the complaint was lodged resulting in registration of the FIR in 1997 in Crime No.6 of 1997 for the offences referred to above and filing of charge sheet / Police Report in the year 2009 as indicated above for the offences complained of against the accused persons.He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the offences were alleged only against 13 accused persons, though the FIR was filed against 33 persons.The investigation continued with the examination of 126 witnesses and filing of 204 documents including the Police Report, which are evident from the enclosures filed along with the Police Report.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that sanction for prosecuting the public servants, was obtained only after a lapse of about two years from the date of registration of the FIR.In this regard, he invited the attention of this Court to the list of documents and witnesses and pointed out that the sanction for prosecuting the official witnesses was obtained on various dates, namely for the first witness only on 19.04.2000, for the second witnesses only on 30.12.2000 and for the third witness on 08.05.2000, which is evident from the Memo of Evidence filed along with the Police Report.This unexplained delay could not be attributed on the part of the accused persons.Learned Senior Counsel further contended that from the date of first hearing till date, no accused stood absent and the accused persons used to appear personally or petition would be filed to dispense with their appearance.In the above context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while bringing to the notice of this Court regarding the list of dates and events filed before this Court, submitted that the delay was not on the part of the accused, but it was only due to belated furnishing of the documents to them.The sum and substance of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the delay is that from 1997 when the complaint was lodged, till 2009 when the Police Report / Charge Sheet was filed, there was a delay of 12 years, though the investigation was completed by examining all the witnesses by 30.06.1998 and further from 2009 till date (2016) of about 6 years in furnishing the documents to the accused persons.As the delay of 12 years could not be complained of against the petitioners, their right of speedy trial has been infracted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that so far as the present case is concerned, though the complaint/FIR was lodged/registered against 33 persons, but at the time of filing the Police Report (charge sheet), 20 persons have been left out including the then Minister for Social Welfare and the then Child Development Project Officers.Though a very detailed investigation has been done for more than 12 years, the Police Report was filed only against said 13 accused persons conspicuously exonerating the then Minister for Social Welfare and the then Child Development Project Officers.He further contended that from the date of filing of the Police Report / Charge Sheet (2009) to till date (2016), the accused persons have been appearing before the Court below regularly, inspite of the fact that there was no fault on their part, but the trial in the case has not yet commenced.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the first petitioner herein (A-9) was aged about 30 years at the time of registration of the FIR and he is now aged about 47 years and his prime-hood of life has gone for the past more than 16 years, and moreover, he has been attending the Court proceedings regularly.O.P., those documents have been furnished.Hence, the Crl.O.P. Accordingly, this Crl.03.08.2016Index: Yes Internet: Yes csCopy toThe Special Judge for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Counterfeit Currency Wing, Crime Branch CID, Chennai.(Cr.No.6 of 1997)The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,370,568 |
It is alleged against so many persons that they assaulted the victim Bharat with sticks and fire arms causing his death.In postmortem report, it was found that the deceased Bharat died due to various haemorrhage caused to him, especially his right lung and liver were found ruptured and pieces of copper metal were found there.Hence, the deceased had died due to fire arm injury.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.There is no allegation against the applicant that he had a gun at the time of incident.Prima 2 M.Cr.C. No. 13870/2015 facie no offence under Sections 302 or 307 of IPC and consequently Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.At the most, offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No. 13870/2015Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.Consequently, it is hereby allowed.It is directed that the applicant namely Ramsewak @ Sewakram be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Morena to appear before the committal Court and trial Court on the dates given by the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 13870/2015 concerned Court.3 M.Cr.C. No. 13870/2015(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,373,117 |
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.40 of 2019, dated 06.06.2019, Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1462 of 2019 passed by the first respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Rajkumar, S/o.Devaraj, male, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 4 of 6Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1462 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and RMT.[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Rajkumar, S/o.Devaraj, male, aged about 25 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1462 of 20194.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:Devaraj was arrested in Sriperumbudur Police Station Cr.No.252/2019 on 30.04.2019 produced before the Court of District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on the same day remanded under judicial custody upto 14.05.2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 as a remanded prisoner.However, in similar nature of offence this accused was released on bail by filing a bail petition through proper Court.i.e., in Vishnu Kanchi Police Station Cr.No.1179/2015 u/s 147,148,302 IPC similar accused Thiru.Balaji and Thiru.(M.M.S.,J.) (T.K.R.,J.) 01.10.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.2.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,376,972 |
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the further proceedings in Criminal Case No.14366/2013 pending before the ACJM, Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground of compromise.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants are facing trial for offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As the applicants and the respondent No.2 have resolved their dispute, therefore, they filed an application before the Trial Court for compounding which was partially allowed and offence under Section 506 of IPC was compounded and the applicants have been acquitted for the said offence.Since the offence under Section 498- A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, therefore, their application was rejected.This Court by order dated 10.7.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the Principal Registrar of this Court has given the following 2 MCRC No.5401/2017 report:2 MCRC No.5401/2017"Statements of complainant/ respondent No.2 Smt. Baby Sahkwar and accused/petitioner No.1 Devendra Sahkwar, No.2 Prem Prakash, No.3 Smt. Vimla Sakhwar & No.4 Tunda Ram are recorded matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from parties present before me that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,373,807 |
ORDER S.S. Dani, J.Heard Shri S.C. Bora, Counsel for petitioners, Shri B.R. Warma, Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri.N.S. Choudhari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 2 - State.Rule returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final hearing by consent.The present respondent No. 1 approached Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar on 9-2-1993 and alleged that at about 3.00 p.m. on that day when he had gone to the house of the present petitioners alongwith Court bailiff and while he was stepping down the stairs-case the 2 petitioners assaulted the complainant.The concerned police took no cognizance and directed the present respondent No. 1 to approach the Court.The complainant respondent No. 1 has further averred in this complaint that at the time of the incident these petitioners accused abused, assaulted with stick and also threatened him with death.In view, of this, it, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioners were at fault for not getting the trial commenced.It may be noted in this connection that on certain occasions the respondent No. 1 himself was absent and the petitioners had also applied to the trial Court for dismissing the complaint for his absence.In view of all this, it cannot be held that the trial was delayed at the instance of these petitioners accused.In view of this, the orders of the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court are required to be quashed and set aside and the application, Exh. 30, in Criminal Case No. 1186 of 1993 is required to be allowed.In the result, Criminal Application No. 794 of 1998 succeeds.The order dated 9-10-1996 of the 4th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar on Exhibit 30 in Summary Trial Case No. 1186 of 1993 dismissing the application and the order dated 16-3-1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 471 of 1996 are hereby quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the criminal proceedings pending in Summary Trial Case No. 1186 of 1993 against these petitioners be closed and the petitioners accused stand acquitted of the offences for which they are charged.Rule made absolute in the above terms.Application succeed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,387,177 |
She then states that a day before holi festival.She attempted to tell it to one madam who was in hurry & therefore asked her to talk to her husband.JUDGMENT [ Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.] :1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2006 decided on 11/05/2007 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 5, Kolhapur, has assailed his conviction under Section 376 (2) (c) of the Indian Penal Code whereby he is sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 ::: 3 Rs.15,000/- or in default thereof to suffer RI for six months.He has been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.2 to 7 tried with him have been acquitted.Accused No.2 has been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 376(2)(c) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, while accused nos.3 to 7 have been acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(c) and 354 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 :::It is to be noted that acquittal of accused no.1 under other sections and all other accused persons was questioned by State Government by moving an application, seeking leave under Section 378(3) of Cr.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 :::Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2007 by convicted accused challenging his conviction under Section 376 (2)(c) has been placed for hearing along with this appeal.The learned Single Judge of this court has, on 21/3/2011, passed order in Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007 and in view of provisions of Rule 2-II (a) of Chapter - I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, both these appeals have been placed before the Division Bench.Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Ramamurthy for appellant-accused and learned APP Mrs. Sangeeta Shinde for respondent - State in both the appeals.The learned counsel for accused has raised following contentions :-::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 :::(a) Prosecution examined total 17 witnesses and out of them 12 have turned hostile.Prosecution Witness Nos.1 to 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were inmates of Hostel, where the alleged offence took place.Trila court, therefore, ought to have appreciated their evidence without ignoring it on the ground that they are not helping prosecution.(b) He further states that prosecutrix / victim was examined medically by PW 16, Medical Officer, and he could not get any evidence of forcible intercourse.The Chemical Analyzer also could not get any material to support said contention.(c) PW 9 is the member of Vigilance Committee to whom the alleged rape was reported and as such her evidence does not throw any light on actual incidence.(d) PW 15 is Police Head Constable, who registered FIR at Police Station in the night of 15/3/2006 and as such that evidence is also not useful to prosecution.PW 14 is Investigating Officer, who came to ladies Hostel in the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 ::: 6 morning on 15/3/2006 with PW 9 and carried out the investigation.She has also thereafter carried on the investigation, hence her evidence also cannot explain the deficiencies and inherent weakness in the story of the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 :::(e) Advocate Ramamurthy points out that PWs 6, 7 and 11 are panch witnesses and as such their evidence is not helpful to find out whether rape took place, as alleged, on two occasions.(f) He has stated that prosecutrix / victim has been examined as PW 17 i.e. as last witness as she was not available for quite some time.Her story about two incidences of rape is highly improbable and when her examination-in-chief and cross-examination are perused together, it is apparent that no rape took place in bath-(g) He invites attention to the fact that said lady came to ladies Hostel on 27/1/2006 and alleged rape ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 ::: 7 within ten days thereafter.However, no grievance about it was made till morning of 15/3/2006 i.e. for more than 40 days.This delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:09 :::(h) Inviting attention to depositions of PW 17, even in relation to said episode, he contends that, that also has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.(i) He submits that in view of inherent weakness which cast doubt on conduct of PW 17 and her evidence, trial court ought to have looked for corroboration and that corroboration is totally lacking in present matter.(j) He also adds that present appellant was taken in custody on 15/3/2006 itself and during pendency of these proceedings, has completed his jail punishment.He has been set free on account of completion thereof.(k) Inviting attention to the material on record, learned counsel submits that in any case appellant is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and his appeal is liable to be allowed.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Learned APP, on other hand, submits that though the trial court has based its findings on evidence of PW 9, member of Vigilance Committee, PW 10, a lady inmate, Investigating Officer at PW 14 and victim herself at PW 17, the overall material on record shows that all was not well.She comments upon the mode and manner in which all other inmates have turned hostile.The victim here has pointed out her plight and also both incidences of rape.Efforts made by her to obtain help after first incidence and to avoid second one are deposed to by her and hence the contention that there is no corroborations or then there are weakness in her testimony cannot be accepted.Learned APP points out that before coming to present Hostel, PW 17 was an inmate in hostel other town, where she was allegedly subjected to similar offence.On ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 9 account of her complaint and request, she was shifted from there to present Hostel.Being destitute, who has been subjected to such treatment, she did not approach the police authorities but then her conduct shows that even after first incidence she has contacted all working staff at the Hostel and also sought their help.Even on second occasion when she was asked to deliver a bucket full of water in night hours in bath-room on first floor by appellant-accused, her refusal, pressurization by accused, reluctance of others to help her has been brought on record.Learned APP urges that all these aspects have been correctly appreciated by the trial court and, therefore, no interference is warranted.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::It is submitted that in view of earlier incidence of rape and it is repetition on night between 14/3/2006 and 15/3/2006, the prosecutrix approached PW 10 -Shubhangi (another inmate) and then that inmate approached PW 9 who happens to be the Chairman of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 10 Vigilance Committee appointed by State Government to supervise working of such Hostels.Said woman thereafter initiated inquiry along with police in incognitio and attempted to find out the truth.Police Officer thereafter disclosed their identity.Only after Hostel staff was asked to go out, the inmates could reveal truth.The arguments of Advocate Ramamurthy about absence of power or authorization with PW 14 to investigate into the offence, learned APP submits that as Superintendent of Police or Dy.S.P. is authorized to nominate a competent lady officer to investigate into such offence, the officer like PW 14, though posted at a different police station, was asked to visit Hostel and to attend to the matter.The subsequent investigation has also been carried out by PW 14 only as per authorization in her favour and no objection in this respect was raised in the trial court.She further submits that appellant-accused never pleaded any prejudice because of such investigation.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::She, therefore, states that appeal filed by the appellant must be dismissed, while appeal preferred by the State Government for enhancement should be allowed.She has placed reliance upon judgments reported in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shree Kant Shekari [AIR 2004 SC 4404] and in the case of Mukesh vs. State of Chhattishgarh [(2014) 10 SCC 327].While narrating the arguments of learned counsel, we have briefly mentioned classification of witnesses also.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Though counsel for appellant has urged that depositions of hostile witnesses, to the extent they are in favour of the appellant, need appreciation, we are not willing to undertake that exercise here.PW 1 has stated that she has no knowledge about the incidence.Thus her testimony also does not throw any light upon the events.Most of the witnesses, who have turned hostile and not helped prosecution, have continued to depose on these lines only.In this situation, only inference can be drawn that they are not sticking to their police statement and, therefore, are not helpful to prosecution.That does not make them witnesses in defence.PW 9 is the member of Committee constituted under Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police for redressal of grievances of women, like present prosecutrix.She has pointed out that on 15/3/2006 at 11 a.m., when ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 13 she was at her residence, she received a phone call from a female inmate by name Shubhangi (PW 10).Then she points out the discussion between Shubhangi and herself and then their going to office of Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police then calling lady Police Inspector by name Lokare and asking her to accompany without uniform the said witness to Tejaswini Hostel .::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Thereafter she speaks about the developments at the hostel.We may, however, mention here that when she entered the hostel, she did not make any entry in the register and taking advantage thereof, counsel for appellant has urged that there was no such visit to hostel.He has further submitted that PW 14 -Investigating Officer also did not go to hostel on that day.This witness, while speaking about the incidence of rape in the night between 14/3/2006 and 15/3/2006 states that prosecutrix narrated the same to her at about 8 a.m. This witness has also submitted that prosecutrix then told her that accused had bitten her on breasts and showed her bite marks.This fact is found to be an omission in her police statement.We did not go into the more details of her statement at this stage, but fact that alleged rape came to her notice after prosecutrix narrated it at 8 a.m. on 15/3/2006 is itself sufficient to show that she has no personal knowledge about it.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Deposition of PW 11 shows that he is witness to recovery of knife under Section 27 from present appellant.Trial court has found that victim no where spoke about use of any such knife during her deposition.She has stated that his behaviour with her was good.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Perusal of evidence of PW 13 - Laxmi is not necessary as she was discharged on request of learned APP, who pointed out to court that witness suffers from mental illness.PW 14 is Investigating Officer.She was Police Sub Inspector attached to Laxmipuri Police Station, who was asked by Dy.S.P. to hold inquiry and to conduct investigation.On the basis of order of Dy.S.P., further investigation was also handed over to this Investigating Officer.As till then the prosecutrix was not examined, most of the documents were got exhibited ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 16 through PW 14 only by the prosecution.PW 15 - Lohar is that Head Constable.He did not find any injuries on her.Needless to mention that he did not find any bite marks also.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::However, where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Even in cases where there is some material to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference of the victim being a woman of "easy virtues" or a women of "loose moral character" can be drawn.Such a woman has a right to protect her dignity and cannot be subjected to rape only for that reason.She has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::The prosecution had not disclosed the true genesis of the crime.It therefore, found the appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs.State of NCT of Delhi -2013(1) Mah.L.J. (Cri) SC 2, Hon.Apex Court states that the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation.To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness.What would be more relevant ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 21 would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court.It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it.Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.It notices total variation in her version from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 22 before the Court at the time of trial.There were material variations as regards the identification of the accused persons, as well as, the manner in which the occurrence took place.The so-called eye witnesses did not support the story of the prosecution.The recoveries failed to tally with the statements made.The FSL report did not co-relate the version alleged and thus the prosecutrix failed to instill the required confidence of the Court in order to confirm the conviction imposed on the appellants.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::As such, in the light of these precedents, it is not necessary to refer to the judgments of Hon.Present appellant was accused no. 1 with 6 other persons as accused 2 to 6 before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Kolhapur.Charge against the total 7 accused in Sessions ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 23 Case No. 80 of 2006 was that accused 1 on 15.3.2006 in between 1 to 1.30 & prior to that on one occasion in a bathroom on 1st floor of the Government's Women Hostel i.e. Tejaswini Mahila Vastigruha & in the room of sewing class which is situated at Dattachaya Buliding, Kalamba Road, taking advantage of his position as junior care-taker of said hostel, committed rape on an inmate prosecutrix without her consent & against her will, thereby committing an offence under S. 376(2)(c) IPC.This provision is now S.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::376(2)(d) after 3.2.2013 amendment.Second charge against appellant 1 & accused no. 2 a sewing instructor working in said hostel, was that they both used criminal force on prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty & thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 354 IPC.Accused no. 3 to 7 were the servants at said hostel & charge against them was that by suppressing & hiding the facts, they abetted the commission of above offences.Apart from this, charge under S. 506(part-I) was also framed against appellant/accused 1 for criminal ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 24 intimidation by threatening the prosecutrix with injury to her person.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::We find that the Trial Court has mostly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW17), Member of the vigilance committee Smt. Mutekekar (PW-9), Inmate Shubhangi (PW10) & Investigating Officer PSI Smt. Gaikwad.Total 17 witnesses were examined to bring home the charges & 12 out of them have been declared as hostile.PW 1 to 5, 8,10,12 & 13 are the inmates of hostel while PW 6,7 & 11 are the pancha witnesses.These witnesses do not support the prosecution.PW15 is the police head constable who recorded the FIR.Trial Court has found the appellant accused 1 guilty of the alleged offence under S. 376(2)(c) IPC for the incident dated 15.3.2006 & an incident prior thereto.It is the claim of the prosecution that prosecutrix was subjected to offence within few days after she came on transfer to Tejaswini Hostel from her earlier hostel.The position or post of the appellant & status of prosecutrix as an inmate is not in dispute before us.As such, there are no technical arguments regarding the invocation of S. 376(2)(c) IPC here.We find that this matter entirely turns upon the evidentiary value to be attached to the deposition of Pw-17 Prosecutrix.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Complaint about is being lodged all most 40 days thereafter.It is alleged to be in the same first floor bathroom where first rape was committed as per the prosecution.Her statement to the police, FIR & ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 26 examination in chief shows bathroom on first floor as the place where the offence took place.Appellant had called her in the middle of night for bringing a bucket full of water & to place it in the bathroom on first floor.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Paragraph 3 of her deposition shows that when she was in that bathroom, appellant closed the door latch.When she cried loudly, he pressed her mouth & then committed rape on her.She deposed that in the morning ie on 15.3.2006, she disclosed this to inmate PW10 Shubhangi & later brought lady police to the hostel.She narrated entire episode to lady inspector who reduced it into writing & thereafter, prosecutrix signed on it.She proved it as Ex.Her cross-examination about the second offence is contained in paragraph 7 of the deposition.In cross, she states that this second incident occurred after 15 days of the first one.She expressed her unwillingness to carry the water to the bathroom.She pointed it out to lady officer on ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 27 duty that night & the lady watchman did not accompany her to the bathroom on first floor.She has stated that she was not aware whether accused was intending to commit rape on her at that time.She did not request any other woman to accompany her to fetch the water.At that time she was in the room on first floor & other ladies had slept.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::She indicated her unwillingness to fetch water to appellant who pressurized her to bring the water.She felt that she should not go to bathroom & therefore she kept bucket filled with water in varandah & went to the room to sleep.She has volunteered that appellant did not permit her to sleep, he was under influence of alcohol & created commotion in the room.Other ladies also woke up & she then went to ground floor to wake up the lady guard.No other inmate accompanied her.All women residing at ground floor gathered when she was narrating the incident to the lady watchman.It appears that after this the prosecutrix was asked about calling the police officers & she stated that thereafter, they called the police officers.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::After putting her few questions about the police procedure, she was asked about the second incidence.She has denied that appellant had not then asked her to bring the bucket to first floor bathroom.She has stated that she raised a cry for about one hour but no inmate or watchman came to first floor bathroom.She did not attempt to run away from the bathroom on second occasion.Here the learned Trial court has recorded that ig she was not giving proper reply to the questions put by the counsel for accused 1 ie appellant.She did not resist the appellant on second occasion while attempting to rape her.She has given the admission that then the door of the said bathroom was also open.She denied that accused did not enter the bathroom & did not commit rape on her at that time.Her cross-examination in paragraph 8 onwards is about the events in the morning of 15.3.2006 after she communicates the occurrence to PW-10 ie another inmate.Narration of second incidence in her report to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 29 police at Ex. 93/C shows that when she was asleep in first floor room along with other inmates, at about 1.00 to 1.30 AM (on 15.3.2006) the door was knocked & she was called.She opened the door & found the appellant who asked to get the bucket in bathroom filled.She carried empty bucket to ground floor, got it filled & then went in first floor bath room.Appellant entered the bathroom behind her & told her that his wife was not home & they should have fun.She declined & but he showed her knife, broke the blouse buttons, tore it & did bite on her breasts on both sides.He removed saree, nicker & had sex & left.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::She then put on her saree blouse & came to room.Appellant then called inmates Laxmi & Shewanta, gave them money & biscuits & told them not to disclose the incident to anybody.After Laxmi & Shewanta returned, she narrated the incidence to them but they ignored her.After getting up in the morning, she narrated it to Mistri, a woman on night duty,but she also paid no attention.She thereafter mentioned it to Harjeet & Shubhangi (PW10) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 30 who told her that they have also suffered it.They asked her not to speak to anybody & they will bring Mutkekar madam(PW9).Thereafter, PW-9 & police came there.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Thus the variance & inconsistencies between her report or examination in chief on one hand & the cross-examination on the other hand is very revealing.It appears that she did not enter the bathroom on first floor on the second occasion & delivered bucket in varandah.Her deposition about adopting cautious approach on second occasion by showing unwillingness to accused, pressure exerted by accused, about informing it to lady watchman who declined to come with her, asking other inmate to accompany her which should have been a natural conduct due to alleged previous experience are all improvements by way afterthought as same are absent in her statement to police.Hence, entire story of the second incident of rape is not substantiated by the prosecution & needs to be disbelieved.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::However, her assertion about the first incident of rape needs to be scrutinized independently uninfluenced by the above finding.In report at Ex. 93/c she has stated that at earlier hostel, taking advantage of the fact that she has no support from her maternal side & her husband has deserted her, night staff their started raping her.Their names are also mentioned in her FIR.She had not lodged any complaint about it.For first 8 days, she faced no problem.However, when she pointed out her plight to others, appellant/accused started attempts to seduce her.After about 8 days when she along with 5 other inmates (names mentioned in FIR) were asleep in first floor room, appellant knocked the door at about 12.30 to 1.00 in the night.He also called out two names & as her name was called out, she opened the door.Appellant asked her to bring the water in bucket to his bathroom.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::When she was keeping the bucket filled with water in bathroom, he entered the bathroom behind her.He offered her money & biscuit to have fun but she declined.Against her will, he pressed her breast & tore the top worn by her, removed the petticoat & tore her nicker.Then he had intercourse with her.She shouted but nobody came.He threatened her with killing & frightened, she put on the torn clothes, returned to her room & slept.Next morning she informed the event to a woman on duty in night shift but said woman scolded her & spoke in favour of appellant.She also slapped her.Then she communicated it to two other ladies who did not believe her.When she informed it to a male employee, he expressed that she (prosecutrix) did not need husband & can tie knot with the appellant.It needs to be noted here that this other staff was co-She then told this to other acquitted male co-accused who used to teach sewing but he inserted his hand in blouse & pressed her breast.Her husband did not listen to grievance & asked the prosecutrix to go to her room.In FIR, after this narration, the other incident of rape in the night between 14 th & 15th March has been recorded.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::Relevant examination in chief shows that after 8 days of her arrival in the hostel, appellants asked her to bring bucket of water in first floor bathroom & she obeyed him.Then he gave her biscuits which she took.In the said bathroom, he tore her clothes & committed rape.On next day she narrated it to a lady employee who did not take its ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 34 cognizance.She has named this employee but has not spoken of a slap alleged in FIR.She also stated that she told it to other ladies whose names she was not remembering & to all the lady officers working in the hostel.She stated that all those lady officers were present in the court.Her cross-examination in paragraph 5 shows that when she was asked to bring water, other ladies were chatting with each other.When appellant offered her biscuits, she inquired why the same were given & then distributed it amongst other inmates in her room on first floor.She denied that she did not go to bathroom on first floor.She deposed that before rape, she raised cry but female who had slept in the room did not come to see her.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::She opposed when appellant started removing her clothes & attempted to run away.She denied that when she raised cry, accused ran away.She stated that she was resisting accused by asking him for half an hour not to rape her.Trial Court records that upon being asked by the counsel for accused, the duration for which she raised cry, she kept ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 35 mum.She stated that appellant caught hold of her hand & hence, she could not hit him.She also did not kick him.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::She volunteered that as door was latched from inside, she became helpless.She also knocked the door of the bathroom.Out of 4 lady staff, two were present in night & she informed the incident to them.When she narrated the incident to all servants all inmates had gathered there.Servants did not listen to her.She denied that the lady watchman had slept on first floor along with the inmates.She had also requested one superior by name Shri Mane Saheb from Pune.Trial Court has recorded her version that- "After 2 times of incident of alleged rape, Mane took us at Pune (Mundawa).We narrated that we wish not to live in this hostel only to the ladies police officer.After first alleged incident, I disclosed said incident to the lady police inspector." In paragraph 6, she has stated that she was sent for medical examination after first incident.This material on record poses various questions.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::The first rape within few days of arrival in Tejaswini Hostel was not complained of in writing to the police authorities.There is nothing to show that she narrated it to staff or the superiors.In trial before the Sessions Court, appellant with two other male colleagues were accused with 4 lady staff members.Whether these four ladies who were government servants would have tolerated such a misbehaviour with an inmate? We can not forget that all ladies or inmates used to address the appellant as "dada" viz. as an elder brother.PW-10 at one place has stated that acquitted accused 2 was treating her as his daughter.This deposition is inconsistent with her ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 37 stand that in sewing class he had brought his face close to her face with design to kiss her.Prosecutrix also has put a statement in mouth of PW-10 that PW-10 had gone through similar incident as experienced by her.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::On the other hand, if we lean in favour of the victim, we get a prosecutrix who complained of similar incidents at her earlier hostel where she stayed & then, upon transfer came to the present hostel.In present hostel, after few days she is subjected to same treatment by the care-taker.As she was a destitute & offence is by a person who wielded authority, a lady in her situation might have several apprehensions & fears.She may take a calculated decision not to complain.Hence belated complaint or grievance by itself can not be a sufficient ground in the eyes of law to discredit her.But here the prosecution case shows efforts made by her to seek ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 38 redress even on first occasion.These efforts have not been substantiated through evidence on record.When there was no second occasion, in order to convict the offender for an incident which is more than a month old, in these circumstances, a corroboration will be necessary.In relation to first incident, FIR shows that she along with 5 other inmates (names mentioned in FIR) were asleep in first floor room when appellant knocked the door at about 12.30 to 1.00 in the night.He also called out two names & as her name was called out, she opened the door.Her cross-examination in paragraph 5 shows that when appellant asked her to bring water, other ladies were chitchatting with each other.When appellant offered her biscuits, she inquired reason therefor & then distributed it to her room-mates on first floor.She is a married woman & on 16.3.2006, PW-16 Doctor could not get any evidence of forcible intercourse or an injury.PW-6 & PW-11are the witnesses on recovery of a knife by the police under S. 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the appellant.Trial ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 39 Court has not found use of any knife by the accused appellant in the offences.PW-7 is the witness on spot panchanama.Thus, the prosecution could not bring on record any torn nicker or blouse alleged to be torn by the appellant in the bathroom while committing rape.Clothes put on by the appellant or prosecutrix on second occasion are also not seized.Hence, the prosecution does not have any evidence to corroborate the version of the victim in relation to first incident also.The incriminating circumstances could have been brought on record through the clothes sent to chemical analyzer.These clothes or then samples ie swab etc. from the victim collected through the medical officer do not show any semen.In this background, we may also mention that prosecutrix not adopting cautious approach in night of 14.3.2006 & 15.3.2006 as noted by us supra also may militate with the first incident.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::We accordingly find that the prosecution has failed ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 ::: 40 to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of either of the offences.Judgment & order against him in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2006 decided on 11/05/2007 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 5, Kolhapur, is quashed & set aside.Appeal is thus allowed.::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::P.C. is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.[A. S. GADKARI, J.] [B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2015 23:58:10 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,553,029 |
In brief, case of prosecution which surfaced from judgment and record of trial Court, is that Case Crime No. 397 of 2006, under Sections 307, 324 and 436 I.P.C., was got registered at police Station- Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur on 6.11.2006 at 22:45 hours against Shyam, Chuchu, Raju son of Jhagdu Sonkar and Bagha @ Ashok son of late Daya Ram, all resident of Mohalla Putlighar, near Jahnvi Hotel, within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, by way of presenting First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'F.I.R.') Ex. Ka-1, under hand writing and signature of Vijay Kumar Sonkar, resident of Mohalla Putlighar, near Jahnvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, with contention that on 6.11.2006, there occurred some quarrel in between wife of neighbourer Baish and accused persons, owing to which, enmity occurred.As a result, on the same date of 6.11.2006 at about 10:00 P.M. Shyam, Chuchu and Raju son of Jhagdu Sonkar, Bagha @ Ashok son of late Daya Ram, all resident of Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur, armed with katta, sword and lathi-danda, got residential hut (madhai) of informant's cousin Ram Chandar, put at ablaze.After seeing this flame, Ram Chandar, his wife Guddi Devi and cousin Suraj rushed on spot, when Shyam with intention to kill, made firearm shot and Bagha @ Ashok, by sword, and rest by lathi-danda, assaulted them.Ram Chandar, his wife Guddi Devi and his cousin Suraj sustained injuries.This occurrence was witnessed by this informant, his nephew Babloo, his neighbourer Chhedi and Santosh along with others, under the light of electricity.Injured were taken at hospital and this report was submitted.After registration of this case crime number, vide G.D. entry Ex. Ka-2, "Chitthi Majroobi" was got prepared for injured Suraj, injured Ram Chandar and injured Smt. Guddi Devi.Their injuries were written in G.D. and they were sent for their medical examination at Government Hospital by Homeguard Vijay Kumar Tripathi.Medical Officer PW-6, Dr. U.P. Dwivedi, who was posted at Emergency Ward of District Hospital, Mirzapur, on 6.11.2006, examined injured Smt.Guddi Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Ram Chandar, resident of Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, brought by Homeguard 1089 Vijay Kumar Tripathi at 11:06 P.M. on 6.11.2006 and she was having following injuries over her person:-(i) lacerated wound of 1cm X half cm X mussel deep with blackening and tattooing around it over left scapula, 5cm above from lower ankle, it was kept under observation and X-ray was advised.(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep, 2cm above to injury No. 1, having blackening and tattooing over it.(iii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep with blackening and tattooing over it.(iv) lacerated wound of 2cm X 1cm over the left scapula, 3cm below from lower ankle with blackening and tattooing over it.(v) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X scalp deep over head within right eyebrow with blackening and tattooing over it.(vi) lacerated wound 1cm X half cm X mussel deep, on the left buttock, 6cm above iliak ubhar with blackening and tattooing over it.(v) 20cm X 15cm area was with laceration of 12 injuries over abdomen.Sentence imposed was not commensurate to manner and mode of assault, hence, it was improper.Learned A.G.A. argued that this report was instantly got lodged by informant PW-1, who in his testimony has proved Ex.This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') Bagha @ Ashok Vs.State of U.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2017 by Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh and Shyam under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., has been filed against one and common judgment of conviction and sentence made therein, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs.All injuries were kept under observation and referred for X-ray.This report Ex. Ka-5, was prepared under hand writing and signature of this witness, on the back side of letter of police station.These injuries were of firearm shot and fresh.At the same time, in that very night, at 12:20 A.M. of 7.11.2006, he had examined injured Ram Chandar, aged about 30 years, son of Munni Lal, brought by Homeguard as above and found following injuries over his person:-(i) incised wound of 2cm X 1cm, having margins inverted on the right side of face near right eye.(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X half cm on the left side of chest, 3cm below collar bone.These injuries were fresh and caused by sharp edged weapon, for which X-ray was advised and were kept under observation.In the same night of 6-7.11.2006 at about 11:40 P.M., he had examined injured Suraj Sonkar aged about 40 years son of Bhagirathi Sonkar, resident of Putlighar, P.S. Kotwali Katra, brought by Home Guard as above, and find following injuries:-(i) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep over forehead, 2cm above right eyebrow with blackening and tattooing around it.(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep over left forearm, 1cm above left wrist joint.(iii) lacerated wound on the frontal side of little finger with blackening and tattooing.(iv) various lacerated wound of 1cm X 0.5 cm X mussel deep on the right hand towards front side.(vi) lacerated wound of half cm X 1cm, on the right thigh on back side in the area of 20cm X 10cm, with blackening and tattooing around it.All the injuries were kept under observation.They were fresh and were all of firearm shot, for which X-ray was advised.Medico legal examination report was prepared under the hand writing and signature of this witness, at the back of chitthi majroobi (Ex.Ka-7).Head Constable Umesh Kumar Pandey, who was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur on 6.11.2006 had registered case crime No. 397 of 2006, vide chik F.I.R. submitted by Vijay Kumar Sonkar (Ex. Ka-1) at police station on 6.11.2006, under his handwriting and signature.While registering this case crime number, informant along with injured Smt. Guddi Devi, Ram Chandar Sonkar and Suraj Sonakar was present at police station.In cross-examination, he has categorically said that informant had brought written report (Ex. Ka-1) with him and this was a wrong contention of him that it was got dictated by this witness at police station.6. PW-7 as Investigating Officer, Ajay Kumar Rai, who took investigation after registration of this case crime number on the same date of registration of case crime No. 397 of 2006, thereby he entered chik F.I.R., G.D. Entry, medico legal examination report of injured Guddi, Suraj and Ram Chandar, in case diary.He got recorded statement of informant in case diary.Accused Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh were arrested.Their statements were entered in case diary.Statement of injured Ram Chandar and Suraj Sonkar were recorded on 15.11.2006 in case diary, rest two accused persons Bagha @ Ashok was arrested on 29.11.2006 from Putlighar tiraha and his statement was recorded.The same is under handwriting and signature and has been proved, exhibited as Ex. Ka-9, over which Magistrate took cognizance.As offence punishable under Sections 307, 436 I.P.C. was exclusively triable by court of Sessions, hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, vide order dated 5.2.2007 committed file to Court of Sessions, which was subsequently transferred to Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Mirzapur.Where after hearing learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the defence, following charges were framed against Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh, Bagha @ Ashok and Shyam:-1- ;g fd fnukad 6-11-06 dsk 10 cts jkr cgn eks0 iqryh/kj] tkUgoh gksVy ds ikl v0 Fkkuk dks0 dVjk] es vki ';ke] pwpw] jktw] ck?kk mQZ v'kksd ,d jk; gksdj vkXus;kL= dVVk] ryokj] ykBh ls yS'k gksdj tku ekjus dh uh;r ls dVVs ls Qk;j dj xqMMh nsoh] jkepUnj o lwjt lksudj dks bl vk'k; o ifjfLFkfr;ks es pksVs igqapk;h fd ;fn nDr pksVks ls mudh e`R;q gks tkrh rks vki yksx ekuo o/k ds vijk/kh gksrsA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 307 dh lifBr /kkjk 34 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA 2- ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vki yksxks us ,d jk; gksdj /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ryokj ls ekjdj jkelqUnj dks xaHkhj pksVsa igqapk;hA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 324 dh lifBr /kkjk 34 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gS] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA 3- ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vki yksxks us ,d jk; gksdj oknh fot; dqekj lksudj ds ppsjs HkkbZ jkePkUnj ds jgkb'kh eMbZ es vkx yxkdj fjf"V dkfjr fd;kA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 lafgrk dh /kkjk 436 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gS] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA "(i) That on 6.11.2006, at about 10:00 P.M. at Mohall Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, Shayam, Chuchu, Raju, Bagha @ Ashok, under joint mensrea armed with firearm weapon katta, sword and lathi-danda, with intention to kill, did fire by katta over Guddi Devi, Ram Chandar and Suraj Sonkar and caused injuries.Under such circumstances that in case of death you would have been punished with offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder thereby you have committed offence punishable under Section 304/34 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court.(ii) That on above date, time and place you under joint mensrea assaulted Ram Chandar by sharp edged weapon sword, caused grievous hurt punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court.(iii) That on above date, time and place, you under joint mensrea put at ablaze the residential hut (madhai) of informant's cousin Ram Chandar, thereby committed mischief by fire in place of above, punishable under Section 436 of I.P.C. within the cognizance of above Court".Charges were read over to accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.With a view to obtain explanation, if any, and version of accused persons, their statements were got recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which each of accused persons replied to each of the questions for each of prosecution witnesses to be incorrect and false implication owing to enmity or harassment by informant and injured persons.In defence, no oral evidence or documentary evidence were led by learned counsel for defence.After hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, trial Court passed impugned judgment of conviction for offence punishable under Section 307/34, 324/34 and judgment of acquittal for charge for offence under Section 436 I.P.C. After hearing over quantum of punishment, each of accused persons were sentenced with sentence and fine, written as above.There is no appeal against impugned judgment for judgment of acquittal by State.Learned counsel for appellants argued that impugned judgment and order is against the law and facts on record.There were material contradictions with regard to nature and manner of the case.The trial Court failed to appreciate it.PW-1, Vijay Kumar informant was not eye witness account, as has been admitted by him, in his testimony and he has said that report Ex. Ka-1, was got dictated by Sub Inspector and Constable and upon their dictation, it was got written by him.That three persons Ram Chandar, Suraj and Guddi Devi were alleged to be injured but only two Guddi and Suraj have been examined by trial Court.There were several contradictions on their part.Injured Ram Chandar was not examined.In F.I.R. Specific role for giving firearm shot was assigned against Shyam, and Bagha @ Ashok was assigned the role of giving sword assault, rest two have been assigned for giving assault by lathi-danda, but there are no injury of hard and blunt object over any of above injured persons, which itself makes doubt about prosecution case.Injury of sword was not on the person of injured Ram Chandar nor he was examined.Even if, it is presumed to be of sword, it was of a very least dimension with no internal damage, hence, offence could not exceed more than 323 I.P.C. Trial Court failed to appreciate it.Ka-1, to be under his handwriting and signature.He immediately put criminal machinery in motion and at the time of his presence at police station, all three injured were present and they were having injuries over their person.Instant preparation of letter for medical examination was made by PW-5 and they were instantly got examined at the District Hospital, Mirzapur, where each of them were having injuries written in Ex.The injuries were fresh and of firearm shot as well as sword.Those injured PW-2, PW-3 have been examined and there is no material contradiction in their testimony, which has been supported and corroborated by medical evidence.Trial Court has rigtly appreciated facts and evidence placed on record.He was at his job at bridge in the night at about 10:00 P.M. on 6.11.2006 where he received information that some firing occurrence had taken place at his village Putlighar resulting injury to many of his family members and he went at police station where Suraj, Guddi Devi and Ram Chandar were injured, they are his family members.In cross-examination, he has said that there was no enmity with accused persons and he was not injured in this occurrence because he was not present on spot at the time of occurrence.He has not witnessed the occurrence and this report Ex. Ka-1, was written under the dictation of Sub Inspector.This has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the convict appellants that the very basis of prosecution story that F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1, is itself doubtful because the person who is informant has said in examination-in-chief that it was got written under dictation of Daroga present at police station, whereas Constable-Clerk who got this case registered at police station under his handwriting and signature has said in his examination-in-chief as PW-5 Umesh Kumar Pandey that he got this case crime number registered upon written report submitted by informant Vijay Kumar Sonkar, who had brought it at police station, which has been exhibited as Ex. Ka-1 and this Chick Ex. Ka-2, G.D. entry Ex. Ka-3 was got prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness at the time of registration.He got "chitthi majroobi" prepared for all those three injured persons and injuries over their person were written in it.In cross-examination, it has specifically been denied by this witness that it was incorrect to say that above Ex. Ka-1, was written at police station under dictation of some police personnel.Hence, the contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 has been cured by this witness PW-5 and no further cross-examination of this witness by learned counsel for the defence was made.Hence, this PW-1, is partly reliable and partly unreliable, specifically for that portion in which he said that Ex. Ka-1, was written under dictation of police personnel and this portion of his testimony is capable of being separated from remaining one, in which putting criminal machinery in motion on the basis of Ex. Ka-1, has been proved by him regarding which there is no material contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment.PW-2 is injured witness whose injuries have been corroborated and proved by evidence of PW-5, who got "chitthi majroobi" prepared and PW-6 Dr. U.P. Dwivedi who had medically examined them, on the basis of above "chitthi majroobi" and had found injuries of that particular duration and time over his person.Hence, presence of this witness on the place of occurrence is undisputed.He, in his testimony, has categorically said that on the date of occurrence i.e. five years back at 10:00 P.M. Jhagdu, his son Chuchu, Ramu, Shyam and their nephew Bagha @ Ashok came to his residence and put hut of Daya Shankar at ablaze.This witness along with his brother Ram Chandar and sister-in-law Guddi (bhabhi) rushed on spot and found Raju armed with katta and he gave firearm shot by above katta over this witness, resulting him injured by firearm shots and metallic pieces are inside his body and this Raju was present in the docket of Court at the time of his testimony, who had given this firearm shot.Bagha @ Ashok was armed with sword and assault by it was made.Each of the four accused persons assaulted over injured resulting injuries to their person.He was got examined at the pretext of police at hospital and report of this case was got lodged by Vijay Kumar Sonkar.This witness was not cross-examined on the date of examination-in-chief rather he was resumed for cross-examination after a long gap, in which he has reiterated his previous statements.He has categorically said that there were three shots and this witness, his brother Ram Chandar and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Guddi Devi had received injury of firearm shot.He had specified the places of person where firearm shot injury was received and regarding it there is no contradiction, embellishment or exaggeration rather upon the totality of his testimony, he proves to be wholly reliable injured witness.PW-3 is also injured witness Guddi Devi, who has said in her examination-in-chief that five years back at about 10:00 P.M., in the night Jhagdu and his son Raju, Shyam, Chuchu and his nephew Bagha @ Ashok came at the residence of witness and Raju put residential hut of Daya Shankar at ablaze.All those were armed with weapon, Raju and Shyam was armed with katta, others weapon could not be told by this witness but she sustained injuries owing to firearm shot given by Shyam and pellets are still in her body which is perceivable.These injured were taken to police station from where to hospital where examined medically and her husband Ram Chanddar, her brother-in-law Suraj (devar) had sustained injury of pellets.Accused persons are of her community to whom she was acquainted with.There is full corroboration in her examination-in-chief.In cross examination, she has categorically said that each accused were armed with katta and who were with sword will be told by her husband.There was one dispute ante to this occurrence.Quarrel was in women of Baish and accused persons.The number of shots was not counted by this witness but she has not suffered injury of lathi nor lathi was seen in the occurrence.The words `shall question him' clearly bring out the mandatory character of the clause and cast an imperative duty on the court and confer a corresponding right on the accused to an opportunity to offer his explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him, which has surfaced on record."
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,455,612 |
Item No. 95And In the matter of: Jaher Ali Mallick & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amitabha Karmakar For the Petitioners Mr. Dipankar Mahata For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Goghat Police Station Case No. 183 of 2013 dated 16.05.2013 under sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,563,882 |
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State and learned counsel appearing for respondent.The facts of the case are as follows;(i) The complaint was lodged by one Prabhakaran alleging that on 21.3.2013, while he along with his brother Kathiravan and driver Karthik were proceeding in a car, at about 7.45 a.m., the accused persons intercepted them in two cars and they caught hold of Kathiravan and murdered him with deadly weapons .It was further alleged that one Madurai sundar of deceased Chinna's gang might have murdered Kathirvan due to previous enmity in respect of real estate business.(ii) On the complaint of Prabhakaran, who is brother of deceased Kathiravan, a case in Crime No.573 of 2013 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 427 and 302 of IPC.Subsequently A1 to A8 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.During interrogation, they gave confession statements disclosing about the involvement of Ravi @ Kadhukuthu Ravi, the respondent herein in the above said crime.(iii) On 31.3.2013, the respondent herein surrendered before the petitioner and his confession statement was recorded and after producing him before concerned Magistrate Court, he was remanded to judicial custody.During interrogation of the respondent, he gave a further statement about the modus operandi and the vehicles and weapons used for murdering the deceased Kathiravan.(iv) The respondent herein, by moving bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Chennai and obtained bail in C.M.P.No.5819 of 2013 on 15.5.2013 on condition that he should report before the petitioner daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month.Against the order passed in C.M.P.No.5819 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, this petition for cancellation of bail has been preferred on behalf of the prosecution.The respondent is involved in many other cases and there is prima facie materials as against the accused.In the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph 4, it was stated that totally there are 24 accused involved and out of 24 accused 7 accused were already released on bail and the petitioner was implicated on the basis of confession given by co-accused and he is no way connected with the offence and he is a close friend of the deceased and some amount was recovered form the mother of the deceased for not disclosing the name of this accused is not disclosed in the complaint and the respondent/accused was a handicapped and he cannot took any arms to attack the deceased.The occurrence has taken place at the instance of the accused persons.Hence he prayed for cancellation of bail in order to keep the accused in juidical custody for some time .Learned counsel Mr. Prabakaran, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent/ accused is not an habitual offender.Each and every occasion, the police has registered number of cases against him in order to keep him in prison and number of trials have been conducted and all the cases were ended in acquittal, since the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt which shows that they are all put up cases falsely foisted against him by the police.In the present case, the entire family of the accused/respondent has been implicated on the ground that the petitioner has paid money to the mother of the deceased in order to not to disclose his name.In the order passed by the learned Sessions, the learned CPP stated that the petitioner was implicated in this case only on the ground of confession given by the co-accused.Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of ti being perverse in law.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,456,865 |
"This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 07.10.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jath in No.MAG/hadpar/SR-12/2014".::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:49:35 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,570,879 |
2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 31.07.2005, at about 8.00 am, when PW4 was in charge of the Theni, Special Branch Office, he received an information that three persons from Andhrapradesh came to Theni for selling Ganja.Based on this information, PW.4 intimated the information to his higher official and proceeded to the place namely Annanji Vilakku along with Head Constable, where he found that the appellants and A3 carrying white colour bags.He intercepted them by showing his identity and informed about their right of search being made in front of an Executive Officer or Judicial Magistrate.He took two samples of 50gms of Ganja each from the bags recovered and duly sealed them.Thereafter, he produced the accused before the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Theni and three cases were registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing in Crime Nos.124 to 126 of 2005 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. He also intimated the relatives of the accused through Intimationhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/9 Crl.A(MD)No.235 of 2009 Ex.P14 to Ex.The First Information Report is marked as Ex.3.The samples collected were sent for chemical analysis and the Scientific Assistant of Regional Forensic Science Lab, Madurai, submitted his reports as follows:in Crime No.124 of 2005 E.P.7, in Crime No.125 of 2005 Ex.According to his reports, the presence of cannabis were found.He collected the lab reports and examined witnesses and filed a final report as against the accused on 19.09.2005 for the offence under Section 8 (C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.On the side of the prosecution 5 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were marked and 9 material objects were produced.PW1 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, who received the intimation, conducted the search, seized the contraband and registered FIR.The deceased Jeyaseeli, aged about 76 was living alone in Fathima Nagar, Thanjavur.3rd accused was residing opposite to her house and the 1 st accused was also residing in the same Fathima Nagar.The 2nd accused one Muruganandam @ Mottai Muruganandam was friend of this appellant Sukumar and he was residing at Burma Colony, Thanjavur Town.The 3rd accused Peter was an Ex-service man and used to engage Auto for his travel.In the year 2008, A-2 was in need of money and he asked A1 for amount.While droppinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/9 Crl.A(MD)No.235 of 2009 A-3, A-1 has conveyed the same and requested him to give some money for A-2. A-3 informed A-1 and A-2 that the deceased was living separately and she is also having so much jewels and they can steal the same.Accordingly, they have conspired to steal the jewels from the deceased and pursuant to that conspiracy they entered into the deceased's house through rear door and attempted to steal the jewels from her house and the deceased woke up suddenly and she has also witnessed A-1 and A-2 and A-1 and A-2 frightened and throttled her neck and killed her.Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 have taken away the jewels of the deceased around 9 ¼ sovereigns and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from her house.4.On the side of the prosecution 31 witnesses were examined, 18 documents were marked and 16 MOs were marked during the trial.PW.2http://www.judis.nic.in 3/9 Crl.A(MD)No.235 of 2009 in de fault to pay fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.2.The appellant and another were tried before the trial Judge for the charges as stated under Sl No Accused Charge under Sections 1 Accused Nos.1 and 2 457,302, 380, and 382 IPC 2 Accused No.3 201 and 300 r/w 109 IPC1 Accused Nos.1 and 2 457,302, 380, and 382 IPC2 Accused No.3 201 and 300 r/w 109 IPCOne Soundararajan was examined as defence side witness and Daily Thanthi News paper dated 09.07.2008 was marked as defence side exhibit.5.PW.12 is the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body on 07.07.2008 at 4.50 pm and noticed abrasions (nail marking) of various sizes in the deceased neck and according to him the deceased died due to asphyxia due to compression of neck and the postmortem certificate issued by PW.12 is marked as Ex.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/9 Crl.A(MD)No.235 of 20096.In appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the trial Court by its order dated 28.01.2009, found this appellant and another guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and convicted and sentenced sentenced them as stated above.7.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that this case is on the circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence to connect this appellant with the commission of offence.However, considering the arrest and recovery of the alleged jewels of the deceased from this appellant, the trial Court found this appellant and another guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the arrest was not at all established by the prosecution and therefore, the recovery is also doubtful and when the arrest and recovery itself is doubtful, the learned trial Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant under Section 411 IPC.8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit since, the prosecution was not able to connect the chain properly, the trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt and the accused including this appellant were acquitted from all other charges and based on the recovery made from this appellant, the trial Court has rightly convictedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/9 Crl.A(MD)No.235 of 2009 him under Section 411 IPC.9.A perusal of the evidence,the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges as stated above and based on the recovery, has convicted this appellant and another for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC.Neither the State nor the complainant has preferred any appeal against the acquittal.Insofar as Section 411 IPC is concerned, the Investigating Officer PW.13 in his evidence has stated that on 09.07.2008 at about 5.30 am, this appellant had voluntarily given confession statement to the Investigating Officer and pursuant to the confession statement 4 bangles were with A2 and 2 bangles, 1 chain, 4, one set of ear stud, 3 ring, 2 bangles and black purse, MOs.1 to Mos.7 respectively, were recovered from this appellant and another in the presence of PW.9 under cover Mahazar.Though there is small discrepancies in the evidence PW.9 with regard to the place of arrest, the Investigating Officer was cross examined and he has specifically stated that the accused was arrested at E.B. Colony Bust stop and this fact has been elucidated from the evidence of PW.9 and PW.13 and further MOs.1 to 6 were recovered, pursuant to the confession statement and the same have been identified by the PW.2 to 4 and in view of the small discrepancies in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/9 Crl.10.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjvaur is hereby confirmed.The respondent Police is directed to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,576,071 |
Mr. K. Sunil, Learned counsel for the appellant/Ram Kishan while arguing against respondent No.3/Rakesh submitted that respondent No.3/Rakesh entered into criminal conspiracy with respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola, respondent No.4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu and played a major role in the kidnapping and killing of the deceased and is liable to be convicted under Section 364A/302/201/120B of Indian Penal Code whereas as he has only been convicted under Section 387 of Indian Penal Code.Mr. K. Sunil, learned counsel for the appellant leading us through the evidence pointed out that on 15.01.2005, respondent No. 3/Rakesh was apprehended by PW2 Jai Prakash, uncle of deceased at the gate of his house when he was dropping the third ransom letter Ex.Respondent No.3/Rakesh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/B and led the police party to Village Bhouvapur, District Ghaziabad, UP and got arrested respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola.On the basis of disclosure statement Ex.PW2/B made by respondent No.3/Rakesh, a diary was recovered from which accused Raj Kumar @Bhola had torn pages and wrote the ransom letter Ex.It is further contended that disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C made by respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola describes the role of respondent No.5/Neetu that when he was taking deceased towards a desolate place near the Subzi Mandi, Ghazipur respondent No.5/Neetu joined him and at first gave a stone blow on the head of deceased and when deceased fell down on the ground, he tendered the second blow with a stone which resulted in the death of the deceased.It is further contended that from joint reading of the disclosure statements Ex.PW2/C and Ex.Learned counsel for the State further contended that prosecution has been able to prove its case against appellant as his handwriting has been confirmed on all three ransom letters through Ex.PW16/O. It is further contended that the specimen handwriting of appellant obtained second time before the learned Trial Court did not match with the handwriting on the ransom letters.This is of no consequence as the handwriting of the appellant when matched with the handwriting on the three ransom letters has already been proved vide FSL report Ex.PW16/O. It is further contended that dead body, blood stained clothes and other articles of the deceased were recovered at the instance of appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola and the postmortem report Ex.PW6/A and DNA report Ex.PW19/A to Ex.PW19/D connect that the dead body recovered at the instance of the appellant/Raj Kumar is of Ashok @ Bunty, missing son of appellant.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 13 of 28We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the entire record.His family members tried to trace him but all in vain.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 14 of 28 letter pasted on the jacket of deceased was received by PW5 Ram Kishan, who further reported the matter to the Police Station- Kalyanpuri and the present case was registered.On 10.12.2005, PW5 Ram Kishan along with some other person reached the spot mentioned at the ransom letter but none turned there and they returned back and tried to search Ashok @ Bunty but failed to trace him.On 12.12.2005, PW5 Ram Kishan received the shirt of his son Ashok @ Bunty containing another ransom letter demanding Rs.10 Lacs with threat to kill Ashok @ Bunty if ransom amount not paid.PW5 Ram Kishan again brought this ransom letter to the notice of the police.On 13.12.2005, eldest son of PW5 Ram Kishan along with some police official went to the place of delivery of ransom money but this time also nobody came there and they returned back.On 16.12.2005, an information was received that a dead body was lying near Subzi Mandi, Ghazipur.The dead body could not be identified as it was in a decomposed condition.On 15.01.2006, respondent No.3/Rakesh was apprehended at the spot while throwing the third ransom letter and handed over to the police.Respondent No.3/Rakesh made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/B and led the police to Bodhan at Village Bhouvapur and on his pointing out respondent No.2/Raj Kumar was apprehended.His disclosure statement Ex.PW6A/A and opined that cause of death is Cranio Cerebral Damage consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to head.The height of Ashok @ Bunty mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW5/A matches with the height mentioned in postmortem report Ex.PW6A/A.PW19 Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Assistant Director (Biology) DNA Unit FSL, Rohini, appeared in the witness box and proved DNA report Ex.PW19/A, identification forms Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/C and allelic date of source of Ex. 1,2 and 3 are Ex.PW19/D and deposed that "On conclusion it was found that the DNA profiling STR (Analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that Ex.1 i.e. Sh.Ram Kishan and Ex.2 smt.Rakesh Devi cannot be excluded from being the biological relation with Ex.3 i.e. blood stained gauze piece of deceased said to be of Ashok @ Bunty".In cross examination, this witness stated that "STR (Short Tendom Repeat) (analysis) was used to prepare the DNA report.This test gives 100% authentic result."From the analysis of testimonies of these witnesses, there is no doubt that the dead body found in Ghazipur Subzi Mandi was of Ashok @ Bunty.All three ransom letters Ex.P1, Ex.PW5/H, Ex.On examining the evidence against respondent No.3/Rakesh, it emerges that the case of the prosecution was unfolded after respondent No.3/Rakesh was apprehended at the instance of PW2 Jai Prakash, uncle of the deceased when he came to throw the third ransom letter Ex.Thereafter, he was handed over to the police and he disclosed that he had been asked by respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola to deliver the ransom letter Ex.Appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola has been convicted under Section 364-A/302/201/120B of Indian Penal Code.The case against the appellant is that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Rakesh, accused Neetu and accused Mohan to kidnap and murder Ashok @ Bunty and on 06.12.2005, he took Ashok @ Bunty to Subzi Mandi, Ghazipur, UP and in furtherance thereof accused Neetu met him there and gave first blow with stone on the head of Ashok @ Bunty as a result of which he fell down and hit him for second time with a stone on his head as a result he had died and both took his dead body to a nearby heap of earth and removed his clothes except undergarments and threw his body in the drain and wrote two letters of ransom dated 09.12.2005 and 12.12.2005 and accused Mohan kept on guiding them in between.Appellant was apprehended on the disclosure statement made by accused Rakesh that he had thrown the ransom letter Ex.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 21 of 28 police to the Subzi Mandi, Ghazipur and pointed out the place where the dead body of deceased had been dumped.He got recovered blood stained articles of deceased which were identified by the father of the deceased in judicial TIP vide Ex.PW18/C. The blood of the deceased was also taken from the spot and sent for analysis.All three ransom letters Ex.PW5/H, Ex.PW5/I and Ex.P1 were sent for comparison and on comparison vide Ex.PW16/O, it has been proved that they were in the handwriting of appellant none other than appellant.The diary Ex.P1 threatening to kill Ashok @ Bunty in case ransom is not paid.Accused Rakesh disclosed that he had come to throw the ransom letter Ex.P1 as he had got lured by appellant that he would be paid Rs.15,000/-; that accused Rakesh also disclosed that he could get diary recovered from which the pages have been torn to write the ransom letters.The disclosure Ex.PW2/C and arrest of appellant led to the recovery of the diary Ex.PW20/A at his instance; that disclosure Ex.PW2/C of appellant further led the police to the place of occurrence and the place where dead body of deceased was thrown by him, which was already got recovered on 16.12.2005; that appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola got recovered the articles of deceased which were seized vide Ex.PW10/A and the same were identified by PW5 Ram Kishan, father of deceased vide TIP Ex.PW8/A; that all three ransom letters Ex.PW5/H, Ex.PW5/I and Ex.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 25 of 28 wrote the Ex.PW5/H, Ex.PW5/I and Ex.P1 also wrote Ex.PW20/A and specimen handwriting and diary Ex.These appeals arise out of a judgment dated 14.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent No.4 Mohan and respondent No. 5 Neetu (in Crl.A. 366/2011) and on Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 1 of 28 orders on quantum dated 19.01.2011 whereby respondent No.3/Rakesh (in Crl.A. 366/2011) was sentenced for a period of imprisonment already undergone i.e. five years for committing the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Appellant in Crl.A. 582/2011) to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for committing the offences punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months.All sentences are to run concurrently.Appellant Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Respondent No.2 in Crl.A. No. 366/2011) also preferred an appeal No. Crl.A. No. 582/2011 against the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 1 of 28Briefly stated, the incident that eventually culminated into the death of the Ashok @ Bunty, son of Ram Kishan, appellant in Crl.A. No. 366/2011 and the consequent prosecution of the appellant/father are that on 06.12.2005, Ashok @ Bunty went missing and did not return home; that his family members made every efforts to trace him but all in vain; that on 07.12.2005, they made a call at 100 number about the Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 2 of 28 same; that on 08.12.2005, appellant lodged a complaint with Police Station - Kalyan Puri, Delhi with respect to his missing son; that on 08.09.2005, his younger son gave him a jacket of his missing son which contained a ransom letter pasted with a tape on the pocket of the jacket demanding Rs.10 Lacs for release of his missing son; that he along with his brother went to the police station and narrated the entire incident which was reproduced in writing and an FIR under Section 364A Indian Penal Code was registered; that on 12.12.2005, appellant received the shirt of his missing son containing another ransom letter threatening to kill his son in case the police was informed; that the second letter was also brought to the notice of the police and appellant reached the place mentioned in the ransom letter but none turned up at the spot; that on 16.12.2005, police recovered a dead body in the drain near Sabzi Mandi, Ghazipur in a decomposed condition which the appellant could not identify as that of Ashok @ Bunty; that on 15.01.2006, Jai Prakash, brother of the appellant apprehended accused Rakesh when he threw the third ransom letter at his door; that accused Rakesh was handed over to the police along with the third ransom letter wherein a demand of Rs.15 Lacs was made; that on interrogation by the police, accused Rakesh disclosed that he had thrown the ransom letter on the asking of accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola; that accused Rakesh led the police to Village Bhouvapur, District Ghaziabad to the house of Mohan; that on pointing of accused Rakesh, accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola was apprehended and on his pointing out a dairy with some missing papers Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 3 of 28 was recovered; that on interrogation, accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola disclosed that he along with accused Neetu and Mohan kidnapped and killed Ashok @ Bunty; that they took Ashok @ Bunty to Subzi Mandi, T-Point, NH-24 and killed him and threw his body in the drain; that accused Raj Kumar led the police to the spot and got recovered two stones with bloodstains on it along with chappal and pant of the deceased; that on 07.01.2006, both accused Neetu and Mohan were apprehended from Village Nand Gram, District Ghaziabad; that all articles of his missing son were identified by the appellant during the Test Identification Parade; that DNA report established the identity of dead body as of Ashok @ Bunty; that after investigation, charge sheet under Section 364A/302/201/120B of Indian Penal Code was filed in court.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 2 of 28Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 3 of 28To bring home the guilt against the accused persons, prosecution examined 23 witnesses in all.All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the allegations and alleged false implication and claimed to be tried.A. No. 366/2011 Respondent No.3/RakeshAppellant/Ram Kishan, father of the deceased is represented by Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate and respondent Nos. 3/Rakesh, respondent No.4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu are represented by Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocate.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 4 of 28Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 4 of 28Moreso, ransom letter Ex.P1 was written in his presence by respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola on the dictation of respondent No.4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu and the handwriting of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar on the ransom letters Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 5 of 28 including the third ransom letter when compared with the specimen handwriting of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola was proved by the handwriting expert PW20 Devak Ram.It is contended that close examination of testimonies of PW2 Jai Prakash, PW15 SI Sansar Singh, PW14 Jagbir Singh speaks volumes against the respondent No.3/Rakesh and the role played by him in kidnapping and killing of the deceased.The three witnesses have stood the test of cross examination and the credibility of these witnesses remained unshaken.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 5 of 28On the other hand, Ms. Nitika Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Rakesh argued that respondent No.3/Rakesh was not part of any criminal conspiracy to kidnap and kill the deceased with respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola, respondent No.4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu and he was lured by respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola to deliver the ransom letter against payment of Rs.15,000/- and was apprehended PW2 Jai Prakash at the gate of his house while throwing the third ransom letter Ex.It is further contended that except the offence under 387 of the Indian Penal Code, no other offence is made out against him for which respondent No.3/Rakesh has already spent five years and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.Respondent No.4/Mohan and Respondent No.5/NeetuMr. K. Sunil, learned counsel for the appellant/Ram Kishan further argued that learned Trial Court had erred in acquitting respondent No. 4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu as there is enough material on record to show that both were part of the criminal conspiracy to Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 6 of 28 kidnap and kill the deceased.It is submitted that respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola disclosed details of the conspiracy hatched by them and how the deceased Ashok @ Bunty was put to death by giving blows with stones on his head.PW8/B of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola and respondent No. 5/Neetu respectively, it has been established that respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola along with respondent No.5/Neetu in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of deceased which is further confirmed from the pointing out memo Ex.PW8/G prepared at the instance of respondent No.5/Neetu.It is further contended that prosecution has been able to prove the role of respondent No.5/Neetu in the kidnapping and murder of deceased through disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 6 of 28As far as role of respondent No.4/Mohan is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the third ransom letter Ex.P1 was written by respondent No.2/ Raj Kumar @ Bhola on the dictation of the respondent No.4/Mohan and delivered by respondent Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 7 of 28 No.3/Rakesh at the residence of the uncle of the deceased, which is supported from the disclosure statements Ex.2/C and Ex.8/B of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola and respondent No.5/Neetu respectively.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 7 of 28In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Balbir Singh Vs.State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216, Vishnu Prasad Singh & Anr.State of Asaam, 2007 AIR (SC) 848 and also Mohd. Khalid Vs.State of West Bengal 2002 (7) SCCLearned counsel for the appellant further relied upon Mohd. Khalid Vs.State of West Bengal 2002 (7) SCC 334, wherein it has been held:"Where trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co-accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration.........."On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu argued that learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos. 4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu as no evidence except disclosure statements has emerged on record, which are inadmissible in law and hit by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that at no point of time respondent Nos. 4 and 5 hatched any conspiracy and committed the alleged offence.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 8 of 28 Crl.A. No. 582/2011 Appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Respondent No.2 in Crl.A. No. 366/2011)Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 8 of 28Appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Respondent No.2 in Crl.A. No. 366/2011) is represented by Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate, who has vehemently argued that appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola has been wrongly convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which is not permissible under law as no person alone can conspire with himself.The other co-accused persons have been acquitted under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.In support thereof reliance has been placed upon Vinayak Vs.State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 441, wherein it has been held :"In view of the acquittal of all the seven accused by the trial court of charge No. 1 framed under s. 302 read with s. 120B I.P.C. and the High Court's dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 1978 filed against that acquittal which, as stated earlier, was filed only against accused 2,3,4 and 7 not against accused 1 and 6, in so far as it related to accused 2, 3, 4 and 7, Mr. V. S. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for Prakash, accused 5, contended in his arguments that the conviction of that accused alone for conspiracy under s. 302 read with s. 120B I.P.C. is unsustainable in law as at least two persons are required for an offence of conspiracy under s. 120A I.P.C. and he relied upon a decision of this Court in Topandas v. State of Bombay(1) in support of his contention.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 9 of 28 The High Court acquitted accused 2 to 4 and convicted accused 1 alone of that charge and sentenced him, holding that he and some others had conspired together and fabricated the deed of assignment put forward by accused 1 and that accused 1 alone could not have fabricated that document.It was in view of this technical flaw that we allowed the appeal of accused 5 without going into the evidence regarding the merits of the case against him.Mr. Rana did not draw our attention in the course of his arguments to the fact that in charge No. 1 even the approver P.W. 1 is alleged to have conspired with the seven accused to commit these three murders or contend that in view of that circumstance and the finding of the High Court that the approver P.W. 1 also was a party to the conspiracy the conviction of accused 5 alone of the charge of conspiracy under s. 302 read with s. 120B I.P.C. could be sustained.We were, therefore, not called upon to consider any such question."Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 9 of 28Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 10 of 28 He further relied upon Topandas Vs.State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 33 (V. 43 C. 9 Jan), it has been held:Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 10 of 28Criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code:-"When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is, not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy".By the terms of the definition itself there ought to be two or more persons who must be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.If, therefore, 4 named individuals were charged with having committed the offence under section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, and if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge, the remaining accused, who was the accused No. 1 in the case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy."It is further contended that appellant has been falsely implicated by the investigating agency as specimen handwriting of an unknown person which matched with the handwriting on the ransom notes as the handwriting of appellant/Raj Kumar which was obtained second time under the supervision of the learned Trial Court did not match with the handwriting on the ransom notes as opined by CFSL, Shimla.He further added that prosecution failed to prove the owner of the diary and scriber of the ransom letters and pages of the diary.Learned counsel for the appellant/ Raj Kumar @ Bhola argued that strangely enough that had the deceased being hit with a stone the Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 11 of 28 clothes of the deceased would have been stained with blood.State of UP, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 113 (V 50 C 167), it has been held :Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 11 of 28Therefore, the question before us is this.Is the production of the blood stained axe and clothes read in the light of the evidence regarding motive sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the appellant must be the murderer? It is well-settled that circumstantial evidence must be much as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis in consistent only with the guilt of the accused person and not with his innocence.The motive alleged in this case would operate not only on the appellant but on his father as well.From the mere production of the blood stained articles by the appellant one cannot come to the conclusion that the appellant committed the murder.Even if somebody else had committed the murder and the blood stained articles had been kept in the house, the appellant might produce the blood stained articles when interrogated by the Sub- Inspector of Police.It cannot be said that the fact of production is consistent only with the guilt of the appellant and inconstant with his innocence.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 12 of 28 complete in this case and the prosecution has unfortunately left missing links, probably because the prosecution adopted the shortout of ascribing certain statements to the appellant which were clearly inadmissible."Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 12 of 28He further relied upon Deepak Chadha Vs.State, 2012 [1] JCC 540, it has been held that:We do not propose to deal with the purity of the evidence relating to the two recoveries i.e. the recovery of the shirt and the knife at the instance of the appellant, for the reason, in the decisions reported as Kalloo Passi vs. State, 2009 (2) JCC 1206; Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1753; Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 110; Deva Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 CriLJ 265, & Prabhoo vs. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1113 the Supreme Court held that in the absence of other incriminating evidence, the circumstances of seizure of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused as also the recovery of a possible weapon of offence at the instance of the accused are wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused."Mr. Ghazi, learned counsel for the State contended that appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola was the mastermind behind scene of crime and in order to make quick money conspired with other accused persons to kidnap the deceased in a planned manner and led him to a desolate and deserted place wherein accused Neetu joined him and accused Neetu gave him two blows one after the other with stones on his head and put him to death.Learned counsel for the State further contended Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 13 of 28 that appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola was apprehended on 15.01.2006 on disclosure of respondent No.3/Rakesh (in Crl.A. No. 366/2011) and appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola made a disclosure Ex.Finally, on 08.12.2005, PW5 Ram Kishan, father of Ashok @ Bunty reported the matter of his missing son in the police station Kalyanpuri.On 09.12.2005, first ransom Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.PW2/C was also recorded.Respondent No.2/Raj Kumar led the police party to the place of occurrence and got recovered the belongings of deceased Ashok @ Bunty.On secret information, respondent No.4/Mohan and respondent No.5/Neetu were apprehended.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 14 of 28Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 15 of 28Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 15 of 28PW6A Dr. Mukta Rani, Assistant Professor (Forensic Medicine) proved the postmortem report Ex.PW5 Ram Kishan identified belongings as of the deceased, recovered at the instance of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar, in TIP Ex.Senior Civil Judge.PW/I along with specimen signatures and writing Ex.PW16/H-1 to Ex.PW16/H-3 of Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 16 of 28 respondent No.2/Raj Kumar were sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the writings on the ransom letters matched with the writings of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar.The report is Ex.PW16/J. PW20 Devak Ram, who prepared report Ex.PW16/J stated therein that "The pages bearing questioned writings marked Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 to Q7 match with supplied diary marked P1 in size of paper, line of paper, glow of the paper and continuity of the dated of paper as well as location of thread hole/torn portion also match with the corresponding holes of the diary marked P1 which indicate that the paper bearing questioned writings marked Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 to Q7 have been removed from the same (supplied) diary marked P1."Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 16 of 28Respondent No.3/Rakesh in Crl.A. No. 366/2011Learned Trial Court has observed in its judgment "Prosecution has failed to bring any circumstantial evidence on record to establish that this accused acted in conspiracy and was in agreement with accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola and his associates prior to 06.12.2005 when deceased Ashok @ Bunty was kidnapped." and convicted respondent No.3/Rakesh for the offence punishable under Section 387 of Indian Penal Code.To bring an offence under criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is required to prove that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not legal by illegal means.It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.P1 and diary from which page had been taken out, the same could be got recovered.Respondent No.3/Rakesh led the police party to the village of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola, who was apprehended and the diary was recovered from his possession.PW2/B is the disclosure statement of respondent No.3/Rakesh which led the arrest of respondent No.2/Raj Kumar and as per which respondent No.2/Raj Kumar was his friend and was given the third ransom letter Ex.P1 to be thrown at the house of deceased for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- .PW2/C is the disclosure statement of appellant No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola.Except this there is no other evidence against respondent No.3/Rakesh and when he joined Raj Kumar @ Bhola Ashok Bunty had already been kidnapped and body thrown in Subzi Mandi, Ghazipur.PW2/B disclosure statement of respondent No.3/Rakesh is inadmissible in evidence.No evidence has come forth about the role played by Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 18 of 28 respondent No.3/Rakesh when ransom letters Nos. 1 & 2 were delivered at the residence of deceased.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 18 of 28Since, the only evidence against the accused is that he had thrown the ransom letter Ex.P1 contents of which are "Tune Jo Humse Hoshiyari Dikhai Hai Aur Itne Samay Ke Karan Ab Hume Dus Lakh Ki Jagah 15,00,000/- (Pandrah Lakh) Rupay Chahiye.Ise Dhamki Nahi Samajhana Abki Baar Hum Majak Nahi Kar Rahe Hain.Abke Paisa Ya Apne Bete Ki Laas Aur Paisa Kab Aur Kanha Lana Hai Dhayan Se Padna xxxxxxxx".Perusal of the third ransom letter Ex.P1 delivered by respondent No.3/Rakesh is covered under Section 387 of Indian Penal Code for extortion by putting a person in fear of death and grievous hurt.The evidence on record amply establishes that the threat contained in the ransom letter Ex.In the present case, there is no evidence on record which proves that there was a meeting of mind of respondent No.3/Rakesh to commit the offence.Mere meeting would by itself not be sufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy.Merely respondent No.3/Rakesh was hired would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was conspiracy between them to kidnap and murder the deceased.We are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the conviction of respondent No.3/Rakesh for the offence Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Respondent No. 4-Mohan / Respondent No.5-NeetuThe prosecution chargesheeted respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the basis of self inculpatory statements made in their disclosure statements.Confession made to a police officer cannot be proved and as such excluded as against a person accused of any offence in view of the prohibition enacted by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. An exception to this is however contained in Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act which makes a confessional statement made before a magistrate admissible in evidence against an accused notwithstanding with the fact that he was in the custody of the police when he made the incriminating evidence.Section 27 is proviso of Section 26 and makes admissible so much of the statement of accused which leads to the discovery of the fact deposed to by him and connected with the crime irrespective to the question whether is confessional or otherwise.The essential ingredient of this Section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact which is the direct outcome of such information.Disclosure statement of the accused can not be relied upon where no recovery has been made pursuant to the said disclosure statement under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence act.There being no incriminating evidence against respondent Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 20 of 28 No.4/Mohan and respondent No. 5/Neetu, the learned trial court has rightly observed that there is no substantive evidence on the strength of which appellant Nos. 4 & 5 can be held guilty for the offences charged and acquitted them.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 20 of 28Appellant-Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Respondent No.2 in Crl.A. No.366/2011)P1 on the gate of PW2 Jai Prakash, uncle of deceased and further he could get the diary recovered.Accused Rakesh led the police to Village Bhouvapur, District Ghaziabad, to the house of accused Mohan whereafter accused Raj Kumar disclosed how he had killed deceased and his body was thrown in the drain.He led the Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.P4 recovered from the possession of the appellant is found to be the same from which pages were taken out.The dead body had already been recovered on 16.12.2006 from the spot pointed out by accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 21 of 28Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court....Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 22 of 28The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved.There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.P1 along with diary Ex.PW20/A were sent for comparison and on comparison with specimen handwriting of appellant, PW20 Devak Ram, Handwriting Expert proved his report Ex.PW16/O and opined that the person who Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.PW20/A; that Dead body recovered from the drain was found in decomposed state and gauze piece of the deceased were preserved.Blood samples of parents of Ashok @ Bunty and gauze piece of deceased were sent for analysis.PW19 Dr. A. K. Sriwastava proved the DNA report Ex.PW19/A and opined that "DNA profiling STR (analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that Ex.1 i.e. Sh.Ram Kishan and Ex.2 Smt. Rakesh Devi cannot be excluded from being the biological relation with Ex.3 i.e. blood stained gauze piece of deceased said to be of Ashok @ Bunty." ; that the disclosure of appellant that deceased was hit twice by accused Neetu corroborate the post mortem report Ex.PW6/A proved by PW6A Dr. Mukta Rani, who opined the cause of death is Cranio Cerebral Damage consequent upon blunt force/surface.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 25 of 28It is settled law that while appreciating circumstantial evidence, the court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence.The circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 26 of 28Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 26 of 28In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution.It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.The chain of evidence against appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola discussed above, does not lead any scope for doubt and in all human probability, the act of kidnaping, murder and destruction of evidence must have been done by appellant/ Raj Kumar @ Bhola.In order to prove the charge of conspiracy it is necessary that the prosecution should prove the names of the place or places where it was hatched, names of the persons hatching it and how was it hatched.But in the present case, except disclosure statements, nothing has emerged on record to show that any person conspired with the appellant to commit the offence and for the said reason, we do not Crl.Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 27 of 28 find any reason to convict appellant/Raj Kumar @ Bhola under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 27 of 28A. No. 366/2011A. No. 582/2011Appeal No. 366/2011 Crl.Appeal No. 582/2012 Page 28 of 28
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,576,100 |
It is pleaded that the property originally belonged to Sh.Gurdayal Singh, the bhumidar who was the owner of the land total measuring 11 Bighas situated at village Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.Gurdayal Singh appointed one Sh.Kallu as his CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 1 of 14 attorney through irrevocable general power of attorney who carved out a colony and sold the said the suit property being plot No. 20 & 21 to Sh.Bhishm who resides in the neighbourhood who informed Sh.Hridesh who is running a factory at a nearby place.A complaint was made on telephone No. 100 by the residents to the police.The residents also informed the respondents/defendants who reached the site.I do not known when this number was changed and by whom it was changed.It is wrong to suggest that on 05.10.2011, police had put me in possession of property bearing No.A20 and A21 belonging to plaintiff.It is wrong to suggest that property A20 and A21 belonged to plaintiff.It is wrong to suggest that I, Sansar Pal, Mahinder Pal and Sh.Jagroop Singh are land grabbers."Virender Kumar and Sh.The said Sh.Virender Kumar and Sh.Pawan Kumar Arora sold the property to one Sh.Sunil Kumar.Sunil Kumar thereafter sold the property one Sh.Jagroop Singh.The plaintiff purchased the said plot from Sh.The documents which are said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff include Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. which are said to be duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi.It is pleaded that possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner/plaintiff.When the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit land, there was only one room in the plot.It is further pleaded that shortly thereafter the respondents/defendants came to the site along with their associates on 01.10.2001 and 02.10.2001 and tried to enter into the suit property claiming the property as their own.It is stated that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has good connections with the police and in connivance with the police, a kalandra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was got registered.It is further pleaded that the respondents/defendants came along with police on 26.04.2002 with their associates and put building construction material near the site for purpose of construction.On 27.04.2002, it is stated that the defendants/respondents in connivance with the police dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property without the petitioners consent and otherwise, against the due process of law.Thereafter, the respondents/defendants started constructions on the property.CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 1 of 14CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 2 of 14It is claimed that the police is in connivance with the respondents/ defendants.Hence this suit.It is also stated in the plaint that Sh.Jagroop Singh from whom the petitioner/plaintiff had purchased the land filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein which is said to be pending before the Civil Judge, Delhi.In that suit, the respondent No. 1, in his written statement claims that respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 is the owner of a land which is known as Plot No. 32-31, Rama Garden, Gali No. 2, Delhi.It is stated that as there was a dispute regarding the land, the court hearing the said suit filed by Sh.Jagroop Singh appointed Tehsildar, Seelampur as a Local Commissioner with the directions to demarcate the suit property.The Local Commissioner gave his report that plot in question (presumably of Sh.Jagroop Singh ) falls in different khasra no., namely, 39/4 which is not the same khasra number in which the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is having the plot.The respondents/defendants who are husband and wife filed their written statement.After verification of the facts, possession was handed over to the respondents/defendants by the police after visiting the suit property and carrying out necessary verification and inquiries from the neighbourhood.It is stated that the present suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in collusion with Sh.Jagroop Singh to harass the CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 3 of 14 respondents/defendants.It is stated that only one room was lying constructed in the suit property along with full boundary wall.Full construction was carried out by the respondents/defendants after taking possession through the authorities.Defendants/respondents are stated to be in possession of plot measuring 400 sq. yards.The plot was purchased by Registered Sale Deed dated 15.6.1974 by defendant No.1 from Shri Munshi and Shri Mohd. Akbar.It is stated that the petitioner claims this number to be 39/7/4 whereas there is no 4 in the certified records available with the respondents/defendants.The respondents/defendant also state that they have no objection in case the suit is transferred to the court which is hearing the suit filed by Sh.It was the police who got the premises locked and took away the keys for making necessary inquiries.It is CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 4 of 14 stated that the respondents/defendants are respectful persons, respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 being a Retired Medical Officer from Kirkari Dispensary.CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 3 of 14CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 4 of 14The Trial court framed the following issues:-"i) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit property 100 sq.yards of land in plot No. 20 & 21 out of khasra No. 39-8/2, 39/7-4 of the revenue part of 25 foota road in the Abadi of Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi? (OPP)ii) Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants from the above mentioned suit property? (OPP)iii) Whether the suit is filed within six months as per Specific Relief Act?iv) Relief."Parties led their evidence.The petitioner/plaintiff examined six witnesses in support of the suit, namely, PW-1, the plaintiff himself, PW-2 Sh.Mahendera Singh, neighbour, PW-3 Sh.Sahansar Pal, PW-4 Sh.Shau Raj Singh, PW-5 Prem Chand Kangoo, SDM Court, Seelampur and PW-6 Sh.T.S. Joshi, Halqua Patwari, SDM Court, Seelampur.The defendants, examined, namely, DW-1, defendant No. 2 herself, DW-2 Sh.Munesh Kumar, Record Clerk from Sub Registrar-IV, Nand Nagri.The trial court on issue No. 1 noted that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed several documents including Ex. PW-1/7 which is the sale deed executed by Sh.Kallu and Sh.Munshi, power of attorney holders of the original owner of Sh.Gurdayal Singh in favour of the first purchasers, of the chain described in the plaint, namely, Sh.Virender Kumar and Sh.Pawan Kumar Arora.As per the defendants, this number 4 has been added later on fraudulently.The trial court notes that this piece of evidence has not been successfully challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff.The trial court concludes that Ex.PW-1/7, the title document relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioner has not been correctly produced and has been manipulated.CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 5 of 14The trial court by the impugned order also noted that the present suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the primary onus was on the plaintiff/petitioner to show his possession of the suit property.The trial court concludes that from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the parties were more concerned about the title as well as the number given to the suit property.Jagroop Singh, the petitioner came into possession of the suit property.The documents were registered GPA, Receipt, Registered Deed of Will in favour of the petitioner.In the plaint the plaintiff/petitioner claims that he was dispossessed on 27.04.2002 from the suit property.Further the trial court rightly held that the evidence led by the petitioner about he being dispossessed on 27.04.2002 as stated in the plaint is CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 11 of 14 very sketchy.In his affidavit by way of evidence, PW-1, namely, the petitioner merely states that on 27.04.2002, the defendants/respondents in connivance with the police dispossessed him.Relevant part of his evidence states as follows:-CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 11 of 14I say that on 27.04.2002 the defendant in connivance with police has dispossessed the deponent of the suit property without deponents consent or otherwise therein due process of law.The defendants after taking the possession of the suit property on 27.04.2002, as stated above, have started raising the construction in the suit property.Shri Jagroop Singh also filed one application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in the court of Ms.D.Savita Rao, Civil Judge, Delhi for restraining defendant from raising any unauthorized construction."In his cross-examination, he states as follows:-"It is wrong to suggest that I was not disposes on 27.04.2002 by the defendants.It is correct that FIR No.404/01, dt. 05.11.01 u/s 451/323/506/34 IPC has been lodged against me for forcibly entering in southern side of plot which is adjoining to the plot in which I am residing today.It is wrong to suggest that there are any litigation pending against me for forcibily taking the possession of the lands belonging to others by making forged documents.It becomes clear that even if the contention of the petitioner as stated in the plaint is accepted, namely, that he was dispossessed on 27.04.2002, it clear that on being allegedly dispossessed by the police, he seems to have CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 12 of 14 taken no steps whatsoever.On the contrary, an FIR was lodged against him under Section 448 IPC.He has filed the present suit on or around 27.08.2002 meaning thereby, it took four months to wake up to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Other than filing the suit, there is no other reaction to the alleged illegal dispossession from the suit property.CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 12 of 14Even otherwise the evidence led by the petitioner on his dispossession is extremely sketchy.No names are given of which police personnel have dispossessed the petitioner from the premises.No details are there as to who was present when this dispossession took place.Clearly, the petitioner seems to have completely forgotten to lead evidence regarding his possession of the suit property and his dispossession.The bulk of the evidence led is on his so called title which is itself based on documents like, Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will.Admittedly, the petitioner does not have any registered conveyance deed in his favour.I may also note that the reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the demarcation report is misplaced.That suit pertains to one Sh.Jagroop Singh filed against Smt. Bhagwati Devi.It is on record that the said suit was withdrawn which is evident from the cross-examination of PW- 1 where he states that the suit filed by Sh.Petitioner has not been able to point out any material CM (M) 1536/2010 Page 13 of 14 errors in the findings recorded by the learned trial court.As there is no material illegality and irregularity in the impugned order, I do not see any reason to allow the present petition.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,578,317 |
The prosecution case in brief is that Ram Pher @ Chulhai was a collateral of informant Duryodhan and there was a litigation going on between the informant and the accused persons for an agricultural land on account of which the relation between them was not cordial.On 01.08.1983, at about 12 noon, the accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai had brought his buffalo and left her in the agricultural field of the informant for grazing due to which the mango grove of the informant got damaged.Sister in law of the informant namely Smt. Dhanesri Devi driven out the buffalo and complained about the same to accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai who started abusing her.When she objected to the abuses given to her by accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai, he assaulted her with lathi.On the alarm raised by Smt. Dhanesri, the informant along with his nephews Siddhu and Mahender son of Tilak Dhari rushed towards the place of occurrence.On seeing the complainant party coming towards his place, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai exhorted and uttered for bringing lathi and spear.Accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai was armed with lathi and his two sons were armed with lathi and spear who assaulted the complainant party.The informant and the witnesses tried to save themselves from the assault of lathi and also screamed loudly.On hearing the noise, Gomti son of Baldev Yadav, Jagdev son of Sushihal, Kurmi Chandbali son of Dhamu Kurmi, Harinath son of Pratap Yadav, Ram Samujh son of Chander Yadav and other villagers arrived at the place of occurrence.Accused Yogender assaulted Siddhu (nephew of the informant) in his abdomen by his spear with the intention to kill him.After receiving the injuries, Siddhu fell down.The witnesses tried to reconcile the parties.Smt. Dhanesri and Mahender also sustained injuries of lathi on their person.The nephew of the informant Siddhu who suffered injuries of spear in his abdomen was taken on a cot to the police station but he died on the way.On 01.08.1983, a report was written by Jagan Yadav son of Vasudev and the same was submitted by the informant Duryodhan at police station Raunapar, District Azamgarh for necessary action.On the basis of the written report given by informant Duryodhan at police station Raunapar, a chick FIR was prepared and a case was registered against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 under sections 302/323 IPC as Case Crime No. 86 of 1983, District Azamgarh.No.1 caused by sharp object.No.2 by friction.Duration: about half day old."Similarly, the injuries sustained by Smt. Dhanesri are as follows:Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the post lateral surface of right thigh colour pink transversely 16 cm above from right knee joint.Complaint of pain left shoulder region.No obvious injury seen.Remark: Injury simple caused by blunt object.Duration-about half day old."PW6 Surya Dev Rai has stated that he was posted as Station Officer on 01.08.1983 at police station Raunapar and the chick report No. 60 of Case Crime No. 86/1983 was prepared by Head Constable Lal Bahadur Yadav in his writing and signature and he was posted along with him.The investigation of the case was conducted by Sub-Inspector G.D. Mishra who prepared the inquest report and conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the police papers and he was well aware with the handwriting and signatures of G.D. Mishra.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)The present criminal appeal has been filed by the three appellants namely Yogender Yadav son of Ram Pher @ Chulhai, Virendra Yadav son of Ram Pher @ Chulhai and Ram Pher @ Chulhai son of Kishun Yadav against judgment and order dated 11.04.1985 passed by IV Additional & Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 440/83 convicting and sentencing appellant no.1 under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 2 and 3 under sections 323/34 IPC for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each and he was released on probation for one year.Hence, the present appeal survives with respect to appellant nos.1 and 2 only which is heard and decided by this Court on merits.Investigation of the case was taken over by Sub-Inspector G.D. Mishra who visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan.He also prepared the inquest report of dead body of the deceased and further prepared other police papers including photo-nash and the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem along with police constables.After completing the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences before the competent Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The trial court framed charges against the accused persons under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and also under section 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC.The accused denied the prosecution case and claimed trial.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Mahender, PW2 Chandrabali, PW3 Indradeo Yadav, PW4 Gomti Yadav, PW5 Dr. Prabhakar Shukla, PW6 Surya Deo Rai, PW7 Dr. T.K. Jha and further relied upon 14 documentary evidences to prove the guilt of the accused.PW1 Mahender who is an injured eye witness of the occurrence has deposed before the trial Court that on 01.08.1983 at 12 noon, he was sitting at the door of his house and the cow and buffalo of the accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai started grazing in his agricultural field and damaged the mango plants which were planted there.On which, his mother Smt. Dhanesri went to complain to accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai who got annoyed and started abusing her.Smt. Dhanesri objected to the abuses given to her by accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai saying that his buffalo has caused loss to their field and she was being abused but accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai assaulted her with lathi.Smt. Dhanesri raised alarm and started screaming, hearing which, Mahender along with Siddhu and Duryodhan rushed towards her.On seeing the witnesses rushing towards his place, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai called his sons to bring spear in order to kill them.On the exhortation of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai, accused Virender ran towards him with a lathi while accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai was already armed with a lathi.The accused Yogendra had a spear with him who assaulted Siddhu in his abdomen while Ram Pher @ Chulhai also assaulted him and his mother with lathi.So far as the third accused Virender is concerned, he was not seen assaulting anyone.On the alarm raised by the witnesses and his mother, many persons of the village namely Gomti Yadav and Chandrabali reached the place of occurrence along with several other villagers.On receiving the assault of spear, Siddhu fell down and his intestine started coming out which was tied by Chandrabali with a cloth (gamchha).The witnesses along with other persons took Siddhu on a cot to the police station but he died on the way.Jagan Yadav met them there.His uncle Duryodhan got a report written by Jagan and affixed his thumb impression on the same and took the report to police station Raunapar.The injured witness Mahender along with his mother was taken by a constable to Hariya Hospital for their medical examination.In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that on the alarm raised by her mother Smt. Dhanesri, he took a danda and had tried to save her and when the report was written, he was present and in his presence, his uncle Duryodhan had dictated the occurrence to Jagan who after writing the same, handed over the same to his uncle who further put his thumb impression on the same.He further deposed that as there was old enmity with the accused persons, they have intentionally committed the said crime.In his cross examination, this witness further stated that when his mother was being assaulted, then he along with other witnesses rushed towards the place of occurrence and he was having a blunt object.He further stated that it is correct that he along with other witnesses were seen rushing towards Smt. Dhanesri who was being assaulted then accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai asked his two sons to bring lathi and spear.He, in order to save himself used 'fata' (a blunt object) which was in his hand.He had shown his unawareness whether anyone received injuries from his fata when he used the same.He further deposed that accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai assaulted him with lathi and in return, he also assaulted him fata but he is not aware whether accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai received any injury or not.He further stated that accused Yogender had assaulted his brother with spear before this witness was assaulted by lathi and when accused Yogender tried to assault him with spear then he was caught hold by the villagers and accused Yogender was caught hold by Chandrabali.This witness has denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident, he along with Duryodhan and Siddhu had come with lathi and spear towards the neem tree of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai which was being dug out on which accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai and his sons objected to and accused Yogender and Ram Pher @ Chulhai were assaulted by lathi.He further denied the suggestion that Siddhu has assaulted accused Yogender with spear and he saved himself on account of which the spear hit the ground and accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai had broken the handle of the same by his lathi and Siddhu assaulted using the broken handle of the spear and accused Yogender assaulted Siddhu with the iron portion of the spear and in order to save himself, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai also assaulted using his lathi.He further denied the suggestion that on account of the assault of the witnesses and other persons, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai and Yogender have sustained injuries of lathi.PW2 Chandrabali who is also an eye witness of the occurrence was examined by the prosecution before the trial court and he stated that on the day of the incident at 12.00 noon, he was engaged in a work at his doorstep and on hearing the scream, he reached the house of the accused where he saw the accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai armed with lathi, accused Yogender armed with spear and accused Virender with danda and there was a quarrel going on between the wife of Tilakdhari namely Smt. Dhanesri with accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai and he asked them not to fight and abuse each other on which accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai uttered that he would not leave Smt. Dhanesri without beating her.Thereafter, this witness stepped aside as he was empty handed and at that very moment, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai assaulted Smt. Dhanesri with a single blow of lathi.Thereafter, Mahender and Siddhu rushed to save their mother Smt. Dhanesri on which accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai exhorted his son Yogender to kill them.Thereafter, accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai assaulted Mahender with lathi and when Siddhu @ Budhu tried to save his brother Mahender, accused Yogender assaulted Siddhu with a spear which hit him in his abdomen and his intestine started protruding out which was tied by him with a cloth (gamchha).During the fight, Gomti Yadav, Hari, Jagdev and Ram Samajh and other persons of the village arrived there.The accused after assaulting fled away towards their house and when he reached the place of occurrence, he came to know that cattle of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai had entered into the grove of Duryodhan and caused damage to the trees planted there on account of which, the aforesaid quarrel took place between the parties.He did not accompany the deceased Siddhu who was taken on a cot to the police station but he died on the way.He, in his cross examination, has stated that his house is situated towards South from the house of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai which is about 50-60 paces away.He further stated that complainant side was not having any lathi with them and they were empty handed nor they assaulted the accused persons with any weapon nor any accused received any injuries as he has not seen the same.He has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the incident and on account of enmity, he is deposing falsely against the accused.9. PW3 Indradev Yadav who is a constable deposed that Girish Mishra was posted at the concerned police station as Head Constable who has retired now and after seeing the chick report, he proved the same which was written by the said Head Constable as he was familiar with his handwriting and signature.He has further proved the carbon copy of GD report which was written by Head Constable Girish Mishra, the original of which was also available.He has also stated that he was present at the door of his house when he saw Hari Nath, Ram Samajh running and on inquiry made by him as to what was happening as there were scream and cries, they told him that the alarm was coming from the assailant's side and they went towards it and saw that there was a quarrel going on between accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai and Smt. Dhanesri who was abusing her.He further stated that Chandrabali also arrived there and requested the parties to stop quarreling and abusing each other but accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai was adamant to beat Smt. Dhanesri and when he inquired from them as to why they were quarreling, then Smt. Dhanesri told him that the buffalo of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai had damaged the plantation of mango trees on account of which there was a quarrel between them.PW4 further denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident as he was related to the informant, hence, he was deposing falsely against the accused persons.PW5 Dr. Prabhakaran Shukla has deposed before the trial Court that he was posted at the Primary Health Center, Hariya as Medical Officer and he has worked with Dr. D. Lal and is familiar with his writing and signature.The following injuries were found on injured Mahender who was medically examined by Dr. D. Lal on 01.08.1983 at 06.15 p.m.:Contusion 5cm x 2 cm on the post surface of left forearm colour pink.2. Abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm area.There is no blood clot present on the post lateral surface of right upper arm 5 cm above from right elbow joint.He further submitted that the site plan of the incident was also prepared by Sub-Inspector G.D. Mishra and he proved Ex. Ka-6 to Ka-12 and he took the investigation of the case on 01.08.1983 at 07.35 p.m. He had tried to search for the accused and has recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He deposed that Sub-Inspector G.D. Mishra has now retired and he is not aware of his present address.After completing the investigation, Sub-Inspector G.D. Mishra submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons.PW6 denied the suggestion that the FIR of the present incident was lodged at his instance.The said witness has denied the suggestion that he did not carry out the complete investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.PW7 Dr. T.K. Jha has deposed before the trial Court that he was posted in District Hospital, Azamgarh as Orthopedic Surgeon and he received the dead body of deceased Siddhu on 02.08.1983 at 02.00 p.m. in the afternoon which was brought by two constables Surender Singh and Surender Pratap Singh for its postmortem.He found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person:Penetrating wound 3 cm x 1 cm to cavity deep on the left side of abdomen just above the iliac crest.2. Abrasion 1 cm x 3 cm over the left cheek.Abrasion 3 cm x .5 cm over the right shoulder.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm over the back of right shoulder."On the internal examination, he found heart left side full right empty weight 200 gms, abdomen membranes and peritoneum lacerated.Cavity containing about 8 ounces of blood.Stomach containing about 4 ounces semi digested food.Small intestine punctured.Gall bladder pale, weight one thousand grams and half full.In this case, the deceased died on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.The said witness has further deposed in his cross examination that excessive bleeding would have been caused due to injury no.1 whereas injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 could be caused by friction and also possible if the deceased had fallen.The accused, in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the prosecution case and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity.Siddhu armed with spear, Duryodhan and Mahender armed with lathi had come for grabbing the same and they started digging his 'Nad' which was objected by him on which, they started assaulting him and his father.Siddhu has assaulted him with spear on which his father assaulted him with lathi due to which his spear had broken and in his self defence, he assaulted with the broken piece of spear and on account of fear of complainant party, he got his medical examination done in District Hospital, Gorakhpur and has also given an application to Superintendent of Police and his brother Virender is deaf and dumb.In support of the defence, the accused have examined DW1 Dr. M.P. Singh.DW1 Dr. M.P. Singh has deposed before the trial Court that on 02.08.1983, he was posted at District Hospital, Gorakhpur and on the said date at about 11.30 a.m., he has examined Yogender and found the following injuries:Abraded swelling 3 cm x 2 cm on the left side upper forehead, 5 cm above the left eyebrow.Swelling 2cm x 1cm on the upper part of thumb of the left hand.Contusion 3cm x 2cm on the left calf muscles.Lacerated wound 1cm x 4cm x 8 cm deep on the right upper region of thigh.Contusion mark of 7 cm x 1-1/2 cm in the middle of right shoulder.Remarks: All the injury are simple and caused by blunt weapon.Duration: about one day."In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were found to be simple in nature and could be caused by hard and blunt objects and the duration of the injuries were one day old and would have been caused on 01.08.1983 at 12 noon.In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that the injury of Yogender can be fabricated.On the same day at 11.40 a.m., he also medically examined Ram Pher @ Chulhai and found the following injuries:"1.Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 8 cm deep on the back and lower part of the forearm.Contusion 7cm x 2cm on right middle back.Abraded contusion 3.1/2cm x 1.1/2 cm on the right lower back.Abraded contusion 3cm x 2 cm on the lower part of middle on back.Abraded contusion 2cm x 1cm on the right upper back.Remarks: All the injury are simple and caused by blunt weapon.Duration: about one day."In his cross examination, he deposed that the injury of Ram Pher cannot be fabricated.The trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution and the defence evidence, held the accused/appellants guilty for the offence in question.Hence, the instant appeal by the accused/appellants before this Court.Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Adhar Ram, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that a sudden fight took place between the parties on account of a buffalo of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai who went inside the grove of the deceased and the informant and the mother of the deceased Smt. Dhanesri had driven out the same and complained of it to accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai as it damaged the plantation of mango trees and a quarrel took place between them on account of which, accused-appellant Yogender caused a single blow injury by a spear on the abdomen of the deceased Siddhu who died on account of the said injury.He further urged that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond section 304 part II IPC and conviction of the accused-appellant Yogender Yadav under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC by the trial court is against the evidence on record and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.He next submitted that as sudden fight took place between the parties and accused-appellant Yogender Yadav and his father accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai also received injuries on their person and they were also medically examined by the doctor DW1 who had proved their injuries.Hence, the prosecution has failed to give an explanation about the injuries sustained by the accused-appellants.Hence, the prosecution has concealed the origin of the case and the conviction of the accused-appellants under section 302 IPC is also liable to be set aside by this Court.The said two cases cited and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be made applicable to the present case as the same are distinguished from the facts and circumstances of the present cast.So far as accused-appellant no.3 Virender Yadav is concerned, he stated that as the said appellant is only convicted under section 323/34 IPC by the trial Court along with accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, they were released for one year on probation by executing a bond out of which accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai has died during the pendency of the appeal and his appeal has already been abated by this Court.So far as appellant no.2 Virender is concerned, he has already executed the bonds, hence, he has not pressed his appeal on merits.Learned AGA on the other hand has vehemently opposed the argument of learned counsel for the appellants and stated that as per the prosecution evidence, it is absolutely clear from the evidence PW1 Mahender who is an injured eye witness of the occurrence and brother of the deceased shows that it was accused-appellant Yogender Yadav who has assaulted the deceased with spear in his abdomen and because of the said assault, his intestines started coming out which was tied by PW2 Chandrabali with a cloth (gamchha) who was also present at the place of occurrence and has witnessed the incident goes to show that it was the appellant Yogender whose injury has proved to be fatal and resulted in the death of the deceased.Hence, he has been rightly convicted by the trial Court.We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.From the prosecution case, as has been set out in the FIR which was lodged by one Duryodhan that the buffalo of accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai had destroyed the plantation of the grove of the informant for which the mother of the deceased Smt. Dhanesri Devi made a complaint to accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai who became annoyed and started abusing her and when PW1 Mahender who is the son of Smt. Dhanesri Devi heard the quarrel and the alarm raised by his mother, rushed to save her along with his brother Siddhu and other persons of the village and seen that accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai exhorted his two sons to bring lathi and spear.Accused Ram Pher @ Chulhai assaulted Smt. Dhanesri Devi with lathi and his son accused-appellant Yogender assaulted the deceased Siddhu with a spear in his abdomen causing injuries to him on account of which his intestines started coming out which was immediately tied up by a cloth by PW2 Chandrabali who is also an eye witness.On the alarm raised by the complainant party and PW1, other villagers also arrived at the place of occurrence on which the accused fled away.The deceased was immediately taken on a cot to the hospital by the informant as well as PW1 and other witnesses but he died on the way and thereafter, the uncle of PW1 namely Duryodhan got a report written by one Jagan who was also present there and submitted the same in police station Raunapar where the FIR was lodged on the same day at 14.00 hours.It is true that the informant and Smt. Dhanesri Devi who were injured with whom the initial quarrel took place was not produced by the prosecution before the trial court but there appears to be an injured witness PW1 who is the brother of deceased and son of Smt. Dhanesri Devi and nephew of the informant Duryodhan who has proved the written report which was submitted by his uncle Duryodhan at police station Raunapar in pursuance of which, FIR was lodged against the accused persons.Hence, simply because of the fact that Smt. Dhanesri Devi was not produced or examined by the prosecution would not prove fatal to the prosecution case as has been argued by learned counsel counsel for the accused-appellants who has tried to assail the judgment of the trial court on this ground also but it has no substance in view of the evidence of PW1 Mahender, the injured witness.Moreover, the register which was produced by DW1 wherein a reference has been made by him regarding the injuries of the two accused goes to show that the said document produced by DW1 was not a reliable piece of evidence as has been found by the trial court.The plea of the defence that it was the complainant and the deceased who have assaulted them with lathi and danda and in their self defence, the accused Yogender had assaulted the deceased with a broken spear does not inspire confidence as it has not been proved by any cogent evidence that it was the complainant party who was the aggressor.In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.The appeal on behalf of accused Yogender is partly allowed.He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as has been ordered by this Court.So far as appellant no.3 Virender Yadav is concerned, as his appeal has not been pressed on merits by the counsel for the appellants and he has already been released on probation for a period of one year on 11.04.1985, hence, his conviction under sections 323/34 IPC by the trial Court is hereby upheld and his appeal is hereby dismissed accordingly.Let a copy of this order along with the lower court record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 14.03.2019 Madhurima
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
745,945 |
Lal Quila in Delhi, which was built by the Mughal King Shahajahan, till then was under the control of the British Army and after achieving independence the Indian Army took it over and it became a symbol of the British power's defeat and since then every year on 15th of August the Prime Minister of independent India unfurls the Indian tricolour flag and delivers Independence Day speech from the ramparts of Lal Quila.This Quila thus became a place of utmost national importance after independence for every Indian.To protect it from being taken over once again by some foreign power various Units of the Indian Army have since then been occupying the Lal Quila.However, that Lal Quila, which was taken over by the British Army during the war of Independence in 1857 from the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and which could then be taken over from the British in August, 1947 by India after so many Indian freedom fighters lost their lives in the long fought struggle for independence from the British Raj, was suddenly attacked by some enemies of peace on the night of 22nd December, 2000 and those people armed with sophisticated arms and ammunition barged into that part of the Lal Quila which during those days was occupied by 7 Rajputana Rifles Unit of the Indian Army and started firing indiscriminately from their AK-56 Rifles and gunned down three jawans who lost their precious lives.It isjm that incident which led to the prosecution of eleven persons whom the police claimed to be the members of a banned militant organisation by the name of Lashker-e-Toiba.Those eleven persons along with many others who, however, could not be arrested were found to have hatched a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India in order to grab India occupied Kashmir so that it could become a totally Muslim occupied and ruled territory.Out of those eleven accused persons seven were convicted for different offences while four were acquitted.To one of the convicted accused, namely, Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad(Appellant in Crl.The reference as well as the appeals filed by the convicted accused and the State were heard analogously and the same are now being disposed of by this common judgment.The prosecution case as borne out from the trial Court record is that on the night of 22nd December, 2000 at about 9 p.m. some terrorists belonging to a banned militant organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba armed with AK-56 rifles and hand grenades entered the Lal Quila and started firing indiscriminately and gunned down three Army jawans of 7 Rajputana Rifles.When the armymen of Quick Army Reaction Team returned the firing towards the intruders they immediately made good their escape by scaling over the rear side boundary wall of the Lal Quila towards the Ring Road side.It appears that the armymen who had fired at the intruders were conscious of the fact that due to darkness their shots could hit their own jawans also and so they did not fire back indiscriminately and none of their shots hit any of the intruders.3. Information about the incident of firing inside the Lal Quila reached the local police station, i.e. Kotwali police station where that information was recorded vide DD No. 19-A (Ex. PW-15/B) and then Sub-Inspector Rajinder Singh(PW-137) rushed to the spot where he came to know that in the incident of firing two Army jawans had died at the spot itself while the third one had been removed to Army hospital in serious condition.Inspector Roop Lal(PW-234), who was the SHO of Kotwali police station, also reached the spot and he recorded the statement of one Capt. S.P.Patwardhan(PW-189).That statement(Ex.Thereafter the intruders ran into a room in the unit lines close to the office complex and shot Naik Ashok Kumar, who was seriously injured.The intruders then ran towards ASI Museum complex.They fired in the direction of police guard room located inside the museum.At this stage they were fired upon by the Army quick reaction team.However, intruders escaped into wooded area close to the Ring Road (Mahatma Gandhi Marg).We have recovered some fired/unfired ammunition which we will produce.The area of Red Fort has been sealed off by the army and search of the area is being carried out.At the same time, Police which had been alerted and has cordoned off the area.This is for your information and legal action please.At the time of firing, I was inside my room in the officers' mess.On the basis of this statement of Capt.Patwardhan Inspector Roop Lal got a case registered under Sections 186/353/302/307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act at Kotwali police station vide FIR No. 688/00(Ex.PW-15/E).At the place of occurrence the investigating officer conducted inquest proceedings in respect of the two killed jawans Uma Shankar and Abdullah Thakur and then their bodies were sent for post-mortem examination.From the place of occurrence the armymen had before the arrival of police recovered one live cartridge (Ex. PW-115/38) and many assault rifle fired cartridge cases (Ex. PW-11 5/1-37 & Ex. PW-189/32-71) three magazines (Ex. PW-189/1-3) of Assault Rifles, one of which had 28 live cartridges(Ex.PW-189/4-31).These were handed over to the police vide memos Ex.PW-189/C and Ex. PW-115/A. The empties of cartridges fired in return by Quick Reaction Team of armymen(Ex.PW-131/1-11) through Self Loading Rifles (SLRs) which had that day been deposited with the Ammunition Sore of the 7 Rajputana Rifles were also given to the police later on vide memo Ex. PW-131/C.The third victim of the firing who had been rushed to the hospital in serious condition also could not survive and he died on the same night.The cause of death of all the three killed jawans on post-mortem examination by the autopsy surgeon PW-187 Dr. K.L.Sharma was found to be fire-arm injuries.He had also opined that the fire arm used was rifled, powerful and sophisticated as all the bullets had passed through and through the bodies of the deceased.On 23-12-2000 in the morning at about 8.10 a.m. BBC flashed a news on TV that Lashkar-e-Toiba had claimed the responsibility for the shooting incident and on that news reaching the police PW-152 Constable Parveen posted at Kotwali police station entered that news in the Daily Diary vide DD No. 3-A (Ex.PW-152/B).On the same morning somebody found one Assault Rifle lying near Vijay Ghat on the backside of Lal Quila and the local police on being informed about that recovered one AK-56 rifle (Ex.PW-62/1) which was lying near Vijay Ghat.In the magazine of that rifle there were seven cartridges.The rifle and the cartridges were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW-62/F. Search for some possible clues around the Lal Quila was also conducted on 23-12-2000 in the morning as the incident had taken place during the night.During that search the police found a polythene bag containing some currency notes of different denominations (Ex. PW-183/11-20) and a piece of paper(Ex.PW-183/B) with a mobile telephone number 9811278510 written on it lying outside the Lal Quila near its rear side boundary wall towards the Ring Road side.As per the further prosecution case, the intruders had escaped from the place of occurrence by scaling over the rear side boundary wall of the Lal Quila towards Ring Road side and while jumping down from the wall the cash and the said paper slip (Ex.PW-183/B) fell down from their pockets.27 p.m. after the shooting incident, one call was again made from the said mobile number to the said number in Srinagar of BBC correspondent.Three calls were made from the same mobile number to telephone no. 0113355751, which number was found to be that of BBC's correspondent in Delhi (PW-41), between 9.25 p.m. and 9.33 p.m. On further enquiry it was found out by the police that mobile number 9811278510 was being used from two instruments whose IMEI numbers(identification numbers engraved on the mobile handset by the manufacturer) were then obtained from the Mobile service provider ESSAR.From the call details so collected it was also found that calls had also been made from 9811242154 to telephone no. 6315904 installed at house no. 18-C, Gaffur Nagar, Okhla where a computer centre by the name of Knowledge Plus was being run.Further investigation revealed that the said computer centre was being run by one Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq who was residing at the aforesaid DDA flat no. 308-A in Ghazipur where telephone having number 2720223 was installed.The police kept the said flat no. 308-A and the computer centre Knowledge Plus under surveillance for two days.During that period the computer centre had remained closed.On getting some secret information a raid was conducted in the night of 25/26.12.2000 at flat no. 308-A, Gazipur and then appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was apprehended by the police while he was entering his flat.It is that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq who now stands convicted for various offences and sentenced to death.It was found out during investigation that Farzana Farukhi in whose name telephone number 2720223 stood was the divorcee sister-in-law (wife's sister) of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and she was also living in the said flat with this accused and her sister Rehmana Yusuf Farukhi and their mother Ms. Qamar Farukhi (DW-1).It is the further case of the prosecution that when cursory search of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was taken by Inspector Ved Parkash (PW-173) immediately after his apprehension one pistol (Ex.PW-148/1) with six live rounds was found and the same were sealed and taken into police possession.However, at about 5.15 a.m. one person had gone inside that house and closed the door from inside.The police knocked at the door and asked that person to open the door but that person instead of opening the door started firing from inside upon the police party.The police party in order to save themselves also returned firing with their firearms and during that firing the person inside died and later on he was identified by appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to be one Abu Shamal @ Faizal.From that house one AK-56 rifle (Ex.PW-229/1),two hand grenades one of which was kept in a bandoleer (Ex.PW-229/5),two magazines (Ex.PW-229/2 & 3), one of which had 30 live cartridges, some material for cleaning arms kept in a pouch(Ex.PW-229/6) and one khaki coloured uniform (Ex.PW-229/8) were recovered and the same were seized by the police vide seizure memos Ex.PW-229/D&E. Fired cartridge cases of AK-56 rifle used by the deceased terrorist were also taken into police possession.That case, however, ended up in the preparation of a closure report because the accused had already died in the encounter with the police.After the above encounter accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought back to his flat where in the meantime search had been conducted by the policemen who had remained there and during that search one ration card (Ex.PW-164/A)(which was on enquiry found to be forged), driving license in the name of Ashfaq (Ex. PW-13/1), one cheque book of HDFC Bank in the name of Ashfaq , one ATM Card, one cheque book of State Bank of India in the name of Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, who is the wife of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and who was also arrested in this case and now stands convicted under Sections 216/118 IPC, and one pay-in-slip of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank (Ex. PW-173/K) showing deposit of five lacs of rupees in the account of Nazir & Sons (which firm, as per the prosecution, was of other convicted accused Nazir Ahmad Qasid and the amount deposited in that account by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was received through hawala from the high-ups of Lashkar-e-Toiba for being distributed amongst the terrorists operating in India) and some other articles were seized.When accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought back there PW-194 SI Harender Singh, who had also reached there when the police team Along with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was leaving for G-73, Batla House and who had been entrusted the case regarding recovery of pistol from this accused which had also been in the meantime registred vide FIR No. 419/2000 under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Kalyan Puri police station within whose jurisdiction Gazipur area fell, arrested Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.Then PW-194 also formally searched Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and at that time one Motorola mobile handset was recovered from his possession.The IMEI No.(which is the identification number of the handset engraved on the instrument by the manufacturer) of that Motorola handset Ex.PW-194/A was found to be 445199440940240 and the same was taken into police possession.9. Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was then interrogated by SI Harender Singh and this accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-148/E. In that disclosure statement he had disclosed about one Assault Rifle having been thrown near Vijay Ghat behind Lal Quila after the incident by one of his associates and one AK-56 rifle and some ammunition behind the rear wall of Lal Quila by another associate of his.It is also the prosecution case that pursuant to the said disclosure statement Ex.PW-148/E made by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq he had also then taken the police party to the back side of the Lal Quila on 26/12/2000 and from there on his pointing out one AK-56 rifle(Ex.PW-125/1), two magazines(Ex.PW-125/2 & 3) having live cartridges Ex. PW-175/4-35, one bandoleer and four hand grenades were recovered in the presence of ballistic experts (PWs 125 and 202) which were then taken to the police station where the ballistic expert defused the hand grenades and their detonators were separated.While in police custody accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had made another disclosure statement(Ex.PW-168/A) on 01-01-01 and pursuant thereto also he got recovered three hand grenades from a place near Jamia Milia University on the back side of his Computer Centre 'Knowledge Plus' where they were found hidden under the bushes.As per the further prosecution case, accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was a resident of Pakistan and had joined Lashker-e-Toiba, an organisation which had been formed with the object of taking over the control of the territory of Kashmir occupied by India, and after getting training for using sophisticated arms like AK-56 rifles, hanfgrenades etc. he had illegally entered the Indian territory along with arms and ammunition in August, 1999 and camped himself at Sri Nagar in the company of other members of Lashkar-e-Toiba who were already there with the object of undertaking terrorist activities in different parts of India in order to grab the India occupied Kashmir.Towards the achievement of that object only these militants had planned an attack on the Army Force stationed inside Lal Quila.For carrying out terrorist activities money required was collected by Mohd. Arif through hawala channels.During investigation he had led the police to one of the hawala dealers in Ballimaran area in Old Delhi.It appears that that hawala dealers Sher Jamal Afghani and Saherullah got information about the visit of the police and so they left the shop before the arrival of the police.In their absence the police recovered over one lac of rupees from his shop which had been left open.Pursuant to the information given by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq about his associates in that conspiracy the police caught hold of ten more persons, including his wife Rehmana Yusuf Farukhi.The other nine accused persons were Nazir Ahmad Qasid, Farooq Ahmad Qasid,both of whom are father and son, Babar Mohsin Baghwala, Matloob Alam(appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 907 of 2005), Sadakat Ali, Shahanshah Alam, Devender Singh, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra and Mool Chand Sharma.Besides these persons Mohd. Arif had named many other persons who were also associated with him and involved in the conspiracy to wage war against the Governent of India and the Lal Quila shootout but the police could not apprehend them and had got them declared as proclaimed offenders.However, a separate charge-sheet was filed against those proclaimed offenders also.Accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, the wife of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was arrested on the allegations that knowing fully well that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was a Pakistani national and had come to India for carrying out terrorist activities married him only a few days before the shooting incident on 8th December, 2000 in order to provide him shelter and for that she had been paid lacs of rupees also by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq prior to her marrying him and that amount had been deposited by him in her bank account no. 5817 with State Bank of India.It was also alleged that both were in touch with each other on phone even prior to their marriage.Accused Sadakat Ali was arrested for his having given on rent his property in Gaffur Nagar to accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for running a computer centre by the name of Knowledge Plus.Sadakat Ali also allegedly was fully aware of the designs of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for being in Delhi and despite that he had joined hands with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and had also failed to inform the police that he had let out his premises to a foreigner.Lacs of rupees which used to be received in India from abroad through Hawala channel for being utilised for terrorist activities in India by the militants used to be deposited by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in the bank accounts of accused Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid maintained by them in Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank's branch at Sri Nagar and after withdrawing the money so deposited in their bank accounts by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq they were distributing the same amongst their fellow militants for spreading terrorism in India so that the Government of India could be forced to surrender the India occupied territory of Kashmir.Just a few days before the shoot-out inside Lal Quila lacs of rupees were deposited by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in the month of November,2000 in the two bank accounts of Nazir & Sons and Farooq Ahmad Qasid with Standard Chartered Grindlays' branch at Connaught Place, New Delhi.One deoposit receipt showing deposit of five lacs of rupees in November, 2000 in the account of Nazir & Sons was, as noticed already, recovered from the flat of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq after he had been apprended on the night of 25/26.12.2000 Therefore, this father-son duo was also arrested in the Lal Quila shoot-out case.Accused Devender Singh, Shahanshah Alam, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra had all allegedly helped accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in getting a forged learner's driving license no. 9091(Ex.PW-13/C) purporting to have been issued by the Delhi Transport Authority's office at Sarai Kale Khan and showing his residential address as B-17, Jangpura where Mohd. Arif had never stayed.Then after sometime a permanent driving license(Ex.PW-13/1) was also got issued by them in his name from Ghaziabad Transport Authority on the basis of the said learner's license despite their knowing the object for which Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was in Delhi and also about his being a member of a militant organisation.Along with the application for license these people had submitted a photocopy of a ration card which showed residential address of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq as 102, Kaila Bhatta, Ghaziabad where also he had never lived.In that manner, according to the prosecution, Mohd. Arif got the license from Ghaziabad Transport Authority by cheating by these accused persons.That permanent driving license was then used by accused Mohd. Arif for opening a bank account with HDFC Bank in New Friends Colony, New Delhi and in the account opening form he had shown his permanent address as 102, Kaila Bhatta, Ghaziabad and mailing address as 18, Gaffur Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi which was also not his actual address.In that account he used to deposit hawala money received from his bosses abroad to be used for terrorist activities in India.Accused Babar Mohsin was accused of providing shelter to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in his house in Delhi sometime in February-March, 2000 so that he could prepare a base in Delhi for carrying out terrorist acts in Delhi and it was also alleged against him that during the said period of Arif's stay in Delhi Babar Mohsin had gone along with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq on his motor-cycle to different parts of Delhi in order to show various places of importance to Mohd.Arif @ Ashfaq which could be made a target of a terrorist attack.Thereafter Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had gone back to Sri Nagar and from there he wrote a letter Ex.That on 22.12.2000 at about 9.05 PM at Red Fort, within the jurisdiction of P.S.Kotwali, you conspired with your co-accused Abu Haider, Abu Bilal, Abu Saad, Abu Shuker and Abu Shamal (all proclaimed offenders) to commit the murder and intentionally caused the death of Abdullah Thakur, Uma Shanker and Ashok Kumar (now deceased) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this Court.Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you conspired along with your co-accused Abu Haider, Abu Bilal, Abu Saad, Abu Shuker and Abu Shamal (all proclaimed offenders) and voluntarily obstructed the public servants namely Abdullah Thakur, Uma Shanker and Ashok Kumar (now deceased) in discharge of their duties as public servants and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 186 read with Section 120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this Court.Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you conspired with your co-accused Abu Haider, Abu Bilal, Abu Saad, Abu Shuker and Abu Shamal (all proclaimed offenders) and assaulted and used criminal force against Abdullah Thakur, Uma Shanker and Ashok Kumar (now deceased) in the execution of their duties as such public servants or with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging of their duties as such public servants and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this Court.Fourthly, that in between 22.12.2000 to 26.12.2000 you were found in possession while entering in house no. 308A, DDA Flats, Gazhipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S.Kalyanpuri one pistol of 7.63 mm bore having engraved upon it 51010255-636 and six live cartridges of 7.63 mm bore (having five cartridges in the magazine and one in chamber) without any requisite license and in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, within the cognizance of this Court.Fifthly, in between 22.12.2000 and 1.1.2001 at Jamia Milia University, between staff quarters and boundary wall, within the jurisdiction of PS New Friends Colony, you were unlawfully and maliciously found in possession of three hand grenades of green ARGES which were individually or in combination are explosive substances and you kept the same to cause explosion or conspired to cause explosion in Delhi of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, within the cognizance of this Court.Sixthly, that on or before 22.12.2000 you being the citizen of Pakistan have entered into India unlawfully without any valid document I.e. Passport, permit or permission and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, within the cognizance of this Court.The prosecution then examined as many as 235 witnesses and had also exhibited a large number of documents during the course of prosecution evidence.After the prosecution evidence was over the trial Court recorded statements of all the accused persons and all of them pleaded false implication.Only accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui had chosen to adduce evidence in defense and she examined her own mother as the sole defense witness to show that they did not know that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was a militant and that the money in the bank account of Rehmana was their own money and not given to them by Mohd. Arif.Upon an analysis of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and the voluminous documentary evidence the learned trial passed a judgment running into 373 pages on 24-10-2005 whereby he held seven out of the eleven accused persons guilty as under:(A) Appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was convicted under Sections 120-B, 121 and 121-A IPC, 186/353/120-B IPC, 120-B read with 302 IPC, 468/471/474 IPC and also under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.He was also held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years under Section 25 of the Arms Act. For the conviction under Section 353 IPC he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for three months was awarded for his conviction under Section 186 IPC.Different amounts of fine with default stipulation were also imposed on this accused.Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.(B) Accused Nazir Ahmed Qasid and Farooq Ahmed Qasid were both awarded life imprisonment, on each count for their convictions under Section 121 IPC and under Section 120-B IPC and in addition fines were also imposed on them with a default stipulation.Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.(D) Accused Matloob Alam was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count for his convictions under Sections 468/420 IPC and in addition fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each count was also imposed.Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Arif @ Ashfaq(who is now appellant in criminal appeal no. 927/2005), Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid(who are now appellants in criminal appeal no. 944-45/2005) had hatched a conspiracy along with their associates, some of whom were proclaimed offenders and some had already died, to wage war against the Government of India and to commit murders of all those who would be resisting the achievement of their said object, and accordingly convicted all three of them under Section 121 IPC as well as under Sections 121-A/120B IPC.As far as the prosecution case that there was an incident of firing inside the Lal Quila on the night of 22nd December, 2000 and in that incident three Army Jawans of 7 Raj Rifles had lost their lives is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-accused Mohd.Arif @ Ashfaq, Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid, all of whom have been found guilty of waging war against the Government of India, did not dispute the same.Those witnesses are PW-126 Major Manish Nagpal, PW-128 Ex. Hawaldar Mahesh Chand, PW-131 Subedar D.N.Singh and PW-134 Hawaldar Dalbir Singh.PW-126 Major Manish Nagpal deposed about the incident as under:On 22.12.2000 I was posted at Red Fort with 7th Raj Rifle as Captain.On that day some militant had entered Red Fort and they were firing inside the Red Fort.It was about 9.05 pm.I took a self loading rifle from Hav.Dalbir Singh and fired at the militants.I fired six rounds in the direction of ring road from where fire was coming.I returned the empty cases to Hav.Dalbir Singh.I informed the police that firing has taken place inside Red Fort from ring road side.PW-131 Subedar(Retd.) D.N.Singh also deposed about the firing incident inside the Lal Quila as under:On 22.12.2000 I was working as JCO in 7th Raj Rifle posted at Red Fort.I was in charge of magzine.On that day Major D.K. Singh and Capt.Nagpal were also posted there at Red Fort.On 22.12.2000 at about 9.00 pm militants had attacked at Red Fort and in the attack by the militants, three jawans had lost their lives.Major D.K. Singh took ammunitions from me for returning the fire.Nagpal had taken ammunitions and rifle from Cot.Hawladar Dalbir Singh.They had fired them and thereafter deposited the empty cartridges with me.In all 11 empties were given to me, five by Maj. D.K.Singh and six by Capt.I kept them separate.In this regard, i had given a detailed report which is signed by Quarter Master Major Deep Singh and said report is Ex. PW-131/A.... I produced the empty cartridges to the police officer on 18-8-2001...and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-131/C.The testimony of PW-134 Hawaldar Dalbir Singh is as under:On 22.12.2000 I was posted in 7th Raj.Rifle as Hawaldar Quarter Guard where I was got commander In Red Fort.At about 9.05 PM, I heard gun shot report.I alerted the guard.After a short while Major D.K.Singh and Cap.Manish Nagpal reached the Quarter Guard.Both of them took rifles and ammunitions from me.They rushed in the directions from where gun shot was heard and returned the fire.In the morning, they had returned the weapon along with empty cases as throughout the night, they remained busy in searching.Major D.K.Singh deposited five empties and Cap.I returned the fire in the direction from where the gun shot was heard.I fired five rounds and thereafter I deposited the SLR as well as the five empties with the magzine.The empties and ammunition were given to Mr.D.N.Singh.He was Captain on the day of the incident.It was on his statement Ex. PW-189/A that the FIR of the shooting incident had been registered at Kotwali police station.Near my residence there is Officer's Mess.MT park is at some distance from my residence.On hearing the sound of firing, I immediately rushed in the direction of firing.At the spot I was told that two persons in black dress had come from the direction of Saleemgarh Gate.The two persons were carrying AK assault rifle and when they came across civilians Sentry Abdullah Thakur, they opened firing on him and killed him on the spot.Thereafter these two persons came in the direction of MT park and came across rifle man (barber) namely Uma Shanker.They opened fire and killed him on the spot.Thereafter these two persons came towards to the unit lines, inside the Red Fort.There inside a room Naik Ashok Kumar was sitting and was fired upon by these two persons and he got injured.Thereafter these two persons crossed over to ASI Area and fired upon armed guard of Delhi Police, at Mumtaz Mahal Museum.By that time, quick reaction team of 7th Raj.Rifle was ready and fired upon these two persons.Quick reaction team comprised of Major Nagpal, Major Devender Singh, and some jawans.Quick reaction team fired in the direction of Mumtaz Mahal Museum but their fire was constraint due to the presence of guards and servant quarters.Thereafter, these two persons probably scaled the rear wall of Red Fort and escaped.We could not find them.Besides the aforesaid five witnesses the prosecution had examined some other armymen also who were present inside the Lal Quila at the time of the incident and they had deposed about whatever they had done after the firing had taken place and the terrorists had escaped.PW-109 Capt.As per the prosecution case the scene of occurrence was inspected by the police officials including police photographer and ballistic experts and they had noticed bullet marks on the walls, furniture etc. at different place inside Lal Quila.In this regard we may refer to the relevant portion of the examination-in-chief of police photographer PW-160 Praduman Kumar who had also reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and had photgraphed the scene of occurrence.He deposed as under:On 22.12.2000, I was posted at photo section, North District, PP ISBT, Kashmere Gate.On 22.12.2000 at about 10 PM, I was summoned to Red Fort.All these circumstances gave rise to the suspicion against the person living at Flat No. 308-A, Gazipur and the owner of 'Knowledge Plus' computer centre at 18-C, Gaffur Nagar, Okhla.The police then kept premises no. 308-A, Gazipur and 18-C, Gaffur Nagar under surveillance for a couple of days.It was also submitted that Nain Singh knew PWs Insp.R.S.Bhasin and Insp.Ved Parkash who had also some money dealings with Nain Singh.When Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq demanded his share of money from Nain Singh he got annoyed and in connivance with Insp.R.S.Bhasin and Insp.Ved Parkash got him implicated falsely in the present case.In Pakistan, there is political party by the name of Paktoonmili party and RAW is supporting that party for the last 30-35 years.Shri Sagir Khan was a member of that party and he was arrested by the police of Pakistan along with my younger brother.I received this news in Kathmandu and I spoke to Sanjiv Gupta in this regard.My cousin had also advised me not to return to Pakistan for time being.Thereafter, Sh.Sanjeev Gupta advised me to go to India and accompanied me up to Rauxol and from there I came to India by train.He gave me the address of Nain Singh and telephoned Nain Singh on 6834454 for accommodate me.Thereafter, Nain Singh gave me a room in his house for my stay.He advised me not to tell my real name and address to any one and to disclose myself as a resident of Jammu.Nain Singh used to do the business of money lending and I used to help in maintaining his accounts.After about one and a half month I asked Nain Singh to get me some job as my money had already run out.Thereafter, he got me opened the computer centre.Thereafter, Nain Singh got sent to me some money through Sanjeev Gupta and the amount was around seven lacs, but Nain Singh did not disclose about receiving this huge amount and whenever I used to question him, he used to avoid my question.Thereafter, I contacted my family members and they asked to speak to Sanjeev Gupta and I spoke to Sanjeev Gupta, who told me about sending Rs. Six lacs fifty thousand/Seven lacs to Nain Singh.Thereafter, on the asking of Sanjeev Gupta, Nain Singh got my bank account opened in HDFC Bank and also collected cheque book and it was shown to me by him.Thereafter, I was also interested in the business of Cable networking but Nain Singh asked me to sit on the computer centre.My cheque book used to remain with Nain Singh and he got only one cheque signed by me.Whenever I needed money I used to take it from Nain Singh in the sum of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-.One Chaman Lal in Chandni Chowk and one Sardar ji in Karol Bagh are also engaged in the business of money lending and I used to collect money from them on behalf of Nain Singh.On the birthday party of his son Nain Singh got me introduced to Ins.R.S. Bhasin and Ins.Ved Parkash.Thereafter, when I persisted in demanding my money from Nain Singh, Nain Singh used to get annoyed and ultimately got me involved falsely in this case.Nain Singh took advantage of my personal circumstances as I could not go back to my home in Pakistan.On 25.12.2000 Nain Singh called me from computer centre to his house on the plea that Ins.R.S. Bhasin and Ins.Ved Parkash had to some information from me and I accordingly came to his house.Thereafter those two persons who were in plain clothes and had come to my house in a white maruti zen car took me to a flat in Lodhi Colony where both the inspectors along with one Sikh officer present.There I was interrogated by me about my entire back ground.Therafter I was dropped at the house of Nain Singh by the same person.Nain Singh was not present at his house but his wife informed me about the telephonic call received from my in-laws at Gazipur regarding dinner in the evening.I tried to make a call to my in-laws but could not get through.Thereafter I took a bus and reached the house of my in-laws.I asked my in-law whether they had made a call to which they replied in negatives.I had reached there at about 8 to 8.30 pm and had finished our dinner at 10.00 pm, when the police party raided the house and were initially taken by us as dacoits as they had entered the house by jumping the walls.The police party threatened us that if we spoke much, we would be shot dead.Thereafter my brother-in-law and myself were brought by the police to Lodhi Colony.As far as the prosecution case is concerned evidence has been adduced to show as to how Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq came to be arrested for his involvement in the incident of shooting inside the Lal Quila.In this regard the relevant portions of the evidence of PWs-183, 229 and 234 are being reproduced here.PW-183 SI Sanjay Kumar deposed as under:On 22.12.2000 I was posted as in charge PP Red Fort.In the night, I was present in the police post.At about 9.45 pm, Addl.SHO Ins.Roop Lal gave a message directing me to reach inside Red Fort in front of CO office.I reached there alone.There Insp.Roop Lal, SI Rajinder and adjutant of Raj Rifle Sh.Patvardhan was present.Other army officers, police officers were also present.There Sh.Patvardhan after consulting his senior officials, handed over a written complaint to Insp Roop Lal and the said hand written complaint is marked as mark A. IO made his endorsement Ex.PW-15/D thereupon and handed over the same to SI Rajinder Singh for getting a case registered in the police station.Roop Lal inspected the scene of crime at the instance of Sh.Roop Lal prepared a site plan accordingly....Thereafter, we were sent at the rear side of the Red Fort in different groups for search.Outside the Red Fort, just below the rear wall, a chit was found along with some Indian currency notes.The Indian currency notes comprise 10 notes of Rs.100/-each, 8 notes of Rs.50/- each, one note of Rs.10/- and one of Rs.5/- and the total currency is amounting to Rs.1415/-.Thereafter, Insp.The currency notes were converted into a parcel and were sealed with the seal of RL.From that place earth control sample was also lifted.PW-183/B. It was fixed on a white paper which also bears my signature at point A and now is Ex.PW-193/C....PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma deposed as under:On 22.12.00 I was posted in Special Cell, Lodhi Colony as Inspector.On that day, I was present in my office.At about 10.20 p.m. I received instructions from my seniors to reach Red Fort.I along with my staff reached Red Fort at about 10.45 p.m. Inside the Red Fort seniors officials including Commissioner of Police and senior Army Officers were present.There I came to know that terrorists belonging to Lashkar-e-Toiba had shot dead three army personnels with assault rifles and therafter escaped.Statement of Capt. SP.Patwardhan was recorded and therafter the case registered.I along with other staff examined the area through which the terrorists were reported to have escaped.But nothing was visible on account of darkness.On the next day at 9.00 a.m. I Along with staff again started the search inside the Red Fort.At the rear of the Red Fort just below the back wall of Red Fort from where the terrorists had jumped a slip with telephone no. 9811278510 and a polythene bag containing currency notes amounting to Rs. 1415/- was found.By that time the investigation of the case had been transferred to Special Cell, Northern Range.I have seen the slip on which the telephone no. 9811278510 is written in blue ink is the same which was recovered from the behind of Red Fort wall from where the terrorists had escaped.The said slip is Ex. PW-183/B. ACP Rajbir was instructed to carry out the invest.He had assigned this job to me....Said call was made from Connaught place cell ID.Some calls were made to pager no. 01949696 at Sri Nagar.During this period some calls were also received on this mobile no. from some shop and STD booths.On 22.12.00 three calls were made from the said mobile no. to BBC Sri Nagar and BBC, Delhi at about 21.27.30, 21.33.14 and 21.33.45 hours....The telephone no. 9811278510 was used on the day of commission of this crime and calls were made to BBC, Sri Nagar and BBC, Delhi.One most used landline number was 2720223 which stands in the name of Farzana Farukhi R/o 308-A, DDA Flats, Gazi Pur.This telephone no. is installed at Knowledge Plus Computer centre at 18-C, Gaffur Nagar, Okhla.This was the only telephone number except PCO from which the call was made to telephone no. 9811278510 on 14.12.00 at 12.54.35 hours.After getting the telephone no. at 308A, DDA Flats, Gazi Pur and of Knowledge Plus computer centre Gaffur Nagar we confined the investigation to these two points.Secret surveillance was maintained at the two points.Knowledge Plus computer centre remains shut for two days after the incident inside the Red Fort.On secret enquiries it was revealed that Knowledge Plus belongs to one Md. Arif, residing at Gazi Pur....PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal deposed as under:On 22.12.2000, I was posted as Addl.SHO, PS Kotwali.SHO, Kotwali Insp.Ashok Saxena was on leave and I was officiating as SHO, Kotwali.At 9.25 pm, I was in patrolling and I received a wireless message that firing was going on inside Red Fort and I was directed to reach the spot.Immediately I went inside Red Fort in my official vehicle.The driver of the official vehicle and my wireless operator were also with me.When I reached inside Red Fort in front of office of Commanding Officer SI Rajender Singh, one constable whose name I do not remember and Capt. S.P.Patvardhan were present there.SI Rajender Singh had reached the spot in pursuance of DD No. 19A. The SI Rajender Singh handed over DD entry No. 19A to me for further action.Capt. S.P.Patvardhan gave me a statement.The copy of the DD entry is Ex. PW-15/B. The statement of Capt. S.P.Patvardhan is Ex. PW 189/A and he signed at point A. I carried out cursory examination of the place of occurrence.I also went to M.I. room and other places inside Red Fort.In the MI room dead bodies of Abdullah Thakur and Uma Shankar were lying.I also came to know that one injured Ashok Kumar had been removed to Army Hospital.I thereafter made endorsement on the statement of Capt. S.P.Patvardhan and it was dictated by me to SI Ashok Kumar.My endorsement is Ex. PW 15/D and I had signed the same at point A. I sent the rukka to PS through SI Rajender Singh for registration of the case.......SI Sanjay Kumar also produced before me a polythene containing Indian currency notes worth Rs.1415/-.The notes consisted of ten notes of Rs.100/- each, eight currency notes of Rs.50/- one note of Rs.10/- and one note of Rs.5/- There was also a paper slip on which telephone No. 9811278510 was written.I pasted the paper chit on a paper, and signed the same.I have seen the paper chit/slip and the same is Ex.PW-183/B.... SI Sanjay Kumar informed me that this polythene containing the currency notes and telephone slip was found behind the rear wall of the Red Fort....PW-173 Inspector Ved Parkash is one of the police officials who was a member of the raiding party which had gone to flat no. 308-A, Gazipur, Delhi.His deposition regarding the apprehension of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from the said flat is reproduced as under:On 25.12.2000 I was posted in special cell Lodhi Colony, Delhi.At about 9.45 pm Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma informed me on telephone that an accused by the name of Ashfaq Ahmad involved in Red Fort shoot-out was about to come at house No. 308-A, DDA Janta Flat, Gazipur, Delhi.I conveyed this information to ACP Rajbir Singh.On reaching the aforesaid house No. 308A, we knocked the doors of many other residents, but nobody had opened.No public person was available at the spot.However, three ladies were present in the aforesaid house.We laid a trap at the aforesaid house, as the accused was expected to come there.At about 12.45 am, Ashfaq today present in court, came to the aforesaid house and knocked at the gate and he was overpowered by us.He was wearing kurtay-payjama.On carrying out a search of his person, a pistol was recovered from the right side dub of his payjama.The pistol was checked and five cartridges were found.Magazine and one cartridge was in the chamber of the pistol.A sketch of the pistol as well as the cartridge was prepared by me and same is already Ex. PW-148/A and is witnessed by SI Zile Singh.The pistol and cartridges were put in a pullinda and were sealed with the seal of VP.Form CFSL was also filled up and the said parcel was taken into possession vide Ex. PW-148/B....PW-229 is Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma.He was also a member of the raiding team which had apprehended appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from his flat in Gazipur.Regarding the raid conducted at flat no. 308-A, Gazipur the deposition of this witness is reproduced as under:...On 25.12.00 surveillance was maintained at the two addresses to locate Md. Arif.SI Daya Sagar was deputed at "Knowledge Plus", alongiwth staff.At about 9.40 p.m. SI Daya Sagar informed me on mobile phone that Md.Arif owner of "Knowledge Plus" was seen at Batla house and may have left for Gazi pur.I informed ACP Rajbir Singh about this.He instructed me that no raid was to be conducted before he reached the spot.He fixed 11.00 p.m. as the time for meeting me at Gazi pur Red Light.At about 11.00 p.m he reched there with his staff at the said point.I briefed him and also showed him flat no. 308A, DDA Flat, Gazi pur.At about 11.15 p.m., we conducted raid in the aforesaid flat.When we entered the house three ladies were present inside the flat but Md. Arif was not there.the three ladies including wife of Md. Arif and her mother but I do not remember about the third lady.Thereafter, it was decided that Insp.Ved Prakash Along with his staff would sit inside the flat and remaining staff stay out at a far distance from the flat.At about 12.45 a.m. I came to know that Insp.Ved Prakash had apprehended Md. Arif.I also came to know that 7.63 mm pistol was recovered from him.I Along with staff rushed to the aforesaid flat.A Motorola set was recovered from Md. Arif....The next police official regarding the arrest of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is PW-148 SI Zile Singh.The relevant portion of his evidence in this regard is also reproduced hereunder:On 25.12.2000 I was posted in Special Cell Lodhi Colony, Ins.Mahipal, Ct.Rameshwar and other staff under supervision of ACP Rajbir Singh, along with govt vehicle bearing No.DL-ICF-0503, Gypsi, DL-ICF-7973 Maruti Car and other private vehicles along with Govt. Asla left the office at about 10.15 PM for proceedings to House No. 308-A, DDA Flat Ghazipur.There was a secret information that one of the accused wanted in Red Fort shoot out case was hiding at the aforesaid house, whose name was disclosed to me as Md.Arif @ Ashfaq, resident of Pakistan.We continued to wait for him.At about 12.45 AM, a youth tried to enter the aforesaid flat.On the signal of the secret informer, the aforesaid person was apprehended and he is now present in the court.He is accused Md.Arif @ Ashfaq.He was wearing kurta payjama.A cursory search of accused Ashfaq was carried out by Ins.Ved Prakash.On the night dub of the payjama one pistol having a bore of 7.63 was recovered.Said pistol was unloaded and on checking its magazine, it was found to contain five live cartridge.One live cartridge was inside the chamber of the pistol....PW-194 SI Harinder Singh deposed as under:On 26.12.2000 I was posted in Special Cell, Lodhi Colony.At 12.55 am in the intervening night of 25/26/12/00 I received information that I have been summoned by Insp.Ved Prakash at house No. 308-A, DDA Flats, Gazipur.I reached there.When I reached there, Insp.Ved Prakash, Ct.Rameshwar, WSI Omvati were present as the remaining officials had already left.Ved Prakash informed me that Ashfaq, accused present in the court was apprehended and he was already taken away from the spot by the police officials.He informed me that a pistol has been recovered from him.Ved Prakash handed over to me a sealed parcel of pistol and cartridges recovery memo, sketch of the pistol and cartridges, FSL form and a copy of the rukka.Rukka was sent in my presence and Ct.Rameshwar was leaving with the same when I reached there.Thereafter, Ct.Rameshwar returned to the spot and handed over to me a copy of the FIR and original rukka.The investigation was handed over to me.I recorded the statement of Ct.At about 6.45 am SI Zile Singh, Ct.Mahipal and team led by Insp.R.S.Bhasin returned to the aforesaid house Along with accused Ashfaq present in the court.After handing over accused Ashfaq to me, the police team led by Insp.PW-148 SI Zile Singh had categorically deposed that one 7.63 mm pistol having five live cartridges in its magazine was recovered from accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq at the time of his apprehension.Similarly, PW-173 Insp.Ved Prakash, who was also one of the members of the raiding team had deposed about the recovery of pistol and five live cartridges from the possession of this accused.PW-166 HC Rameshwar Dayal deposed as under regarding the apprehension of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and recovery of pistol and cartridges from his possession:On 25.12.2000 I was posted in Special Cell, Lodhi Colony.On 25.12.2000 at 10.15 PM I Sp.Ved Prakash, Insp.R.S.Bhasin Insp.Mool Chand Sharma, SI Lalit Mohan, SI Hridya Bhushan, SI Sanjay Dutt, SI Manoj Dixit, SI Zile Singh, SI Opender Singh, SI Sharad Kohli and WSI Om Vati, WSI, Jai Shree, Ct.Md. Asfaq present in the court came from the roadside and started going towards the said house.Ved Prakash and SI Zile Singh chased him and apprehended him before entering the aforesaid house.Ved Prakash carried out the search of the accused and a pistol was recovered from the right side of dub of his pazama.The pistol are was checked and inside its magazine there were five live rounds and one round was in the chamber of the pistol.... Insp.The accused Md. Arif also disclosed that his associate Abu Shyamal @ Faizal was staying at his hide-out at house no. G-73, First Floor, Batla House, Okhla.He also disclosed that he was having weapons and grenades.He also disclosed that Abu Shyamal is a trained militant of Lakhkar-e-Toiba and a member of suicide Squadd.(objected to).On the said intervening night of 25/26.12.00 a raiding party was organized consisting of APC Rajbir Singh, SI Hirdey Bhushan, SI Lalit Mohan, ASI Sushil Kumar, HC Anil Tygi, myself and other staff.The accused was also with the raiding party.We started from Gazipur at 2.15 a.m. and reached G-73, Batla House at about 3.15 a.m. Accused Md. Arif present in court pointed out the aforesaid house.(objected to).We shouted that we were from the police and called upon the person firing at us to surrender but he did not stop.Thereafter police party also fired in retaliation.It continued for about 20 minutes.A bullet hit my jacket and one bullet hit the jacket of the ACP.The jackets were bullet-proof.PW-148/E of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from the backside of Lal Quila.PW-218 SI Satyajit Sarin is one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove this recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.He had also claimed that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E wherein he had offered to point out the place near the Red Fort wall where AK-56 assault rifle, magazines, hand grenades etc. had been hidden in the shrubs.Regarding the actual recovery of these things from behind the Lal Quila his examination-in-chief is as under:...In pursuance of the same, we along with the accused Md. Arif @ Ashfaq Ahmad had reached the said place behind Red Fort.While on route from Gazipur to Red Fort, Insp.SI Abhinender Jain was sent by Ins.Hawa Singh to go to PS Kotwali and summon BDS and CFSL team to the spot.There at the said place Ins.Hawa Singh checked the shrubberies through me and SI Amardeep Sehgal and we found one AK 56 Assault Rifle, two magazines tied to each other with the help of a medicated tape and abandoleer of military green colour.On checking the pockets of the bandoleer carefully we found four hand grenades kept therein in four different pockets.We kept it intact and again in the meanwhile before CFSL and BDS team could arrive, Ins.Hawa Singh prepared the site plan of place of recovery, and the memo of pointing out was prepared later on to this effect.The team of CFSL led by SSO-I Sh.A.Dey reached the spot and they photographed the place of recovery from various angles and distances.Under their supervision, the recovered arms and ammunitions were taken to PS Kotwali, wherein the room of the Addl.SHO, the four hand grenades were got defused by the BDS and an exercise was made by the CFSL expert to find and develop chance finger prints if any on the arms and ammunitions recovered.They also took photographs.The recovered AK-56 Assault Rifle was subjected to measurement after preparing the sketch.The sketch bears my signatures and the same is Ex. PW-218/A and bears my signatures at point 'A. On measurement, the barrel length was found to be 22.5 cm.The body length was found to be 42.5 cm.The butt was found to be measuring 9.5 cm.And the total length was found out to be 65 cm.From the magazines, the live cartridges were taken out whereas 30 live cartridges were found loaded in one magazine, two live cartridges were loaded in the other magazine.Sketch of one of the two magazines and one of 32 recovered cartridges was prepared on one paper.On measurement, the outer side of the magazine was found to be 23.2 cm.whereas the inner curve was measuring 16.5 cm.The cartridges was found to be 5.5 cm.out of 32 recovered cartridges on the base of 28 cargtridges, 71 66 was written and on the remaining 4, 31 95 was written.All the recovered 32 cartridges were alive and were of same bore.IO had prepared the sketch of one magazine and of one cartridge as both the magazines were of the same shape and all cartridges of the same shape and measurement.The said sketch is Ex PW-218/B which bears my signatures at point 'A'.The recovered cartridges were kept in two polythene packets and the two packets containing the cartridges were kept in clothe pulanda and sealed with the seal of HS.The recoverd bandoleer was found to be containing 20 packets.One packet in the front and two in the rear side opened and closed with the help of Zips.The remaining pockets were provided with tich buttons to close it.A pocket knife was also recovered from the front middle pocket of the bandoleer.The recovered AK-56 rifle, the two magazines, the pulandas containing the 32 live cartridges, pocket knife and the bandoleer were kept in a corrugated box which was tied with the help of plastic sutli and then kept in a cloth pulanda wihch was sealed with the seal of HS by the IO.All the recovered articles as mentioned above were taken into possession after filing up the CFSL form, vide recovery memo Ex. PW-218/C, which bears my signatures at point 'A".Seal after use was handed over to me.Amar Deep Sehgal SI was also present at the time of recovery and he also signed at point 'B'.I can identify the articles if shown to me.At this stage, two sealed parcel sealed with the court seal are produced in the court and the same are opened.I have seen all the recovered articles and these are the same which were recovered in my presence on the pointing out of accused Mohd. Arif.The seal of HS after use was given to me.The other police official examined by the prosecution to prove the recoveries from behind the Lal Quila at the instance of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is PW-227 SI Amardeep Sehgal.He was one of the police officials who had joined the investigation after the apprehension of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.He also deposed that in the disclosure statement made by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq he had disclosed that arms and ammunition used in the Red Fort shoot out had been concealed behind Red Fort wall near ganda nullah in the bushes and that he could get the same recovered by pointing out that place.Regarding the actual recovery from that place pursuant to the information so given by Mohd.Arif @ Ashfaq his examination-in-chief was as under:...Thereafter, Inspr.Hawa Singh, myself and other police staff Along with accused Mohd. Arif left flat no. 308/A, DDA Flats, Gazipur for the place behind Red Fort.At Mayur Vihar bus stand Phase II as well as at Rajghat Bus stand, Inspr.Hawa Singh removed some bushes and found one AK-56 rifle, two magazines and one bandoleer.When the bandoleer was checked 4 hand grenades were found in the four front pockets of the bandoleer.Bandoleer was kept at the same place and a visual site plan of the place of recovery was prepared which is in my handwriting.The site plan was also signed by Inspr.Hawa Singh.The same is Ex. PW-227/A. It was not signed by me.BD Squad and CFSL team reached the spot, i.e. behind the Red Fort near the rear wall.A member of the CFSL team took photographs from different distances and angles.He had been associated in the investigation on 23-12-2000 and after deposing about the recovery of one 7.62 mm assault rifle from a place near Vijay Ghat he had deposed about the recoveries from behind the Lal Quila and the relevant part of his examination-in-chief is as under:...Again on 26.12.2000 as per telephonic message received in the office from Delhi Police regarding detection of more arms, ammunitions and hand grenades from the area of outside Red Fort, a CFSL team consisting of Sh. S.K.Chadha, myself and other officials as mentioned in the report, visited the outside area of eastern side of the Red Fort boundary wall.This kind of a contention instead of helping accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq goes against him inasmuch as at least with this argument it becomes clear that it is not being disputed that there was an encounter at G-73, Muradi Road or at least that recovery of arms and ammunition were recovered from there where also Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq only had taken the police.As noticed already, PW-229 was not at all cross-examined on the material parts of his examination-in-chief which implicated Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.So, even if this accused claims that AK-56 Rifle etc., which is being claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from the backside of Lal Quila, were actually recovered from G-73 he does not get benefitted in any way by taking this kind of a plea because the fact remains that that recoveries were pursuant to his information and later on it was found by the ballistic expert that the fired cartridge cases recovered from the place of occurrence were in fact fired from the two AK-56 Rifles, one of which was recovered from Vijay Ghat and the other one got recovered by this accused.PW-89 HC Upender Singh deposed as under:On 23.12.00 I was posted at Sugar 61, PCR van with base behind Red Fort.I was in charge of the PCR van.At about 10.30 a.m. a Delhi Home Guard Jawan came to me and informed that a stengun was lying in the bushes near Vijay Ghat.I can identify the rifle if shown to me.At this stage a sealed parcel sealed with the court seal is produced in the court and the same is opened.I identify the rifle Ex. PW-62/1, magazine Ex. PW-62/2 and the cartridges which were in the magazine are Ex. PW-62/3 are the same which were recovered from Vijay Ghat....The examination-in-chief of PW-62 SI Ram Chander is as under:In the month of Dec.'00 I was posted at police post Yamuna Pusta P.S. Kotwali.At that time I was near Vijay Ghat when at about 10.30 to 10.45 a.m. I was informed on wireless set that one riffle AK-47 is lying in Vijay Ghat.Thereupon I reached main gate Vijay Ghat.There on the southern side of main gate of Vijay Ghat one AK-56 riffle was lying below the wall.After a short while Addl.SHO Kotwali also reached the spot.I told him about the riffle.He immediately flashed messages to crime team, dog squad, CFSL, photographer and videographer.Many senior officials also reached the spot.SI N.K.Sharma of crime team also reached the spot.Photographer Ct.Satbir Singh also reached there.I do not know the name of the official of dog squad who reached the spot.A. Day of CFSL reached the spot along with his team.Photograph of the riffle was taken.Finger prints were there on the riffle and they were lifted.Dog squad also tried to find out some clues but could not find any.Photographs of the spot were also taken as well as the riffle.A sketch of the rifle was also prepared on a large sized paper.The same are shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same.61. PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal, who was the Additional SHO of Kotwali police station those days and had also reached Vijay Ghat on receiving the information about the find of rifle from there, has deposed about that recovery as under:... At about 10.30 am on 23.12.2000, I received a wireless message as a rifle was lying near Vijay Ghat.I Along with the staff reached Vijay Ghat.At the place where rifle was lying SI Ramchanger of PP-Yamuna Pusta was already present there.On his pointing out I saw AK56 rifle with a sling lying over there.I summoned CFSI team through a special messenger.Crime team, dog squad and finger print expert who were already present at Red Fort was also directed to reach there.CFSL expert took photographs of rifle from different angles.Finger print expert lifted chance prints from the rifle.The dog had taken smell from the spot and could reach only near T-point and thereafter it lost the track.With the help of sling the rifle was lifted and its magazine was taken out.On checking the magazine it was found to contain seven rounds.I prepared a sketch of rifle through SI Naresh Kumar.On the same paper sketch of magazines and one cartridge was also got prepared through SI Naresh Kumar.The sketch is Ex. PW 62/A. I also got a site plan of the place of recovery of rifle prepared through SI Naresh Kumar and the site plan is Ex.PW 234/H and signed by me at point A. The rifle, magazine and the seven cartridges were sealed into different parcel with the seal of RI and was given Ex. No. 20, 21 and 22 respectively.On 23.12.00 I was on duty as wireless operator in P.S. Kotwali from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. At 10.30 a.m. I received a wireless message on my wireless set that AK-47 rifle was lying at Vijay Ghat.At 10.32 a.m. I also received any another information of the backside of the Red Ford at Vijay Ghat a rifle AK-47 was lying there.Said gun was covered.Some official of DESU had passed on this information to Delhi Home Guard Sepoy and the same had informed to the PCR.Both the calls were received from PCR.Therefore, the prosecution can definitely utilise the information given by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in his disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E regarding the throwing of the assault rifle in the bushes near Vijay Ghat despite the fact that the police had already recovered the rifle from that place on 23-12-2000 as an incriminating circumstance against him.Now we proceed further to examine as to how the recovery of one AK-56 rifle Ex. PW-125/1 from the back side of Lal Quila pursuant to the information given by appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and the other AK-56 rifle Ex. PW-62/1 recovered from Vijay Ghat implicates him in the incident of shooting inside the Lal Quila.The prosecution case is that the AK-56 rifle Ex.PW-125/1 got recovered by Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq from the back side of Lal Quila and the one recovered from Vijay Ghat, Ex.PW-62/1, were sent to CFSL where the same were examined by PW-202 Shri N.B.Bardhan, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistics)-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, and on examining them he had opined that both these rifles were fire-arms and were in working condition.As noticed already, immediately after the shooting incident when the armymen had conducted search of the place of incident they had found many fired cartridge cases and the same were handed over to the police.The witnesses regarding recovery of Assault Rifle fired cartridge cases from the place of shooting are PWs 115,116 and 189, all of whom are Armymen posted those days at Lal Quila in the 7 Rajputana Rifles Unit.PW-115 Subedar Ashok Kumar deposed that on 23.12.00 he was posted at Red Fort, Delhi.On 22.12.00 a shoot out took place inside Red Fort in which two jawans of Raj.Rifle and one civilian sentary died.On 23.12.00 he Along with HC Ramesh Khakra(PW-116) on the direction of senior officer searched Red Fort and during the search they found 37 empty cartridges and one live cartridge which he handed over to Addl.SHO, Kotwali Insp.Roop Lal who seized the same vide Ex.PW-115/A and these were sealed in a parcel with the seal of RL.The PW-115 was shown the said cartridge cases and he had correctly identified them.He deposed that from the sentary post supply gate where first shoot out took place four empty carridges and one live cartridge was recovered.Thereafter from MT park twenty empties were found.Thereafter from near training store six empties were found.From near museum seven empties were found.In all they found 37 empties and one live cartridge which were handed over to Subedar Ashok Kumar(PW-115).They reported the matter to the C.O. and thereafter these empties and live cartridge were handed over to Addl.SHO at about 2.30 pm.The SHO sealed the live cartridge and the empties separately and seized the same vide Ex.PW-115/A.The relevant part of the examination-in-chief of PW-189 S.P.Patwardhan regarding the lifting of fired cartridge cases by the armymen from the place of occurrence is as under:Police was informed at around 9.25 pm by Capt.At that time when the police arrived our search party was searching the Red Fort premises.During the search three magazines of AK assault rifle, 28 live rounds were recovered.Apart from these, 40 fired cases were also recovered.(iv) One folding type kitchen knife (Marked K/1 by me)(i)The 7.62 mm (AK-56) Assault Rifle marked (W/1) contained n parcel no. 34( and 7.62 mm (AK-56) Assault Rifle marked (W/2) contained in parcel no. 36 in Sub-parcel no. 20 are fire arms as defined in Arms Act and are in working order and had been fired through.The time of their last firing, however, could not be ascertained.(these are the rifles recovered from the backside of Lal Quila and Vijay Ghat)CFSL-2001/F-51 dated 12.3.2001 is Ex. PW-202/A and is signed by me at point A.Twenty eight(28) live cartridges marked C-2 to C-30 contained in parcel no. 18 could be loaded in Assault Rifle mark W/1 and W/2 and can be fired from the said rifle....Here Fidayeen means a person who is ready to lay down his life.The caller also told me that they had attacked the army personnel.I am working with BBC based in Delhi.My office is in Aifacs Building, Rafi Marg.On 22.12.00 I was in my office and my duty hours were from 9.30 a.m. to 9 p.m. On that day telephone No. 3355751 was installed in our office.In between 9 to 9.30 p.m. I received a telephonic call from someone claiming to be speaking from Lashkar-e-Toiba.He told me that they had attacked (Dhawa Bol Diya) at Ref Fort.I asked the called as to from where he was speaking and he told me that he was speaking from inside the Red Fort.He further told that they had killed two persons.I asked him if he could name himself but he replied in the negative.He thereafter spoke to my seniors and fellow journalists.Thereafter, I had telephoned the police head quarters or Sub-Inspector(Press) at the police head quarters and checked about the incident but by that time they had no information.On that day there was no called identification kit fixed in our office with the aforesaid telephone no.Learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq very strongly contended that even though PWs 39 and 41 had claimed that someone had called them up on the night of the incident and had owned the responsibility of the shooting incident inside Lal Quila and the prosecution claims to have found out during the investigation that the calls to these two BBC correspondents had been made from mobile no. 9811278510 but as far as appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is concerned it cannot be said to have been established that he was the caller who had called the two BBC correspondents and had claimed to be responsible for the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila.Learned Counsel submitted that even though the prosecution story is that after Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been apprehended from his flat one mobile phone of Motorola make, Ex. PW-194/C was also recovered from his possession and the number of that mobile phone was 9811278510 but the evidence adduced to establish that recovery from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was of highly doubtful nature and could not have been relied upon at all and even this Court should totally ignore that evidence.The prosecution witness regarding the recovery of mobile phone Ex. PW-194/C from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is PW-194 Sub-Insp.Harinder Singh.This witness had reached the flat of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq on being informed by PW-173 Insp.Ved Prakash about the apprehension of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.According to this witness when he reached there he was handed over a sealed parcel by Insp.Ved Prakash containing the pistol and cartridges recovered from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq along with the seizure memo, sketch of the pistol and cartridges.This witness further claimed that at that time Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was not present there.However, in cross-examination he clarified that when he had reached there the other members of the police party were taking accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for further investation.He had further deposed that at about 6.45 a.m. SI Zile Singh(PW-148) and Insp.He further claimed that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought there by Insp.In his cross-examination also this statement was not refuted.It is also the prosecution case that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been changing his mobile phone instruments and that fact came to be known to the police when the call details of mobile phone no. 9811278510 were checked up.R.S.Bhasin, Special Cell North, Lodhi Road, Delhi.He deposed as under:On 27.12.2000 I was posted as Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Road, Delhi.On that day, I joined the investigation of FIR No. 688/00 PS Kotwali....On 1.1.2001 I joined the investigation of this case again with Insp.Hawa Singh.Accused Ashfaq had disclosed during police remand that three hand-grenades out of the hand-grenades brought by him from Pakistan, were concealed by him in the bushes of Jamia Milia, inside the boundary wall behind his knowledge computer centre.He also disclosed that he could get the same recovered.Mohan Chand, SI Upender Singh, SI Lalit Mohan, SI Hardyabuhshan, SI Armurgan and other staff under the supervision of ACP Rajbir Singh and accused Md.We left Lodhi Road Special Cell office at about 1.15 pm, in govt.and private vehicles along with the accused today present in the court and other staff.The departure entry was made on my direction in DD register at serial No. 12 by Duty Officer.A copy of the same is mark A. Entries raiding party reached police station New Friends Colony at 2.25 pm.There SHO Gurmeet Singh and ACP Rajesh Dev (ACP Operation South Distt.) were present and the information was discussed with them.Both of them directed SI Mukesh Walia, in charge of police post Jamia Nagar to join the raiding party.Raiding party proceeded from PS New Friends Colony at 2.45 pm for the spot.I made the departure entry through SI Manoj Dixit in PS New Friends Colony at serial No. 9 and the DD entry was signed by me.Photocopy of the same is mark B. From there, we went to the Administrative office of Jamia Milia Islamia.There Dr.Farukh, Security advisor to the Vice-Chancellor met us.Mehtab, Professor of the University also met us.After disclosing the purpose of the raiding party, they were requested to join the proceedings.But due to administrative reason, they refused to join the proceedings.However, they directed Sh.Raghubir Singh, Security Guard to join the raiding party.There we also requested 7/8 public persons to join the raiding party.One Sh.Devender Jain R/o Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi volunteered to join the raiding party.At 3.30 PM, entire raiding party with the accused as well as two public persons reached the spot disclosed to by Ashfaq.He pointed out bushes near the boundary wall near the staff quarter.He took out three hand-grenades wrapped in a baniyan after digging the earth near the bushes.Two of them were bearing a tag and something in red ink was recorded in Urdu on the tag.All the three jars were wrapped in clothes and were converted into three separate parcels.From amongst the bushes, from a pit, accused Ashfaq took out a bundle of cloth.The cloth used was a Sando baniyan.In the baniyan three hand grenades were wrapped.After opening the bundle, three hand grenade were examined and on all the three hand grenades word 84 was written.In red ink warnings were recorded in Urdu language on all three hand grenades.PW-37 Amir Irfan was also a tenant of PW-20 Nain Singh.He has also deposed that accused Ashfaq had also come to stay in the house of Nain Singh and that Ashfaq had told him that he was a resident of Kashmir and was doing the business of shawls.In his cross-examination also it was not challenged that Ashfaq had never claimed himself to be a Kashmiri doing business of shawls.As noticed already, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had claimed that, in fact, he was working for RAW(Intelligence Wing of the Government of India) and PW-20 Nain Singh was also a RAW official and was indulging in some money lending and he(accused) used to collect money for him and when he had demanded money from Nain Singh he had got annoyed and got him implicated in this case in connivance with Insp.From there, Ashfaq took the police to 5123, Sharif Manzil, Bali Maran at the shop of one Sher Jaman.He had disclosed that Sher Jaman used to call him there and pay him hawala money.The Pradhan of the market Sh.Idrish and Aziz were also joined in the proceedings.PW-164/A which was recovered from his flat at the time of his apprehension on 25/26-12-2000 and and one learner driving license in his own name.He had also prepared one photocopy of a ration card, other than Ex.PW-164/A, in his own name for getting a driving license from Ghaziabad Transport Authority.We have found from the trial Court record that this accused had not disputed that the ration card Ex.PW-164/A which was recovered from his flat in Ghazipur and the learner driving license Ex.PW-13/C were his.The prosecution case is that the residential address shown in the ration card Ex.PW-164/A was the address where Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had never resided.He had himself admitted that fact.(c) The death of three army jawans was homicidal.(d) Immediately after the quick reaction team of the army fired back upon the intruders as a result of which the intruders escaped from the place of occurrence by scaling over the rear side boundary wall of Lal Quila towards the Ring Road side and when the place of occurrence was searched by the armymen many assault rifle fired cartridge cases were recovered from the place of occurrence.(e) Immediately after the intruders who had resorted to firing inside the army camp had escaped from there calls were made by someone on the telephones of two BBC Correspondents one of whom was stationed at Sri Nagar and the other one was stationed at Delhi office of BBC and the caller had informed them about the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila and had also claimed the responsibility of that incident and that that was the job of Lashkar-E-Toiba, which the prosecution claims to be a banned militant organization indulging in acts of terrorism in our country.(f) On the morning of 23-12-2000 one AK-56 rifle was recovered from a place near Vijay Ghat on the Ring Road behind the Lal Quila.The convicted accused persons filed separate appeals praying for reversal of the judgment of the trial Court.The State also filed two appeals, one of which was for converting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to two accused persons, namely, Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid(appellants in Crl.Appeal no. of 944-45 of 2005) to death sentence and the other one was for setting aside the acquittal of the three convicted accused persons, namely, Sadakat Ali (appellant in Crl.Appeal no. 891 of 2005), Rehmana Yusuf Farukhi (appellant in Crl.Appeal no. 892 of 2005), and Babar Mohsin Baghwala (appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 946 of 2005 for the offence of conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India and to commit murders of innocent persons.PW-189/A) of Capt.Patwardhan was as under:At 21/05 Hrs. on 22 Dec. 2000 I was in my room in the officers mess and heard firing from the general direction of the M.T. On coming out, I learnt the following.2.Around 21/05 hrs on 22nd December 2000 (Friday) two persons in dark clothing and armed with AK 56/47 Rifles entered the Red Fort from direction of Saleem Garh gate/Yamuna Bridge.While moving inside they came across a civilian sentry by the name of Abdullah Thakur deployed on duty at 339 (Independent) supply platoon and fired a burst hitting him in the chest and the individual died on the spot.Thereafter the intruders ran and near 7th Raj Rifles MT lines came across Rifleman (barber) Uma Shanker and fired a burst at him due to which the individual died.It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately after his apprehension accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq admitted his involvement in the incident inside the Lal Quila and he also gave information to the policemen about the presence of his associate Abu Shamal @ Faizal and arms and ammunition at their hide-out at house no. G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla, New Delhi.Pursuant to that information given by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq some members of the raid team headed by PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma were taken by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq immediately thereafter to house no. G-73, Batla House, Murari Road, Okhla, New Delhi where the associate of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was to be found.Ved Parkash and some other policemen had, however, remained at that flat in Gazipur for searching that flat.As per the further prosescution case when the raiding team reached House No. G-73, Batla House, Okhla the house was found locked.PW-1O/C to Babar Mohsin Baghwala thanking him for the help extended by him during his visit to Delhi.After Mohd.Arif had claimed in his disclosure to the police regarding Babar Mohsin also being his associate in terrorist activities the police had arrested him also and pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Babar Mohsin he had got recovered the above referred letter Ex.PW-10/C from the dicky of his motorcycle 07/01/01 which was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-10/D. Accused Matloob Alam was having a ration shop in Okhla and accused Mool Chand Sharma was the area inspector of Food & Supply Department and they had helped accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in getting a forged ration(Ex.PW-164/A) card for him despite knowing that he belonged to a militant organisation and had come to Delhi to carry out terrorist activities.During the investigation it had also transpired that accused Matloob Alam had, in fact, been indulging in the activity of getting forged ration card made for the innocent people coming in his contact and he also used to charge money from those persons for giving them ration cards.Many ration cards were seized by the police during investigation which the card holders claimed to have been given to them by Matloob Alam after taking money from them as a bribe to be paid to the officials of ration department.Accordingly, a separate FIR against Matloob Alam(being FIR No. 65/2001) was registered at New Friends Colony police station under Sections 420/468/471/474/34 IPC.During further investigation it was found out that the ration card(Ex.PW-164/A) recovered from the flat of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been prepared by accused Matloob Alam himself.The handwriting expert(PW-216) had compared the specimen handwriting of Matloob Alam with the handwriting on the ration card Ex.PW-164/A and found both to be of same person.Similarly some of the other rations cards seized by the police from different persons were found to be forged ones having the handwriting of Matloob Alam and the card holders claimed that accused Matloob Alam had got them those ration cards after taking money from them.The prosecution case, thus, against the eleven accused persons who were charge-sheeted was that they had all joined together to launch an attack on the Army establishment inside the Lal Quila so that the Government of India could be pressurised to yield to the demand of the the militants for vacating Kashmir and giving its exclusive control to the muslims.During the investigation the police got examined from the ballistic expert, PW-202 N.B.Bardhan, Senior Scientific Officer-I, CFSL, New Delhi the arms and ammunition which had been recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from behind the Lal Quila as also the AK-56 rifle recovered from Vijay Ghat.The fired cartridge cases which were recovered by the armymen from the place of occurrence on the night of incident itself were also sent to CFSL where after examination the ballistic expert PW-202 N.B.Bardhan had found that those cartridges had been fired from the 7.62 mm AK-56 rifles got recovered by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from the backside of Lal Quila and the one recovered from Vijay Ghat and also that both the AK-56 rifles were 'Fire-Arms' as defined in the Arms Act and were also in working order.PW-202 had also opined that the magazines of 7.62 mm assault rifles, which had also been seized by the police from the back side of Lal Quila were also in working order and could be loaded into a standard 7.62 mm assault rifle.The pistol and the cartridges which were recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq at the time of his apprehension by the police were examined by another ballistic expert, PW-211 Shri K.C.Varshney, who gave his report Ex. PW-211/A that the said 30"/7.63 mm calibre pistol was in working order and the cartridges which were also of 30"/7.63 mm were live ones and could be fired through 30"/7.63 mm calibre fire-arm.The eleven empties of fired cartridges from SLR rifles of the Armymen which they had fired in retaliation at the time of the incident of shooting inside Lal Quila were also sent to CFSL and the ballistic expert PW-202 had opined that those empties had been fired from SLRs(Self Loading Rifles) made by Ordinance Factory at Kirki, India and also that those cartridges could not be loaded in either of the two 7.62 mm(AK-56) Assault Rifles examined by him.On the completion of the investigation in respect of the different FIRs registered at different police stations, all of which came to be registered during the course of investigation of the incident of shooting inside the Lal Quila, necessary sanctions for the offences under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and under Section 196 Cr.P.C. for some offences under the Indian Penal Code were obtained in respect of some of the accused persons and then separate challans were filed in the concerned Courts.In due course all the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions and even though they were registered as separate Sessions cases the same were finally clubbed by the trial Court and the case arising out of FIR No. 688/2000 was treated as the main case in which case alone charges were framed in respect of all the challans and evidence was also recorded in that case only.The learned trial Court framed the following common charge against all the eleven charge-sheeted accused persons:Accused (1) Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad s/o Mohd. Akram (2) Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui d/o Nawab Mohammed Yusuf Farooqui (3) Nazir Ahmad Qasid s/o Ghulam Ahmad Qasid (4) Farooq Ahmad Qasid s/o Nazir Ahmad Qasid (5) Babar Mohsin Baghwala s/o Jaleel Ahmad (6) Devender Singh s/o Bhawani Singh (7) Shehenshah Alam s/o Late Anwar Hussain (8) Rajiv Kumar Malhotra s/o Kishan Chand (9) Matloob Alam s/o Mehboob Alam (10) Mool Chand Sharma s/o Har Chand (11) Sadakat Ali s/o Abdul Ali stand charged as under:That you all Along with your co-accused persons Sabir @ Saharullah, Sher Jaman, Abu Haider, Abu Shakur, Abu Saad, Bilal Ahmad Qawa, Jahoor Ahmad Qasid, Atharuddin @ Athar (now proclaimed offenders) are the members of Lashker-e-Toiba, a militant organization which carries out the disruptive activities and between or about December 99 to 22.12.2000 you all have hatched a criminal conspiracy and collected arms, ammunitions and explosive substances with a view to commit murder of all those persons, who had come in your way with intent to wage war against the Government of India and to over-awe the Government of India by the use of arms, ammunitions and explosive substances collected by you and have procured driving license, on the basis of forged documents and forged ration cards, cheque book, ATM card of HDFC Bank, cash deposit receipts, photo-album of (allegbed) alleged marriage with Rehmana Faruki and mobile phone and opened accounts in different banks and received Hawala money and have also taken shelter at different places and also acquainted with the topography of Delhi to execute conspiracy and in the execution of the said conspiracy had used lethal weapons while committing the crime and mohd.Ashfak @ Arif also got recovered the weapons which were in his possession and also got recovered three hand grenades from Jamia Milia University Complex and also got recovered AK-57 (AK-56) rifle, two magazines, 32 live cartridges, two live hand grenades and khaki uniforms from house No. D-73 (G-73), Murati Road, Batla House whereas co-accused Abu Samal had taken shelter in the said hosue and also got recovered Rs.1,11,000/- from the houses of your co-accused received through Hawala transaction from to be used to execute the conspiracy and with a view to enter Lal Quila unlawfully and used lethal weapons and caused the death of Uma Shankar, Abdullah Thakur and Ashok Kumar, all public servants on duty who had resisted the entry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC within the cognizance of this Court.The learned trial Court framed the following separate charges also against accused Md.Ashfaq @ Mohd. Arif, Nazir Ahmad Qasid and Farooq Ahmad Qasid:That between or about December 1999 to 22.12.2000 at Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir and within India particularly in Delhi, you all conspired jointly and severally to wage war against the Govt. of India or conspired to over-awe the Govt. Of Delhi by using criminal force such as the use of AK-56 and AK-47 rifles, hand grenades and cartridges and with a view to cause explosion of the grenades and for that purpose you collected arms, ammunition and explosive substances which were recovered from your possession and on your pointing out and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 121-A IPC within the cognizance of this Court.That you all in furtherance of conspiracy as mentioned in the above charge waged war between on or about December 1999 to 22.12.2000 against the Government of India by the use of AK-56 and AK-47 rifles, hand grenades and cartridges and intentionally committed murder of public servants namely Uma Shanker, Abdullah Thakur and Ashok Kumar with a view to over-awe the Government of India and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was charged individually also for other offences and those charges are also being re-produced hereunder:Against accused Nazir Ahmad Qasid, Farooq Ahmad Qasid, Babar Mohsin Baghwala, Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui and Sadakat Ali charges under Section 216 read with Section 120-B IPC for harbouring accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq were also framed.Accused Sadakat Ali was additionally charged under Section 188 IPC and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act also.In respect of the allegations of preparation of forged driving license and ration card in the name of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq this accused along with accused Devender Singh, Shahanshah Alam, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra, Matloob Alam and Mool Chand Sharma were charged under Sections 420/468/471/474/120-B IPC also.Accused Matloob Alam was individually charged under Sections 420/468/474 IPC also for procuring forged ration cards in the names of different persons other than accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq also for which separate FIR No. 65/01 had been registered.Since all the accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the afore-said charges framed against them the prosecution was called upon by the trial Court to adduce its evidence in support of its case.(B) Appellants-accused Nazir Ahmed Qasid and Farooq Ahmed Qasid were convicted under Section 120-B IPC, 121 IPC and 121-A IPC.(C) Appellants-accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqi and Babar Mohsin were convicted under Sections 118/216 IPC.(D) Appellant-accused Sadakat Ali was convicted under Sections 118/216/188 IPC.(E) Appellant-accused Matloob Alam was convicted under Sections 420/468 IPC.Accused Mool Chand Sharma, Rajeev Malhotra, Shahanshah Alam and Devender Singh were, however, acquitted of all the charges.Vide order dated 31-10-2005 the learned trial Court awarded the following sentences to the seven convicted accused persons:(A) Death sentence was awarded to accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad for his convictions under Sections 121 IPC as well as under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years for his conviction under Section 121-A IPC.For his conviction under Section 4 of the Explosives Substances Act he was awarded life imprisonment.For his convictions under Sections 468/471/474/420 IPC the trial Court awarded him rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count.They were also awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 121-A IPC along with fine for their conviction under Section 121-A IPC.Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.(C) Accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui and Babar Mohsin Bhagwala were awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation, on each count for their convictions under Sections 118/216 IPC.(E) Accused Sadakat Ali was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count for his convictions under Sections 118/216 IPC.Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and for his conviction under Section 188 IPC he was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment.Different amounts of fines were also imposed on him in addition to the said sentences of imprisonment.Substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.The seven convicted accused persons filed appeals challenging their convictions and sentences awarded to them.The State has also filed one appeal challenging the acquittal of accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, Sadakat Ali and Babar Mohsin Baghwala for the serious offence of hatching conspiracy with co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid to wage war against the Government of India and another appeal for giving death penalty to accused Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid also in place of the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by the trial Court for the offences for which their co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been awarded death penalty.The State has, however, not filed any appeal in respect of four accused persons who were acquitted of all the charges, namely, Devender Singh, Shahanshah Alam, Mool Chand Sharma and Rajiv Kumar Malhotra.We now proceed to examine the prosecution evidence and to make an independent analysis of the same taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the convicted accused persons by the counsel representing them and also the submissions made on behalf of the State by its Standing Counsel.As has been noticed already, the learned trial court had framed one charge under Section 120-B IPC against all the eleven accused persons on the allegations that they were all members of a militant organization by the name of Lashkar-e-Toiba and all of them along with other militants belonging to the same organization(who were proclaimed offenders) had hatched a criminal conspiracy sometime between December 1999 and 22nd December, 2000 to wage war against the Government of India by the use of arms, ammunition and explosive substances and also to kill anyone putting obstacles in the achievement of their said objective and it was with that object in view that the army area inside the Lal Quila was invaded and three jawans on duty there were killed.However, the learned trial court after the conclusion of the trial and analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that only accused Mohd.Nagpal deposited six empties.They also returned the remaining live cartridges.I do not know where they deposited the empties cartridges/cases.PW-144 Maj.D.K.Singh's chief-examination was as under:On 22.12.2000, I was posted with 7th Raj Rifle and my duty was at Red Fort.At about 9.05 PM, I heard the sounds of gun shot.I went to the spot and found one person of our unit lying on the ground in injured condition.I went to my Quarter Guard and took one SLR and ammunition.Manish Nagpal and other members of the unit numbering 20/30 were also with me.We went to the direction from where, the gun shot was heard.His testimony in regard to the firing incident inside the Lal Quila is as under:On 22.12.2000 I was posted as adjutant 7th Raj.Rifle, Red Fort, Delhi.I was residing inside the Red Fort.On that day, at around 9.00 pm, I was at my residence when I heard sound of firing.The sound of firing was coming from the direction of MT park.Man Singh(Retd.) claimed that on 23-12-2000 he was a Subedar in 7 Rajputana Rifle which was stationed in Lal Quila.He had collected the dead body of the deceased Naik Ashok Kumar, who had died on account of fire injury in the Lal Quila, from the Subzi Mandi mortuary and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.PW-110 Subedar Satya Vijay Singh had deposed that on 22-12-2000 he had taken the injured Ashok Kumar to hospital as he had sustained injuries on account of bullet fire at Lal Quila.Two other jawans Abdullah Thakur and Uma Shankar were also injured in Lal Quila.PW-121 Major (Dr.)Shashank was also posted at Lal Quila as Medical Officer on the date of incident.He claimed that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw dead bodies of Abdullah Thakur and Uma Shankar having bullet injuries lying there and on examination he had found both of them dead.PW-122 Naik Suresh was also from 7 Rajputana Rifles and posted at Lal Quila on the date of incident.He claimed to have found the deceased Naik Ashok Kumar lying in injured condition at the place of occurrence having bullet injuries.He also claimed to have taken Ashok Kumar to Army Hospital.PW-128 Mahesh Chand was a Hawaldar on the date of incident and was posted at the Lal Quila.He also claimed to have reached the spot on hearing the sound of firing and his having seen Abdullah Thakur and Uma Shankar lying dead.To none of these witnesses who have spoken about the firing incident inside the Lal Quila it was suggested in cross-examination on behalf of any of the accused persons that no such incident of firing had taken place as had been claimed by them.PW-187 Dr. K.L.Sharma, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the three deceased Abdullah Thakur, Ashok Kumar and Uma Shankar, has proved his reports which were exhibited as Ex. PW-187/A, Ex. PW-187/B and Ex.PW-187/C. This witness had on post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of the three deceased found that all of them had died as a result of fire-arm injuries and that the fire-arm used was rifled and was a powerful and sophisticated one.None of the accused persons had cross-examined this witness.However, in the cross-examination of PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal, who was the Additional SHO of Kotwali police station, it was put to him on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq that it was not a case of attack in the army camp inside the Lal Quila by any terrorists but, in fact, army jawans posted there had themselves resorted to firing amongst themselves after consuming liquor.This witness categorically had refuted that suggestion.Learned Counsel for the appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had submitted before us that this is evident from the fact that the army authorities had not even allowed the police to come inside the Lal Quila for a couple of days after the incident.Learned Counsel also submitted that it was stated by PW-189 Major S.P.Patwardhan in his chief-examination itself that immediately after the incident the entry points at the Lal Quila had been closed and because of that the arrival of the police had also been delayed.Tufail's contention was that if actually it was an incident of firing by some terrorists then the Army officials would not have closed the entry points and the local police would not have been stopped from reaching the place of occurrence immediately.That Army officials wanted to hush up the incident is also evident from the fact that before the arrival of the police PW-189 Major Patwardhan had removed from the place of occurrence the fired cartridge cases and which fact was also stated by PW-189 S.P.Patwardhan in his chief-exmination itself.We may straightaway reject the aforesaid argument of Mr. Tufail that the incident of firing inside the Lal Quila could be a handiwork of some of the colleagues of the deceased persons.As observed already, to none of the army witnesses who were present inside the Lal Quila at the time of shooting incident it was suggested that the army jawans themselves had fired at each other during a drunken brawl.So, the suggestion put to PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal to that effect has no value.There is also no evidence to show that the Army authorities had not allowed the local police to enter the Lal Quila immediately after the incident.A suggestion was put to PW-189 Major S.P. Patwardhan, on whose complaint the case about the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila had been registered, that the civil police was not permitted by the Army authorities to investigate the matter for two days and that, in fact, the police was informed about the incident after two days.The witness denied those suggestions.There is no doubt that PW-189 had claimed that immediately after the occurrence he had ordered the gates to be closed and for that reason it took some time for the police to reach the place of occurrence.However, from this statement of PW-189 Major Patwardhan it cannot be inferred at all that he intentionally wanted to avoid the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence because of the fact that the firing had not been resorted to by any outsider but it was some insider's job.PW-51 Col.A.Mohan was those days posted as Col. General Staff, Head Quarter, Delhi Area in Delhi Cantt.He had deposed that on 22-12-2000 he had received an information from Commanding Officer, 7 Rajputana Rifles, Lal Quila that some civilian had entered Lal Quila and had started firing and then he had informed Police Control Room.In his cross-examination also it was sought to be elicited that he had ordered sealing of the Lal Quila.However, he denied having given any such direction to the Commanding Officer and at the same time he also clarified that the Lal Quila was sealed as per the standard operating procedure by the Commanding Officer.So, if as a precautionary measure as a result of invasion of the Army camp by some intruders Major Patwardhan had ordered immediate closure of the entry gates it could be only to ensure that in that situation of panic no further untoward incident takes place.PW-137 Sub-Inspector Rajinder Singh was, as noticed already, entrusted the DD No. 19-A regarding the intimation received at Kotwali police station about the firing incident inside the Lal Quila and immediately he had rushed to the spot.He has deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence he had come to know that some persons had entered inside the Lal Quila and had resorted to firing and caused injuries to some persons out of whom two had already died and one had been removed to the hospital in injured condition.In cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq it was asked from him as to how he had entered inside the Lal Quila and his answer was that he was allowed to enter on production of his identity card.However, no suggestion was put to him that the army officials had not permitted the police to enter Lal Quila.PW-160 constable Parduman Kumar, PW-183 Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PW-229 Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal had all claimed to have reached the place of incident within no time.They were also put suggestions in cross-examination that they were not, in fact, allowed entry inside the Lal Quila by the Army authority on 22-12-2000 and all of them had denied those suggestions.We have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of Major Patwardhan as also of these police witnesses to the effect that immediately after the occurrence police had rushed to the spot.The fact that police had been permitted by the army authorities to enter inside the Lal Quila immediately after the incident and to conduct necessary investigation gets strengthened from the fact that FIR in respect of the shooting incident had been registered at Kotwali police station at 11.30 p.m. on the night of incident itself on the basis of statement Ex. PW-189/A of Major S.P.Patwardhan.The FIR at the local police station could not have been registered on 22-12-2000 if actually the police officials had not been allowed to enter Lal Quila.Regarding the registration of FIR No. 688/2000, Ex. PW-15/E, the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant - accused Mohd. Arif was that the same was, in fact, not recorded at the time mentioned in it but, in fact, it was actually recorded quite belatedly which is evident from the fact that PW-189 S.P. Patwardhan on whose statement the FIR was finally recorded has admitted in his cross-examination that copy of the FIR was received by him on 24-12-2000 through Sipahi Anil Kumar.Learned Counsel also submitted that if actually FIR had been recorded on the day of incident itself on the complaint of Major S.P. Patwardhan the FIR would have been having his signature at serial no. 14 but the FIR does not bear his signatures.All these facts, according to the learned Counsel, show that the FIR was, in fact, not registered on 22-12-2000 and was ante-timed and in order to hush up the firing incident involving army people only the army authorities and the police officials after due deliberations had decided to convert it into a case of terrorist attack and to frame innocent persons.On the point of ante-timing of the FIR and absence of signature of the complainant on the FIR Mr. Tufail also placed reliance on two judgments reported as 1997 Crl.L.J. 2377 (Bombay) and 1995 Crl.There was no delay in registration of the FIR.And signature of the first informant(PW-189) was there on his statement Ex. PW-189/A on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded at the police station.There Addl.SHO, Kotwali PS met me.I went inside Red Fort and the Addl.SHO told me that a terrorists attack had taken place there and I was asked to take photographs.I took photographs inside Red Fort.... There were foot marks, chappal, empties of fired cartridges and blood, bullet marks on the wall.I started taking photographs from supply depot and took photographs from supply depot gate.... Photograph EX.PW 160/4 is also of training centre showing bullet mark on the wall.... Photograph Ex. PW160/6 is of training centre showing bullet marks.... Photo Ex. PW160/9 is also of training store showing bullet marks and blood marks on the wall.... Photo Ex. PW160/13 is of training store wall showing bullet marks.... Photo Ex. 160/17 shows chair with bullet marks....He had deposed that when the expert team had visited Lal Quila on 23/12/2000 they had examined different places inside Lal Qila and had observed bullet hit marks on the walls of the site of incident and also on the body of the military vehicle.PW-122 Naik Suresh who was also present at the scene of occurrence and had after the incident inspected the scene of crime had also noticed bullet marks at different places on a wall which he had shown to the police officials.He had also deposed about the police having seized from the spot one rack, a plastic chair which were also having bullet marks, vide memo Ex. PW-122/B. On this aspect of the matter the evidence of PWs 122, 160 and 202 was not challenged in cross-examination.These witnesses had also deposed that the dead bodies of the two deceased jawans were lying at different places and the third jawan who had also been injured in the incident was lying in injured condition at different place.So, the fact that bullet marks were noticed at different places inside Lal Quila and the bodies of the two deceased jawans were lying at different places and the third injured jawan was also lying at different place also rules out the possibility of the incident being a result of some fight amongst the jawans posted there.If as a result of some rivalry amongst some of the jawans including the three deceased some fight had taken place there would not have been seen bullet marks at different places.So, we do not find anything on record from which it could be inferred that the incident inside the Army Camp at the Lal Quila could be as a result of soldiers fighting amongst themselves after consuming liquour.We are also of the view that if actually that had happened we see no reason as to why army authorities would be hesitant to disown that and would concoct such a big story by involving the army officers at the highest level and the entire police force.And why should have the police obliged the armymen in the concoction of such a story?Undisputedly there is no witness who claims to have seen the faces of the persons who had intruded inside the Army establishment of 7 Rajputana Rifles stationed inside the Lal Quila.The evidence adduced by the prosecution is that of some of the armymen posted inside the Lal Quila on the date of incident whose testimonies are to the effect that somebody had fired indiscriminately inside the army occupied portion of the Lal Quila and when the armymen fired back towards the intruders they escaped from there by scaling over the rear wall of the Quila towards Ring Road side.Their depositions are also to the effect that because of that firing by the intruders two jawans had got injured and died at the spot itself while another one died of firearm injuries in the Army Hospital where he was rushed immediately.The prosecution had sought to establish that the incident of firing inside the Lal Quila on the night of 22nd December, 2000 was the job of some militants belonging to a banned militant organisation by the name of Lashkar-e-Toiba whose mission was to spread terror in India in order to liberate India occupied Kashmir since Muslims living there were being tortured and killed by the Indian Security Forces.The case projected before the trial Court was that the eleven charge-sheeted accused persons were also the members of that militant organisation and all of them had conspired with each other and some other militants of the same organisation to wage war against the Government of India and it was pursuant to that conspiracy that some militants had intruded into the army Unit inside the Lal Quila armed with highly sophisticated arms and ammunition and had resorted to indiscriminate firing thereby killing three soldiers.The learned trial Court, vide his impugned judgment had come to the conclusion in para no. 426 that:All these factors unmistakably point to the fact that accused Md. Arif @ Ashfaq was not only part of conspiracy to wage war against Government of India but also actually participated in the firing incident inside Red Fort, in which three army jawans Naik Ashok Kumar, Uma Shankar and Abdullah Thakur were killed.The learned trial Court had also returned the findings in para no. 430 of the impugned judgment in respect of accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid to the effect that:Then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they(the trial Court was referring to accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid) were in close contact with Md. Arif @ Ashfaq and were party to the conspiracy hatched at the instance of Lashkar-e-Toiba to wage war against the Government of India and to commit other acts of violence and forgery.By receiving such a huge amount of money and distributing the same to different militants in collusion with Md. Arif @ Ashfaq, they have actively abetted the waging of war against the Government of India.The circumstances suggest that they had also an active role in sending accused Md. Arif @ Ashfaq to Delhi.These conclusions had been arrived at by the learned trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution.We will now examine those circumstances and the evidence adduced to establish the same in respect of each of the three accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, Faoroq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid who already stand convicted for the offence of waging war against the Government of India and killing three jawans and also in respect of appellants-accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, Sadakat Ali and Babar Mohsin Baghwala whose conviction the State is now seeking even under Section 120-B IPC for which offence also they were tried Along with other eight co-accused but were acquitted by the trial Court.As per the prosescution case appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq (appellant in Crl Appeal No. 927 of 2005) was the first person to be arrested in connection with the incident of firing inside the Lal Quila.We shall now notice here the prosecution case as to how appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq came to be arrested.As per the prosecution case, on the morning of 23rd December BBC news channel gave the news on television that Lashkar-e-Toiba had claimed the responsibility for the incident inside the Lal Quila.We have already noticed that immediately after the shooting incident somebody had called up two BBC correspondents(PWs 39 & 41) for claiming the responsibility for the said incident as a loyalist of the militant organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba.On the same morning the police officials while making search of the area around Lal Quila found a piece of paper, Ex. PW-183/B, lying outside Lal Quila near its rear side boundary wall towards the Ring Road.On that piece of paper one mobile phone no. 9811278510 was written.The prosecution case is that the intruders had escaped from the place of occurrence by scaling over the rear side boundary wall of the Lal Quila for which purpose a rope was used which was also recovered by the police and while jumping down that piece of paper must had fallen down from the pocket of one of the intruders.The police officials thought that the mobile number written on the piece of paper recovered from the back side of the Lal Quila might take them towards right direction for solving the crime.So, on checking from the concerned mobile phone service provider(ESSAR) the investigating officer found that whosoever had used phone number 9811278510 was also having another mobile connection with the 9811242154 and had been making calls from these numbers to a telephone installed at DDA Flat No. 308-A, Gazipur, Delhi and also to a telephone installed at premises no. 18-C, Gaffur Nagar, Okhla where a computer centre by the name of 'Knowledge Plus' was being run.That computer centre was found to be of one Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.From the call details of the said mobile number it also transpired that calls were made to one correspondent of British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) in Sri Nagar(PW-39) and one to another BBC correspondent based in Delhi(PW-41) immediately after the incident of shooting inside the Lal Quila and some calls had been made to telephone no. 94452918 a couple of hours before the incident also.In the Lodhi Colony m;y signatures were obtained on blank papers.Initially I was not willing to sign blank papers on account of this policemen present there abused me and when I retorted I was tortured so much that my legs, mouth, noses started bleedings....Roop Lal was called to the place where these things were found.I handed over the slip and the notes to him.Roop Lal was accompanied by SI Naresh and other staff.Roop Lal pasted a chit on which the telephone No.was written on a separate paper.The same was also sealed with the seal of FL.The currency notes, chit with telephone no. and earth control sample were taken into police possession vide no. Ex.PW-183/A. I can identify the chit of telephone No.as well as currency notes if shown to me....At this stage the slip of telephone no.fixed on a white paper on which I had put my signature is seen by me and it is the same which was recovered by me and now Ex.He directed me to constitute a raiding party.I constituted a raiding party consisting of Insp.Ram Swarup Bhasin, SI Zile Singh, SI Upender, SI Manoj Dixit, W/SI Jai Shree, W/SI Omwati, Ct.Mahipal Singh and other staff including myself....At about 11.15 pm, we reached house No. 308-A, DDA Flats, Gazipur, Delhi.When we were proceeding towards Gazipur, Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma met us on the way and he was also joined in the raiding party along with his staff.We had reached there in govt.vehicles consisting of a gypsi and a private car.R.S.Bhasin, Ins.Mohan Chand Sharma, SI Hardyabhushan, SI Manoj Dixit, SI Manoj Kumar, SI Upender Kumar, SI Sharad Kohli, W/Si Om wati, W/SI Sri Devi and myself along with Ct.It was also informed that that if the aforesaid hosue was raided, the aforementioned person could be apprehended.The police party reached the aforesaid house at about 11.15 PM.On account of night, no public person was available at the aforesaid place.The house/Flat No. 308-A was pointed out by the informer and it was brought opened by Ins.Ved Prakash.Three ladies were present at the flat.The aforesaid person namely Ashfaq was not at the flat at that time.R.S.Bhasin left the spot.However, SI Zile Singh and Ct.Mahipal stayed with us.I interrogated the accused Ashfaq about the recovery from him.I arrested the accused in this case and prepared arrest memo Ex. PW-148/D, body inspection memo Ex. PW-194/B, personal search memo Ex.PW148/C. In the personal search of the accused a mobile phone of motorola company with card of ESSAR company was recovered.Apart from this Rs.1000/- were also recovered from his front pocket.The mobile was recovered from his front pocket.The mobile was recovered from the right side pocket of kurta....I further interrogated the accused in the presence of SI Zile Singh and I recorded his detailed disclosure statement which is Ex.PW 148/E and is signed by me at point B. In the meanwhile Insp.Hawa Singh also reached the spot Along with his team, who was investigating Red Fort shoot-out case.I told Insp.Ved Prakash about the disclosure made by accused and handed over to him a copy of the disclosure statement of the accused....From the evidence of aforesaid police witnesses it becomes clear that appellant-accused came to be arrested as a result of recovery of one piece of paper from the back side of Lal Quila in the morning of 23-12-2000 on which mobile telephone number 9811278510 was written and that telephone number had taken the policemen up to accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.This accused has claimed that the manner of his arrest as sought to be projected by the prosecution through the aforesaid witnesses was in fact a complete farce and everything was stage managed.As noticed already, during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had come out with a version that his arrest from his house was as a result of some conspiracy between two of the police officers who became the investigating officers of this case, namely, Insp.R.S.Bhasin(PW-168) and Insp.Ved Parkash(PW-173) and one Nain Singh(PW-20) who, according to this accused, was working during those days in one of the Intelligence Wings of the Government of India(RAW) and was dealing with some illegal money transactions in which these two police officers of Special Cell were also involved.We are, however, unable to accept this argument also of learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.It does appear to us that PW-20 Nain Singh, in whose house accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had lived for sometime before this incident, was employed in some Intelligence Wing of the Government of India and it could even be RAW.In his evidence he avoided disclosing his exact nature of employment status saying that he could not disclose that although he stated that he was employed in the Cabinet Secretariat.It is also quite possible that because of his association with PW-20 Nain Singh Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq could also come in contact with police officials including Insp. R.S.Bhasin and Insp.We do not consider this claim of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to be so improbable to be rejected, as was the contention of the learned State counsel Ms. Mukta Gupta.However, even if Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq knew these police officers through PW-20 Nain Singh that can not be said to be a sufficient reason to conclude that they had got him falsely implicated in this case.No material whatsoever had been brought on record by this accused either by adducing some evidence in defense or even during the cross-examination of PW-20 Nain Singh, Insp. R.S.Bhasin(PW- 168) and Insp.Ved Parkash(PW-173) from which it could be said that whatever Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was claiming to be the reason for his being implicated in this case could be true.To none of these three witnesses it was put in cross-examination that they had got Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq implicated in this case because of his demanding money from Nain Singh or his being aware of their illegally carried on money business.Mr. Tufail had then contended that the prosecution story that the police had reached up to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq as a result of recovery of a piece of paper having telephone no. 9811278510 written on it behind the Lal Quila should not be believed also for the reason that the investigating officer PW-230 Insp.S.K.Sand himself had claimed in his chief-examination that he had deputed someone to contact the mobile phone company Essar for the call details of the said phone number on 16-02-01 and then call details Ex. PW-198/B-1 to 3 and PW-229/A were obtained.That showed that before that date the police could not have known that calls had been made from 9811278510 and 9811242154 to landline telephone number 2720223 at the house of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in Gazipur and to telephone no. 6315904 at his Computer Centre at Gaffur Nagar as calimed by PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma.And if actually some paper slip had been found on 23-12-2000 from behind Lal Quila the police would have made enquiries same day and would have arrested Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq also same day if he was suspected of being involved in the shooting incident inside Lal Quila.Since PW-229 had claimed that he had found out that calls from number 9811278510 and 9811242154 had been made at the landline telephone numbers at the house of accused Mohd. Arif and his Computer Centre 'Knowledge Plus' it should have been elicited from him in his cross-examination as to how he came to know those facts.So, we cannot now be expected to guess as to how PW-229 came to know about all that.He has claimed so and his statement has remained uncontroverter.PW-230 had taken over the investigation at a late stage after the incident.At that time he must have decided to obtain all the details in writing as by that time it had become quite certain that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was involved in the incident.Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq has not claimed that telephone with the number 272033 in the name of his sister-in-law(wife's sister) Farzana Farukhi was not installed at flat no. 308-A, Gazipur where he was residing Along with his wife co-accused Rehmana Yusuf Farukhi and his mother-in-law(who has been examined as DW-1)and that telephone with the number 6315904 was also not installed at his Computer Centre 'Knowledge Plus'.So, we have no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma that before 25/26-12-2000, when Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was apprehended, it had been found out that calls had been exchanged between mobile phone numbers 9811278510 and 9811242154 to the telephones installed at the residence of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and also at his Computer Centre 'Knowledge Plus'.Learned Counsel submitted that recovery of a pistol with live ammunition from this accused was another incriminating circumstance against him because if he was an innocent person having nothing to do with terrorism there was no occasion for his carrying unlicensed pistol and cartridges.Mahipal and myself and other staff, under the supervision of ACP Rajvir Singh armed with ammunition issued from the Mall Khana in govt.vehicle as well as private vehicle left for house No. 308A, DDA Janta flat, Ghazipur.We reached there at about 11.15 PM.Ved Prakash made nakabandi of the area around the house.At about 12.45 am the accd.Ved Prakash prepared sketch of the pistol and cartridges and the same is Ex.PW-148/A. The pistol and cartridges with magazine were sealed in a parcel with the seal of VP....The recovery of the pistol, Ex. PW-148/1 and cartridges, Ex.PW-148/2-6 and Ex. PW-148/7(which was test fired in CFSL) has been challenged by learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq primarily on the ground that despite the fact that the police team had gone to the flat of this accused with some prior information and after keeping his house under surveillance for two days no independent person had been associated at the time of raid and, therefore, according to Mr. Tufail, based on the evidence of interested police witnesses only the prosecution story of recovery of pistol and cartridges from the possession of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq should not be accepted.We have gone through both these decisions and find that in the facts and circumstances of these two cases recoveries of some incriminating articles from the accused were disbelieved because of the recoveries having not been witnessed by any independent person.In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the reason given for non-joining of independent witness at the time of search of the accused was found to be a lame excuse while the recovery in the case decided by this Court was doubted by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that no serious effort had been made by the investigating officer to associate any independent witness with the raiding party which had organized a nakabandi to apprehend two persons who as per the secret information were supposed to be coming to Delhi along with poppy straw powder.In the present case PW-148 SI Zile Singh, who was one of the members of the raiding team had stated in his chief-examination itself that when they had reached flat no. 308-A, Gazipur no public person was available since it was midnight.It was a month of December and non-availability of any person on the road in the middle of night cannot be said to be unbelievable at all.Ved Prakash when asked in cross-examination as to whether he had tried to associate any independent witness in the raid claimed that he had asked some local residents to join the proceedings but nobody was willing to join.PW-166 HC Rameshwar Dayal was also asked a similar question in his cross-examination on behalf of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and his reply was also that the investigating officer had tried to join some independent witnesses but none was ready to join.It appears that since already these three police witnesses had claimed that no independent witness was willing to join the raid proceedings no such question was asked from the fourth witness on this part of the prosecution story, PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma.We have no reasons to disbelieve any of these police witnesses regarding their claim that they had made efforts to associate public witnesses at the time of raid at the house of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq but none had agreed.We can also understand the reasons for unwillingness of the public persons to associate themselves with the investigation of a crime involving hard-core criminals and terrorists.These days people do avoid getting involved in criminal cases as witnesses for which police cannot be blamed.In this regard we may make a useful reference to the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar regarding the reluctance of the public persons to associate themselves with the investigation of serious crimes:It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher.Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by the courts for manifold reasons.One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power.We, therefore, reject the challenge to the recovery of pistol along with cartridges from the possession of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq because of non-joining of public witnesses.Learned Counsel for this appellant had also pointed out that the number of the pistol as mentioned in the seizure memo and the one mentioned in the ballistic expert's report do not tally which shows that some other weapon was recovered and the expert examined some other weapon.We do find that only the first digit of the pistol number mentioned in the expert's report is different from the first digit of the number mentioned in the seizure memo.Rest of the digits tally with the ones mentioned in the seizure memo.That error could be an inadvertant mistake by the writer and it cannot be accepted that the expert had not examined the pistol which was recovered from accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.The prosecution had also examined one ballistic expert PW-211 Shri K.C.Varshney from FSL.He had examined the said pistol and cartridges recovered from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and on examination he had given his report Ex. PW-211/A to the effect that the 30"/7.63 mm pistol was a fire-arm as defined under the Arms Act and was in working condition and also that the six cartridges recovered from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq out of which he had test fired one live cartridge were 'ammunition' as defined under the Arms Act. He deposed accordingly in Court also.He was not cross-examined at all on any aspect of his statement.This was also one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish that appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was involved in the shoot out inside the Lal Quila and in our view this circumstance also stands established beyond any doubt.We will now proceed further to examine the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to find out if the chain of circumstances from which it could be said that appellant -accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was responsible for the incident along with his other associate militants is complete or not.As noticed already, immediately after his apprehension appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had disclosed to the policemen about his another hideout at G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla, New Delhi and also about the presence of his associate there as well as the availability of arms and ammunition in that house.PW-21 Gian Chand Goel is the owner of that house and he has claimed that accused Ashfaq had shifted to his house as a tenant after he had vacated the house of Nain Singh(PW-20).The police had gone to that house along with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq where, as has been noticed already, an encounter had taken place between the policemen and the occupant of that house who had got killed in that encounter and, as per the prosecution case, he was identified by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq as one Abu Shamal @ Faizal.From that house the police had recovered one AK-56 rifle as well as some cartridges and hand grenades.To establish this circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma.We have already referred to his evidence which related to the arrest of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq....In the intervening night of 25/26-12-00 accused Md. Arif was arrested from DDA flats, Gazipur.The accused was arrested and his disclosure was recorded wherein he disclosed about the involvement in the Red Fort shoot-out case.(objected to).The aforesaid house was locked.The accused disclosed that Abu Shyamal must be somewhere near and may come soon.We laid trap on the house.Rest of the raiding party retreated to a safe position near primary school.At about 5.10 a.m., ASI Jai Kishan informed that a man answering the description given by Md. Arif had entered the house.By the time, we went to the house the said person had entered the house and bolted it from inside.The member of the police party took positions.We knocked at the door and introduced ourselves as police officials but the door was not opened.We broke the door open and as we entered the house firing started from inside the house.When the firing ceased from inside the room we found one person lying in injured condition.One AK-56 rifle was lying by its side.2 hand-grenades were also lying near him.Md. Arif was in the custody of Insp.R.S.Bhasin at a safe distance and he was called to the aforesaid house.There Md. Arif identified the injured, who by that time had expired, as Abu Shyamal @ Faizal.(objected to).SHO police station New Friends Colony also reached the spot.I handedover a rukka to SHO-New Friends Colony for getting a case registered.Case was registered.One AK 56 rifle, one magazine and two hand-grenades were recovered.In the spare magazine there were 30 live cartgridges.One bandoleer was also recovered and out of the two hand-grenades one was inside the pocket of the bandoleer.The material for cleaning rifle was also recovered from the spot.One khaki uniform was also recovered.Fired cases fired by the dead militant as well as by the police party, which were lying on the spot, were recovered.The fired cases of the cartridges fired by the ACP was also handed over to the IO, which were three in numbers.The bullet-proof jackets worn by myself and the ACP were also handed over to the IO of PS-New Friends Colony.From the aforesaid house, fired cases of AK 56 rifles were recovered which were used by Abu Shyamal and were of the same type as were recovered from the Red Fort.(objected to).I have seen photograh Mark 229/D which is of Abu Shyamal who had died at G-73, Batla House, Okhla.This photograph was taken in the mortuary.This witness then had identified the recovered AK-56 rifle as well as the fired cartridge cases, magazines, bullet proof jackets etc. which had been recovered from the house of the deceased militant.He had also identified the fired cartridge cases as Ex. PW-229/14-1 to 3 and Ex. PW-229/15-1 to 67 and he claimed the same to have been seized vide memo Ex. PW-229/F.PW-229 was cross-examined very briefly and that too only on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.We think it appropriate to re-produce his entire cross-examination which runs into only a few lines:It is correct that Ex. PW-183/B, the telephone slip, does not bear my signature.I had collected the unsigned call details from 'Hutch' company.It is correct that I had not signed an authenticated call details collected by me from my official computer at Special Cell, Lodhi Colony.I am not the IO of the FIR no. 630/00, PS - New Friends Colony.I had only sent the rukka for registration of the case.I do not know if the case has been closed as untraced.From this cross-examination of PW-229 it is clear that his statement to the effect that immediately after his apprehension appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had disclosed that he was involved in the incident inside the Lal Quila on 22-12-2000 and that he could get recovered arms and ammunition and also get apprehended his associate remained unchallenged and consequently stood admitted by the accused persons.It also stood admitted because of no cross-examination of this witness that at G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla, New Delhi, where Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had taken the police team, an encounter had taken place with the occupant of that house and he was killed in that encounter when the police had fired upon him in retaliation and further that from that house one AK-56 rifle and ammunition, as noticed already, were recovered.So, this recovery of AK-56 rifle and ammunition including hand grenades at the instance of appellant -accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq stood duly established by the prosecution.The prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of recovery of one AK-56 rifle, one bandoleer having four hand grenades in it pursuant to the disclosure statement made by appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, Ex. PW-148/E which were lying under the bushes on the back side of Lal Quila.Regarding the making of disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW-148 SI Zile Singh and PW-194 SI Harinder Singh.As noticed already, SI Harinder Singh had been entrusted the case regarding the recovery of pistol from accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq at the time of his apprehension and when Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was brought back to his house in Gazipur from G-73, Batla House where his militant associate Abu Shamal was killed in an encounter, he had interrogated Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and then this accused had made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E wherein he had while confessing his involvement in the incident of shooting inside Lal Quila had disclosed that he could get recovered one AK-56 rifle and some ammunition from the back side of Lal Quila.PW-148 and 194 have both deposed about the making of disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.The cross-examination of PW-148 SI Zile Singh was mainly confined to his statement regarding recovery of one mobile phone which according to the prosecution case was having the number 9811278510 which, as noticed already, had taken the police officials up to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.That part of the prosecution case we will deal a little later when we would consider the circumstance of recovery of mobile phone from this accused having this number.The statement of this witness regarding making of the disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E was, however, not challenged in cross-examination although in the cross-examination of PW-194 SI Harinder Singh it was suggested to him that Mohd. Arif had not made any disclosure statement and that entire proceedings including the disclosure statement were recorded at the police station and were got signed from Mohd. Arif there but this witness denied that suggestion.The plea taken by this accused in the cross-examination of PW-194 that he was tortured and then forced to sign the disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E cannot be accepted as it appears to be an afterthought.Hawa Singh requested two/three passersby at Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Bus Stand and the bus stand near Raj Ghat to join the investigation, but all of them after learning about the involvement of the militants in this case, refused to join in the investigation.Without wasting any further time, we had reached the said spot behind Red Fort.After the examination by the CFSL expert, the defused hand grenades i.e. the four shells and the four detonators were packed.The four detonators had a slip affixed with the help of a tag on which it was written in Urdu "KHABARDAR GRENADE FIRING KE LIYE BILKUL TYAR HAI SAFETY PIN SIRF GRENADE FEKTE WAKAT NIKALE"(BEWARE, GRENADE IS READY FOR FIRING.PIN SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT ONLY WHEN IT IS TO BE THROWN) On three of the four recovered shells was written ARGES SPL HGR.84 Green Arges HE 005-8-94 on the one remaining shell was written green Arges Spl.On this last shell, the CFSL team had affixed a cello tape.The four recovered detonators were kept in 4 plastic dibbies with the help of cotton the packing was provided and the four dibbies containing the detonators were tied together in a bunch with the help of cello tape likewise, the four recovered shell were kep;t in four plastic dibbies and packing was provided with the help of cotton.These four dibbies containing the shells were also tied together with the help of cello tape.The two bunches as above were kept in a corrugated box and packing was provided with the help of newspaper and cotton.This box was tied with a plastic suli and kept in a cloth pulanda sealed with the seal of HS by the IO.Accused Mohd. Arif also signed at point 'C' in my presence.The memo was prepared by the IO.He had given the dictation to me and I scribed the same which was signed by the IO also.Hawa Singh requested some passerby to join the investigation but all refused on hearing the name of terrorist.At about 10 a.m. without wasting further time the police party reached place behind the Red Fort Along with the team.Hawa Singh asked SHO Kotwali to send for the CRFSL team and BDS, to be sent at the place behind Red Fort.A ccused Mohd. Arif voluntarily led the police party to the place where Abu Shyamal had concealed Arms and Ammunition and hand grenades after the Red Fort shoot out.SI Satyajit Sarin and myself on the direction of Inspr.These photographs were taken on the direction of Sh.As per his directions one AK-56 rifle, bandoleer and two magazines were brought to police station Kotwali.While sitting in the officer of Addl.SHO the CFSL team and various BD Squad examined the AK-56 rifle, bandoleer and two magazines in which one contained 30 live cartridges and other contained 2(two) live cartridges.Both the magazines were tied together with a tape.One in straight position while the other in reverse position.They also examined one kitchen knife which was recovered from one of the pockets of the bandoleer.Four hand grenades were also examined which were also recovered from the pockets of bandoleer.The bomb disposal squad diffused all the four hand grenades under the supervision of SI Virender Singh.The four detonators were having a slip attached with precautions to the effect that the hand grenade was ready for use and safety pin is to be removed at the time of use.It was recorded in 'Urdu'.On the three hand grenades 'ARGES-SPL-HGR-84-GREEN ARGES-HE005-8-94' was recorded.On the fourth hand grenade 'ARGES-SPL-HGR-84-GREEN ARGES-ICT-009-12-92' was recorded.On the fourth shell the finger print expert had affixed a tape.All the four hand grenades and four detonators were packed in separate containers and each container was packed with the help of cotton.All the eight containers were tied with the help of transparent tape.A pack of four containers and four detonators and four shells were again tied with the help of transparent tape under slip containing 'Shell and detonators were affixed on both the packages.Both the packings were kept in corrugated box and packed with the help of cotton and newspaper.Corrugated box was tied with the help of plastic string and with the help of cotton a pulanda was made and sealed with the seal of 'HS'.Sketch of AK-56 was prepared.On measurement, the length of barrel was found to be 22.5 cms.On one side of the rifle within circle 11,1959 was written.It was found that some written material was found to be scratched below the same.On the other side of the rifle two white medicated tapes were found to be affixed.Out of the two recovered magazines, sketch of one magazine and out of 32 live cartridges, sketch of one live cartridge was prepared on one paper.On measurement, the inner length of magazine was found to be 16.5 cms.and the length of the round was 5.5 cms.Out of the 32 rounds, the bottom of 28 live cartridges, within circle, 75066 and on the bottom of four cartridges within circle 31075 was engraved.Bandoleer was of military green colour containing twenty pockets.Two back pockets and one front middle pocket are found to be opened with the help of Zip and the other pockets were containing titch button.In order to carry the bandoleer on the shoulder there are two padded strings and two belts were found to be there.32 live cartridges were packed in two plastic envelops with the help of cloth, pulanda was made and sealed with the seal of 'HS'.Recovered rifle, two magazines, bandoleer, kitchen knife and the sealed parcel of 32 live cartridges were kept in a corrugated box, tied with the help of plastic string and a pulanda was made with the help of cloth and was sealed with the seal of 'HS'.All the above articles were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW-218/C, which bear my signature at point 'B'.Form CFSL was also filled and the sample seal of 'HS' was affixed on the form.Seal was handed over to SI Satyajit Sarihn after use.The seizure memo was written by SI Satyajit Sarin on the direction of Inspr.Hawa Singh and it bears my signatures at point 'B' as witness.On examination of the scene, one 7.62 mm AK-56 Assault Rifle without magazine, two magazines and one bandoleer was found lying amidst of bush plants adjacent to outside boundary wall of eastern side boundary wall.The spot was photographed by the expert.IO was instructed to shift the exhibits to PS Kotwali carefully for development of chance prints if any on the exhibits, which were subsequently examined by the Finger Print Expert.On further examination of bandoleer, it was found to contain four hand grenades, one kitchen knife.The two magazines also found to contain thirty two (32) 7.62 mm live cartridges of Assault Rifle.IO was instructed to forward these exhibits to laboratory for further examination after proper defusion of the hand grenades by the competent authority.The sign inspection report prepared by me is Ex. PW-202/B, which is signed by me at point A....PW-125 S.K.Chadha is also the expert from CFSL.He was also summoned to the place of aforesaid recoveries from behind Lal Quila and he has deposed about those recoveries.The relevant part of his examination-in-chief in that regard is as under:...On 26.12.2000, a message was received in the CFSL that a A.K. 56 rifle, two magzine, one bandolier were lying outside the Red Fort, in the bushy plants at the eastern side of the Red Fort.On that day, ballistic expert Sh. A. Dey and Sh.N.B. Vardhan were also with me.These items were taken to PS Kotwali, where finger prints were developed....(At this stage a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CFSL is produced in the court and the same is opened.From therein one rifle A.K. 56 is taken out and is shown to the witness and is correctly identified by him, which is Ex.PW-125/1, two magzines are Ex.PW-125/2 and PW-125/3 and 32 live cartridges, which were found inside the magzines are Ex.PW-125/4 to PW-125/35, knife is Ex.At this stage another sealed parcel with some illegible seal impression and with some seals of Distt. & Session Judge, Delhi is opened, four plastic jars are taken out, out of which four empty of hand-grenades are taken out, which are identify by the witness and one empty bears the signature of the witness.These empty are Ex.From the same parcel, four jars are also taken out, which contained mechanical detonators, which are Ex.PW-50/1 to 4....The learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq challenged these recoveries also, which the prosecution has sought to establish through the evidence of PWs 218, 227, 125 and 202, mainly on the ground that no public witness was associated when the police team had gone to the back side of Lal Quila to recover arms and ammunition pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.We have already rejected similar argument advanced in respect of the recovery of the pistol from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq by observing that the police officials could not associate public persons in the investigation because none had come forward.When the police team had gone to the back side of Lal Quila at that time also efforts were made to associate public witnesses but none had agreed.This has been deposed by PW-218 and we have no reason to disbelieve him.We have already observed that these days people do hesitate in joining police investigations against dreaded criminals and terrorists.So, we are not inclined to accept the submission of learned Counsel for accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq that the recoveries of AK-56 rifle and the ammunition from the back side of Lal Quila at the instance of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq should also be disbelieved because of non-joining of public persons at the time of those recoveries.It is significant to note that the recoveries have been deposed to even by the two officials from CFSL also and both of them under no circumstances can be said to be not independent witnesses or in any way interested in falsely deposing about those recoveries.An argument was raised that these recoveries were in fact not actually made from behind the Lal Quila but were actually recovered from G-73, Batla House after the so-called encounter and then shown on papers to have been recovered from the backside of Lal Quila.No such suggestion, however, was given to PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma, who claims to have brought this accused to Lal Quila on 26/12/2000 after he had disclosed about the concealment of arm and ammunition there, that in fact he had picked up the rifle and ammunition from G-73 and showed it to have been recovered from the backside of Lal Quila.Learned Counsel also had submitted that the police witnesses who had searched the scene of crime on the night of incident itself did not find any arms and ammunition and even next morning only some currency notes and a paper slip of mobile phone number were found despite the fact that services of sniffer dogs were also taken and so the so-called recoveries on 26/12/2000 become doubtful for this reason also.This submission is also equally devoid of force like the earlier ones.If the sniffer dogs had not succeeded in locating the rifle etc. that would not show that actually the same were not lying there.so, this circumstance also stood established beyond any doubt.As per the prosecution case, on 23-12-2000 one AK-56 rifle had been found lying near the gate of Vijay Ghat which is on the Ring Road on the back side of Lal Quila.The witnesses in respect of that recovery are PW-89 HC Upender Singh, PW-62 SI Ram Chander, PW-234 Inspector Roop Lal, PW-78 HC Narender Singh, PW-81 HC Satbir Singh, PW-35 Ct.Rambir Singh as well as the experts from CFSL, namely, PW-125 S.K.Chadha and PW-202 N.B.Bardhan.I went there and found an AK-47 rifle lying below the Vijay Ghat boundary wall on the western side.I immediately informed my control room.On the information received by local police Addl.SHO P.S. Kotwali, ICBP Yamuna Pusta and other staff reached the spot.On 23.12.00 I was on patrolling duty alone for prevention and detention of crime in the ilaka Yamuna Pusta.I signed the sketch, riffle, magazine and round which was taken on the same sheet and bear my signatures at point A and the same be now Ex. PW-62/A.Thereafter, riffle, magazine and the rounds were sealed into separate parcels with the help of clothes and all three parcels were sealed with the seal of RL.Thereafter, all three parcels were put into a cardboard box.The cardboard box was also sealed with the seal of RL.A separate seizure memo of these articles were prepared and was signed by me at point A. Memo is Ex. PW-62/B. I can identify the riffle, magazine and cartridges.At this stage a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CFSL be produced in the court and the same is opened out of which one riffle AK-56, magazine and seven live cartridges are produced in the Court.Out of the seven rounds, six were of the same mark and one was of different mark.One the six cartridges 81-71 was written while on the seventh cartridge 81-78 was written.These were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW62/B bears my signature at point B. SI Ramchander had signed at point A. I can identify the rifle, magazine and cartridges.(At this stage sealed parcel with the seal of the court is ordered to be opened).I have seen the rifle AK-56 is the same and the same is Ex.PW-78 HC Narender Singh deposed as under:On 23.12.00 I was posted in PCR as wireless operator.I received a message from a PCR vehicle Sugar Six 1, conveyed by HC Upender, 1368 PCR.At 10.35 a.m. message was received to the effect that a home guard has conveyed the information that a sten gun was lying behind the Red Fort adjoining the road near the hedge.I filled up the PCR form.I have brought the original form.This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.PW-81 HC Satbir Singh deposed as under:I recorded both the calls in the law book.I had informed on wireless set to police force to Yamuna Pusta and the official received my call and passed the information to SI Ramchander or to Addl.SHO Kotwali.I had brought the log book containing both the aforesaid entries.The copy of the same is Ex. PW-81/A & B. (The original log book contained the said entry in my hand seen and returned).This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.PW-35 Ct.Rambir Singh deposed as under:In the month of Dem. 2000 I was posted at PS Kotwali at PP Jamna Pusta.On 23.12.2000 I was working as DD writer at PP Jamna Pusta and my duty hours were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. On 23.12.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. N.50, Control Room had informed to wireless set that in Vijay Ghat, a AK 47 was lying.It was also relayed that the message was from the PCR.I immediately informed SI Ram Chander and Addl.SHO Kotwali Sh.Roop Lal on wireless.65. PWs 125 and 202, the two experts from CFSL, have also deposed about the aforesaid recovery of assault rifle Ex. PW-62/1, magazine Ex. PW-62/2 and cartridges Ex. PW-62/3 to 9 from Vijay Ghat.These recoveries were not challenged in the cross-examination of any of the aforesaid witnesses and, therefore, the same stood established and so non-examination of the Home Guard who had first of all seen the rifle lying at Vijay Ghat, as claimed by PW-89, is immaterial and this recovery cannot be doubted for this reason, as was contended by Mr. Tufail regarding this recovery.The prosecution is relying upon these recoveries against accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq because when on 26-12-2000 he had made the disclosure statement Ex. PW-148/E he had claimed that after committing the crime inside the Lal Quila his associate had thrown his assault rifle the shrubs at Vijay Ghat and he could point out that place.After searching the spot I had ordered the gates to be closed on telephone.For this reason it took some time for the police to reach the spot.I had ordered the search of the Red Fort.SHO Insp.Roop Lal reached the spot Along with other police staff.... I also showed him the place of incident, location of dead body and the location where the fired cases were lying and recovered.The magazines, live cartridges and fired cases were handed over to the police.The three magazines were of the same type and live cartridges and fired cases were of the same type.Roop Lal prepared a sketch of one magazine, one live cartridge and one fired case in my presence and the same is Ex. PW-189/B. The three magazines, 28 live cartridge and 40 fired cases were taken into possession by the police and were sealed in the separate parcel with the seal of RL and were seized vide recovery memo Ex. PW-189/C. It bears my signature at point A. I can identify the same if shown to me.(At this stage a sealed parcel with the seal of CFSL is produced in the court and opened).Three magazines are taken out from the same and are shown to the witness.The live cartridges were recovered from somewhere near the rear wall of Red Fort.I had signed the seizure memo after going through the same.After going through the recovery memo Ex. PW-189/C I say that rounds were live in a magazine.(At this stage, another sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CFSL is produced in the court and opened).there from 22 live cartridges and 6 fired cases are taken out.The same was shown to the witness and it has been correctly identified by him.The six fired rounds were live at the time of recovery.The fired cases are Ex.The fired cases were collected from different places like MT park....PW-234 Insp.Roop Lal has also deposed that when he had reached the place of incident on the night of 23-12-2000 Subedar Ashok Kumar had given him one live cartridge Ex. PW-115/38 and 36 fired cartridge cases Ex. PW-115/1 to 36 which he had sealed in two separate parcels which were given the numbers 18-A and 19-A and he had seized them vide memo Ex. PW-115/A. He also deposed that Major S.P.Patwardhan had also handed over to him three magazines and in one of them there were 28 live cartridges.All the parcels were sealed with the seal of RM and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-189/C. PW-234 Insp.Roop Lal had also deposed that after reaching the place of occurrence he had inspected the scene of crime and during that inspection he had lifted, amongst many other things, two empties which were sealed by him with the seal of RL and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-128/A. He then on being shown the magazine and cartridges identified the same in Court.69. PW-122 Naik Suresh, who was posted at Red Fort on the day of the incident, had deposed that he had shown 8 places to the police where there were bullet marks and those bullet marks were on the wall where the deceased Ashok was shot at in the training hall and from one of those places which had the bullet marks one portion of a fired bullet was taken out and was taken into possession by the police and its parcel was given the number as 7G. He had also deposed about other recoveries effected from the place of incident which according to him had been seized by the police, including the bullet(numbered as 7G) vide memo Ex. PW-122/B.As far as the recovery of Assault Rifle fired cartridge cases from the place of occurrence is concerned it was suggested to PWs 115 and 116 in cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq that those cartridge cases were actually not recovered from the spot but were taken from Army's firing range where firing practice used to be done by armymen.The witnesses denied that suggestion.We have no reason to disbelieve these two witnesses of recovery.In this regard we may point out that to PW-144 Major D.K.Singh, whose evidence we have already referred to, was also suggested in cross-examination that assault rifle fired cartridge cases, recovery of which from the place of incident is being relied upon by the prosecution, were not actually fired there but were fired through the rifles of the Army.The answer of the witness was that their Unit had only SLRs(Self Loading Rifles).Thereafter the witness was not cross-examined further on this aspect.Earlier in his chief-examination he had claimed that he had fired five rounds upon upon the intruders from his SLR and then he had deposited back the SLR and the empties.The aforesaid recovered AK-56 rifle Ex.PW-125/1 and the assault rifle fired cartridge cases seized from the place of occurrence by the armymen were sent to CFSL.The AK-56 Rifle Ex.62/1 recovered from Vijay Ghat and seized vide memo Ex.PW-62/B was also sent to CFSL where these arms and ammunition were examined by PW-202 N.B.Bardhan, and on examination he gave his report Ex. PW-202/A to the effect that the assault rifle fired cartridge cases examined by him had been fired from the aforesaid rifles Ex. PW-125/1 and Ex.PW-62/1 which he had during examination marked for identification purpose as W-1 and W-2 respectively.During his evidence in Court also he confirmed that.PW-62/1 and assault rifle fired cartridge cases recovered from the secene of occurrence and which this expert found to have been fired from these two Assault Rifles, is as under:I am working as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I (Ballistic), CFSL, CBI, Delhi.On 24.01.2001, 39 sealed parcels were received in connection with case FIR no. 688/00 dated 22.12.2000 from SHO PS Kotwali through messanger.These parcels were assigned to me for examination.The parcel no. 36 contained exhibit no. 20, 21, 22 in sealed condition.The seals on the parcels were intact and tallying with the specimen seal of the case.Parcel No. 4 (Exhibit No. 4): It contained one 7.62 mm Assault Rifle fired cartridge case.PW-122/B and its packet was numbered as Ex.7-G).Parcel No. 17(exhibit no. 17) : It contained three empty magazines of 7.63 mm Assault Rifle(Marked M-1 to M-3 by me)Parcel No. 18(exhibit no. 18) : It contained twenty eight(28) 7.62 mm Assault Rifle cartridges (Marked C/3 to C/30 by me.) All having intact percussion cap.(these parcel nos. 17 & 18 are in respect of the three magazines and fired cartridge cases recovered from the place of occurrence by armymen and handed over to the investigating officer by PW-189 S.P.Patwardhan vide memo Ex.PW-189-C wherein he had described the packets as Ex.17 & 18)Parcel No. 18A(Exhibit No. 18A) : It contained one 7.62mm Assault Rifle cartridge(marked C/31 by me) having its intact percussion cap.(this cartridge was also recovered from the spot during search by PW-115 Subedar Ashok Kumar and PW-116 Hawaldar Ramesh of 7 Raj Rifles and handed over to the investigating officer PW-234 vide memo Ex.PW-115/A who gave its parcel no. as 18-A).Parcel No. 19 (Exhibit no. 19): It contained Forty(40) 7.62 mm Assault Rifle fired cartridge cases(marked C/32 to C/71 by me)(these cartridge cases were lifted from apot by armymen and handed over by PW-189 S.P.Patwardhan to the investigating officer PW-234 who then seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-189/C and gave this parcel the number Ex.19)Parcel No. 19A(Exhibit No. 19A) : It contained thirty seven(37) 7.62 mm Assault Rifle fired cartridge cases (Marked C/72 to C/108 by me)(these are also the cartridge cases lifted by armymen(PWs 115 & 116) from different the places inside Lal Quila of and handed over to the PW-234 vide memo Ex.PW-115A who numbered its parcel as 19-A).Parcel No. 34(Exhibit no. 34) : It contained the following items:(v) One pouch.(Bandoleer)Parcel No. 35 : It contained the following (Exhibit No. 35) items:(i) Four body of ARGES-Spl-HGR-84 Hand Grenades (marked H-1 to H-4 be me) Without their detonator set.PW-218/C).Parcel No. 36 (Marked in the Laboratory):(iii) Sub-Parcel/Exhibit No. 22 : It contained seven 7.62 mm Assault Rifle Cartridges ( marked C/141 to C/147 by me) All having intact percussion cap.(these things were recovered from Vijay Ghat and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW-62/B) I had given a note in my report as to from where these parcels were routed and were subsequently received in Ballistic Division.After examination of all the parcels and on the basis of physical examination, Chemical analysis, test firing and microscopic examination, the stereo and comparison, microscopes, carried in the laboratory with scientific aid, I had given the following results of my examination:RESULT OF EXAMINATION:(vi) The contents of parcel no. 35 are components of four defused/dismantled standard ARGES Hand Grenade are live ones.The hand grenades are explosive substances as defined in Explosive Substance Act.(these are the components of hand grenades which were recovered from the backside of Lal Quila on 26/12/2000 and which had been dismantled by the ballistic expert on the same day).(vii) No fired bullet/portion of fired bullet could be detected from the contents of parcel no. 7-A to H.(viii) The three magazines of 7.62 mm Assault Rifle marked M-1 to M-3 contained in parcel no. 17 and two magazines of 7.62 mm Assault Rifle marked M-4 and M-5 contained in parcel no. 34 and one magazine 7.62 mm Assault Rifle marked M-6 contained in parcel no. 36 in Sub-parcel 21 are in working order and can be loaded into standard 7.62 mm Assault Rifle.I had given the above opinion after examination of all the above mentioned parcels and my opinion vide CFSL Report no.The live cartridge are Ex. PW-199/4 to 25 and the fired cartridges are Ex.At this stage, parcel no. 34 sealed with court seal is produced in the court and is opened and it contained rifle, two magazine, live cartridges, knife and bandoleer.I have seen the assault rifle 7.62 mm and the same is Ex. PW-125/1 and two magazines are Ex. PW-125/2 and 3 and the live cartridges 32 in number of assault rifle 7.62 mm are Ex. PW-125/4 to 35, kitchen knife Ex. PW-125/36, bandoleer is Ex. PW-202/3 are the same which I had examined.At this stage parcel no. 35 sealed with court seal is produced in the court and the seal is opened and 8 containers are taken out and it contained 4 hand grenades and 4 detonators.Hand grenades are Ex. PW-50/1 to 4 and the detonators are Ex. PW-50/5 to 8 are the same which I had examined.At this stage, parcel no. 36 sealed with court seal and the same is opened and this parcel no. was given by me in the laboratory.The parcel is opened.These were Ex. PW-62/3 to 9 are the same which I had examined.I had given my detailed report and opinion after examination of the all above articles and my report is Ex. PW-202/A....The cross-examination of this expert could not bring on record anything which could throw any doubt on the veracity of this witness or the prosecution case in general.He had also examined the eleven empties of Self Loading Rifles used by the armymen while firing towards the intruders and his opinion was that the same could not be loaded in AK-56 Rifles examined by him.So, it also cannot be accepted that the Assault Rifle cartridge cased lifted from the spot could be of the Rifles used by the armymen at the time of the incident, as was also the submission of the learned Counsel for appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.It thus stands established that the cartridges, empty cases of which were found at the place of occurrence, had been fired from the AK-56 Rifle got recovered by appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from behind the Lal Quila and also from the AK-56 Rifle recovered from Vijay Ghat about which also this accused was fully aware of.The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is the recovery of one mobile phone from his possession when he was apprehended.It was that telephone number which had led the police to the house of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq after it had transpired from the call details of this number that calls had been made from this number to the landline telephones installed at the flat of this accused and also at his 'Knowledge Plus' computer centre in Gafur Nagar.The police had also come to know that immediately after the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila calls had been made from the said mobile number to the correspondents of BBC in Sri Nagar and Delhi.The importance of this mobile number 9811278510 was that the caller who had called the BBC correspondents PW-39 Altaf Hussain and PW-41 Ayanjeet Sen had informed them about the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila and had claimed himself to be a member of Lashkar-e-Toiba and also that in the firing incident two persons had been killed by them(do dane dal diye hain).PW-39 Altaf Hussain has deposed that:I am a B.B.C. Correspondent based in Sri Nagar.I cover whole of the Kashmir.Whenever a violent incident takes place I received information from all sources including police.Sometimes the militants organization also give information claiming responsibility for the incident.I have two land line telephone one in my name and the other in the name of my wife Smt. Naznin.Telephone No. 2452918 is in the name of my wife while telephone No. 2477756 is in my name.it is not necessary for me to identify the caller all the time but if the caller repeatedly make the calls then he can be identified.In December, 2000 I received a call on the date of the incident in question.They call was received after the incident.Responsibility was claimed for the instant incident on the telephone.The caller told me that the incident inside the Red Fort has been carried out by them and further claimed that "DO Daane Dal Diyen Hain".The caller claimed himself to be from Lashkar-e-Toiba.The telephone number from which the caller telephoned me was not recorded at my residence as the telephone was not fixed in caller ID kit.(Identification Kit).By "Do Dane Dal Diye" I thought that two grenades have been thrown inside Lal Qilla.Thereafter, when I enquired from the caller as to what does it mean he told me that it was a Fidian attack by two persons who were Fidayeen.Thereafter, I told them to contact Delhi BBC office as the incident had not taken place within my Beat.I had thereafter given him Delhi Telephone Number of BBC.Since the incident had not happened in my beat I did not convey to BBC directly.Similarly, PW-41 Awanjeet Sen deposed as under:R.S.Bhasin(PW-168) came there along with accused Ashfaq and then accused Ashfaq was handed over to him(PW-194).This witness further claimed that he then arrested this accused and prepared arrest memo Ex. PW-148/D. He also conducted the personal search of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and the personal search memo was Ex. PW-148/C. During the personal search of this accused a mobile phone of Motorola company(Ex.PW-194/C) having the card of Essar Company was recovered.PW-148 SI Zile Singh has also deposed that when SI Harinder Singh(PW-194) had reached the flat at Gazipur and had formally arrested accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq one Motorola mobile phone was recovered from the possession of this accused when he was searched by SI Harinder Singh and that phone was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW-148/C. PW-229 Insp.Mr. R.M.Tufail, learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq argued that this recovery of Motorola mobile phone having no. 9811278510 from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq cannot be accepted at all since admittedly when immediately after he was apprehended by Insp.Ved Prakash(PW-173) only one pistol was recovered from his possession and not the mobile phone.Learned Counsel further submitted that as per the evidence of PW-194 SI Harinder Singh who claims to have recovered mobile phone from the possession of this accused it is clear that when this witness had reached the house of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq this accused was not present there and then in cross-examination he had changed his version and claimed that when he had reached there the other police officials were taking away this accused for further investigation.R.S.Bhasin and SI Zile Singh at about 6.45 a.m. which shows that this accused was in police custody for about six hours during which period he was taken somewhere.In this regard learned Counsel drew our attention to that part of the cross-examination of PW-148 SI Zile Singh where he had claimed that after the apprehension of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq he was taken to Okhla by the police team which included Insp.Mohan Chand, Insp. R.S.Bhasin and himself and when they had reached Okhla Insp.R.S.Bhasin and Insp.Mohan Chand had taken Mohd. Arif for further investigation.Learned Counsel submitted that in these circumstances it can be safely concluded that no recovery of mobile phone was effected at all from the possession of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and only on papers the police officials had shown that recovery in order to falsely implicate him in this case.There is no doubt that when appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was initially apprehended by Insp.Ved Prakash(PW-173) he had recovered one pistol and six live cartridges from the possession of this accused.PW-173 had claimed that at that time only a cursory search of this accused was taken.There is also no doubt that after his apprehension accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was taken by the policemen to Okhla.The prosecution case is that after this accused had been apprehended he had disclosed about the hideout of his associate Abu Shamal @ Fazal at house no. G-73, Batla House, Okhla and immediately some of the members of the police team along with accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had rushed to Okhla.There an encounter took place between the policemen and the occupant of that house no. G-73, who according to the prosecution case was one of the associates of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila, and in that encounter that Abu Shamal was killed.Ved Prakash the so called recovery of the Motorola mobile phone having the number 9811278510 from Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq during his alleged second search after six hours is nothing but a concoction by the investigating agency we feel that a mountain is being sought to be made of a mole.As noticed already the police had gone to flat no. 308-A to nab a suspected terrorist.Since the policemen knew that the person whom they were going to apprehend could be a terrorist it was but natural for them to ensure immediately after apprehending the suspect that he was not armed with any fire-arm and if at all he was having one to ensure that the same was immediately taken away from his possession so that the same was not used by the suspect for firing at the police team.In the present case, immediately after apprehending accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq the police found on his cursory search that he was having in his possession a fire-arm and so immediately the same was taken into police possession.In these circumstances, if at that time the police officer who had recovered the pistol from the possession of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq did not bother to take into possession each and every item which this accused might be having in his possession at that time it cannot be said that this accused was not having any mobile phone with him at that time.In these circumstances, the submission of learned Counsel for appellant Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq cannot be accepted that the prosecution case regarding the said recovery of mobile phone is a concocted story written on papers only while, in fact, there was no such recovery.In this regard we may also make a reference to the evidence of PW-232 Rashid Ali.He was living in the house of PW-20 Nain Singh where for some time accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaw had also stayed.He has deposed that on 8-12-2000 accused Mohd. Arif had got married to a lady and on that day this accused had taken him to a roza iftar party at Laxmi Nagar.That shows that this witness was quite close to this accused as otherwise he would not have attended the marriage of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.This witness had also deposed that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had a mobile phone.This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of any of the eleven accused persons and, therefore, his statement that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had a mobile phone stood admitted by the accused.We may also refer to the evidence of another witness in this regard and he is PW-56 Fazal Mohd. He was also occupying some portion of the house of PW-20 Nain Singh in whose house, as per the prosecution case, appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was also residing as a tenant for some time before this incident took place.He has deposed that one Adam Malik also used to reside in the house of Nain Singh and that Adam Malik had brought accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq with him in May, 2000 and Adam Malik had got him one room in that house on rent.PW-56 further deposed that Adam Malik had introduced him to Ashfaq.He then deposed that he along with accused Mohd. Ashfaq had thereafter opened a computer centre by the name of 'Knowledge Plus' at 18-C, Gafur Nagar and for opening that computer centre he had invested Rs. 70,000/- while accused Ashfaq had invested Rs. 1,70,000/- for purchasing computers from one Khalid Bhai.(This is admitted even by Mohd. Arif in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.).He further deposed that they needed a telephone for their computer centre but since they did not have ration card he(PW-56) spoke to his cousin Danish Mohd. Khan and requested him to get one telephone installed at their computer centre with the help of his identity card and then that Danish Mohd. Khan had got installed a telephone in his own name at the 'Knowledge Plus' computer centre.It was also deposed by him that Ashfaq had a mobile telephone also.Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had admitted during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that this witness was his partner in the computer centre.In his cross-examination on behalf of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq it was asked from him as to whether he had used the mobile phone of Ashfaq to which his answer was that he had not used the mobile phone of Ashfaq before they got landline connection at the computer centre.However, no suggestion was given to him that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq never had any mobile phone with him and that his statement to the effect that Ashfaq had a mobile phone was incorrect.It, thus, stood admitted by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq that he had a mobile phone.PW-37 Aamir Irfan, who was also a tenant in the house of PW-20 with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, had also claimed that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was having a mobile phone.He had been using mobile number 9811278510 from both these instruments.That was also a cash card number of ESSAR.The call details in respect of the said mobile number had also been collected by the investigating officer from Hutchinson ESSAR Telecom Ltd. in respect of the period from September, 2000 to November, 2000 and those details were given in the form a computerised print out running into nine pages and collectively were marked as Ex. PW-198/E during the evidence of PW-198 Rajiv Pandit, who was the then General Manager of ESSAR Company.A perusal of the call details in respect of mobile phone number 9811242154 shows that a large number of calls had been made to this number from landline telephone number 2720223, which number, as noticed already, was the residential telephone number of the accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq at 308-A, DDA flats, Gazipur, New Delhi.PW-229 Insp.Mohan Chand Sharma had also deposed that after getting the call details of the numbers 9811278510 and 9811242154 it had also transpired that on 14/12/2000 one call had been made from the landline number 6315904(which was the number of telephone installed at Mohd. Arif's computer centre) to mobile number.That part of his statement had also remained unchallenged in cross-examination.Now, if Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq did not have mobile phones having the numbers 9811278510 and 9811242154, as is being claimed by the prosecution, he could have come forward and given the telephone number of his mobile phone.In this regard Mr. Tufail drew our attention to a three-page computerised print out Ex. PW-198/DA in respect of mobile number 9811242154 pertaining to the period from 1-10-2000 to 30-11-2000 issued by ESSAR company.This document was confronted to PW-198 Rajiv Pandit from ESSAR company in his cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and then the witness had stated that this print out appeared to be of his Company.Then our attention was drawn to the cross-examination of the investigating officer PW-230 Inspector Surender Kumar Sand wherein he had admitted that telephone number 7232639 was of the Special Cell office at Ashok Vihar.The submission of Mr. Tufail was that the exchange of calls between the mobile number 9811242154 and the above mentioned two landline numbers of the police totally falsifies the prosecution case that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was using mobile phone numbers 9811278510 and 9811242154 since if these two cash card numbers had been taken by him from the mobile company ESSAR then there would have been no calls from mobile number 9811242154 to the telephone of the Special Cell of the Delhi Police as reflected in Ex. PW-198/DA.Mr. Tufail contended that the entire prosecution case was built on the recovery of a paper slip having mobile phone number 9811278510 written on it which it claimed to be of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and since from the document Ex. PW-198/DA it has become evident that this number did not belong to this accused the entire prosecution case has to crumble down since its very foundation gets demolished.We are, however, not impressed at all with this submission also of the learned Counsel for appellant Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.The document Ex.However, this fact does not show that mobile number 9811242154 could not be that of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and was of the police.We have already observed that the plea of this accused that because of his having stayed in the house of PW-20 Nain Singh, who was working for some Intelligence Wing of the Government of India he had come in contact with some policemen including two of the investigating officers of this case who were from Special Cell of Delhi Police was quite probable.Now, since it is his own case that he had acquaintance with the Special Cell's officers it is also possible that his known people in police might be calling him on phone.It in fact appears to us that this accused must have taken some advantage of his acquaintance with the policemen and intelligence officials and under the shelter of that acquaintance he must have been carrying out the nefarious activities with the hope that he would never get caught.That, however, proved wrong.PW-198/DA in fact goes against accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq instead of helping him in any manner.As noticed already, the investigating agency had found out that immediately after the shooting incident inside Lal Quila somebody had called up BBC correspondents based at Sri Nagar and Delhi and had claimed the responsibility of the shooting incident.The prosecution case is that the mobile phone instrument which was recovered from the possession of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was at the time of his apprehension having that telephone number i.e. 9811278510 from which calls had been made to the BBC correspondent.The call details in that regard were obtained in writing during the course of further investigation by PW-230 Insp.Surender Kumar Sand.A perusal of the computerised print outs of the call details in respect of mobile phone no. 9811278510 does show that on the night of 22-12-2000 one call had been made from this number to landline number 0113355751 at 9.25 p.m. which is the telephone number of BBC correspondent PW-41 Ayanjit Sen installed at his office at Rafi Marg, New Delhi and another call was made from the same mobile number to landline number 0194452918 which was the telephone number of PW-39 Altaf Hussain's wife at their residence in Sri Nagar.PW-39 Altaf Hussain, as noticed already, was also a BBC correspondent based in Sri Nagar.We have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve these two BBC correspondents, whose testimony we have already re-produced, when they say that on 22-12-2000 they had received telephone calls on their phones from someone who had refused to disclose his identity but had owned up the responsibility for the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila and that the caller had claimed himself to be a member of Lashkar-e-Toiba. PW-41 had also claimed that after receiving the afore-said call he had telephoned the police headquarters.Nothing beneficial to accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq could be elicited from these BBC correspondents in their cross-examination.So, we also accept that immediately after the shooting incident these two correspondents had received telephone calls from someone who had owned up the responsibility for that incident.Since, we have already accepted the prosecution evidence regarding recovery of one mobile phone from appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq with the telephone number as 9811278510 it has also now to be held that it was this accused only who had telephoned the two BBC correspondents and had claimed that he was responsible for the shooting inside Lal Quila as also for the death of the army jawans.The next circumstance relied upon is the recovery of some more ammunition meant for mass destruction at the instance of appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.The prosecution case is that while in police custody this accused had also made a disclosure about the hideouts of his associate militants as well as about the concealment of hand grenades at some place around the Jamia Milia University Complex behind his computer centre Knowledge Plus in Okhla and then at his instance and pointing out the police had recovered three hand grenades from that place.The police witness to that recovery is PW-168 Insp.As per the prosecution case this time two bold persons who were not policemen had gathered the courage to offer their services to act as panch witneses when the police team led by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had gone to the place from where hand grenades were to be recovered.Those witnesses are PW-208 Devender Singh and PW-209 Raghbir Singh.Let us see what what these recovery witnesses have deposed.The disclosure was recorded and the same is Ex.PW-168/A, which I had signed at point A and the accused had signed at point B.Thereupon, I organized a raiding party consisting of Insp.Hawa Singh, Insp.Thereafter the parcels were sealed with the seal of ZSS.Form CFSL was also filled up and the seal after use was handed over to SI Mukesh Walia.The three parcels were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-168/B which was prepared by me.I also obtained the signatures of the witnesses as well as of the accused on the seizure memo.The accused had signed at point A. I prepared a rukka Ex.PW-168/C and is signed by me at point A and handed over the same to Ct.Vijay Singh for getting a case registered in PS New Friends Colony.He got the case registered and thereafter returned to the spot along with original rukka and the copy of the FIR.... Subsequently, SI Sunder Lal obtained orders from the court for destruction of the aforesaid hand-grenades.Thereafter SI Girish Jain took the hand-grenades to Maneshar Grenade Range NSG Smalkhan for destruction, got the same destroyed under the supervision of Major NSG Bomb Disposal Unit and brought back the remanants and certificate in this respect is Ex.PW-85/C. Same were deposited by me in the malkhana.He has deposed as under:On 01.01.2001 I was passing through Jamia Milia University for some personal work and at about 3.15 PM, I saw a crowd collected near the University Gate.Out of curiosity I also went there.At the spot, I came to know that the police had brought a terrorist involved in Red Fort Shoot Out case there.On 1.1.01 police met me at about 3 p.m. Accused Mohd. Arif was also with the police party.The police party along with accused and myself and Raghubir Singh Security office of Jamia Millia Islamia went to the back side of the University near the boundary wall.We went on foot along with the accused in front of staff quarter near the boundary wall.At the spot, trace was lying and the bushes were also grown up.There the accused went to the spot near the bushes removed the earth and took out a cloth i.e. old banian.When the cloth was checked it was found to contained three hand grenades.On two of the grenades 84 was written.On the first grenade apart from 84 some other numbers were also written.On the second grenade apart from 84 some numbers were also written and one pin was also fixed and with the pin a tag was attached.On the tag, something was written in Urdu in red ink.On the third grenade 84 was written, some number was also written and a pin was also fixed and a tag was also attached on which something was printed in Urdu in red ink.All the three grenades were wrapped into three separate parcel.Thereafter all the three grenades were put into separate plastic containers.In the third parcel the old banian was also put.A form was also filled up.After use, seal was handed over to SI Mukesh Walia.All the three parcels were taken into possession vide Ex. PW-168/B and the said memo bears my signatures at point 'B'.I can identify the case property if shown to me.At this stage, a sealed parcel sealed with court seal is produced in the court and is opened.Remnants of grenades are shown to the witnesse but he unable to identify the same.He has deposed as under:Police had come to the Jamia Milia University and they had spoken to the Registrar.After speaking to the Registrar, they came out of the office, I accompanied the policemen to the place of occurrence by passing through the Main Campus and nearby the staff quarters.Accused Ashfaq today present in the court was also with the policemen.The vehicle was stopped a little before the staff quarters.Thereafter we walked on foot on an open ground in which there are bushes.Accused Ashfaq led us to the bushes by walking in front of the police party.Again said warning was recorded only on one hand grenade.Safety pin and tag was attached in the hand grenade.The hand grenades were sealed separately by the police party in three jars.After packing in the jar the clothe was kept in one of the jars and they were sealed with the seal of ZSS.The three sealed parcels were seized by the police vide Ex. PW-168/B which bears my signature at point C.Before joining the security services in Jamia Milia University, I had worked with Army.After destruction, the hand grenades change its shape and it is not possible to identify its remnants.In the cross-examination of these three witnesses except for putting them the suggestion that nothing had been got recovered by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, which of course the witnesses denied, there was no useful cross-examination on this part of the prosecution case.This recovery has been deposed by two totally independent witnesses who had no reason to depose falsely against this accused nor any motive was attributed to them in cross-examination for their deposing against this accused falsely.We have thus no hesitation in accepting the evidence of these three witnesses also as also the prosecution case that the police had recovered three hand grenades on 01/01/2001 pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-168/A of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.Learned Counsel Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had also contended that the recovered hand grenades were not produced in Court and so their recovery is not established.The prosecution case is that the recovered hand grenades were got destroyed after taking permission from the concerned Court.That was a safety measure taken to avoid those hand grenades exploding.It was not even suggested to the recovery witnesses that the articles which they claimed to be hand grenades were actually not hand grenades.Even to the expert who had examined the remnants of those hand grenades and had found them to be remnants of hand grenades and 'explosive substance' it was not suggested in his cross-examination that his opinion was not correct.So, non-production of the live hand grenades in Court cannot make that recovery doubtful.Regarding the destruction of the live hand grenades there is evidence of PW-85 SI Girish Jain who had taken the parcels of five hand grenades, three of which were seized in FIR No. 3/01, P.S. New Friends Colony and which were recovered from the Jamia Milia area and the other two were seized in FIR No. 630/2000, P.S. New Friends Colony and which were recovered from house no. G-73, Batla House where encounter with the deceased militant Abu Shamal had taken place, to NSG, Samalkha, Haryana where in his presence Maj. Shukla(PW-193) destroyed those hand grenades and remnants thereof were handed over to PW-85. PW-50 SI Varinder Singh is an expert in the Bomb Disposal Squad.He was the expert who had defused the hand grenades which had been recovered from behind the Lal Quila and had separated their detonators.He had deposed about that in Court also and in his cross-examination it was not challenged that he had not defused four hand grenades on 26-12-2000 at Kotwali police station as claimed by him.We now proceed further to couple of other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution for securing the conviction of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against him is that he is a Pakistan national and that he had entered the Indian territory without obtaining necessary visa.In this regard Mr. R.M.Tufail, learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had submitted that he was not disputing the fact that this accused is a Pakistan national and he had not obtained any visa before entering this country.On this aspect of the matter our attention was drawn by the learned State counsel to the statement of appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which we have already reproduced which shows that this accused himself had categorically admitted that he had come to India from Pakistan via Kathmandu.He did not claim that he had obtained requisite visa from the Indian Government before entering into Indian territory.This circumstance relied upon against appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, thus, stood established from the admission of this accused himself.Other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq is that after illegally coming to India he had been representing to various persons coming in his contact in Delhi that he belonged to Jammu and was doing the business of shawls while, in fact, he neither belonged to Jammu nor was he doing any business.To establish this the prosecution has examined PW-20 Nain Singh(about whom there is a reference made by this accused himself also in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.), PW-31 Azam Malik and PW-37 Amir Irfan Masovar.PW-20 Nain Singh is the witness in whose house in Okhla village appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had lived as a tenant for some time.This accused has himself also admitted that he had stayed in the house of this witness for some time.PW-20 Nain Singh has claimed in his examination-in-chief that Ashfaq had told him that he was a resident of Jammu.In his cross-examination this statement of his was not challenged.PW-31 Azam Malik claimed to have introduced accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to PW-20 Nain Singh and on his request Nain Singh had let out one room in his house to Ashfaq.This witness himself was also a tenant of Nain Singh.This witness also deposed that accused Ashfaq had told him that he was a Kashmiri and was doing the business of shawls and in cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq this statement was not challenged.R.S.Bhasin(PW-168) and Insp.Ved Prakash(PW-173) both of whom were known to Nain Singh.The cross-examination of PWs 20,31 and 37 was accordingly done to establish that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was not a tenant of Nain Singh but, in fact, he was staying in his house to assist him in his illegal money lending business.Since there was no cross-examination of these witnesses on their statements to the effect that accused Ashfaq had told them that he was a Kashmiri and was doing business of shawls the same stood admitted by this accused.The prosecution is claiming that this accused was in fact getting money through illegal sources like hawala and had been keeping that money in his bank and also with some individuals.In this regard prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the investigating officer PW-230 Surinder Kumar Sand, one Sub-Inspector Om Parkash who has been examined as PW-103 and one public witness PW-74 Mohd. Idris.PW-103 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 12.01.2001 he was posted in PS Chandni Chowk.At about 2.00 pm, Insp.Surender Sand had come to the PoliceStation with accused Ashfaq.Inside the shop of Sher Jaman, there was an almirah, its lock was broken open and it was checked.From the almirah Rs. One lac, one thousand and one hundred were recovered and the same were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-74/A. PW-230 S.K. Sand has also deposed about that recovery.Their evidence is corroborated by independent witness PW-73 who was the President of the Association of the market Ballimaran.In the cross-examination of these witnresses nothing could be elicited which coluld make this recovery doubtful.This recovery of cash money at the instance of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq also strengthens the prosecution case that this accused was getting money from illegal sources and the same could be meant only for some illegal purposes.The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had forged one ration card Ex.In the said ration card he had also given wrong name of the name of his wife.This ration card which was recovered from the flat of this accused showed that it had been issued from one of the offices of Food & Supply Department of Delhi Government but when the officials of that office(Circle No. 6 in Okhla) were contacted during investigation they denied that that ration card Ex. PW-164/A had been issued from their office.Those witnesses are PW-164 Anju Goel, PW-165 Dharamvir Sharma and PW-172 Manohar Lal.Their evidence had remained unchallenged on behalf of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in their cross-examination.It is also the prosecution case that this accused had forged a learner's driving license, Ex.PW-13/C, purporting to have been issued from the transport authority at Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.PW-6 is the official from that Authority and he had deposed that the learner license no. 9091(Ex.PW-13/C) was not issued from that office.This accused on the basis of his learner driving license got permanent driving license from Ghaziabad Transport Authority and Along with application for license photocopy of document, Ex.PW-13/E, purporting to be of a ration card in the name of Mohd. Ashfaq had been given.That was also a false document prepared only for that purpose.PWs 2 and 3 are the officials from Ration Department at Ghaziabad and both of them claimed that no such ration card was issued from their office.Their evidence had remained unchallenged in cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohd. Arif.He has admitted that license Ex.PW-13/A was got issued by him from Ghaziabad.So, he only could have submitted the photocopy of a document purporting to be his ration card showing his address in Ghaziabad where he never resided.The prosecution had also examined owners/occupants of the houses addresses of which were shown in his ration card Ex.PW-164/A as well as in his driving licenses and all of them had deposed in Court that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had never stayed at those addresses.That document could have been submitted by him only.Thus, the prosecution case that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had with him forged ration card Ex.PW-164/A, forged learner driving license Ex.PW-13/C and photocopy, Ex.PW-13/E, of a ration card in his name, which was also a false document, stood established.In fact, during the course of arguments learned Counsel for this accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq did not seriously challenge the prosecution case in respect of the offence of forgery as also the findings of the trial Court holding him guilty for this offence.Therefore, it also stood established that this accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had intentionally been not disclosing his correct addresses to different authorities and all this was done by him to avoid being detected as a militant having come to India illegally through a prohibited route to carry out terrorist activities.We have now finished our analysis and appreciation of the evidence of various prosecution witnesses whose evidence only was referred to during the course of arguments by the learned Counsel for the State.We have also dealt with all the criticism of that evidence put forth by Mr. Tufail, learned Counsel for appellant Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and having rejected the entire criticism in respect of each of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution we have now reached the stage of summarizing our conclusions based on our independent analysis of the prosecution evidence in respect of appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.From the evidence of various witnesses examined by the prosecution which we have already narrated, discussed and analysed the following circumstances can be said to have been established beyond any shadow of doubt:(a) On the night of 22-12-2000 there was an incident of firing inside the Lal Quila when some intruders had managed to enter that area of Lal Quila where the Unit of 7 Rajputana Rifles of Indian Army was stationed.(g) On 23-12-2000 when the policemen conducted search around the Lal Quila in the hope of getting some clue about the culprits they found one piece of paper lying outside the Lal Quila near the rear side boundary wall towards Ring Road side and on that piece of paper one mobile phone number 9811278510 was written.(h) The mobile phone number 9811278510 was used for making calls to the two BBC correspondents(PWs 39 and 41) immediately after the shooting incident inside Lal Quila and the caller had claimed the responsibility for that incident and had informed them that the incident was the job of Lashkar-e-Toiba.(i) The aforesaid mobile phone number found written on a piece of paper lying behind the Lal Quila had led the police up to flat no. 308-A Gazipur, New Delhi where accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was found to be living and when on being suspected of being involved in the shooting incident he was apprehended on the night of 25/26-12-2000 one pistol and some live cartridges were recovered from his possession for which he did not have any license.(j) At the time of his arrest in case FIR No. 688/2000 one mobile phone having the number 9811278510 was recovered from his possession and it was the same mobile number from which calls had been made to the two BBC correspondents for informing them about the incident and Lashkar-e-Toiba being responsible for that incident.(k) Immediately after his apprehension accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq admitted his involvement in the shooting incident inside Lal Quila and also disclosed to the police about his another hide-out at G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla, New Delhi and pursuant to his disclosure the police had gone to that hide-out where the occupant of that house started firing upon the police team and when the police team returned the firing that person, who was later on identified by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to be one Abu Shamal @ Faizal, died because of the firing resorted to by the policemen.From house no. G-73, where the encounter had taken place, one AK-56 rifle and some live cartridges and hand grenades were recovered.(l) Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq while in police custody had also disclosed to the police that one assault rifle had been thrown near Vijay Ghat after the incident.Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had thus the knowledge about the availability of that AK-56 rifle at Vijay Ghat.(n) Accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had also got recovered three hand grenades from some place behind his computer centre in Okhla on 1-1-2001 pursuant to his another disclosure statement made by him while in police custody.(o) When the assault rifle fired cartridge cases which were recovered from the place of occurrence by the armymen after the intruders had escaped from there were examined by the ballistic expert along with the AK-56 rifle which was recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq from behind the Lal Quila on 26-12-2000 and the AK-56 rifle which was recovered from Vijay Ghat on 23-12-2000 it was found by the ballistic expert(PW-202) that some of the assault rifle fired cartridge cases had been fired from the rifle recovered from behind Red Fort and some had been fired from the other rifle which was recovered from Vijay Ghat.(p) Appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was a Pakistan national and had entered the Indian territory illegally.(q) After making illegal entry into India appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been representing to the people coming in his contact during his stays at different places that he was a resident of Jammu and was doing the business of shawls while, in fact, he had no such business and he had been collecting money through hawala channels.He had also forged his learner driving license Ex. PW-13/C as well as one document Ex. PW-13/E purporting to be a photocopy of another ration card in his name with his residential address of Ghaziabad where he admittedly never resided and he submitted that document with a the Ghaziabad Transport Authority for obtaining permanent driving license.In the learner driving license also he had shown his residential addresses where he had never actually resided.All that he did was to conceal his real identity as a militant having entered the Indian territory with the object of spreading terror with the help of his other associate militants whom unfortunately the police could not apprehend and some expired before they could be tried.The aforesaid circumstances which have been found to have been established beyond any shadow of doubt lead to only one conclusion to the effect that appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was responsible for the incident of shooting inside Lal Quila on the night of 22nd December, 2000 and that the shooting incident resulting in the death of three army soldiers was as a result of well planned conspiracy between this accused and some other militants.The deceased Abu Shamal @ Faizal who was killed in an encounter with the police at house no. G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla, New Delhi, where the police had reached pursuant to the information supplied by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq also was a party to the conspiracy.The manner in which accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq came to India and collected highly sophisticated arms and ammunition meant for mass destruction and the place chosen by him and his associates in the conspiracy, namely, Lal Quila, which undisputedly is a place of national importance for every Indian and which fact was not disputed by any of the counsel appearing in these matters and also considering the fact that even inside the Lal Quila the place of attack chosen was the army camp where the army men were stationed to protect this monument of national importance it is more than apparent that the intention of the appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and his associates in that attack which claimed the lives of three soldiers was to wage war against the Government of India.Except that object of the conspiracy we cannot conceive of any other object for which army camp inside the Lal Quila was attacked by the intruders who were armed with AK-56 rifles and hand grenades which would have caused extensive damage to the national monument and human lives if the same had been exploded.In fact, even the learned Counsel for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq did not argue that the offence of waging war would not be made out even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as put forth.We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the findings of the learned trial Court holding the appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 121 IPC, Sections 120-B read with 302 IPC and Sections 468/471/474 IPC and also under Sections 186/353/120-B IPC.Since appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq himself had also admitted that he had entered the Indian territory without having obtained requisite permission from the concerned authorities his conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act is also liable to be sustained.We also do not find any infirmity in the conviction of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for the offences under the Arms Act as well as the Explosive Substances Act since we have accepted the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of pistol and live cartridges from his possession at the time of his apprehension and also the recovery of hand grenades at his instance from the area of Jamia Milia Islamia University.We shall now take up the prosecution case against appellants-accused Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid(appellants in Crl.Appeal No. 944-45/2005) who have also been convicted along with appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC, 121 IPC and 121-A IPC.Shri Aman Lekhi, Learned Senior counsel for these two appellants had submitted that the only evidence against them relied upon by the prosecution was that in their bank accounts with Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank opened in this bank's Sri Nagar branch lacs of rupees had been deposited in cash by appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq at the said bank's branch in Connaught Place, New Delhi and these two accused had immediately thereafter withdrawn that money.It was also submitted by Mr. Lekhi that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accounts which it claimed to be of these two accused persons in Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank were, in fact, their accounts since the account opening forms and other related documents which a bank gets executed from a customer at the time of opening of a new bank account have not been produced and in the absence of those documents the learned trial Court could not have reached to the conclusion that bank account numbers 32263962 in the name of M/s. Nazir Sons and account number 32181669 in the name of Farooq Ahmad Quasid were their accounts.Learned Counsel also submitted that both these accused have denied in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that these two accounts in which according to the prosecution lacs of rupees had been deposited by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq belonged to them.Mr. Lekhi further submitted that even if it is accepted that these two bank accounts were of Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid and also that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had deposited lacs of rupees in those two accounts in cash and that amount was withdrawn also by these two accused persons from the Sri Nagar branch of the bank that would still not be a sufficient piece of circumstantial evidence to show that accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid were a party to any conspiracy with accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to wage war against the Government of India and/or to commit murders of innocent people and that the money so deposited by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in the bank accounts of these two accused persons after being withdrawn by them had been utilized for funding terrorist activities of militants belonging to the banned militant organization Lashkar-e-Toiba.It was also contended that there is no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution from which it could be inferred that accused Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid were in any way providing finances to the militants in Kashmir or anywhere else in India.Learned senior counsel also argued that the prosecution is also relying upon the circumstance that accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was also having one mobile number 9810263721 and from that number he had made some call to telephone number 436188 which was of accused Mohd. Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid.It was contended that these accused were not disputing that the telephone number 436188 was installed at the house of Nazir Ahmad Quasid but the prosecution has failed to establish that mobile phone no. 9810263721 belonged to accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and in any case even if that was so the only inference which can be drawn on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution is that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq knew Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid and nothing more and as far as making of telephone call by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to the said telephone number of Nazir Ahmad Quasid is concerned that call shown in the call details record produced by the prosecution had been made many months before the shooting incident inside Lal Quila and from that single call it could not be concluded under any circumstances that accused Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid knew that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was a militant having entered the Indian territory illegally with the object of spreading terror and to wage war against the Government of India.Learned State counsel admitted that the only circumstantial evidence being relied upon by the prosecution against appellants - accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid was the deposit of lacs of rupees by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in their bank accounts with Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank and the withdrawal of that money immediately after the deposits at Sri Nagar by these two accused persons.Learned Counsel, however, contended that since there is no evidence adduced by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to show that he was doing any business from which he could earn lacs of rupees and accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid had also not come out with any explanation as to on what account lacs of rupees had been deposited in their bank accounts by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq the only inference which can be legitimately drawn in these circumstances is that the money deposited by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in the bank accounts of Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid had been received by him through illegal channels like Hawala for the purposes of carrying out terrorist activities in India and that Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid were a party to that activity and sitting at Sri Nagar they were funding the terrorists.Learned State counsel thus submitted that not only the appeals filed by appellants-accused Farooq Ahmad Qusid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid deserve to be rejected but even the sentence awarded to them also deserves to be enhanced from life imprisonment to death sentence as had been awarded to their co-conspirator appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq by the trial Court.We have carefully and very minutely examined the evidence adduced against this father-son duo and we also find that the prosecution has not even produced the bank documents relating to bank account number 32263962 in the name of M/s. Nazir Sons and account number 32181669 in the name of accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and since accused Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid have both disowned these two bank accounts in Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving this fact beyond reasonable doubt.The learned trial Court has held that since these two accused have denied that these two accounts were theirs they had taken a false plea and that was a circumstance which showed their guilt.We are, however, unable to subscribe to this conclusion of the learned trial Judge.If the two accused had claimed that the two bank accounts which the prosecution was claiming to be theirs then that could not be taken to be a circumstance against them in the absence of documentary evidence to that effect having been produced by the prosecution.The prosecution had in fact withheld that evidence without any cogent reason.It has been claimed that those documents had been seized by the Srinagar police in some other case against these two accused.It is thus clear that the documentary evidence, which was the best evidence, was available and could have been easily produced also.Its non-production can only lead to the inference being drawn against the prosecution that even those documents would not have proved that the two bank accounts in question were of these two appellants-accused.In fact, we are also of the view that even if it is accepted that those two accounts, in which Mohd. Arif had deposited money, were of Nazir Ahmad Quasid and Farooq Ahmad Quasid still that would not establish the allegation against them that they were a part of the conspiracy with accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to wage war against the Government of India or to attack the army camp inside the Lal Quila or that the money deposited in these accounts in November, 2000 allegedly by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was the money received by him through Hawala channels and had been used by Farooq Ahmad Quasid and Nazir Ahmad Quasid for terrorist activities.It was for the prosecution to have adduced some positive evidence to establish its case against these two accused persons but except for producing on record copies of the two accounts of these two accused persons with Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank and the deposit slips showing deposit of money in those accounts by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, which of course is established by the evidence of handwriting expert examined by the prosecution, there is no other evidence to link accused Farooq Ahmad Qasid and Nazir Ahmad Qasid with the incident of shooting inside Lal Quila or their being the financiers of the terrorists.Therefore, these two appellants-accused persons deserve to be acquitted of all the charges by allowing their appeals and there is no question of their being awarded death sentence as was being prayed for by the State in its appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.The State has also filed an appeal for convicting accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, who is the wife of appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, for the offence under Section 120-B IPC for which she was tried but was acquitted by the trial Court.It was also submitted by Ms. Mukta Gupta that when the police had raided her house on the night of 25/26-12-2000 to apprehend Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq a forged ration card Ex. PW-164/A and driving license in the name of her husband Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq were recovered by the police.In that ration card the address of flat no. 308-A, Gazipur, where both of them were staying, was not shown but some other address was written where they had never stayed and in the driving license of Mohd. Arif also the address which he had given was of a house where he had never stayed.So that license was also a forged one.The prosecution has examined the owners/occupants of those houses addresses of which had been got written in the ration card as well as in the driving license of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.As per the prosecution case, since accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui never objected to the preparation of a ration card and driving license in the name of her husband having wrong addresses it becomes clear that she was fully aware that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was not a genuine person and the whole purpose of his marrying her was to have a shelter in Delhi and to avoid being suspected of being a foreigner having come to India illegally and to spread terrorism.Ms. Mukta Gupta submitted that in these circumstances it could also be inferred that she knew about the plan of her husband to attack the army camp inside Lal Quila.On the other hand, the submission of learned Counsel for appellant - accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui was that she was under no obligation to give any explanation about the money in her bank account and it was for the prosescution to adduce positive evidence to show that the money in her account had anything to do with the illegal activities of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq which according to the prosecution he was indulging in.In any case, she had claimed that the money in her bank account was her own money given to her before her marriage by her relatives.It was also contended that the mere fact that one ration card was recovered from her house which the prosecution is claiming to be forged one it cannot be inferred that she had the knowledge about any illegal activity being done by her husband and particularly about the involvement of her husband in the shooting incident inside the Lal Quila.Learned Counsel submitted that not only the appeal filed by the State against accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui is liable to be dismissed but she deserves to be acquitted even for the charge for which she has been convicted by the trial Court and her appeal against her conviction deserves to be allowed.Appellant - accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui has admitted that that much amount was deposited in her bank account but she has claimed that it was her own money.She has also admitted that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had come forward to marry her in response to the matrimonial advertisement given by her in newspaper and also that before their marriage during the courtship period also Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been talking to her on phone.She had examined her mother Qamar Farooqui as a defense witness and she had deposed that Mohd. Arif had expressed his desire to marry Rehmana after reading the matrimonial advertisement in the newspaper and that she had agreed for the marriage between the two since he had not raised any demands.She had further deposed that she had saved some money for the marriage of her daughter and her relatives had also contributed for her marriage and that money was put in bank by Rehmana in Installments.The prosecution is alleging that the amount of Rs.2.80 lacs was deposited in Rehmana's account in four Installments.In cross-examination by the public prosecutor DW-1 denied the suggestion that Mohd. Arif had told her that he was involved in terrorist activities and wanted to set up a base in Delhi.She was asked if Mohd. Arif had paid any money to her or her daughter before the nikah to which she replied that he had not paid any money to them before the marriage.She, however, admitted the suggestion that in the account of Rehmana with State Bank of India money was deposited in four Installments.The case of the prosecution is that the money so deposited on those four occasions was deposited by Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq before his marriage with Rehmana.However, no suggestion was put to DW-1 that that money was paid to her daughter by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and also that it was paid as an incentive to her to marry him so that he could have shelter in their house after getting married to Rehmana.Therefore, it cannot be accepted that prosecution has succeded in establishing its case that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had given lacs of rupees to Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui and she had accepted the same knowing that he was a terrorist.In fact, a suggestion was put to DW-1 that her daughter and son had enquired about Mohd. Arif and they had come to know that he was a good boy.DW-1 accepted that suggestion to be correct.This suggestion put to DW-1 by the public prosecutor falsifies its case that Rehmana had got married to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq knowing that he was a terrorist.And just because one ration card Ex. PW-164/A and one driving license in the name of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had been recovered from the flat where Mohd. Arif and Rehmana were living after their marriage it cannot be said that she was aware that her husband had got a forged ration card or that he had obtained driving license giving an incorrect residential address and in any event the recovery of forged ration card and the driving license having the residential address where Mohd. Arif never stayed is not sufficient to draw an inference that Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui really knew as to what her husband was up to and what were his designs and intention behind marrying her.In this regard we may make a useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parliament Attack case which is reported as .In that case also two of the accused were husband and wife.After the attack on the parliament house there was a telephonic conversation between the husband and wife and that call had been intercepted by the police.On the basis of that conversation which was taped the Hon'ble Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that from that conversation it appeared that the accused wife was scared and also that an inference could be drawn that her husband and another co-accused had done something wrong which had attracted police surveillance but from that circumstance alone no inference could be drawn that the wife was having knowledge of the plan of her husband to attack the Parliament before the incident.The accused wife had been convicted under Section 123 IPC by the trial Court for not informing the police about the plan of her husband and its associates to attack the parliament despite having knowledge about that plan.However, in appeal filed by her a Division Bench of this Court had set aside her conviction and acquitted her of the charge under Section 123 IPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed her acquittal when the State filed an appeal there.In the present case, there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution from which it could be concluded that she was a party to any conspiracy to launch an attack inside the Lal Quila or that she had even some idea about the intentions of her husband to commit that kind of a crime.We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution could not be said to have established that accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui had married accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq in order to provide a shelter to him in Delhi so that he could go ahead with his terrorist activities without being suspected because of his living with Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, her mother, her sister and brother in their house in Gazipur from where Mohd. Arif was arrested.So, she was not rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and there being no evidence whatsoever adduced by the prosecution from which it could be inferred that she was either a party to the conspiracy to attack the army camp inside Lal Quila or that she had some knowledge about that plan she cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC for which the learned trial Court has acquitted her.The appeal filed by the State seeking her conviction under Section 120-B IPC is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui deserves to be allowed.The State has also filed an appeal against accused Sadakat Ali for his conviction under Section 120-B IPC for which he was acquitted by the trial Court.This accused has on the other hand filed his appeal seeking his total acquittal.He has denied having any knowledge about Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq being a terrorist and his plans to attack the army camp inside Lal Quila.Against this accused prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of one Mohd. Ahmad, PW-225, who had claimed that he knew Sadakat Ali and also that one of his friends had informed him that Sadakat Ali was a builder but waa assisting terrorists and he had helped a terrorist in escaping after accepting four lacs of rupees from that terrorist.He also claimed to have informed about that to the Home Mionister vide his complaint Ex.Learned Counsel for Sadakat Ali had argued that there was no evidence against him for any of the offences with which he was charged and not even for the charge for which he was finally convicted.It was contended that just because this accused had let out his premises to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, although he had denied that also, that circumstance by itself could not be made the basis of his conviction as had been done by the trial Court and based on that solitary circumstance the State is now wanting to get him convicted even for the offence under Section 120-B IPC which effort of the State cannot succeed in the absence of any other evidence.It was also submitted that if mere short-term association with Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was to be sufficient to conclude that his acquaintances must be aware of his illegal activities or that he was an illegal entrant into the territory of India then all his acquaintances including those who have been made prosecution witnesses like PW-20 Nain Singh, who had also let out his house to Mohd. Arif and being a RAW official could not be expected to be unaware of the fact that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was not a genuine person, PW-65 Mohd. Faisal who was partner of Mohd. Arif in Knowlwdge Plus computer centre as well as PW-21 Gian Chand Goyal who had also let out his house number G-73, Batla House, Muradi Road, Okhla(where an encounter had taken place between police and one militant Abu Shamal) and such like other acquaintances of this accused examined by the prosecution should also have been made accused and convicted at least for the offence for which Sadakat Ali has been convicted but none of them was prosecuted and therefore, the investigating agency had discriminated against Sadakat Ali by choosing him only as an accused.Regarding PW-225 it was submitted that his evidence is worthless since he did not have any personal knowledge rearding the illegal activities of Sadakat Ali and the person who gave information to him about this accused having not been examined evidence of PW-225 becomes hearsay evidence and totally inadmissible.We find substance in the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for Sadakat Ali and no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel.The only evidence highlighted before us by the learned State counsel against Sadakat Ali was exchange of some telephone calls between him and accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq.In our view, since the prosecution itself is claiming that Sadakat Ali and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq were landlord and tenant exchange of telephone calls between them cannot be a circumstance from which the only inference that could be drawn is that Sadakat Ali knew about the real identity of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and his plan to attack Lal Quila.The relationship of landlord and tenant has in any case been been disputed by Sadakat Ali as well as Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and except for statements of some witnesses that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had opened a computer centre in the premises of Sadakat Ali from which evidence alone the relationship of landlord and tenant between these two accused could not be inferred, there is no other evidence to establish the same.Above all, the prosecution did not prosecute even PW-225 who himself had claimed that he knew that Sadakat Ali was a terrorist.In any case, we feel that merely because of Sadakat Ali having let out his property to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq it could not be said that he was a party to the conspiracy for the attack inside Lal Quila.As far as the evidence of PW-225 is concerned the same is definitely hearsay since he claims that some friend of his had told him that Sadakat Ali was assisting terrorists and that friend has not been examined.No weight can be attached to this kind of evidence and there is no explanation forthcoming for the non-examination of the so-called friend of PW-225 who knew about the activities of Sadakat Ali.Therefore, the appeal filed by Sadakat Ali against his conviction also deserves to be allowed and the State appeal for securing his conviction for the offence of conspiracy is liable to be dismissed.Coming now to the case of appellant - accused Babar Mohsin Baghwala we find from the impugned judgment that he has been convicted for his having provided shelter to co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq during his visit to Delhi many months before the present incident of shooting inside Lal Quila.Although he had also been charged for the offence under Section 120-B IPC for conspiring with the other charge-sheeted ten accused persons and some proclaimed offenders to wage war against the Government of India but he was acquitted of that charge.As against appellant-accused Babar Mohsin Baghwala the only evidence against him which was pressed into service by the prosecution during the trial as well as during the course of hearing of these appeals by the learned State counsel was the recovery of one letter from the dickey of motor-cycle of this accused.That letter, according to the prosecution, was written by accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq to Babar Mohsin Baghwala from Sri Nagar thanking him for the help rendered to him(Mohd.The letter Ex. PW-10/C does not in any way help the prosecution case.Learned State counsel had admitted before us that this letter Ex. PW-10/C is dated 14th March, 2000 and in that letter there is no reference whatsoever to any plan of the militants to attack the army camp inside Lal Quila or that Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq had claimed in this letter that Babar Mohsin Baghwala had taken him around on his motor-cycle to different parts of the city to shortlist the places of importance which could be made a target for terrorist attacks.Learned State counsel has submitted that it was for accused Babar Mohsin Baghwala to have come out with an explanation as to how he knew accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq and what kind of help he had rendered to Mohd. Arif during his stay in Delhi for which he had written to him this thanks giving letter and in the absence of any explanation having been given by him the only inference which can be drawn is that both these accused were terrorists and Babar Mohsin Baghwala had shown different places in Delhi to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq for being made targets of terrorist attacks.The prosecution case is that Matloob Alam was running a ration shop in Delhi and the allegations against him were that he used to forge ration cards and give them to different persons after taking money from them and he had forged 32 ration cards for different persons and one ration card Ex.PW-164/A he had forged in conspiracy with the acquitted accused Mool Chand Sharma, who was employed in the Food & Supply Department, for appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq despite knowing the fact that this accused was a terrorist and he required a ration card to conceal his real identity as a terrorist.Mool Chand Sharma has, however, been acquitted.Matloob Alam has been convicted for forging three rations cards, Ex.PW-164/A in the name of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq, Ex.PW-203/A in the name of PW-203 Babu Ram Joshi and Ex.PW-205/B in the name of father of PW-151 Azmat Ali Khan.In respect of the conviction of accused Matloob Alam it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that ration card Ex. PW-164/A which was seized from the house of accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq was found to be forged since the officials of the ration department who had been examined by the prosecution, namely, PW-164 Anju Goel, PW-165 Dharamvir Sharma and PW-172 Manohar Lal all of whom were at the relevant time posted in the office of Food & Supply Department, Circle No. 6 in Okhla and all three of them had claimed that the ration card Ex. PW-164/A had not been issued from their office.It was also submitted that when the specimen handwriting of Matloob Alam was got compared with the writing on the said ration card by a handwriting expert as also with the handwriting on other ration cards of different persons it was confirmed that Matloob Alam had filled in the ration card Ex.PW-164/A. PWs 151 and 203 had claimed that they had approached Matloob Alam for preparation of their rations cards and after taking money from them he had handed over to them their ration cards.Those two ration cards were also found to have not been issued from Ration Department, as stated by PWs 164 and 165, and, therefore, he was the actual forgerer of these three ration cards and accordingly had been rightly convicted by the trial Court.The submission of learned Counsel for appellant - accused Matloob Alam, on the other hand, was that he had been convicted without any admissible evidence against him by the trial Court by relying upon the disclosure statements of the accused as also that of his co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq wherein he had claimed that he had got the ration card prepared from Matloob Alam by paying him money.It was also contended that Matloob Alam had also been convicted for forging ration cards of other persons also after taking money from them and in that way he had also cheated them but that conviction was also without any sufficient admissible evidence having been adduced by the prosecution.Learned Counsel submitted that evidence of PW-165 Dharamvir Sharma who was the Food Supply Officer and who has disowned his signature on the ration card Ex.PW-164/A and the evidence of handwriting expert PW-216 should not be accepted since in cross-examination PW-165 had admitted that during investigation he was never shown the original ration card Ex.PW-164/A and he had been shown only its photostat copy and original card he had seen only in Court for the first time.S.K.Sand had also admitted in cross-examination that only photocopy of the ration card Ex.PW-164/A had been shown to PW-165 Dharamvir Sharma.Similarly, the clerk PW-164 Anju Goel had also stated that no ration card had been shown to her by the police when her specimen initials were taken and PW-230 also admitted that fact.So, according to the counsel, since these witnesses had not even been shown the original card during investigation how the investigating officer could send Ex. PW-164/A to the handwriting expert along with the specimen signatures/initials of these two officials of the ration department for comparison.It was also submitted that the handwriting expert had not been given the documents seized from the ration department where PW-165 was posted and if those documents, having admitted signatures of these witnesses had been sent to the handwriting expert and compared with the questioned signatures on the said ration card it would have been found out that ration card Ex. PW-164/A was, in fact, signed by PWs-164 and 165 and was a genuine document and not forged by Matloob Alam.Learned Counsel further submitted that even though specimen signature of PW-165 had been taken during investigation by the police but those specimen signatures were disguised signatures having been intentionally obtained from him by the police so that the same did not tally with the questioned signature on the ration card.Regrading the other two forged ration cards it was submitted that the evidence of PWs 151 and 203 does not inspire confidence and there are many infirmities in their evidence and that even though the prosecution had got examined from the handwriting expert(PW-205 Shri Ami Lal Daksh) their ration cards and he had after comparing the handwriting and initials etc. appearing in those ration cards with the specimen handwriting of Matloob Alam had not found out that the entries and signatures in those two ration cards Ex. PW-203/A and Ex. PW-205/B were of accused Matloob Alam.He claims to have examined the signatures on the ration card Ex.PW-164/A and compared the same with the specimen signatures of PWs 164 and 165 and found the same to be not tallying with each other.The defense of this accused is that ration card was in fact issued from the ration office and was signed by FSO PW-165 Dharamvir Sharma and his clerk PW-164 Anju Goel.PWs-164 and 165, as noticed already, have both claimed that this ration card does not bear their signatures.In cross-examination these witnesses had admitted that they were not shown the original ration card Ex.PW-164/A during investigation.There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the original ration card Ex.PW-164/A was not shown to these officials of Ration Department during investigation and why the original card which was never shown to them was sent to CFSL.We are, therefore, in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for Matloob Alam that in these circumstances this accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt in respect of the allegation that he had forged ration card Ex.PW-164/A even though it might not have been issued from Circle No. 6 of the Food & Supply Department where PWs 164 and 165 were posted during the relevant period.Matloob Alam is also alleged to have forged ration cards Ex.PW-203/A and Ex.PW-205/B and for this allegation evidence of PW-151 Azmat Imam Khan and PW-203 B.R.Joshi has been relied upon by the prosecution as well as by the rial Court.PW-151 had deposed that ration card was in the name of his father but he himself had got it made through the owner of one local ration shop in Okhla whose name he did not remeber.That he stated on 20/01/2004 when his examination-in-chief had commenced.That day he did not name accused Matloob Alam nor he identified this accused.His examination-in-chief was got deferred by the prosecutor.On the adjourned date on 12/04/2004, however, this witness named Maloob Alam and also identified him to be the person from whom he got prepared ration card Ex.PW-205/B. However, in cross-examination PW-151 stated that this ration card was got made by his father through one mullahji who used to sell chicken and also that he had not named Matloob Alam before the police when his statement was recorded.In these circumstances, no implicit reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW-151 and particularly when father of this witness himself has not been examined.As far as PW-203 Babu Ram Joshi is concerned his evidence also cannot be said to be reliable and sufficient to implicat Matloob Alam for the forgery of his ration card Ex.PW-203/A. In chief-examination he claimed that ration card Ex.PW-203/A was given to him by accused Matloob Alam, whose name the witness stated as Mehboob Alam.In cross-examination this witness admitted that ration card Ex.PW-203/A was neither having his signature nor his photo had been pasted on it but it had simply been stapled and also that he did not know if his own name was mentioned in his ration card or not.He also stated that when he was interrogated by the police this ration card was not seized and further that he had never drawn ration through this ration card.From the cross-examination of this witness it really becomes doubtful if ration card Ex.PW-203/A was the card of this witness.If actually it was his ration card it would have been having his signature and also his photo pasted on it and signed by the Food & Supply Officer.He did not even know if his name was mentioned in the said ration card or not.It was not even seized by the investigating officer when this witness was interrogated.So, we are of the view that even in respect of these two ration cards Ex.PW-203/A and Ex.PW-205/B prosecution case against accused Matloob Alam cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt benefit for which has to go to him.His appeal also, thus deserves to be allowed.After having reached the aforesaid conclusions on a totally independent analysis of the entire evidence relied upon by the prosecution in respect of appellants - accused Rehmana Yusuf Farooqui, Farooq Ahmad Quasid, Nazir Ahmad Quasid, Sadakat Ali and Babar Mohsin Baghwala, we became anxious to find out as to how these six accused persons had been found guilty by the learned trial Judge when despite our digging deep into the prosecution evidence we could not find sufficient evidence against anyone of these six accused persons.Perhaps the learned Counsel was conscious of the futility of the submission for awarding life sentence to Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad.Considering the fact that this accused had hatched a conspiracy to attack the Indian Army stationed inside the national monument for protecting it from any invasion by the terrorists and had executed also that conspiracy with the help of his other associate militants and in that process they had killed three army jawans and more could also have lost their lives but for immediate retaliation by the members of the Quick Reaction Team of the Army this can definitely be said to be a case falling in the category of 'rarest of rare' cases where the extreme penalty of death only would serve the ends of justice.In case death sentence is not awarded to these kind of terrorists who have no value for human life and they are not bothered even for their own lives while indulging in these kind of terrorist activities the conscience of the entire community would be shocked.The death sentence is the only appropriate punishment which appellant - accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq deserves and has been rightly sentenced to death by the learned trial Court and we have no hesitation in affirming that sentence.In the result, we maintain the conviction of appellant-accused Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad in respect of all the offences of which he has been convicted by the trial Court as well as the sentences awarded to him including the death sentence and Death Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2005 stands answered accordingly.Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 2005 of appellant Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq @ Abu Hamad is dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,599,443 |
DATE : 25th JUNE, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT :-Rule, made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::3 11-CRWP-1091-16These writ petitions have arisen out of the same crime bearing registration no. 31 of 2017 registered with Police Station Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 197, 198 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short).Therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.It is alleged that during the period from 24 th September, 2004 to 11th May, 2007, gold loans were sanctioned and disbursed to 48 borrowers of Bhusawal People's Co-operative Bank, Branch Yawal ("the Bank" for short).It was subsequently noticed that the gold ornaments pledged by them were not genuine.It was on the basis of the false and forged valuation reports that those borrowers had obtained loans having total of Rs.1,20,88,560/-.The Manging Director of the bank lodged an F.I.R., on the basis of which the above numbered crime came to be registered.Respondent no.1 (accused no.52) in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1091 of 2016 was serving as a clerk, Respondent no.1 (accused no.50) in Criminal Writ Petition ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 ::: 4 11-CRWP-1091-16no.1092 of 2016 was the then in-charge Branch Manager and Respondent no.1 (accused no. 51) in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1093 of 2016 was serving as a clerk at the relevant time.(These accused - respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the respondents" collectively.) Therefore, these respondents also came to be added as accused persons.They filed applications before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon for their discharge of the above mentioned offences on the say that they were not at all responsible for sanction and disbursment of gold loans on the basis of fake ornaments.The gold loans were sanctioned on the basis of the valuation reports given by the authorized valuer of the bank.They had no role to play in accepting the gold ornaments.Their applications came to be rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.Thereafter, they filed Criminal Revision Application nos. 160 of 2012, 161 of 2012 and 175 of 2012 respectively before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, challenging the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon.After hearing the respondents and the learned A.P.P. and after considering the facts and ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 ::: 5 11-CRWP-1091-16circumstances of the case, the said Criminal Revision Applications came to be allowed and the respondents came to be discharged of the above mentioned offences as per the impugned orders dated 15th November, 2014, 15th November, 2014 and 27th September,2013 respectively, which are the subject matters of challenge in these Criminal Writ Petitions.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents were working in the Yawal Branch of the Bank.It was necessary for them to check the ornaments before processing the loan proposals.The respondents were very much involved in the above mentioned offences.According to him, the Revisional Court has wrongly discharged these respondents of the above mentioned offences.He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders may be set aside and the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon may be revived.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::6 11-CRWP-1091-16The learned Counsel for the respondents strongly opposed these Criminal Writ Petitions.He submits that the respondents were not at all responsible for sanctioning and disbursing gold loans to the borrowers.They simply processed the papers of their loan proposals.The borrowers used to produce the certificates of the authorized valuer of the bank in respect of the gold ornaments proposed to be pledged.It was the duty of the valuer of the bank to verify whether the gold ornaments, proposed to be pledged, were genuine or otherwise.In case any gold ornament was found to be fake, the valuer of the bank was liable to be held responsible.The learned Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case with reference to the role attributed against these respondents and rightly discharged these respondents of the above mentioned offences.As stated above, respondent no.1 in Criminal Writ Petition no. 1092 of 2016 was the In-charge Branch Manager while respondent no.1 in remaining two criminal writ petitions were the clerks in Yawal Branch of the Bank. ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::7 11-CRWP-1091-16They have come with a specific case that they were subjected to departmental enquiry and after considering the evidence, they have been exonerated of the charges levelled against them in respect of the gold loan transactions, subject matter of the present crime.The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out to the statement of the authorized valuer of the bank viz. Rajendra Dattatraya Yawalkar, wherein he states that if the gold loan is sanctioned and disbursed to the borrower on the basis of the certificate issued by the valuer and if it is later on transpired that the said gold ornament is fake, the valuer would be responsible.He further states that if the valuer certifies that the gold ornament is genuine, though it was fake, in that event also the valuer would be responsible.The duties assigned to the respondents do not show that they are responsible for verifying whether the gold ornament produced by the borrower is genuine or otherwise.They are assigned the duty of processing the proposals for loans on the basis of the documents produced by them, including the valuation report of the valuer of the Bank.As such, prima facie, ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 ::: 8 11-CRWP-1091-16the respondents cannot be said to have facilitated the borrowers to obtain gold loans on the basis of fake gold ornaments.They were subjected to departmental enquiry on the same allegations and have been exonerated.In the circumstances, the Revisional Court cannot be said to have committed any mistake in discharging these respondents of the above mentioned offences.Criminal Writ Petitions are devoid of any substance.They are liable to be dismissed.In the result, I pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::(i) Criminal Writ Petitions are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:29:16 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,621,190 |
Item no. 25 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6296 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.08.2018 in connection with Domkal Police Station Case No. 360 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/324/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Laltu Sk.... Petitioner Ms. Sabana Hasin, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Shibaji Kr.Das, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Domkal Police Station Case No. 360 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/324/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner says that there was a dispute pertaining to harvesting of jute and in the scuffle that followed, injuries were suffered on either side.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,621,899 |
A.No.239/2004 Page 1 of 8 him.The said application was adjourned to enable the appellant to re-consider his decision to plead guilty.A.No.239/2004 Page 1 of 8On 18.9.2003, the appellant was present along with his counsel Mr.Riaz Mohd. In the presence of his counsel, the appellant re-affirmed his decision to plead guilty.The appellant informed the court, as recorded in the order dated 18.9.2003, that he was a Pakistani national and was misled into doing what he did and that he felt sorry for his deeds.(a) Offence punishable under Section 3(3) and 3(5)(b) Offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 POTA.(c) Offence punishable under Section 20 POTA.(d) Offence punishable under Section 121-A and Section 122 IPC.A.No.239/2004 Page 2 of 8(e) Offence punishable under Section 465 and 471 IPC.(f) Offence punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.A.No.239/2004 Page 4 of 8A.No.239/2004 Page 5 of 8 because the crime of terrorism shocks the conscience of the society.A.No.239/2004 Page 5 of 8The order-sheet shows that the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge have not been tagged date wise.The documents required to be put in Nathi A are bound in the Nathi B and vice-versa.A.No.239/2004 Page 7 of 8A.No.239/2004 Page 7 of 8(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE May 26, 2009 Nandan Crl.A.No.239/2004 Page 8 of 8A.No.239/2004 Page 8 of 8We have gone through the record of the learned Trial Judge.From the record, it is apparent that the appellant moved an application pleading guilty to the charges framed against Crl.Vide order dated 18.9.2003, the appellant was accordingly convicted for the following offences:-Vide order dated 15.10.2003, which order we find is missing from the record of the learned Trial Judge, but certified copy whereof has been filed along with the appeal, following sentences were imposed upon the appellant:-"(a) For the offences punishable under Section 3(3) and Section 3(5) POTA; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively.(b) For the offence punishable under Section 20 POTA, to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 6 months.(c) For the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 POTA, to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months.(d) For the offence punishable under Section 121A IPC to undergo imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 1 year.(e) For the offence punishable under Section 122 IPC, to undergo RI for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 year.A.No.239/2004 Page 3 of 8(f) For the offence punishable under Section 465 and 471 IPC, to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.5000/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 3 months.(g) For the offence punishable under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in default , to undergo RI for 6 months.(h) For the offence punishable under section 120B IPC, to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs. 25,000/- in default to undergo RI for 2 years."It is urged that the appellant has expressed remorse for his conduct and at the first instance has pleaded guilty.Thus, it is urged that the mitigating circumstance i.e. the expression of remorse by the appellant has to be taken into account and sentence tempered accordingly.It is urged that for the commission of the substantive offences in respect whereof the charge of conspiracy was framed, the sentence imposed is of 8 years rigorous imprisonment and thus it does not stand to reason as to why for the charge of conspiracy relating to the said substantive offences, the sentence imposed should be 10 years RI.A.No.239/2004 Page 4 of 8It is urged that the sum total of the fine imposed upon the appellant is in the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- and if the same is not paid, the imprisonment required to be undergone would be 6 years and 6 months.9. Learned Counsel for the State urges that the offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and therefore the learned Trial Judge justify in imposing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years pertaining to the offence of conspiracy.Learned Counsel urges that keeping in view the magnitude of the offence for which the appellant was charged of, namely to enter into conspiracy to commit terrorist acts directed at the President of India and the noted cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, sentences imposed are adequate.Learned Counsel urges that the scourge of terrorism which has created a fear psychosis in the society needs to be put down with a heavy hand.Learned Counsel urges that the societys cry for justice in the form of appropriate sentence has to be respected Crl.Having considered the rival submissions, we but note that prima facie it seems discriminatory and inappropriate to impose a lesser sentence for a crime which has manifested itself in the form of commission of the crime vis-a-vis the conspiracy to commit the crime and impose a higher sentence for the substantive offence of conspiracy.We agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the state that for offences relatable to terrorism, no leniency in the imposition of sentence has to be shown, more so, when the crime is committed by foreign national who trespasses into the territory of the Union of India and attempts to over awe the very existence of the State.Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far the fines have been imposed and in default, further imprisonment for respective period has been directed to be undergone.But, we find a hiatus with respect to the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years imposed for the charge punishable under Section 120B IPC for the reason Crl.A.No.239/2004 Page 6 of 8 for the charge of conspiracy the relatable offences have resulted in a conviction for a maximum period of 8 years.A.No.239/2004 Page 6 of 8We accordingly take corrective action.The appeal stands disposed of modifying the order of sentence dated 15.10.2003, but limited to the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.We direct that for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The appeal stands disposed of as aforesaid.The trial court record be returned through a special messenger immediately.For the guidance of the learned Trial Judge, we note that the Ahlmad of the court has kept the record in a most haphazard manner.It is hoped and expected that the learned Trial Judge would exercise proper supervisory control over the Ahlmad and would ensure that not only proceedings of the instant case, but pertaining to all cases before the learned trial judge, the record is maintained as per the relevant rules pertaining to the maintenance of judicial record.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,624,605 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the charge sheet filed in Cr.No.181 of 2014 on the file of 1st respondent police, as illegal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 10 in Cr.No.181 of 2014, which was registered against them alleging that the petitioners have 2/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.34039 of 2019 committed the offence under Section 366 of IPC.Now, challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners are before this Court.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that though at the time of occurrence during 2014, the 2 nd respondent / victim is a minor, immediately after attaining majority, the marriage between the 5th respondent and the victim girl was solemnized on 13.03.2019 and now they are leading a matrimonial life happily.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, would submit that though the dispute having by the 3/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.34039 of 2019 petitioners with the 2nd respondent have ended in a compromise, the same has to be recorded only in the manner known to law, particularly after due verification of 2nd respondent.But, here it is a case, the petitioners have filed this application to quash the charge sheet, and therefore, without filing any joint compromise by either parties, the prayer sought by the petitioners cannot be entertained.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is apparent, during the time of investigation, the 1st respondent examined eight witnesses, as a eye witness to the occurrence.The statements given by the witnesses and the certificate issued by the Doctor, who examined the victim girl proves the fact that at the time of occurrence, the 2nd respondent herein, had not attained the majority.Further, during the time of occurrence, the 2nd respondent was kidnapped by the petitioners, only for the purpose of solemnizing marriage of 2nd respondent with the 5th petitioner.Further, the truthfulness of the said statements has to be decided only in the trial Court, by examining the witnesses.In otherwise, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not indicate any special circumstances in the investigation conducted by the respondent police, which amounts to abuse of process of law.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues which have been found for settling the dispute in this case, are factual in nature and the question of quashing the final report/charge sheet, cannot be entertained, at this stage.Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.20.11.2020 ars 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.34039 of 2019 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.The Inspector of Police, Kallavi Police Station, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.34039 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.18802 & 18803 of 2019 20.11.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,462,628 |
Item no. 15 Ct.No.32 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7704 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.08.2019 in connection with Malda Police Station Case No. 179/19 dated 26.3.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-P.P. Ms. Sreeparna Das ...for the State This application has been moved by the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with Malda Police Station Case No. 179/19 dated 26.3.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners are all in-laws members of the deceased victim and they have been falsely implicated in this case.Learned Public Prosecutor raises objection against the prayer for anticipatory bail drawing our attention to the police inquest, Post Mortem report and other statement already collected in this case.Admittedly, the husband is now on statutory bail for charge sheet not having been submitted.Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the deceased victim, while petitioner nos.3 and 4 are the married sisters-in-law of the deceased victim.The allegation against the accused persons is that they subjected the deceased victim to torture, cruelty demanding money from her and inconsequence thereof, the deceased victim committed suicide swallowing poison.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two 3 sureties, to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer and on further condition that the accused/petitioners shall comply with the conditions in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that petitioners shall ensure their appearance before the trial Court and obtain regular bail within 15 days from date.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.C.R.M. No.7704 of 2019 stands disposed of.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.)
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,631,258 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the uncle of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 02.11.2018 made in No.1016/BCDFGISSSV/2018, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda’ and detained under 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 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have perused the materials available on record.Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in H8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Crime Nos.1194/2018 and 1197/2018 by filing bail application before the appropriatehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 court, since in similar cases bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time......"5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a similar case registered in M4 Red Hills Police Station Cr.No.369/2018 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 & 506(ii) IPC and bail was granted Crl.M.P.No.3177/2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.1016/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 02.11.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Kishore @ Dinesh, aged 24 years, son of Moorthy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
746,339 |
The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:-[a] The deceased Veeramani is the wife of the accused.The deceased was working at Nallammai Polytechnic, Dharapuram.A male child Karmugilan aged about 9 years was born out of the wedlock of the accused and the deceased.As the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased there were frequent quarrel between them.P.W.s.1 and 2 pacified both of them during their quarrel on several occasions.Therefore, there were strained feelings between the accused and his wife, the deceased.[b] On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., 17.09.2006, at 5.45 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the shop of P.W.2 to discuss about the panchayat election.P.Ws.1 to 3 were present at the shop of P.W.2 and at that time, they heard the hue and cry and they rushed to the house of the accused and found the accused beating the deceased with wooden log [M.O.1-Karla Kattai] twice on her head.The deceased fell down and again the accused beat her on her head.While P.Ws.1 to 3 questioned, the accused stated to them that he had already complained about the deceased, but they have not listened to his complaint and as such, he had killed his wife and thereafter the accused left the scene along with M.O.1-weapon.The deceased died instanteneously.[c] P.W.1 went to Dharapuram Police Station on 17.09.2006 and gave a report Ex.P.1 at 8.30 p.m. to P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police.P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.698/2006 for the offence under section 302 IPC.Ex.P.14 is the Express First Information Report [FIR] and he ha sent the same to the higher police officials.[d] P.W.17, the Inspector of Police received the FIR in this case on 17.09.2006 and took up investigation at 9.45 p.m. He went to the scene of occurrence at 10.00 p.m. an made Bandobust arrangements as no witness was available at that time.Again on 18.09.2006 at 6.00 a.m. P.W.17 went to the scene of occurrence.He prepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and Ex.He also recovered Sample cement earth, M.O.4 and blood-stained cement earth, M.O.5 from the scene under Ex.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 7.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. Ex.P.16 is the Inquest Report.During inquest he has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others.He has sent the body for Post-Mortem.[e] Dr.Sivabalan, P.W.9, attached to Government Hospital, Dharapuram, conducted Post-Mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 18.09.2006 at 12.30 Noon.P.2 is the Postmortem Certificate wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs between 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.[f] P.W.17, the Inspector of Police in continuation of his investigation examined the other witnesses.At 1.15 p.m. on 18.09.2006 he arrested the accused at Best Cotton Mill Bus stand in Dharapuram-Pollachi Main Road.In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.5, P.W.17 recovered M.O.1-Blood-stained wooden log [Karla Kattai].[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.] The sole accused Dharmalingam has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.3, Dharapuram by the Judgment dated 20.04.2007 in S.C.No.1999/2006 convicting him for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.He found the following injuries:-1]Vertical lacerated injury 5cmx1/2cmx1/2cm over the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger.2]Contusion 5cmx1cm over the dorsal aspect of the left index finger, ring finger and little fingers.3]Contusion 4cmx1cm over the Right little finger, ring finger and middle finger with [NC] contusion also present.4]8cmx6cm contusion right parieto occipital region with 5cmx1cm lacerated injury obliquely placed over it.5]6cmx6cm contusion with 4cmx1cmx1cm lacerated horizontal injury over the middle occipital region.6] 6cmx6cm contusion with 1cmx1cmx1cm lacerated injury over the left occipital region."He also recovered M.O.3-lungi, M.O.2-Blood stained shirt under Ex.Thereafter the accused was remanded to judicial custody.P.W.17, the Inspector of Police sent the material objects for chemical examination through the Court on 18.09.2006 as per requisition under Ex.On 28.09.2006 he has examined the doctor, P.W.9 who has conducted Post-Mortem and received the Postmortem Certificate, Ex.After the receipt of the Chemical examination Report and Serologist Report, Exs.P.9 to 12 and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused on 03.11.2006 under section 302 IPC.The prosecution in order to bring home, the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied each and every circumstances as contrary to the facts and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.He has not chosen to examine any witness or mark any document on his side.The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that even assuming if not admitting that the accused attacked the deceased, his wife, he could not be attributed with the intention to cause her death as there are materials available on record to show that there were frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased as the accused suspected her fidelity.It is also contended that the occurrence was preceded by the quarrel and the accused should have assaulted the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation.It is submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the doctor P.W.9 as there are corresponding injuries found on the deceased.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there are no material contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and their evidence is quite natural.It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that admittedly the shop of P.W.2 is just opposite to the house of the accused and as such, on hearing the hue and cry, P.Ws.1 to 3 who were present at that time, rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the accused attacking the deceased.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinised the evidence available on record and perused the impugned Judgment of conviction.The perusal of the their evidence clearly shows that P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically stated about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and after hearing the hue and cry while P.Ws.1 and 3 were sitting and chatting along with P.W.2 in his shop, rushed to the house of the accused and found the accused attacking the deceased.The perusal of the earliest document, Ex.P.1, the report given given by P.W.1 also clearly shows that there were frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased.It is also seen that in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has mentioned about the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 at the time of occurrence and they were also witnessing the occurrence.The prosecution also proved the motive put forward against the accused, viz., the frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased as the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased.The categorical version of P.Ws.1 to 3 implicating the accused attacking the deceased is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the doctor, P.W.9 as the Postmortem Certificate disclosed corresponding injuries on the deceased.It is the admtited version of the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the eyewitnesses and as well as the evidence of P.W.4, the mother of the deceased that there were strained feelings between the accused and the deceased as there were frequent quarrel between them.P.W.4, the mother of the deceased categorically stated that after the marriage, both the accused and the deceased were leading a happy married life and thereafter, their relationship was strained and she was informed by her daughter, the deceased that she was cruelly treated by the accused.The evidence shows that the appellant went straight to the police station at 9.15 a.m. and made a statement.Ever since the marriage, the wife has been refusing to have conjugal relationship with him.On the other hands, he had good reason to believe that she had been carrying on with P.W.6, her elder sisters husband.On one night, Kamala and P.W.6 had gone out for the ostensible purpose of answering calls of nature, but evidently for having sexual relationship.On the night previous to the day of occurrence also she refused him conjugal felicity.On the morning of the day of occurrence according to Ex.P.6, the appellant gave ten paise to P.W.1 and asked her to get onions.But his wife, Kamala said that she should not go out.He pointed out that P.W.1 was rendering service for all, and sundry in the village, but why not for them.In reply to that, Kamala abused him, . (you silly-fellow, you run away) and buried a vegatable-cutter (.) on him.He warded it off with his left hand.It fell down.But she threw it on him again with force.It was about 8-30 a.m. He could not control his anger.He therefore took cut the koduval and inflicted cuts on her.There used to be frequent quarrels between him and his wife, and Andalammal (P.W.2) and Devaraja Pillai (P.W.7) knew about it.So runs Ex.Taking all these circumstances together we hold that Kamala threw the vegetable cutter on the appellant and caused injury on the right little finger.Rajamanickam and the accused condemned and warned her for several times.But the deceased did not listened to him.Thereafter, the accused was compelled to shift his house and even thereafter, the deceased continued the illicit intimacy with the said Moorthy which resulted in frequent quarrel between them.It is seen that the accused further stated that the deceased fixed a house nearer to the house of Moorthy for rent which was objected by the accused which resulted in a wordy quarrel between them.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram, in S.C.No.199/2006 is hereby set aside and instead, the appellant is convicted under section 304[I] IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment.Any sentence already undergone by the appellant pursuant to his original conviction would be set off against him.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram.The Inspector of Police Dharapuram Police Station.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
746,423 |
a)P.W.2, Pimpa @ Swaminathan and P.W.3 were the residents of PookaraSubramaniyar Pallathu Street of Tanjore.P.Ws.1 and 4 were also the residents of the same street and they wereclosely related to the deceased.There was a long standing enmity between thefamilies of the second accused and also the deceased.b)On 29.07.2004, after the business was over at about 9.45 p.m., P.W.1returned home.Thereafter, he went to river side.At that time, he found thedeceased there, with whom he was chatting for some time.At that time, all thethree accused, namely A.1 and A.2 armed with aruval and A.3 with wooden log,appeared there.The first accused gave a first blow with aruval on thedeceased.When the deceased warded off the same, he sustained injury on theright thumb.The second accused attacked him on his head, while the thirdaccused attacked him with wooden log.P.W.1 raised a distressing cry.P.Ws.2to 4, on hearing the distressing cry, went to the place of occurrence.Theaccused/appellants, who were present there, threatened all of them and then,they fled away from the place of occurrence.immediately took the deceased to the Government Medical CollegeHospital, Thanjavur, where P.W.8, the Doctor, who was on duty, medicallyexamined and declared him dead.The accident register in this regard was markedas Ex.He also gave an intimation under Ex.P.11, to the police.d)At about 22.30 hours, P.W.10, the Head Constable attached to the TanjoreSouth Police Station, on receipt of the intimation from the Tanjore MedicalCollege Hospital, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1,which was marked as Ex.On the strength of same, a case came to beregistered at 23.30 hours in Crime No.210 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC.Ex.P.13, the Express FIR, was despatched to the concerned Court through aconstable, which also reached the Judicial Magistrate's Court at about 1.30 a.m.e)On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, tookup the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspectionin the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.9, the Observation mahazar andEx.P.14, the rough sketch.Further, he recorded the statement of the witnesses.He also recovered bloodstained earth, M.O.3 and sample earth, M.O.4 under acover of Ex.P.8, mahazar.(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal has arisen from the Judgment of the learned AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge-cum-E.C. Court, Thanjavur made in S.C.No.194 of2004, whereby this appellant shown as A.2 stood charged under Section 302 r/wS.34 IPC along with two others, who were shown as A.1 and A.3 and on trial, thisappellant along with A.1 was found guilty under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC andawarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergoone year R.I., while the third accused was acquitted.Hence this appeal has beenbrought forth by the second accused.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal could bestated thus:-He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceasedin the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquestreport, Ex.f)The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for the purposeof autopsy.P.W.9, the Doctor, attached to the Government Medical CollegeHospital, Thanjavur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on thedead body of the deceased and has noted the injuries in Ex.P.12, the post-mortemcertificate, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have diedof shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained on the vitalorgan namely the Brain, 12 and 24 hours prior to autopsy.The Investigator filed anapplication for police custody and the same was ordered.The accused wereexamined in the presence of P.W.5 and another one Ramalingam.The accused havegiven confessional statements voluntarily, which were recorded in the presenceof the witnesses.The admissible part of the confessional statement of thesecond accused was marked as Ex.P.3, pursuant to the which, he produced anaruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.The admissible part of theconfessional statement of the first accused was marked as Ex.P.5, pursuant tothe which, he also produced an aruval, which was also recovered under a cover ofmahazar.The admissible part of the confessional statement of the third accusedwas marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.2, wooden log, whichwas recovered under a cover of mahazar.h)All of the accused were sent for judicial remand.All the materialobjects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of thedeceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemicalanalysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports.P.20 is the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.21 is the Serologist's report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed thefinal report before the concerned court.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 21 exhibits and 7 M.Os.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused werequestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances foundin the evidence of prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.No defencewitness was examined.After hearing the arguments advanced and looking into thematerials available, the lower court found the first and second accused guiltyand awarded life imprisonment, while it has acquitted the third accused inrespect of the charge levelled against him.Under these circumstances, thiscriminal appeal has arisen at the instance of the second accused/appellant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.S.Subaharan, thelearned Counsel has made the following submissions:According to P.W.10, Ex.P.1 was written andsinged by P.W.1, but P.W.1 has given contra statement that it was written byP.W.4 and signed by him.Hence it is highly doubtful whether Ex.P.1 would havecome into the existence as put forth by the prosecution.According to P.W.1, hewas an eyewitness.According to the prosecution, there were four witnesses,viz.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that all theother witnesses, namely P.Ws.2 to 4, have come to the place of occurrencesubsequently and hence they could not have seen the occurrence at all.b)So far as P.W.1 was concerned, it is highly doubtful whether he couldhave seen the occurrence at all.From the place of occurrence, immediately thedeceased was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur.Aperusal of Ex.It is also recorded by theDoctor that it was the said Selvam who informed the Doctor that the deceased wasattacked by two persons.Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether P.W.1 couldhave been in the place of occurrence at all.c)As per the post-mortem certificate, 21 injuries were found.Accordingto P.W.1, A.2 has attacked thrice on the head of the deceased with aruval andA.1 attacked him on his hand and thus, it would be quite clear that P.W.1 wasunable to account for 21 injuries.Hence it casts a doubt whether P.W.1 couldhave been in the place of occurrence at all.All put together would go to showthat P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.Hence theevidence of P.W.1 is not believable and if it is to be rejected, prosecution hadno evidence to offer.Under the circumstances, the prosecution has not provedthe case beyond reasonable doubt and lower Court has also taken an erroneousview and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside and theappellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made andhas also scrutinized the materials available.Following the inquest conductedby the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.9, theDoctor, who has issued Ex.P.12, the post-mortem certificate, wherein she hasopined and has also deposed before the court that the deceased died out of theinjuries sustained on him and in particular on the injuries sustained on hishead.Hence, it could be safely recorded so.7.In order substantiate the charges that at the time of occurrence A-1 andA-2 armed with aruval and A-3 armed with wooden log came to the place ofoccurrence and attacked the deceased and caused his death instantaneously, theprosecution examined four witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 4 as occurrence witnesses.From the evidence of P.W.1, it would be clear that P.Ws.2 to 4 have come to theplace of occurrence after they came to know about the occurrence and thus, theevidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 was not useful to the prosecution.The only evidenceavailable for the prosecution was that of P.W.1 and that it was a solitarytestimony.The court is mindful of caution that before sustaining conviction,the evidence of P.W.1 should be carefully examined.In the instant case, P.W.1has categorically stated that he went to the river side, where he found thedeceased and he was chatting with him.At that time, all the accused, namelyA.1 and A.2 armed with aruval and A.3 with wooden log, came over there and itwas this appellant/A.2 who attacked the deceased on his head and when the firstaccused attacked him with aruval, it was warded off by the deceased and hesustained injuries on his right thumb.Further, all the accused have attackedthe deceased indiscriminately and thus, they caused his death instantaneously.The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1could not have seen the occurrence, cannot be accepted.He brought to thenotice of the Court that there is some doubt cast on Ex.P.1 coming intoexistence.P.W.1 was the author of Ex.P.1 and it was also recorded by P.W.10,the Head Constable and a case came to be registered within a short time, whichremained as a proved fact.Under these circumstances, Ex.P.1 was sufficientenough to accept that the criminal law was set in motion.P.W.1 has given acategorical evidence and has given a clear narration of the incident.Further,the contention that out of 21 injuries, according to P.W.1, only 5 injuries wereaccounted for and the other injuries were not accounted for, cannot be acceptedfor the simple reason that P.W.1 has categorically stated that all the accusedhave attacked the deceased continuously.Thus, all the pointsput forth by the learned counsel for the appellant before the court do not meritacceptance or do not go into the root of the matter and they do not affect thecase of the prosecution in any way.8.Yet another circumstance against the appellant was the recovery ofweapon of crime, namely aruval, on which he inflicted fatal injuries on the headof the deceased.The evidence in this regard remained unshaken.Hence the lowerCourt was perfectly correct in recording a finding that the accusedNo.2/appellant herein attacked the deceased fatally and caused his deathinstantaneously and hence the act of the appellant/A-2 would attract the penalprovisions of murder and has awarded life imprisonment, which, in the opinion ofthe court, does not require any interference either factually or legally.9.Hence this criminal appeal must fail and it fails.Accordingly, it isdismissed.ssm/vvkTo1.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thanjavur.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/E.C. Court, Thanjavur.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
746,520 |
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the first prayer.In case, any such application isfiled by the applicant as directed hereinabove, the Court concerned shallconsider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within fourweeks thereafter.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,465,369 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri Mahesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Sanjay Kumar Rajbher, learned A.G.As.assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, Sri Rajiv Kumar Rai, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and Sri Subodh Kumar Dwivedi, learned brief holders for the State and perused the material available on record.The first statement of the informant itself is indicative of fact that the deceased was under depression on account of demand of money raised by her own father from her husband, due to which she committed suicide.Earlier, the F.I.R. was lodged under Section ? 306 I.P.C. and the charge-sheet was also filed under Section ? 306 I.P.C. Subsequently charge-sheet under Section ? 304-B I.P.C. was filed only after further investigation was directed by the court concerned.Applicant had neither raised any dowry demand nor had he perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case implication of the applicant alone in this offence shows that no other family member has been implicated (in this case), though the informant could have involved the entire family.This evidently shows genuineness of the description contained in the F.I.R. Further investigation directed by the court resulted into submission of charge-sheet under Section ? 304-B I.P.C. The statement of the informant is in proof of dowry demand and the consequential torture and unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of the marriage.The presumption raised under Section ? 113B Indian Evidence Act has not been properly dispelled by the applicant.Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,664,740 |
13 08.01.2015 AB Court 34 C.R.M. 15167 of 2014 Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th October, 2014 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 782 of 2013 Dated 31.10.2014 under Sections 147/148/149/186/333/ 337/353/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code In re : Mustak Sk. & Anr. ...Petitioners.Mr. Partha Pratim Sarkar ... for the Petitioners.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the State.We have also perused the Case Diary.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, at the very outset, did not press the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail qua the Petitioner No.1, namely, Mustak Sk.REJECTED We, accordingly, dismiss his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail as not pressed.So far as the Petitioner No.2, namely, Jamir Sk.@ Janir Sk. is concerned, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has attempted to point out that he was not even named in the FIR and, therefore, on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures, he cannot be harassed and implicated in such a serious case.We agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that this is indeed a very serious case where an officer of the police was severely assaulted and it resulted in his death.This Petitioner No.2, namely, Jamir Sk.@ Janir Sk. was specifically named by an independent eyewitness, namely, Rajesh Sk.The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the Petitioner No. 2 stands rejected.(TAPEN SEN, J.) (INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,666,412 |
In the midway near Sumawali, applicant met them.Arguments heard.Perused the case-diary.This is first bail application preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.124/2014 registered at P.S. Noorabad, District Morena (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 506B/34 of IPC.Section 392 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act were added later on.Prompt report was lodged by the prosecutrix against her husband Surendra Yadav and the present applicant to the effect that she was going on the motorbike alongwith her husband.He was also got seated on the motorcycle.Thereafter, on the way, she was assaulted by outraging her modesty and thereafter some gold articles were snatched and looted by the applicant.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that initially the offence was registered under Sections 354B, 323, 506B and 34 of IPC and the applicant was enlarged on bail.When the charge-sheet was filed, Sections 392 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act were added; arrest warrant was issued and therefore the applicant is apprehending his arrest.Prayer for bail was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On perusal of the charge-sheet papers and as stated by 2 Mcrc.10369.2014 Dakendra @ Thakendra Vs.State of M.P.learned Public Prosecutor no looted article was seized from the possession of the applicant and because applicant was on bail in the other offences, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, present application is allowed.It is directed that on or before 29-11-2014 applicant shall surrender before the trial Court and thereafter on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, he be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 437(2) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 392 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.
|
7,467,177 |
Item No. 39And In the matter of: Sanjay Pratap Singh & Anr.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Rituparna De Mr. Debojyoti Das For the Petitioners Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chitpore Police Station Case No. 98 of 2013 dated 04.04.2013 under sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have filed this application for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,673,692 |
examined--due to his death in a vehicular accident before recording of his statement in the trial court.) recorded marg intimation Ex.P-19 at Nos.12/10 and 13/10 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.(4.2) In the morning of 16.02.10, Rai Singh Soni reached the place of occurrence.First he prepared a spot map Ex.P-33 of the place where the dead bodies were lying in the presence of Laxman singh (PW-28).Thereafter, he prepared (6) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 the inquest proceedings Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-34 of dead bodies of Depak and unknown woman respectively in the presence of witnesses namely Dinesh (PW-22), Laxman Singh (PW-28), Ram Singh (PW-30), Rambagas (PW-21) and Narayan Prasad (PW-51).The witnesses opined that both the deceased were murdered and the woman was subjected to rape before being murdered.He also prepared Panchnamas Ex.P-22 to Ex.P-25, showing the signs of scuffles, in the presence of Laxman Singh and Rambagas.58), the photographer of the FSL Unit, took the photographs Ex.P-106 to Ex.P-123 of both the dead bodies from various angles.(4.3) Having completed all the legal requirements at the place of occurrence, Rai Singh Soni sent both the dead bodies for post-mortems to the Community Health Center Pipariya, where on 16.02.10 Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW-46) performed autopsy on the dead body of deceased Deepak, and he and Dr. Anita Sahu (not-examined) (8) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 jointly conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-prosecutrix.P-66 and Ex.P-67 are the post-mortem reports of deceased Deepak and the deceased- prosecutrix respectively.As per the post-mortem examinations, they suffered homicidal death and the deceased-prosecutrix was subjected to rape before her death.(4.4) Dr. A.K. Agrawal also prepared a slide of sticky liquid deposited on deceased Deepak's glans penis and cut off finger-nails of his both hands and he and Dr. Anita Sahu also prepared a slide of vaginal swab of the deceased-prosecutrix, cut off a few strains of her pubic hairs, finger-nails of her both hands for forensic tests/examinations.The last digit is, in fact, zero instead of two.(4.10) The team also traced that deceased Deepak purchased a prepaid SIM from the Idea Cellular Limited (for short the Idea) in his name vide the application Ex.(11)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 (4.11) As per the call details of IMEI No.35648-40028-49820 supplied by the service provider companies, namely, the Bharti Airtel Limited (for short 'the Airtel') and the Vodafone vide Ex.P-81 and Ex.P-60 respectively.Two SIMs bearing Mobile Nos.96850-48589 and 95841-47788 were used for a period between 14.02.10 and 23.02.10 in the mobile phone of the said IMEI number.(4.12) As per the call details Ex.P-77, Ex.P-80 and Ex.P-82 provided by the Airtel, SIM of Mobile No.97552-33915 was used in the mobile phone bearing IMEI No.35845-50206-59230 for a period between 10.02.10 and 28.02.10 (as per Ex.P-77, Ex.P-80) and SIM of Mobile No.96308-46291 was used in the mobile phone of aforesaid IMEI for a period between 01.02.10 and 23.02.10 (as per Ex.P-82).(4.13) Vide Ex.P-102 to Ex.P-105, the Airtel also provided particulars as to whose name SIMs of some of mobile numbers are issued.(4.14) The Idea provided call details Ex.(12)(4.15) On the basis of aforesaid call details and Ex.With that mobile phone, deceased Deepak talked last time on 13.02.10 at about 2:58 p.m. At that time, his mobile phone was in the range of Idea mobile tower located in village Dongrykheda.Under the range of said tower, the place of occurrence falls.Later, the SIM of mobile number 96308-46291 was installed in the mobile phone.He also found that in the mobile phone of the deceased-prosecutrix bearing IMEI No.35648-40028-49820 SIM of Mobile Nos. 96850-48589 was installed and used.(4.16) The team traced that SIM of Mobile No.95841-47788 was purchased by accused-appellant Kapil in the name of his maternal uncle Rajesh (13) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Purvalia (PW-13) from Vikram Singh (PW-49), who was the authorised distributor of SIMs of the Vodafone.(13)(4.17) On 24.02.10, Rai Singh Soni seized a mobile phone of the Sigmatel company with two mobile SIMs of the Airtel bearing Mobile Nos. 96308- 46291 and 97552-33915 from the possession of Ashok s/o Bhurelal (PW-49) vide the seizure memo Ex.P-6 in the presence of Ajab Singh (PW-10) and Santosh (PW-50).(4.18) On the basis of the information as stated in the aforesaid para, on 02.03.10 Dinesh Singh, a team member, arrested accused-appellant Kapil vide the arrest memo Ex.On the same day, he interrogated him in the presence of Lakhanlal (PW-31) and Halke Bhaiya (PW-37).In the course of interrogation, he disclosed amongst other things that he and accused-appellant Ajju @ Ajay had taken the mobile phones of the deceased-prosecutrix and deceased Deepak respectively.He also disclosed that the SIM installed in the mobile phone of the deceased- prosecutrix was removed, and he installed the (14) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 new SIM bearing Mobile No.96850-48589, which was given to him by accused-appellant Ajju.Later, he threw the original SIM and the SIM given by accused-appellant Ajju in a water canal flowing nearby village Chirmeta.This SIM was given to him by his brother Deepak (not-examined).He also disclosed that his soil stained pants and shirt were kept in his house.Upon the aforesaid information, Dinesh Singh prepared disclosure statement Ex.Pursuant to which, he seized one mobile phone of Motorola company with a SIM bearing Mobile No.95841-47788 and soil stained pants and shirt at his instance from his house in the presence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses vide the Ex.(14)(4.19) On 02.03.10, Dinesh Singh arrested accused-appellant Ashok vide the arrest memo Ex.P-51 in the presence of Lakhanlal and Halke Bhaiya.On the same day, he interrogated him in their presence.Whereupon, accused-appellant Ashok (15) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 revealed amongst other things that he had removed a pair of silver payals (anklets) of the deceased-prosecutrix and kept the payals, his own mobile phone with the SIM, which he used before and after incident, and soil stained pants and shirt in various places of his house.(15)Thereupon, Dinesh Singh drew his disclosure statement Ex.On 05.03.10, he recovered a mobile phone of Nokia Company model No.1028 with SIM of Mobile No.95755-31130, the payals and soil stained clothes vide the recovery memo Ex.P-42 at his instance in the presence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses.(4.20) On 02.03.10, Dinesh Singh arrested accused-appellant Ramjeevan vide the arrest memo Ex.P-52 in the presence of Lakhanlal and Halke Bhaiya.On being interrogated by Dinesh Singh, he disclosed that he had killed deceased Deepak by hitting with a big stone on his head and threw it in the field where the crime was committed, and he had hidden his soil stained pants and shirt in the agricultural field of one Kapil (not-examined) situated on the out-skirts (16) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 of village Chirmeta.Upon the said information, Dinesh Singh drew disclosure statement Ex.P-43 and recovered the aforesaid articles at his instance vide the memos Ex.P-50 and Ex.P-57 in the presence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.P-12 in the presence of Sheikh Yakub (PW-16) and Narsinghdas (not-examined).On the same day, he was interrogated by him in the presence of Laxman Singh and Halke Bhaiya.He disclosed amongst other things that he took deceased Deepak's mobile phone, his shoes and a pocket diary.He left his own chappals at the place of occurrence as the same got stuck in mud.Later, he threw the shoes in one agricultural field.He sold the mobile phone to Ashok Raghuvanshi (PW-39) at Rs.450/-.He also stated that at the relevant time he had a stolen motorcycle make Hero Honda model CD-Dawn, which he has kept in the house of Pooja's grand- father.(17)(4.22) On 13.03.2010, Dinesh Singh vide the seizure memo Ex.P-36 seized the shoes of deceased Deepak from the agricultural field of one Pop Singh Raghuvanshi (not-examined), which is situated on the out-skirts of village Kheriya, at his instance in the presence of Laxman Singh and Hakle Bhaiya.On 15.03.2010, he seized one motorcycle without registration plate make Hero Honda CD-Dawn, soil stained pants and shirt at his instance from the house of Pooja's grand- father in the presence of Laxman Singh and Halke Bhaiya vide the seizure memo Ex.P-37, but could not recover the pocket diary and the chappals at his instance.P-69, Ex.P-72, Ex.P-73 and Ex.P-74 respectively to the effect that they are capable of doing sexual intercourse.He also noticed some minor healed-up injuries on the person of accused-appellant Ramjeevan, which he mentioned in his report Ex.In addition to the aforesaid examinations, he prepared slides of their semen and cut off a few of their pubic hairs and handed them over to Yashwant (PW-19) and Sheikh Yakub (PW-16) in sealed packets for forensic tests.(4.25) On 05.05.2010, Kishore Shah (PW-33) held the test identification parade of seized articles in the presence of Harkishan (PW-18) and Preetam Singh (PW-44), in which Sushila Bai, the deceased-prosecutrix's mother, identified one (19) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 mobile phone and one pair of payals as those of the deceased-prosecutrix.In this regard, he prepared identification memo Ex.(4.26) In the course of investigation, Rai Singh Soni, Umesh Singh (PW-54) and Dinesh Singh (PW-56) have recorded the case diary statements of all the prosecution witnesses.(19)(4.27) During the course of investigation, the police got statements of Ashok s/o Bhurelal and Ramvilash recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same are exhibited as Ex.P-62 and Ex.P-64 respectively.(4.28) The incriminating articles mentioned in the letter Ex.P-144 were sent to the FSL Sagar for the purpose of forensic tests and the DNA analysis/typing/profiling/finger-printing .There- upon, the FSL sent the DNA report Ex.P-143 and one unexhibited report pertaining to examinations of the samples of soil collected from the place of offence and soil-stains found on the clothes of the accused-appellants.(46)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14As per call details Ex.P-79 and Ex.(49)In conclusion, we hold that the prosecution has proved circumstance No.3 beyond reasonable doubts that on 14.02.10 accused-appellant Ashok had the mobile phone of the deceased-prosecutrix and her payals which were recovered from his possession after her murder.As per the seizure memo Ex.At that time, they had prepared slides of her vaginal swab/smear, cut off a few strains of her pubic hairs, finger-nails of her both hands and removed her underwear from her person and thereafter they sealed them in separate packets and handed them over to Constable Kailash Chandra (PW-38) for forensic tests.He found them capable of performing sexual intercourse and gave reports Ex.P-69, Ex.P-72, Ex.(Pronounced on the 19 t h day of May, 2017) As per Rajendra Mahajan, J.Since the aforesaid criminal reference and criminal appeals have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated 14.11.14 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.200/10, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ has held that the period between 13.02.10 at about mid-noon and 15.02.10 at about 5:00 p.m. in the agricultural field of Durjan Singh (PW-14) situated nearby village Samnapur the accused- appellants committed gang-rape upon the deceased- prosecutrix, and later murdered her and her companion deceased Deepak in furtherance of common intention to conceal the evidence of gang-rape.Having held so, the learned ASJ has convicted and sentenced the accused- (4)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 appellants as under:-(ii) 302 r.w. 34 IPC Death sentence Rs.1000/- for For each count 1 Ashok (two counts) for each count each count R.I. for six months R.I. for seven(iii) 201 IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months years Imprisonment(i) 376(2)(g) IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months for life(ii) 302 r.w. 34 IPC Death sentence Rs.1000/- for For each count 2 Ramjeevan (two counts) for each count each count R.I. for six months R.I. for seven(iii) 201 IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months years Imprisonment(i) 376(2)(g) IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months for life(ii) 302 r.w. 34 IPC Death sentence Rs.1000/- for For each count 3 Kapil (two counts) for each count each count R.I. for six months R.I. for seven(iii) 201 IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months years Imprisonment(i) 376(2)(g) IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months for life(ii) 302 r.w. 34 IPC Death sentence Rs.1000/- for For each count 4 Ajju @ Ajay (two counts) for each count each count R.I. for six months R.I. for seven(iii) 201 IPC Rs.1000/- R.I. for six months yearsThe learned Trial Judge has sent the proceedings for confirmation of sentences of death awarded to the accused- appellants in order to comply with the provisions of Section 366 of the Cr.P.C., whereas being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, each of the accused-appellants has preferred a separate appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C.The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is narrated below in detail as it is entirely based upon the (5) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 circumstantial evidence:-(4.1) On 15.02.10, Rambagas (PW-21), the Kotwar of village Samnapur, gave an oral intimation at the Police Station Pipariya that two unknown dead bodies of young persons, one male and one female, in semi-naked state are lying in the agricultural field owned Durjan Singh (PW-14), the resident of village Samnapur, among the standing wheat-crop.Upon the aforesaid intimation, Sub Inspector Rai Singh Soni (not-Vide seizure memo Ex.P-26, he seized the deceased woman's clothes namely underwear, Salwar, Dupatta (Stole) and Kurti which were in torn condition and upon which stains of blood and semen were present, as also a bunch of hair, some pieces of ears of wheat (Gehu Ki Bali) and soil smeared with her vaginal swab.He also noticed that a stump of ears of wheat was partly inside her vagina.Be it noted that he had also recorded his said observations in the aforesaid seizure memo.Vide seizure memo Ex.P-27, he seized deceased Deepak's torn jeans and a belt (7) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 as also blood stained soil and plain soil.Vide seizure memo Ex.P-28, he seized a gent's chappal of right foot and a purse.Vide seizure memo Ex.P-29, he seized a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-05-MP-1371 with deflated tyres which was parked some distance away from the place of occurrence.In the course of investigation, it is found that the motorcycle was registered in the name of Laxmi Narayan (PW-26), who happens to be nephew (the sister's son) of deceased Deepak.(4.5) On the basis of the outcome of marg inquiry and postmortem reports, on 16.02.10 Rai Singh Soni lodged an FIR being Ex.P-88 and registered a case at Crime No.63/2010 under Sections 302, 376, 201 and 34 of the IPC against an unknown person.(4.6) On 17.02.10, Sushila Bai (PW-27) identified the (9) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 dead body of the deceased-prosecutrix, as her daughter, aged about 17 years, whereupon identification memo Ex.P-31 was prepared by Rai Singh Soni.(9)(4.7) The investigation of the case was started under the supervision of Rajesh Raghuwanshi (PW-57), the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pipariya on account of the seriousness and gravity of the crime.He constituted an investigating team (for short 'the team') comprising Rai Singh Soni, Dinesh Singh Chouhan @ D.S. Chouhan (PW-56), the S.I. of Police Station Pipariya, Malkit Singh (PW-59), the SHO of Police Station Shohagpur and Umed Singh (PW-54) ASI of Police Station Pipariya.(4.8) At the preliminary stage of investigation, the team came to know that both the deceased had mobile phones with them at the time of incident, but they were not found on the spot or with their dead bodies or nearby the place of occurrence.Therefore, the perpetrator(s) of crime may have definitely taken the mobile phones of the deceased with them after the (10) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 commission of ghastly crime and they may be using the mobile phones.That is why, they thought that the culprits may be nabbed with the help of International Mobile Equipment Identity (for short 'IMEI') numbers of mobile phones, mobile numbers and call-details records thereof.(4.9) On 22.02.10, Rai Singh Soni seized a carton/box of a mobile phone of Motorola company from the possession of Sushila Bai, the mother of deceased-prosecutrix, vide seizure memo Ex.P-32, whereupon IMEI No.35648-40028-49822 is printed.However, the case diary and the call details reveal that he made the mistake while noting IMEI number in the seizure memo Ex.(16)(4.21) On 13.03.10, accused-appellant Ajju was arrested by Dinesh Singh vide the arrest memo Ex.In this connection, he prepared search Panchnamas Ex.(4.23) On 21.03.2010, Basant Kumar (PW-32) held the test identification parade of seized articles in the presence of Laxman Singh (PW-28) and Dinesh s/o Chhotelal (PW-23).In the identification parade, Meena Bai (PW-9), the wife of deceased Deepak, identified a pair of shoes, one mobile (18) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 phone, one belt and one purse of her husband.Thereupon, identification memo Ex.P-5 was prepared by said Basant Kumar.(18)(4.24) On 02.05.2010, accused-appellants, namely, Kapil, Ashok and Ramjeevan and on 14.03.2010 accused-appellant Ajju were medically examined by Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW-46), and he gave the reports Ex.The DNA report Ex.P-143 has confirmed that the semen found in the vaginal swab of the (20) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 deceased-prosecutrix and on her underwear is of all the accused-appellants in addition to absconding accused persons, namely, Vimlesh and Munda @ Parsram, who have absconded in the course of trial on 16.08.2013 (see para 8 for detail).(20)Upon the seizure of incriminating articles at the instances of the accused-appellants and absconding accused Munda @ Parsram and Vimlesh and the DNA test report Ex.P-143, the team arrived at the ultimate conclusion that the accused-appellants and the aforesaid absconding accused persons had committed the ghastly crime.On 28.05.10, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants and the absconding accused persons under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201 and 34 IPC in the court of A.K. Nagotra, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya.Thereupon, the case is registered as Sessions Trial No.200/2010 and is made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya.The learned ASJ framed the charges against the accused-appellants and absconding accused persons under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 r.w. 34 (two counts) in the (21) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 alternative 302 (two counts), simpliciter, and 201 IPC.They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.(21)The prosecution examined 61 witnesses, exhibited 144 documents and marked all the seized articles in the support of its case, whereas the defence exhibited 6 documents and examined one witness Dr. Sudhir Jaisani (DW-1) in their defence.In the examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them in the case.However, they admitted their arrests in the case.They have taken the common defence of false implication in the case.The trial court has declared them absconders vide order dated 06.06.2014 and ordered to separate their trial.Upon the evaluation of evidence in the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ has found the accused-appellants guilty for committing gang-rape upon the deceased- prosecutrix and in furtherance of causing disappearance of the evidence of the gang-rape they have murdered her and deceased Deepak.We have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length.For the purpose of convenience, we categorize broadly their arguments under two heads "first" on the point of conviction and "second" on the point of sentence .P-143 itself is capable of proving conclusively the guilt of the accused-appellants.As to reliability of the DNA report, she submitted that as per the research carried out with the exception of identical twins not two individuals have the same DNA blue print.Learned counsel for accused-appellant Ashok has submitted that Lakhanlal (PW-31) and Halke Bhaiya (PW-37) are the witnesses of all the arrest memos, the disclosure statements and the seizure/recovery memos of the accused- appellants including the absconder accused persons.Lakhanlal is a permanent resident of village Kalmesera of which deceased Deepak was also resident (as per para 16 of his deposition).Halke Bhaiya is the cousin-brother of deceased Deepak (as per para 20 of his deposition).Hence, they are not independent witnesses of disclosure statement Ex.P-41 and recovery memo Ex. P-42, therefore, they are not reliable witnesses.He submitted that an investigating officer tends to do padding of the prosecution case.Under the (25) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 circumstances, the testimony of Dinesh Singh, who is the author of aforesaid disclosure statement and recovery memo, cannot be relied upon.Learned ASJ has wrongly relied upon the recoveries of a pair of payals, a mobile phone and soil stained clothes at the instance of accused-appellant Ashok.He submitted that as per the identification memo Ex.P-15, Kishore Shah (PW-33) conducted identification parade for the seized articles.But, he has completely denied in his evidence to have conducted the identification parade and to have got the articles identified by Sushila Bai (PW-27), the mother of the deceased-prosecutrix.Moreover, she has admitted in her evidence that she had identified the aforesaid articles at the police station.As per identification memo, the identification was held in the presence of Harkishan (PW-18) and Preetam Singh (PW-44).Harkishan has admitted that he is the maternal-uncle of the deceased-prosecutrix in para one of his deposition.Preetam Singh has admitted in his cross- examination that he has merely put his signature upon the identification memo at the police station.Since the identification of the seized articles were not conducted following the due procedure, it is doubtful that the articles namely payals and mobile phone belong to the deceased- prosecutrix.He submitted that the prosecution had sent soil- (26)(25)(26)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 stained clothes seized from the possessions of the accused- appellants to FSL Sagar in order to ascertain whether the samples of soil collected from the place of crime and stains of soil found on their clothes are same in the texture and composition.He submitted that according to the report, stains of soil found on the seized clothes of accused-appellant Ashok and the samples of soil collected from the place of occurrence are different in the texture and composition.Thus, the FSL report disproves completely the presence of accused-appellant Ashok at the place of occurrence.He submitted that the prosecution has not proved satisfactorily that the slide of vaginal swab of the deceased-prosecutrix and the slide of accused-appellant Ashok's semen were prepared taking all the necessary (27) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 precautions and they were sealed properly before sending to the FSL.In these circumstances, it is not safe to place absolute reliance upon the DNA report Ex.Upon the aforesaid arguments, he submitted that there is no cogent and concrete evidence to connect accused-appellant Ashok to the crime, therefore, the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to accused-appellant Ashok is liable to be set aside.(27)Learned counsel for accused-appellant Ramjivan has adopted the arguments raised by learned counsel for accused-appellant Ashok insofar as the arguments support his case.He submitted that pursuant to disclosure statement Ex.P-43 of accused-appellant Ramjivan, seizing officer Dinesh Singh had seized a stone near the place of occurrence and his soil- stained clothes vide the seizure memos Ex.P-44 and Ex.P-57 respectively.The police did not send the seized stone to the FSL for forensic test to ascertain whether it has stains of human blood.Since stones of all sizes are found everywhere, the seizure of a stone at his instance does not have any evidentiary value without the forensic test.He submitted that as per the unexhibited report of the FSL, the composition of soil collected from the place of occurrence and the stains of soil found on his seized clothes are different.Hence, the (28) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 seizure of his soil-stained clothes does not connect him with the crime.Upon these arguments, he submitted that there is no evidence at all on record to connect accused-appellant Ramjivan even remotely to the crime.Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside against Ramjivan.(28)Learned counsel for accused-appellant Kapil has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for accused-appellant Ashok to the extent which has direct relevancy to his case.He submitted that Dinesh Singh recovered one mobile phone of the Motorola Company with SIM of Mobile No.95841-47788 and seized his soil-stained clothes vide the seizure memo Ex.P-47 from his house in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.As per call details Ex.P-60, the SIM of aforesaid mobile number was installed in a mobile phone bearing IMEI No.35648-40028- 49820, whereas Rai Singh seized a carton of mobile phone of the Motorola Company from the deceased-prosecutrix's mother Sushila Bai bearing IMEI No.35648-40028-49822 vide the seizure memo Ex.Thus, he had not recovered the mobile phone from the possession of accused-appellant Kapil, which was alleged to be in possession of the deceased- prosecutrix at the time of incident.He submitted that as per (29) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 the unexhibited FSL report, the composition of soil found on his seized clothes are different from the composition of soil collected from the place of occurrence.Hence, the seizure of his soil-stained clothes does not have any evidentiary value.With these submissions, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect accused-appellant Kapil to the crime.He is, therefore, wrongly convicted and sentenced.(29)Learned counsel for accused-appellant Ajju @ Ajay has also supported the arguments raised on behalf of accused- appellant Ahsok, insofar as they are relevant to his case.He submitted that on 24.02.10 vide the seizure memo Ex.P-6 Rai Singh seized one mobile phone of the Sigmatel Company and two SIMs of Mobile Nos.96308-46291 and 97552-33915 from the possession of Ashok (PW-39), whereas the disclosure statement Ex.P-35 of him was recorded by Dinesh Singh on 13.03.10 in which he revealed first time amongst other things that he had sold the mobile phone of deceased Deepak to aforesaid Ashok at Rs.450/-.This fact proves amply that the mobile phone was not recovered at his instance.He submitted that (30) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Ashok (PW-39) has denied in his evidence that accused- appellant Ajju had sold him the mobile phone.Seizure witnesses namely Ajab Singh (PW-10) and Santosh (PW-50) s/o Tularam have also not supported the seizure of mobile phone and aforesaid SIMs from the possession of said Ashok.They are also declared hostile by the prosecution.He submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence that the seized mobile phone belongs to deceased Deepak.He submitted that Dinesh Singh recovered deceased Deepak's shoes vide the memo Ex.P-36 on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex.P-35 from the agricultural field of one Pohap Singh Raghuvanshi.However, the prosecution had not made him a witness in the case.Laxman Singh and Halke Bhaiya, who are the witnesses of disclosure statement Ex.P-35 and seizure memo Ex.P-36, are interested witnesses.Hence, the recovery of deceased Deepak's shoes at the instance of him are not proved beyond doubt.He submitted that vide the seizure memo Ex.P-37, Dinesh Singh seized one motorcycle and soil-stained clothes at the instance of him.There is no evidence on record that the seized motorcycle was used in the commission of offence.As per the unexhibited FSL report, the soil stains found on the clothes of him are entirely different from the soil collected from the scene of crime in (31) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 composition.Hence, the seizure of his clothes does not connect him to the crime.As such, there is no evidence worthy of credence on record as to the involvement of him in the crime.Laxman Singh (PW-28) has deposed that the police prepared a spot panchnama Ex.P-33 of the place where the two dead bodies were lying.There is nothing in their cross-examinations to disbelieve them.Upon the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and Ex.Before dealing with the circumstances number (ii),(iii) and (iv), it is relevant to consider the evidence rendered by Pradeep singh (PW-36), Sai Dutt Bohre (PW-52), Santosh (41) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Jadav (PW-53) and Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-55), who are the nodal officers of the mobile service provider companies, namely, the Vodafone, the Airtel, the Reliance Communication and the Idea.Sai Dutt Bohre tendered in his evidence call details of mobile numbers 9755233915 and 9685048589 Ex.P- 77 and Ex.P-79 respectively for a period between 10.02.2010 and 28.02.2010 and call details of mobile phones bearing IMEI Nos. 358455020659230 and 35648002849820 Ex.P-80 and Ex.P-81 for a period between 14.02.10 and 20.02.10, and, 14.02.10 and 23.02.10 respectively.Rajesh Kumar Singh has stated in his evidence that the Idea had allotted deceased Deepak Mobile No.97547-75495 upon his application vide Ex.The aforesaid witnesses are subjected to gruelling cross-examinations by the defence on the authenticity of call details.(42)Sushila Bai (PW-27), the mother of the deceased- prosecutrix, has deposed that she had given a carton of mobile phone of Motorola Company to the police, which was seized by the police vide the seizure memo Ex.P-32 in the presence of Jitendra (PW-42) and Bablu (PW-43).Both the aforesaid witnesses have corroborated the testimony of Sushila Bai.As per the seizure memo Ex.P-32, Rai Singh Soni had seized the carton.It has been already stated that he had died in a vehicular accident before recording of his statement in the trial court.Upon the perusal of their evidence, we find that they are independent witnesses and there is nothing adverse in their cross-examinations to disbelieve their testimonies.Hence, their evidence is fully reliable.Relying upon the evidence of Sushila Bai and the aforesaid (43) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 seizure witnesses, we hold that Rai Singh Soni had seized a carton of mobile phone of the Motorola Company from the possession of Sushila Bai vide the seizure memo Ex.(43)Rai Singh Soni has mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.P-32 as that on the seized carton IMEI No.35648-40028- 49822 is printed.However, as per the case-diary and call details Ex.P-60, Ex.P-79, Ex.P-80 and Ex.P-81, the team sought call details of mobile phone bearing IMEI No.35648- 40028-49820 from the concerned mobile service provider companies.Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid documents, we safely hold that Rai Singh Soni had seized a carton vide seizure memo Ex.P-32 upon which IMEI No.35648-40028-49820 is printed.However, he has written last digit "two" instead of "zero" in the seizure memo Ex.P-32 by mistake.For the aforesaid reasons, the benefit of said mistake cannot be extended to accused-appellant Kapil as sought by his counsel in the course of arguments.Dinesh Singh (PW-56), a member of the team, has deposed that on 02.03.10 he arrested accused-appellant Kapil before Lakhan Lal (PW-31) and Halke Bhaiya (PW-37).Thereafter, he interrogated accused-appellant Kapil before them.He disclosed him amongst other things that he had (44) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 lifted the mobile phone from the dead body of the deceased- prosecutrix.Thereafter, he removed the original SIM and installed therein the SIM of Mobile No.96850-48589 which was given to him by accused-appellant Ajju.Later, he threw the original SIM and the aforesaid SIM in a water canal passing nearby village Chirmeta.Thereafter, he installed the SIM of Mobile No.95841-47788 in the mobile phone.The said SIM was given him by his brother Deepak.Thereupon, he drew disclosure statement Ex.On 05.03.10, he recovered the mobile phone of the Motorola Company with a SIM of Mobile No.95841-47788 and his soil-stained pants and shirt from his house in the presence of aforesaid witnesses vide the seizure memo Ex.It is pertinent to mention here that Dinesh Singh could not recover the original SIM of the deceased- prosecutrix and SIM of Mobile No.96850-48589 at the instance of accused-appellant Kapil from the water canal.In this regard, he has drawn search memo Ex.(44)Lakhan Lal and Halke Bhaiya have fully corroborated the version given by Dinesh Singh.It has been argued by the defence that Lakhan Lal is a permanent resident of village Kalmesera, the native place of deceased Deepak, and Halke (45) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Bhaiya is the cousin-brother of deceased Deepak.Hence, they are interested witnesses.(45)Dinesh Singh is also subjected to lengthy cross- examination on behalf of accused-appellant.However, there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Munish Mubar (supra), the Investigating Officer seized incriminating articles from the possession of accused in the absence of public witnesses, but the Supreme Court has relied upon the statement of the Investigating Officer.In view of the above ratio, we may rely on the sole evidence of Dinesh Singh assuming for the sake of arguments that Lakhan Lal and Halke Bhaiya are interested witnesses.As per call details Ex.P-60 for a period between 21.02.10 and 23.02.10 the SIM of Mobile No.95841-47788 was installed in the mobile phone of aforesaid IMEI number.It has already been held that the mobile phone of aforesaid IMEI number belongs to the deceased-prosecutrix.As per the Marg intimation report Ex.P-19, inquest report of the deceased-prosecutrix Ex.P-34 and the statement of Dr.Accused-appellant Kapil has not given any cogent explanation in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or otherwise as to how he has acquired the mobile phone of the aforesaid IMEI number and the company.(47)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14Dinesh Singh (PW-56) has deposed that on 02.03.10 he arrested accused-appellant Ashok in the presence of Lakhan Lal (PW-31) and Halke Bhaiya (PW-37) vide the arrest memo Ex.On the same day, he quizzed him in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses.He revealed amongst other things that he had lifted a pair of silver payals from the dead body of the deceased-prosecutrix.He also disclosed that he had used the mobile phone with a SIM and he had kept the aforesaid articles in an iron-box kept in one of the bedrooms of his house.On the basis of this information, he drew the disclosure statement Ex.On 05.03.10, he recovered a mobile phone of the Nokia Company Model No.1028 with SIM No.9575531130, one pair of silver payals and soil smudged clothes from his house in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses vide the seizure memo Ex.Both the said witnesses have fully corroborated the statement given by Dinesh Singh.All the three are put to lengthy cross- examinations by learned counsel of accused-appellant Ashok.However, learned counsel has failed to elicit any evidence in favour of him.(48)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 appellant Kapil.As per call details Ex.P-81, on 14.02.10 SIM of Mobile No.95755-31130, which is seized by Dinesh Singh from the possession of accused-appellant Ashok, was used in the mobile phone of IMEI No.35648-40028-49820, which belonged to the deceased-prosecutrix.Thus, the call details prove that accused-appellant Ashok had used the mobile phone of the deceased-prosecutrix on 14.02.10, which connects him to the crime.As per the identification memo Ex.P-15, on 05.05.10 Kishore Shah (PW-33) had got one mobile phone and one pair of silver payals identified by Sushila Bai (PW-27), the mother of the deceased-prosecutrix, in the presence of Har Kishan (PW-18) and Preetam Singh (PW-44).However, Kishore Shah has denied in his evidence having held the identification parade.Thereupon, the prosecution has declared him hostile.However, Sushila Bai has deposed that in the identification proceedings she identified a mobile phone and one pair of silver payals amongst other things as those of her daughter/the deceased-prosecutrix.Harkishan and Preetam Singh have deposed that Sushila Bai had correctly identified the aforesaid articles in their presence.There is nothing adverse in the cross-examinations of Sushila Bai, Harkishan and Preetam Singh to disbelieve their testimonies on the (49) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 point.P-6, on 24.02.10, Rai Singh Soni seized a mobile phone of the Sigmatel Company with two SIMs of Mobile Nos. 96308-46291 and 97552-33915 of the Airtel on being produced by Ashok Raghuwanshi (PW-39) in the presence of Ajab Singh (PW-10) and Santosh (PW-15).However, they have denied the aforesaid seizure in their examination-in-chief.Thereupon, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.On being cross-examined (50) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 by the prosecution, Ashok Raghuwanshi in para 6 of his evidence has admitted that SIM of Mobile No.96308-46291 has been issued in the name of his aunt Shanta Bai and he found SIM of Mobile No.97552-33915 on a public way.As per the call details Ex.P-77 and Ex.Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid call details, it is held that aforesaid witnesses namely Ashok Raghuwanshi, Ajab Singh and Santosh have given false evidence as to seizure of the mobile phone and the SIMs.(50)Dinesh Singh (PW-56) has testified that on 13.03.10 he arrested accused-appellant Ajju vide the arrest memo Ex.P-12 in the presence of Sheikh Yakub (PW-16) and Narsinghdas (not-examined).On the same day, he interrogated him in the presence of Laxman Singh (PW-28) and Halke Bhaiya (PW-37).He disclosed him that he had removed from the dead body of deceased Deepak his mobile phone, shoes and pocket diary.Thereafter, he pulled out the installed SIM out of the mobile phone and later sold the (51) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 mobile phone to Ashok Raghuwanshi (PW-39) at Rs.450/-, his chappals got stuck in mud which he left near the scene of crime and put on deceased Deepak's shoes, which he, later, threw in a field having standing wheat-crop.The filed is nearby village Kheriya.Thereupon, he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.On the same day, he recovered deceased Deepak's shoes at his instance in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses from the said field owned by Pohap Singh Raghuwanshi vide the seizure memo Ex.(51)We have already held that deceased Deepak's mobile phone was recovered from the possession of Ashok Raghuwanshi (PW-39).Thus, we place reliance on that part of accused-appellant Ajju's disclosure statement wherein he has stated to have sold deceased Deepak's mobile phone to Ashok Raghuwanshi (PW-39), which, in turn, proves that accused-appellant Ajju had removed deceased Deepak's mobile phone from his dead body.Laxman Singh and Halke Bhaiya have corroborated in their evidence the aforesaid statement made by Dinesh Singh.Learned counsel for accused-appellant Ajju has crossed them at length.But, he has failed to discredit their evidence.Thus, we hold that Dinesh Singh has seized deceased Deepak's shoes at the instance of accused-appellant Ajju.(52)(52)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14Basant (PW-32) has stated that on 21.03.10 he got one pair of shoes, one belt, one purse and one mobile phone identified by Meena Bai (PW-9), the wife of deceased Deepak, by mixing up other similar articles in size and shape in the presence of Laxman Singh (PW-28) and Dinesh Singh s/o Chhotelal (PW-23).He further stated that Meena Bai had identified the aforesaid articles amongst other articles as those of her husband/deceased Deepak.His evidence is fully corroborated by the testimonies of Meena Bai, Laxman Singh and Dinesh.They are subjected to tedious cross-examinations on behalf of accused-appellant Ajju.However, there is nothing in their cross-examinations to disbelieve them.It is pertinent to mention here that as per the seizure memos Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 Rai Singh Soni seized a belt and a purse close to the dead body of deceased Deepak, therefore, only the identification of deceased Deepak's shoes by his wife is material.Thus, we hold that deceased Deepak's shoes are recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Ajju.It may be mentioned here that Dinesh Singh could not recover deceased Deepak's pocket diary and accused- appellant Ajju's chappals which he has stated to have left at the place of occurrence.(53)On the basis of aforesaid evidence, we hold that prosecution has proved circumstance No.4 beyond reasonable doubts that deceased Deepak's mobile phone and his shoes are recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Ajju.Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW-46) has testified that on 16.02.10 he and Dr. Anita Sahu (not-examined) had jointly performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased- prosecutrix.P-73 and Ex.P-74 respectively.He further testified that he prepared slides of their semen and cut off their some of pubic hairs and sealed them in different packets and handed them over to Head Constable Yashwant (PW-19).Both the (54) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 aforesaid police constables have stated in their evidence to have received sealed packets from Dr. A.K. Agrawal.Upon the perusal of evidence appearing in the cross-examination of Dr. A.K. Agrawal, we find that his aforesaid evidence remains uncontroverted and unchallenged as he is not substantially cross-examined on behalf of all the accused-appellants.The letter bears signature of Rajesh Raghuwanshi (PW-57).There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.Thus, we place reliance upon his evidence.Before carrying out the DNA tests in the present case, he had tallied the impression of sample-seal with those on sealed packets numbering 48 and found the same.He also found the sealed packets were intact.Thus, he had not found any evidence of tampering or interpolation.He further deposed that in the course of DNA tests, he extracted DNAs from the source materials namely (55) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 deceased-prosecutrix's underwear and slides of her vaginal swab by using organic extraction and deferential organic technique.He found that the source materials contain DNAs of more than one person.Thereafter, with the same technique he extracted DNAs of all accused-appellants namely Ashok, Ramjivan, Kapil and Ajju from their semen-slides.Upon comparison and matching, he found their DNAs on the underwear and the vaginal swab of the deceased-prosecutrix.After the completion of DNA tests, he prepared his report Ex.P-143 on 16.12.10, which runs into 8 pages and each page bears his signature.(55)On the perusal of cross-examination of Dr. Pankaj Shrivastava, we find that general suggestions are given in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused-appellants, which he has denied.In the cases of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) and Anil (supra), the Supreme Court has held on the basis of the DNA reports that deceased victims were subjected to rape and sodomy before being murdered.In view of the aforesaid authorities, we place absolute reliance upon the evidence of Dr. Pankaj Shrivastava and his DNA report Ex.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established circumstance No.5 beyond reasonable doubts that the deceased-prosecutrix was subjected to gang-rape by the accused-appellants.Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW-46), in his evidence has stated (57) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 that on 16.02.2010 he and Dr. Anita Sahu were posted as Medical Officers at the Community Health Center, Pipariya.Upon the requisitions of the Police Station Pipariya, on that day he alone performed the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Deepak and he and Dr. Anita Sahu jointly conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of an unknown woman.He has further stated that he has assessed the age of deceased Deepak near-about 24 years and found following injuries on his person.(57)(i) One contusion on the right parietal temporal region of head, size 8x4 c.m.(ii) One contusion on the left parietal region of head, size 10x3 c.m.(iii) One contusion on the posterior side of head, size 8x3 c.m.(iv) One contusion on the forehead, size 7x2 c.m.(v) One contusion on the back side of scapular region of right shoulder, size 12x5 c.m.(vi) One contusion over the scapula of left shoulder, size 5x2 c.m.(vii) One contusion over the frontal side of right hand arm, size 10x4 c.m.(58)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14(viii) One contusion (size is not mentioned in the post-mortem report) over the outer side of right forearm.(ix) One contusion over the outer side of left arm, size 5x4 c.m.(x) One contusion over the outer side of left forearm, size 5x2 c.m.Internal Injuries Right temporal bone of the head was broken, blood clotted over the brain and its tissues were torn.Opinion - All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by a hard and blunt object.All the injuries were inflicted within six hours before the death.Deceased Deepak died of shock and hemorrhage.He died 48 to 72 hours before the post-mortem examination.The nature of his death was homicidal.His post- mortem report is Ex.Dr. A.K. Agrawal has also stated that he and Dr. (59) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Anita Sahu had assessed the age of the deceased woman near-about 24 years and found following injuries on her person.(59)(i) Five abrasions caused by finger-nails over upper region of the right breast, each of the abrasions had the width about 1 c.m.(ii) Five marks of finger-nails over lower region of the right breast, the width of each of the marks was 1 c.m.(iii) Five brown marks of finger-nails over the right side of the neck.(iv) One ligature mark around the neck which was below the thyroid cartilage, the width of ligature mark was 1/2 c.m. and the margins of mark were brown.(v) One ears of wheat with stalk was partly found into the vagina.Injuries No. (i) to (iii) were ante-mortem in nature caused by finger-nails.Injury No.(iv) was caused by means of a piece of rope or wire.All the injuries were caused within two hours before the death.(60)Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 Internal Injuries Both the lungs were swollen and red.Blood was present in the left and the right chambers of heart.The remaining internal organs were red.Opinion - The cause of death of deceased woman was asphyxia due to strangulation.Signs of sexual assaults were present indicating that the deceased-woman was subjected to rape before her death.The mode of her death was homicidal.The deceased-woman died 48 to 72 hours prior to the post-mortem examination.Her post-mortem report is Ex.Upon the perusal of cross-examination of Dr. A.K. Agrawal, we find that the defence has not challenged seriously the mode of death of both the deceased.Hence, we hold that the prosecution has proved circumstance No.6 beyond reasonable doubts that both the deceased have suffered homicidal deaths.(61)It is pertinent to mention at this stage that we have carefully considered the depositions of all the 61 prosecution witnesses but discussed the statements of those prosecution witnesses in the judgment whose evidence have relevancy even remotely from the point of views of the prosecution or the defence.We have seriously considered the value of unexhibited FSL report as argued thereon by the defence.As per the report, the samples of soil collected from the scene of crime and the stains of soil found on the clothes seized from the possessions of the accused-appellants are different in the composition and the texture.We do not attach any importance to the report in view of the overwhelming evidence against the accused-appellants being found reliable by us after due discussion.Before proceeding to examine the evidence of lone defence witness Dr. Sudhir Jaswani (DW-1), we mention (62) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 herein that Dr. G.P. Khare (PW-45) took the blood samples of all the accused-appellants for DNA tests.Dr. Sudhir Jaswani in his evidence has stated that the Government of Madhya Pradesh had terminated the services of Dr. G.P. Khare on the ground that his MBBS Degree was found forged in the inquiry.DNA analyst Dr. Pankaj Shrivastava (PW-60) has stated in para 10 of his evidence that he had not obtained DNA profiling of the accused-appellants from their blood samples.Hence, we hold that the evidence of this witness has no evidentiary value at all.(62)Considering the cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances, we hold the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete that unerringly points that none other than the accused-appellants had committed the crime.A balance-sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two.The considerations for both are distinct and unrelated.(71)(2) All the accused-appellants are in the age group of 25 to 30 years and some of them are married.(3) There is no evidence on record as to which accused- appellant took a lead to instigate other accused-appellants to commit the crime.(4) Evidence on record reveals that the deceased- prosecutrix was unmarried girl, whereas deceased Deepak was married man.The deceased-prosecutrix belonged to Kahar caste, while deceased Deepak was of Kushwaha caste.Moreover, they were permanent residents of different places.The deceased-prosecutrix was a resident of Sohagpur, whereas deceased Deepak was a resident of village Kalmesera.Sushila Bai (PW-27), the mother of the deceased- prosecutrix, has stated in her evidence that the deceased- prosecutrix had left the house, saying that she was going to Itarsi to meet her elder sister Pooja.Meena Bai (PW-9), the wife of deceased Deepak, has stated in her evidence that her husband left the house, saying that he was going to village Bankhedi.Sushila Bai has also stated that deceased Deepak gave a mobile phone to her deceased daughter on her (72) Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 birthday.The dead bodies of both the deceased were found in the agricultural field close to each other.If these facts are put together, it appears to us that both the deceased had close physical intimacy.Hence, it may be that the accused- appellants saw them in a compromising position which aroused them and they committed the crime.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,675,379 |
This is a repeat (2nd) application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Dinesh S/o.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the case diary.As per the prosecution story, the complainant - Shriram (P.W.1) has lodged the report that the present applicant has looted cash and jewellery, ATM card, Laptop, etc., hence offence/s u/s. 392 and 412 of the IPC have been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after dismissal of the first application, the prosecution has examined the complainant - Shriram as P.W.1 and and his wife - Sunita as P.W.2 before the Court and both of them have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story.They also failed to identify the present applicant as well as the stolen articles.The applicant has filed the certified copy of the Court-statement of both the witnesses He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Advocate opposes the bail application and prayed for dismissal of the same.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 11976/2020 Dinesh S/o.Dhyansingh Bhil.V/s.State of M.P.-: 2 :-I have perused the case-diary.From the statement of complainants - P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is apparent that both the witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story, therefore, in view of the changed circumstances, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
746,828 |
Thus his duty is, as a driver, not only to drive the bus but also to keep the vehicle under proper care and maintenance while he is in charge of it.He is therefore a public servant under the provisions of first part of Clause (9) of Section 21, I. P. C. In any case, he is covered by the second part of the clause which says that 'public servant 1 denotes every officer in the service or pay of Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty.He is in the pay of Government, in the service of Government and is also performing public duty of keeping the vehicle in his charge and maintaining the same.The driver of the roadways bus would, therefore) be a public servant as contemplated by Section 21, I.P.C.In the present case it was found by the Courts below that the petitioner Ranjit Singh had come to see a relation of his at the bus stand.After the passengers had taken their seats, the driver was informed by the bus conductor that the bus was over-loaded and the driver was reluctant to drive the over-loaded bus.The petitioner Ranjit Singh asked the driver to drive the bus as it was the usual practice to take overloaded buses.The driver resented such remarks from the petitioner Ranjit Singh.In the meanwhile some members of the staff came and asked the driver to start the bus as some of the tickets had been issued by mistake.Being persuaded by them, the driver agreed and sat on his seat to start the bus.The petitioner Ranjit Singh thereupon came and gave some lathi blows to the complainant with the result that he received one contusion 4" x 3/4" on the right arm.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,610,285 |
The joint compromise memo dated 18.03.2016 shall form part of this order.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.339 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam,pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.It is seen that a case in Crime No.6 of 2015 for the allegedoffences under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act, hasbeen registered against the petitioners/accused.After completion of theinvestigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet, which was dulytaken on file in C.C.No.339 of 2015 pending on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated18.03.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inC.C.No.339 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Uthamapalayam in respect of all the accused, including those who are notbefore this Court, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,104,003 |
The appellants during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') did not dispute that Nilima Sharma Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 2 (deceased) - the daughter of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) was married sometimes in 1993 to appellant Sunil Sharma.Appellants Hariprasad Sharma, Shakuntala Bai and Mrunalini are respectively father, mother and sister of Sunil Sharma.It is further not a matter of dispute that at the time of incident which occurred in March, 1995, family of appellant- Hariprasad Sharma was residing at 41, Kitiyani Mohalla, Mandsaur, Narottamlal Padwar (P.W.1), his wife Dropadi Bai (P.W.2), Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4), Chhaya Singh (P.W.5), Shobha Sen (P.W.6), Rameshwar Sen (P.W.7), Sunil @ Pappu (P.W.9) and M.A. Qureshi (P.W.11), all were also residing at the relevant time in Kitiyani Mohalla, Mandsaur and thus were neighbours of appellant Hariprasad Sharma.The appellants have not further disputed that in the evening of 17th March, 1995, Ambassador car No.M.P.-U- 1395 hired by appellant- Hariprasad Sharma from Yashwant Singh Solanki (P.W.18) came to his house in which appellant- Hariprasad Sharma and his son Sunil Sharma had taken Nilima Sharma to some place.Due to some mechanical fault in the car about 7 kilometers away from Mandsaur, appellant- Hariprasad Sharma called another car bearing registration No.C.P.F. 617 from Yashwant Singh Solanki (P.W.18) in which Nilima Sharma was shifted.Appellants Hariprasad Sharma and Sunil Sharma also accompanied her.The Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 3 car which was being driven by Naveen Bairagi (P.W.19) was intercepted by police near Daulada police post.They developed affinity towards each other and in view of the love affair; both fled away and thereafter discretely conducted a marriage in a temple at Chittaurgarh.Thereafter, Nilima was residing with the appellants at their residence situated at Kitiyani Mohalla, Mandsaur.As per prosecution right from the very beginning the appellants started demanding dowry from Nilima and their parents and in this regard they also started inflicting physical and mental cruelty upon Nilima Sharma.Allegedly, Nilima Sharma was being ill-treated by the appellants, who used to frequently assault her.Narottamlal Padwar (P.W.1), Dropadi Bai (P.W.2), Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4), Chhaya Singh (P.W.5), Shobha Sen (P.W.6), Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 4 Rameshwar Sen (P.W.7) all used to hear cries coming from the house of the appellants.After 03.03.1995, Nilima Sharma was not sighted in the locality by the neighbours.When neighbors of appellant Hariprasad Sharma enquired from Shakuntala Bai about her condition and wanted to see her, allegedly, Shakuntala Bai refused access to them, stating that Nilima Sharma is suffering from typhoid.Allegedly, on 14.03.1995, Prashant Sharma (P.W.29)- the brother of Nilima Sharma came to meet her, however, he too was not permitted by the appellant to meet Nilima on the pretext that she is seriously ill.On 17.03.1995 Nilima Sharma was taken by appellant Hariprasad Sharma and Sunil Sharma in a car to some other place.On a suspicion being entertained by the neighbours someone informed Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) a close relative of Nilima Sharma about the same.Nilima Sharma was immediately taken to District Hospital, Mandsaur for treatment, where same day she succumbed to the burn injuries.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 4Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 5In this regard, a 'Merg' was registered by the police.On enquiry, it was revealed that the appellants were subjecting Nilima Sharma to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and that her death occurred in unnatural circumstances.Accordingly, First Information Report (Ex.P/51) was registered against the appellants for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.A team comprising of three doctors including Dr. R.K. Mishra (P.W.22) conducted the autopsy on the dead body and vide postmortem report (Ex.P/34) found 70% ante-mortem burns all over the body with infected granulation tissue.As per opinion tendered by the autopsy surgeons, the burn injuries were caused within a period of fortnight.There was toxicemia and septicemia in the body because of burn injuries and that the death occurred due to asphyxia within 20 hours of the postmortem.Witnesses were interrogated.On the basis of disclosure statement said to have been made by appellant Sunil Sharma vide Ex.P/8, semi-burnt clothes - petticoat, saree and blouse were recovered on 20.03.1995 at his instance, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9).The clothes so seized were sent for forensic examination to State Forensic Laboratory, Sagar.(Delivered on 23rd day of October, 2017) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15/04/1999 rendered by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.T. No.119/1995, whereby each of the appellants has been found guilty under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-B of IPC and 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A of IPC with usual default stipulation.Omprakash Sharma (P.W.14), the then A.S.I., Police Post-Daloda tried to speak to the women lying on the rear seat of the car, however, he could not speak to her as her condition was serious.Omprakash Sharma (P.W.24) thereafter got Nilima Sharma admitted in the District Hospital, Mandsaur, where same day i.e. 17.03.1995 she died because of burn injuries.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 2Vijay Sharma (P.W.3) in turn informed S.P. Mandsaur about the same, whereupon the vehicle was intercepted by police near Daulada police post.Nilima Sharma was found lying on the rear seat of the car, while Hariprasad Sharma with a small child in his lap and Sunil Sharma were found sitting on the front seat.The Assistant Chemical Examiner, vide report dated 19.10.1995 (Ex.P/55) found presence of hydro- chloric acid on the clothes.The Assistant Chemical Examiner further reported about absence of smell of kerosene oil on the Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 6 clothes.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 6After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Competent Magistrate, who after complying with Section 207 of 'the Code' committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was made over to learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur.The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of IPC, in alternate S.304-B, 498-A and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.The appellants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as 33 witnesses before the learned trial Court including Kailansh Narayan Sharma (P.W.17), Ramesh Chandra Sharma (P.W.27) and Prashant Sharma (P.W.29) respectively, the father, uncle and brother of deceased Nilima Sharma.B.N. Swarnakar (P.W.32) has conducted investigation, while Dr. R.K. Mishra (P.W.22) is the autopsy surgeon.Apart this, documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/55 were also marked in evidence.The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were brought to the notice of the appellants during their cross- examination under Section 313 of 'the Code'.Except for the admitted facts referred to hereinabove in para-2, the appellants either denied or expressed innocence with regard to rest of the circumstances and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case.The defence of the appellants Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 7 has been that on 03.03.1995 Nilima Sharma caught fire while cooking meals in the house on the stove.She was treated at home till 17.03.1995 and on 17.03.1995 because of her critical condition, she was being taken to hospital at Indore and that while on way, police intercepted their vehicle.As many as 6 witnesses including Banshilal (D.W.1) and Omprakash Sharma (D.W.2) were examined in defence.Apart this, documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/34 were also marked in defence evidence.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it vide the impugned judgment acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 302 of IPC, however, each of them was convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201/34 of IPC as stated herein above.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 7Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 8Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is more than sufficient evidence on record establishing guilt of the appellants for offences under Section 304-B, 498-A & 201/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the prosecution version with regard to infliction of cruelty and harassment by the appellants upon the deceased and her death in suspicious circumstances.The submission is that it was for the appellants to come forward with the explanation as to how the deceased suffered burn injuries and why she was not taken to the hospital for treatment immediately.The contention is that the appellants have not only committed the crime, but also they were involved in eliminating evidence with regard to the crime, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 9 committed any error in recording conviction against them for offences under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 909. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 10Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which creates a presumption regarding offence of dowry death runs as under:-The defence version in this regard happens to be that the marriage of Sunil Sharma and Nilima Sharma was solemnized sometimes in February, 1993 in a temple at Chittaurgarh.In this regard, Bansilal (D.W.1) has deposed in Para 1 that Sunil Sharma was married to Nilima Sharma on 24.2.1993 in Khardia Mahadev Mandir and that the marriage was performed by Omprakash Sharma (D.W.2).Omprakash Sharma (D.W.2) has also corroborated the version put forth by Bansilal (D.W.1) In this regard, reference can be made to the testimony of Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) who is a close relative of Nilima Sharma.This witness has stated that Nilima Sharma was taken away by appellant Sunil Sharma and that lateron, it was revealed that they are in Chittaurgarh.The fact remains that in 1993, Nilima Sharma was married to Sunil Sharma.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 12As per Dr. Mishra (P.W.22), on examination, he found 70% ante-mortem burns on the body of the deceased; some of the wounds were infected and in some other wounds, granulation tissues were present.As per Dr. Mishra (P.W.22), Nilima Sharma died because of toxicemia and septicemia due to burn injuries.On a further query made by the investigating agency, Dr. Mishra Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 13 (P.W.22) vide report Ex. P/36 had opined that though it cannot be affirmatively said as to whether bodily burns were chemical burns or burns caused by fire, however, looking to the fact that hairs were not burnt, the opinion goes in favour of chemical burns.The testimony of Dr. Mishra (P.W.22), who is an expert witness, has remained intact during cross- examination.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 13The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the death of Nilima Sharma occurred because of accidental burn injuries sustained by her during accidental fire while cooking food on the stove.The defence plea raised in this regard has not been found plausible by the learned trial Court.In this connection, it is noticeable that except Laluram (D.W.6), none of the defence witnesses has deposed that Nilima Sharma sustained burn injuries due to accidental fire from stove.Obviously, Laluram (D.W.6) is not an eyewitness of alleged stove accident.The testimony of Laluram (D.W.6) is also quite vague because he simply states that Sunil's wife told her that she has got burns by stove, however, no details Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 14 with regard to the date, time, place and manner of the incident have been stated by this witness nor the accused persons in their examination u/s. 313 of 'the Code' have specifically stated anything in this regard.Therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of testimony of Laluram (D.W.6) that Nilima Sharma sustained burn injuries due to accidental fire while cooking food on stove.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 14As per prosecution, after the arrest of Sunil Sharma, he was interrogated by the police and on the basis of information provided by him which was recorded vide memo Ex. P/8, semi-burnt clothes of Nilima Sharma were recovered by the police vide Ex. P/9 from beneath the earth from a place situated behind the house of the appellant.Yashwant Singh Jhala (P.W.34) - the investigating officer has deposed in this regard in Para 4 of his statement.His testimony, which stands corroborated by the testimony of Narottamlal Padiyar (P.W.1), in whose presence, allegedly, the said proceedings were conducted, has remained unchallenged during cross- examination.Otherwise also, the same does not suffer from any anomaly, therefore, it can well be concluded that on the basis of information furnished by the appellant - Sunil Sharma, semi-burnt clothes - 'Sari', Petticoat and blouse of Nilima Sharma were recovered from a place situated behind the house of the appellant.The evidence in this regard is admissible u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 15The Assistant Chemical Examiner of the Laboratory vide report dated 19.10.1995 (Ex. P/55) has opined about the presence of Hydrochloric Acid on the semi-burnt clothes and has further opined that smell of kerosene oil was absent.The scientific evidence so adduced by the prosecution with regard to clothes of the deceased seized at the instance of appellant - Sunil Sharma goes to indicate that the bodily burns sustained by the deceased were chemical burns caused by Hydrochloric Acid and not firm burns.Thus, the plea raised by the defence that Nilima Sharma sustained bodily burns due to accidental fire while cooking food on the stove cannot be accepted and, therefore, the identical finding arrived at by the learned trial Court deserves to be upheld.The next and the most important aspect which needs to be examined is whether soon before her death, deceased Nilima Sharma was being subjected by the appellants to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry? In this regard, the prosecution has adduced two sets of evidence.One set of evidence comprises of the testimony of witnesses, who were neighbours of the appellant, while another set of evidence comprises of the testimony of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17), the father of the deceased, Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27) - the uncle of the deceased, Prashant Sharma (P.W.29) - the brother of the Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 16 deceased and Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) - a close relative of the deceased.As stated earlier, appellants have not disputed that Narottamlal Padwar (P.W.1), his wife Dropadi Bai (P.W.2), Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4), Chhaya Singh (P.W.5), Shobha Sen (P.W.6), Rameshwar Sen (P.W.7), Sunil @ Pappu (P.W.9) and M.A. Qureshi (P.W.11) are all their neighbours.Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4) and Shobha Sen (P.W.6) both have deposed that on 26.02.1995 they heard the cries coming out of the house of the appellants.Shobha Sen (P.W.6) has further stated that she heard the voice of Nilima saying "Bachao Bachao".As per Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4) on 03.03.1995, a day of Eid festival, a lot of noise of "Marpit" was coming from the house of the appellant and thereafter Nilima was not sighted in the locality.Dropadi Bai (P.W.2) has also deposed in para-5 that on 03.03.1995 around noon, she heard the noise of "Marpit" coming from the house of appellants and that she also asked her husband as to why he did not advise the appellants to conduct in a decent manner and that thereafter her husband Narottamlal Padwar (P.W.1), who was Assistant Commissioner in the Sales Tax Department advised Sunil to conduct family affairs in a decent manner.Chanchal Tripathi (P.W.4), Shobha Sen (P.W.6) and Dropadi Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 17 Bai (P.W.2) have been subjected to detailed cross-examination in this regard, however, except for trifling contradictions, nothing material has emerged in their cross-examination so as to discredit them.The apex Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, (1974) 3 SCC 767, held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hall mark of the truth of their testimony.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 16Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 17Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence......"Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 18On due scrutiny this witness has been found to be truthful witness.It has emerged in his testimony that he not only understands the importance of speaking truth but has also the capacity to understand the question and to give a rational answer to such questions.This witness has stated that on 03.03.1995, appellant Sunil Sharma came to their house.As Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 19 the mother of this witness was to be administered an injection and he too wanted to have dressing in his leg, therefore, he at the instance of Sunil Sharma went to the house of Sunil Sharma to pick attachi having syringe etc. According to this witness when he reached the house of Sunil Sharma, he saw Nilima Sharma weeping outside her house in the garden, while in-laws and appellant was inside the house.As Nilima asked him to call Sunil Sharma to pick the attachi himself, therefore, he came back to his house and told about this incident to Sunil Sharma.Despite being subjected to grilling cross-examination nothing material can be elicited in his statement so as to discredit him in respect of the aforesaid testimony.Not even a suggestion has been thrown upon this witness that he is having any grudge against the appellants and, therefore, deposing against them.Considering the maturity of understanding which this witness has displayed during his examination so also the fact that the testimony is free from any material omission or contradiction, his testimony deserves acceptance.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 19The testimony of Sunil @ Pappu (P.W.9) finds corroboration from the testimony of M.A. Qureshi (P.W.11), who has narrated the incident of 03.03.1995 in para-3 of his statement.M.A. Qureshi (P.W.11) has further deposed in para- 6 that about 6 months prior to 03.03.1995 around 9.30 p.m. Nilima came to his house and told that the appellants have assaulted her and that while Mini (Mrunalinini) has caught Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 20 hold of her neck, the rest of the accused persons have assaulted her and have driven her out of the house.This witness has further stated that at that time, he saw scratch marks on the neck, abdomen and back of Nilima.The testimony of this witness has remained unshaken during cross-examination.This witness, who is a lawyer by profession has denied that he wanted to be engaged as lawyer by Sunil and that on being denied an opportunity in this regard, he has deposed against the appellants.In fact no evidence in this regard has been brought by the appellants on record.Even, the appellants have not stated anything on this point in their examination under Section 313 of 'the Code'.The testimony of Sunil @ Pappu (P.W.3) and M.A. Qureshi (P.W.11) when read together goes to indicate that Nilima was being subjected to ill-behaviour by the appellants on 03.03.1995 who forced her to come out to the house and ventilate her grievance by weeping.From the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, who are close neighbours of the appellants, it can well be discerned that Nilima Sharma was being subjected by the appellants to harassment and cruelty.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 20As regards demand of dowry, we can look into the testimony of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) - the father of the deceased, Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27) - uncle of the deceased, Prashant Sharma (P.W.29) - the brother of the deceased and Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) - a close relative of the deceased.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 21Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) has deposed that just after 'Vida' of the bride, the appellants came at the marriage place and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- by way of dowry for raising a hospital for appellant - Sunil and for procuring a shop in auction from Municipality.This witness has further deposed that it was settled that both the parties will bear 50-50 percent expenses of marriage, however, the appellants did not pay their share of expenses.In Para 10, this witness has further deposed that around 20-25 days prior to 'Holi' festival, appellant - Sunil Sharma came with Nilima Sharma to his house at Baroda and demanded Rs.20,000/-.The testimony of this witness on these points could not be shaken during cross- examination nor the same suffers from any material contradiction or omission.In Para 23 of cross-examination, this witness has denied that he did not pay half of the expenditure of reception organized at the time of marriage and has further denied that the appellants had only demanded from him half of the expenditure of the reception.In totality, there appears to be no reason to reject the testimony of this witness on the aforesaid points.The testimony of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) stands corroborated by the testimony of Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27) who was not only present in the marriage but being brother of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) had important role to play in making the Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 22 arrangements for the marriage.In Para 3, this witness has deposed that after the marriage, in the presence of Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3), he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to appellant - Hariprasad Sharma who handed over the list Ex. P/41 to make payments.The testimony of this witness on this point could not be shaken during cross-examination, rather the same has remained unchallenged, therefore, the same deserves acceptance.In this regard, reference can also be made to the testimony of Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) who has corroborated the testimony of Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27) on the point that 50,000/- rupees was paid by Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27) in his presence to appellantCr.A. No. 580 / 1999 22- Hariprasad Sharma (Para 6).The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses clearly indicates that soon after the marriage, dowry was being demanded from the father- uncle and other relatives of Nilima Sharma.Prashant Sharma (P.W.29), who is the brother of deceased Nilima Sharma, has deposed that on 14.3.1995, meaning thereupon, 3 days prior to the death of Nilima Sharma, he went to the appellants' house to meet Nilima Sharma and also to bring her with him to the parental house at the festival of 'Holi' which did fall on 17.3.1995, however, he was denied meeting with Nilima Sharma by the appellants and, therefore, he has to go back.As per this witness, the appellants told him that Nilima Sharma is seriously ill and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to meet her.The testimony of Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 23 this witness on this point stands well corroborated by the testimony of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17) and Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3).Here, it is pertinent to state that the appellant - Hariprasad Sharma in his examination u/s. 313 of 'the Code', has not disputed that on 14.3.1995, Prashant Sharma (P.W.29) came to their house, though in this regard, it is stated by appellant - Sunil Sharma in reply to Question No.138 that Prashant Sharma met with Nilima Sharma and also dined with her, however, she was not allowed to go with him (Question No.141).As a matter of fact, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the version put forth by Prashant Sharma (P.W.29) which is free from any anomaly.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 23Thus, on a close and careful scrutiny of the testimony of Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17), Vijay Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) and Ramesh Narayan Sharma (P.W.27), it is revealed that after the marriage, the appellants started demanding dowry from Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.17).It is further revealed from the evidence available on record that Nilima Sharma was being subjected to harassment and cruelty in this regard by the appellants and that even soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.The appellants in their examination u/s. 313 of 'the Code', have not disputed that on 17.3.1995, appellant - Hariprasad Sharma hired a taxi from Yashwant Singh Solanki Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 24 (P.W.18), in which Nilima Sharma was being taken by him and his son - Sunil Sharma to some place.It has further not been disputed that on way, his vehicle was intercepted by the police and Nilima Sharma was found lying in the car in a very critical state and, therefore, she was admitted to District Hospital, Mandsaur by Omprakash Sharma (P.W.24), the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, where she succumbed to the burn injuries.It has also not been disputed that on way, the vehicle developed some mechanical fault, whereupon, another vehicle was called by the appellant - Hariprasad Sharma from Yashwant Singh Solanki (P.W.18).Yashwant Singh Solanki (P.W.18) has deposed that appellant - Hariprasad Sharma asked for a car stating that the same is needed to take a woman to the hospital for a delivery case.Salim Khan (P.W.23) and Naveen Bairagi (P.W.19), both drivers, have also stated that appellant - Hariprasad Sharma hired the vehicle stating that the same is required for taking the patient in a case of delivery.Obviously, Nilima Sharma's case was not a case of delivery, rather it was a case of burn injuries, which shows that appellant - Hariprasad Sharma concealed about the factual details of illness from Yashwant Singh Solanki (P.W.18), Naveen Bairagi (P.W.19) and Salim Khan (P.W.23), which indicates that appellants - Hariprasad Sharma and his son - Sunil Sharma did not act with clean hands.The fact remains that Nilima Sharma was being discretely taken in the car to some unknown place.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 24Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 25Apart this, the real incident leading to death of Nilima Sharma which would have been within the exclusive knowledge of the appellants has been concealed which goes to show that the appellants in order to screen themselves from the punishment have concealed the evidence with regard to incident which ultimately led to the death of Nilima Sharma.In view of the aforesaid, it is found proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nilima Sharma died within 7 years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances, particularly due to burn injuries and resultant septicemia/toxicemia.It is further found proved that soon before her death she was subjected by the appellants to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, therefore, the presumption u/s. 113-B of the Evidence Act is very much available against the appellants.Cr.A. No. 580 / 1999 26
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,106,540 |
:: 2 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.(on five counts) 309 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 1 year.The appellant is the father of Jamuna, Leela, Aarta, Savita and Phool Kunwar who, at the time of their untimely deaths, were aged about 1 year, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years and 6 years.Amongst these, Jamuna, Leela & Savita were born through his second wife namely Basanti (PW1) while he got the other two from his first wife viz. Santo (PW2), the cousin of Basanti.Appellant's children also include three sons; Shriram from Basanti and Ajay & Vijay from Santo.He was tried not only for committing murders of all the five daughters but also for making an attempt to commit suicide.Prosecution case may briefly be stated thus -(i) At the relevant point of time, the appellant was residing in a one-room house situated on forest-land in village Kaneria along with his wives and children.His elder brother Chhagan and younger brothers Jagan (PW3) and Agan (PW8) were also living in the same vicinity but in different houses constructed on the forest-land only.(ii) During the period of nearly a month preceding the incident in question, the appellant proposed to sell his land in favour of one Ramlal, a co-villager.However, his wives as well as brothers were opposed to the proposal.They persuaded him not to sell the :: 3 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 land saying that 'how would he maintain the children after doing so'.On the following morning, he again refused to eat food and started moving around carrying an axe.However, ignoring his displeasure, Basanti and Santo went to agricultural field located behind their house to pick up pieces of stones, leaving all the children playing in the house of Agan.(iii) On 11.06.2010, at about 5 p.m., the appellant called on his daughters to return home.As the girls including Jamuna, who was being carried by Phool Kunwar in her lap, entered into the house, the appellant closed the door from inside and exterminated each one of them by cutting her throat with the axe after causing the same to be placed on a wooden plank.(iv) Hearing alarms, Basanti and Santo rushed to the house; peeped thereinto through the closed door and found that all the five daughters, stained with blood, were lying dead and the appellant, wearing only a pant, was also present there with axe in his hand.Basanti immediately shouted to Agan and Jagan that the appellant had cut down the girls but before their arrival at the scene, the appellant opened the door and attempted to kill Basanti and Santo, who were able to run away.At this point of time, the appellant climbed over nearby Teak Tree and tried to hang :: 4 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 himself by tying a rope around his neck.Agan and Jagan immediately aborted appellant's attempt to commit suicide by climbing over the tree and bringing him down after cutting the rope.They then tied up the appellant with a rope to the tree.(v) Agan (PW8) informed Radheshyam (CW1), the husband of Sarpanch about the incident.Radheshyam, in turn, apprised V.K. Jain (PW9), the then SHO of P.S. Ichhawar accordingly on cell-phone.The medical expert also preserved bloodstained clothes worn by each one of the deceased for forensic examination.(vii) During investigation, SHO V.K. Jain (PW9) inspected the spot and seized the following articles therefrom -(a) ordinary soil (b) bloodstained soil(c) piece of wood (d) rope in four pieces(e) bloodstained axe He also seized bloodstained pant worn by the appellant at the place of occurrence only.Per R.C. Mishra, J.This judgment shall govern disposal of death reference and criminal appeal as they arise from the judgment-dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.185/2010, whereby Maganlal (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') was convicted and sentenced as under -After recording the corresponding information at Serial No.705 of the Roznamcha (Ex.32-C and D-2), V.K. Jain immediately proceeded to the spot where he scribed Dahati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) upon information given by Basanti (PW1).(vi) After inquest proceedings, dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examinations, that was conducted by Dr. B.B. Sharma (PW4).He opined that common cause of deaths was shock due to excessive haemorrhage.The :: 5 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 appellant was subjected to medical examination.All the seized articles were forwarded to Regional FSL, Bhopal for forensic examination.The corresponding report (Ex.P-40) indicated that except the ordinary soil, all the articles contained human blood and also that blood found on the frock and underwear of Phool Kunwar and on appellant's pant was of the same group i.e. AB.The appellant abjured the guilt.In his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), he further pleaded that someone else had killed his daughters.Still, in order to appreciate the rival contentions in the right perspective, it would be necessary to advert to testimony of the medical expert.According to him, he had found the following ante-mortem injuries -on the body of Aarta (as described in Ex.P-18)(i) Incised wound 8 x 4 cm bone deep at the back of neck.:: 7 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.(ii) Incised wound 6 x 3 cm bone deep at the lower occipital part of skull.Occipital bone is cut in lower part.(iii) Incised wound 5 x 2 x 2 cm at upper part of back left side.on the body of Savita (as described in Ex.P-19)(i) Incised wound 8 x 5 cm bone deep at the back of the neck.Vertebral artery, fascia, underlying muscle and cervical vertebra are being cut.(ii) Incised wound 5 x 2 cm bone deep at the lower part of occipital bone at the back of skull.(iii) Incised wound (obliquely) 6 x 2 x 2 cm at right side of back at supra scapular region.on the body of Leela (as described in Ex.P-20) Incised wound, 10 x 8 cm at back of the neck.Neck is cut through and head is attached to the body with skin only from front side.Oesophagus, trachea, all vessels and nerve with vertebrae are being cut.Occipital bone in lower half and Ist cervical vertebrae are also cut.on the body of Jamuna (as described in Ex.P-21) Incised wound 10 x 7 cm at the back of the neck.Neck is cut through and head is attached to the body with skin only from front side.Oesophagus, trachea, all vessels and nerve with vertebrae are being cut.Brain matter is exposed and meninges is cut.Occipital bone in lower part of skull and Ist cervical vertebrae are also cut.on the body of Phool Kunwar (as described in Ex.P-22)(i) Incised wound 6 x 3 cm bone deep lower occipital part of the skull.:: 8 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.(ii) Incised wound 10 x 5 x 4 cm extending from back to the left side of the neck (oblique).External jugular vein, fascia, muscle (underlying) and cervical vertebra are being cut.(iii) Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm at the supra scapular region on the back of right side.The Autopsy Surgeon categorically opined that all the abovementioned injuries were caused by hard, sharp and heavy object and the common cause of deaths was shock due to excessive haemorrhage.He further deposed that the injuries received by the deceased could be inflicted by the axe, referred to him for examination by the SHO on 14.06.2010 by way of memo (Ex.P-25).Corresponding report (Ex.P-26) was also tendered in evidence.In the face of all this evidence, learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in holding that each one of the deceased had met with a homicidal death that was caused by cutting her neck by means of the axe.Dr. B.B. Sharma also proved existence of the following injury, as reflected in the report (Ex.P-24), on the neck of the appellant -"A ligature mark all around the neck above the thyroid cartilage oblique, 36 cm long 1.5 cm wide, ligature mark starting from back of the neck to angle to mandible left side.Ligature mark is missing on left side back of the neck and below left ear".In the cross-examination, the medical expert ruled out the possibility that the neck injury could be sustained due :: 9 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 to tying of rope around the neck.According to him, ligature mark was caused by hanging only.Coming to the other evidence on record, it may be observed that one of the incriminating circumstances relied on by the prosecution, that related to extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before Ratan Singh (PW7) was discarded by learned trial Judge as inadmissible.Moreover, as pointed out already, the mothers and uncles of the deceased had not supported the prosecution version as to involvement of the appellant in the offences charged with.Evidence concerning remaining circumstances, as highlighted by the prosecution and found proved by learned trial Judge, may be re-appreciated in the light of the rival contentions in the following manner: -However, it was not possible to reject corresponding part of Basanti's deposition on the ground that she was declared hostile :: 10 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 (PW3) to the effect that mutilated dead bodies of all the five daughters were lying in appellant's house and not that it was the appellant who had murdered them.Appeal No.503/2011 daughters but also tied him to the tree.Contents of these documents were not challenged in his cross-examination.They also drew adequate support from the evidence of panch witness Ratan Singh (PW7).Further, no dispute was raised as to statement made by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. B.B. Sharma (PW4) that he had sealed the clothes worn by each one of the deceased separately for :: 14 ::Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 chemical examination.According to V.K. Jain, he had forwarded all the seized articles along with a memo, copy of which was placed on record as Ex.P-39, to Regional FSL, Bhopal.Reference No.1/2011 and Cri.Appeal No.503/2011 (B) CIRCUMSTANCE AS TO THE OFFENCE OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE.Existence of ligature mark on the neck of the appellant is the only circumstance found proved against him.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,611,184 |
PER COURT :2020, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for theoffences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 409, 120B read with34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 :::3) The learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that,the name of the applicant is at serial No.7 in the FIR, however asregards the duty assigned to the applicant is concerned, inconnection with the entire episode stated in the FIR, was as a rectorof the hostel, and in view of order dated 28-07-2014 he was askedto take the said charge on a temporary basis.So only for a period of 11 months he was holding thecharge, and in view of the said fact there is nothing in the FIR toshow that how and in what manner the cheating andmisappropriation was done.He, therefore, prayed for ad-interimprotection.4) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submittedthat, the Government has been cheated to the extent of 47,04,000/-and this amount has been arrived at in the writ petition after theCourt Commissioner was appointed, and he had taken stock ofeverything and had placed it before the Division Bench.The papersare yet to be received and, therefore, he objected for ad-interim ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 ::: 3 ABA 454-2020protection.::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 :::5) Perusal of the order that was passed in writ petition No.1210of 2019 on 14-02-2020, though it appears that it was directed thatthe crime should be registered, yet it appears that it is not statedagainst whom exactly the crime should be registered.Taking intoconsideration the duty that was assigned to the applicant as he hasplaced certain documents to that effect on record, it is also thenrequired to be seen as to whether he was involved in the entireprocess of purchase of the books.Therefore, at this stage case ismade out for granting ad-interim protection till all the papers areperused.6) The notice is made returnable on 30-06-2020 and till then inthe event of the arrest of the applicant, in Crime No.104 of 2020,registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for the offencespunishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 409, 120B read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, the applicant be released on PR of ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 ::: 4 ABA 454-2020Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each(twenty five thousand).::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 :::7) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shallremain present before the Investigating officer on every Sundaybetween 10.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. till further orders.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI)::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:05:42 :::
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,112,788 |
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,611,648 |
Respondents No.1 and 2 had purchased a plot from one- Shri Nathuram through his Power of Attorney Holder on 02.09.1993 measuring 1,000 sq.ft.The boundaries of said plot were Block No.5 in East, 20 ft. wide road in West, 20 ft. wide road in North and property of seller in South.Thereafter, Shri Neeraj Verma had purchased a plot on 23.12.1993 measuring 1,000 sq.ft.from the Power of Attorney Holder of Shri Nathuram and the boundaries of his plot were- Block No.56 in East, Block No.58 in West, land of others in North and 20 ft. wide road in South.Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/ State.The controversy in short is that petitioner is admittedly the Power of Attorney Holder of one- Shri Neeraj Verma.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,136,647 |
This is first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.41/17 registered at Police Station Tirla, district Dhar for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2)(i-n), 376(d), 323, 506, 344 IPC & u/s ,5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.As per prosecution case on 4.12.16 at about 7 A.M the applicant and co-accused Harsingh abducted prosecutrix and took her to Gujrat where the co-accused Harsingh alleged to have committed rape on her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and-2- M.CR.C NO.28389/17 he has been falsely implicated in the offence.The allegation of rape is made against the co-accused Harsingh and there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, at the most an offence under section 363 & 366 IPC is made against the present applicant.The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM for-3- M.CR.C NO.28389/17 his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
661,401 |
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.The order impugned is passed in revision by the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Kannad, setting aside the order of the Trial Magistrate framing charge against the respondent under Section 494, Indian Penal Code.The respon- dent thus stands discharged of the said offence.The respondent is the husband of the appellant.The applicant-wife filed a complaint against the respondent alleging commission of offence of bigamy under Section 494, Indian Penal Code.The applicant-complainant examined 3 witnesses including herself in evidence before charge before the Trial Court.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,143,733 |
Under order dated 25 th October, 2016, the petitioner was terminated.The petitioner assailed the termination before the appellate authority.The appellate authority dismissed the appeal.Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.According to the learned advocate, the criminal case was filed against the petitioner when the petitioner was 19 years of age.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 01:31:58 :::The authorities have rightly taken the action.The learned advocate relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 01:31:58 ::: 5 wp 7799.17 case of Avtar Singh Vs.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 01:31:58 :::We have considered the submissions.Clause 2 of the said guidelines reads thus-::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 01:31:58 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
661,445 |
Although he had dictated the letter to his son, he had signed it.It was also declared by my daughter Shashi, when she came in senses in the 100% burnt position at about 12:15 P.M. (6th-4-83).As she was admitted in the burn ward in the Irwin Hospital (LokManya Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital) in serious condition by them.I Along with my relatives were waiting outside in the verandah of the ward when she gained senses she sent for me (the undersigned).I immediately rushed in Along with my relatives and asked her, "Ha bata kya hua".PW 1 Ramnath Mehra ...At the time of marriage, I gave dowry items according to the demands of father of the accused Vijay Kumar Arora.The dowry items given at the time of marriage in cash and kind were of the value of Rs. 75,000/-....My said daughter used to complain about ill-treatment towards her.Her complaints were normally against Vijay Kumar Arora and his mother.In the beginning she was saying that they were ill-treating her on minor things.xxxxx It is incorrect to suggest that what I have stated about the dowry, further demand and beating to Shashi are totally false.It is further incorrect that she never told me anything at any time about the above things....As far as dowry items are concerned, some were given of our own wishes and some at the instance of the father of accused Vijay.She had also complained that she had not that much grievance for being beaten by Vijay Kumar Arora but for her being beaten by her father in law.At that time Shashi also showed me blue marks of beating on her cheek.When she was narrating and showing her injury marks, Vijay Kumar Arora accused was present and he had remained quite (sic).It is incorrect.What have you to say?It is incorrect.Approximate area of burns about 90%.Cuticle peeled off at places, base reddened.Singeing of tips of scalp hair, eyelashes and eyebrows present.No smell of kerosene at present.(2) Cut open drip wound 2 cm over lower inner of left leg.Internal Examination:- Abdomen Stomach contains 50 ml.of liquid material mixed with soot particles walls-NAD Small and large intestines-NAD Liver-NAD wt.1080 gm Spleen congested wt.80 gm Kidneys both congested wt.80 gm each Uterus-NAD Bladder : Empty Pelvis : NAD Neck and Chest Neck structures intact.Trachea :Soot particles present over wall.Beena Arora Q. It is further in evidence against you that in your house you had a gas stove with one full cylinder and another almost half cylinder with gas stove working order.What have you to say?My son has already answered the question.What have you to say?It is incorrect.of liquid material mixed with soot particles walls-NAD Small and large intestines-NAD Liver-NAD wt.1080 gm Spleen congested wt.80 gm Kidneys both congested wt.80 gm each Uterus-NAD Bladder : Empty Pelvis : NAD Neck and Chest Neck structures intact.Trachea :Soot particles present over wall.His Bail Bonds are cancelled.He is directed to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his remaining sentence.JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J.This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 29.9.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ for brevity) in FIR 154/83 P.S. Moti Nagar, whereby the Appellant/Convict, Shri Vijay Kumar Arora, son of Shri S.P. Arora, was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default of its payment further rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).On 11.1.1985 the Appellant/Convict as well as his mother, Smt. Beena Arora, wife of Shri S.P. Arora, were charged thus-That you in the night intervening between 5.4.83 and 6.4.83 at the house No. F-503, Karampura, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Moti Nagar, Delhi, in furtherance of the common intention you both, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Shashi Arora w/o Shri Vijay Kumar Arora and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions.And, I hereby direct you that you be tried by this Court on the aforesaid charge.The uncontroverter facts are that the deceased, Smt. Shashi Arora, was brought to and admitted in the Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital (LNJP Hospital), New Delhi at 2:45 A.M. on 6.4.1983 with 90 per cent burns; and that she died at 3:15 P.M. on that same day.She was brought to the Hospital by her husband, the Appellant/Convict herein, accompanied by Dr. Satish K. Bindal.The Report, DD 25-A dated 6.4.1983, Ex. PW 18/G, prepared by ASI Hansraj (PW/18), records the version given by the Appellant/Convict to the effect that his wife woke up to prepare milk for their three month old daughter and while lighting the stove her clothes caught fire.He, accompanied by his friend Dr. Satish, admitted her to LNJP Hospital.In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) the Appellant/Convict has stated that - "I was asleep.I was awakened by the shrieks of Smt. Shashi, I came out in the verandah and saw her in flames.I tried to extinguish the fire by my hands and water.My hands were injured in this process.I called a Doctor and rang up the house of my father-in-law.I do not remember the exact time.I told the family of my father-in-law to come.... Shashi herself told me that she caught fire when she had gone to the stove to boil milk.She told me that the stove "bhabak gaya".I will file a written statement if so advised".So far as Smt. Beena Arora is concerned the learned ASJ has concluded that "Smt. Beena Arora could participate in this ghastly crime while Smt. Shashi Arora was held by her beloved son Appellant/Convict Vijay Kumar Arora and therefore discard and reject the defense of Smt. Beena Arora as well.... It has already been held in the earlier part of the judgment that the circumstances noticed in the judgment do not form an unbreakable chain inconsistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of Smt. Beena Arora, under Section 302 IPC.The State has not preferred any Appeal against the acquittal of Smt. Beena Arora.The immediate question that arises is whether we are bound to accept her acquittal or are we not empowered to consider her complicity along with the Appellant/Convict.Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned APP for the State, has directed our attention towards Sunder Singh v. State of Punjab .Sunder Singh, along with three others, was tried for the murder of three persons.The Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to one of them, and the remaining three were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.The High Court confirmed the conviction of these three who thereupon approached the Supreme Court of India.Our own research discloses that the power of the High Court to so completely reappraise the evidence as to come to a finding that an acquitted person, in respect of whom the State has chosen not to prefer an appeal, had played a culpable role in the commission of the offence, is well entrenched in our criminal jurisprudence for over half a century, see Marachalil Pakku v. State of Madras .The Apex Court had remarked that though the acquittal of accused 3 to 7 stands, they could nevertheless sustain the conviction of other convicts on the premise that the said accused had been erroneously acquitted.It is not disputed that the deceased and the appellant were living separately from their family.It has also not been disputed that at the time when the incident occurred, the respondent was in his house together with the deceased.It is furthermore not in dispute that after the incident took place, the respondent was not to be found.If the deceased and the respondent were together in their house at the time when the incident took place which was at about 10 O'clock in the night, it was for the respondent to show as to how the death of the deceased took place.In the absence of sufficient or cogent explanations in that behalf the Court would be entitled to consider the same as the circumstances against the accused.The appeal is allowed.The respondent who is on bail shall surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.Now I would request your goodself to investigate the brutal murder of my daughter and take stern action.Both these suggestions were denied.The SHO has inter alia stated that - "next morning i.e. on 7.4.83 on receipt of a complaint from Sh.Ram Nath father of deceased Shashi Arora I had registered the case F.I.R. No. 154 of 1983 under Section 302/34 IPC and took up the investigation myself".Ex. PW-1/DA and Ex. PW-3/DA are correct copies of their statements".The argument is without merit since it is obvious to us, from the syntax of the sentence, that the SHO was speaking of the FIR which was registered on 7.4.83, after (time not indicated) the receipt of the complaint.Apart from the deceased's sister her sister PW3 and her mother PW4, the other witnesses to whom the Dying Declaration had allegedly been conveyed/addressed, have made the following deposition:PW1 : Ram Nath Mehra (Father of the deceased) ...Thereafter I made inquiry on the telephone from my house and I came to know that Shashi had been taken to LNJP Hospital, and from Willingdon Hospital, we went to LNJP Hospital.We reached there at about 5:00 A.M. She was admitted in general ward on the ground floor, and we had visited her.At that time, she was unconscious.Vijay Kumar also met us on the way in the hospital and he took me to the ward where Shashi had been admitted.At that time Dr. Satish his friend was also with Vijay Kumar Arora.Subsequently, she was shifted to some other ward.At about 11:00 A.M. on the same day, that is 6.4.83 Shashi when she was conscious told me that she wanted water.At that time, she was on the same ward on ground floor, and then I also inquired from her as to what had happened to her.In trembling voice (Tutlai Hui) she told me 'Innane Jaladitta Hai Menu'.I inquired 'Kinane'.She said 'Vijay, Uski Ma Te Unade Ghar Walan Ne'.No person from the family of her-in-laws was present at that time.No member of my family was also present at that time.Volunteered thereafter I brought A.C.P., Mr. Khan who was present in that hospital at that time.I requested him to record the statement of Shashi.ACP had visited my daughter but he did not record his statement as her in patient's certificate.It was written that the patient was unfit to make a statement.Before ACP had reached there, perhaps an ASI had already visited her.I had no talk with that ASI.I did not approach any other person to record statement of Shashi.I met Dr. Tiwari to record statement of Shashi but he did not come as he told me that he had to attend some operation.After 11 Shashi remained conscious till she died.She died at about 3:15 P.M. on the same day.My wife, my daughter (Meena), my son (Vinod) also came to the hospital.My other relations had also come to the hospital.After 11 A.M. till she died my family members and relations had visited Shashi.However, at one time only one person was allowed to meet her.xxxxx ...It is incorrect to suggest that Shashi was never fit to make any statement to me when I met her in the hospital in the ward on the ground floor and even later till her death.It is incorrect to suggest that my statement about what she stated to me on the ward on the ground floor is totally false.It is further incorrect to suggest that my FIR Ex. PW1/A is totally false.PW6 : B.L. Sharma (Neighbour of the deceased) ...On 6.4.83, when I had gone to my office, I came to know that Shashi had been burnt in the last night and had been admitted in the hospital.On receipt of this information, I visited JPN Hospital to see her.I met Shashi in burn ward situated on first floor there.She had extensive burn injuries but she was talking.Mother of Shashi was also present with Shashi.I enquired from Shashi's mother as to what had happened.At this Shashi recognised my voice and gave response and told me, 'Uncle I had been burnt.... Mujhe Jala Diya'.I enquired from her as to who had burnt her.She told me that she had been burnt by Vijay Kumar and his other family members.She had not specified any other member of her-in-laws family but had said 'Gharwalaon Nay'.At that time Vijay Kumar accused was also present.xxxxx ...It is incorrect to suggest that I had not talked with Shashi in JPN Hospital at all or that Shashi had remained unconscious throughout at the Hospital.Volunteered, in my presence, I had heard Vijay accused Whispering in the ears of Shashi saying, "Shashi save me".I had not stated this last fact in my statement to the police.PW10 : Kamlesh Sharma (Neighbour of the deceased) ...I had met Shashi in burn ward of the Hospital where she was admitted.I had found her burnt.I questioned her as to who I was and she recognised me by my voice and told me that I was K.L. Sharma aunti.She used to call me by this name earlier.I enquired from her how it had happened to her.She replied "Vijay caught hold off me from my hands and my mother-in-law had sprinkled K. oil on me.She had not said anything else.Had she told you as to who had set her on fire?No. xxxxx ...It is incorrect that Shashi was unconscious and had not talked at all with me.PW11 : Sudershan Lal (Uncle of the deceased) ...I enquired from Shashi as to what had happened to her, she replied that she had been burnt.I further raised the query as to how, he (sic 'she') had been burnt, to which she first became mum for a minute.When I further enquired from her, she told me that her mother-in-law had poured oil on her while Vijay had caught hold of her from her hand.She further told me that she had not seen the person who had set her on fire.ASI was sitting inside ward.I told him that the girl was speaking and he should record her statement.That ASI told me that he could not record her statement and her statement would be recorded when SDM would arrive.xxxxx ...It is incorrect that Shashi was unconscious throughout.The Medico Legal Certificate (MLC), Ex. PW16/B, of the deceased contains writing of these words -"Alleged stove exploding as stated by the patient".It thereafter records at 4:30 A.M. (Ex.PW16/C), on 6.4.83, that "Patient is not fit to make statement".It further records at 11:00 A.M. that the deceased "is unfit for statement".The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.He, however, denied that the time was 11:20 A.M. Ex. PW 18/F records these words of PW1-"I am father Shashi.I am mentally upset at present and cannot make a statement now.I will make statement later".PW1, however, has recorded the time as 11:20 A.M. Hans Raj has deposed that none of the relatives of the deceased volunteered to make any statement on 6.4.83 despite his asking them repeatedly.However, the prosecution should have, at the very least, suggested to him with a view of getting his response (a) that Shashi was conscious at various times and periods; (b) that she had spoken to several members of her family and her neighbours who had entered the room where Shashi had been hospitalized.We reject the testimony of these three witnesses as their versions are beset with doubts.However, we still have for consideration the statements of PW1 Ram Nath in which he has categorically mentioned in his Report Ex. PW1/A filed on 6-4-83 at 5:30 P.M. with the SHO, Moti Nagar, New Delhi that his deceased daughter Shashi had told him at 12:15 P.M. that very day that her mother-in-law, husband and his family had burnt her.True, he makes no mention of similar statement allegedly made to ACP Khan and his wife and daughter, as well as neighbours.(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket.The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.Later on she also complained that the family members of the accused were making demands of various things....Once I myself had seen impressions of the fingers on her cheek....At the time of birth of child, Smt.Beena Arora accused had made a demand of golden set and we gave in its place a golden chain to Vijay Kumar Arora....When demand of fridge had been made earlier, we paid a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Vijay Kumar Arora on demand through my daughter for a fridge....My daughter had told me that attitude of Shri Satpal towards her newly born daughter was not good.xxxxx ...My daughter had told me that her husband Vijay Kumar accused had made a demand of a Scooter through her and she had declined of this demand.xxxxx ...I had seen finger mark on the face of Shashi.PW3 MEENA ...During her visit she had told us that Vijay Kumar Arora her husband was complaining and demanding stitching charges for his suit and that he was also harassing her saying that your parents had promised to give a fridge in the marriage and the same has not been given....On a wedding she told me that her in laws had given beating to her on her face and back and she showed beating marks (neels) on her face and on her back to me....My Sister Shashi on that day told my mother when I was also present that her husband Mr.Vijay Kumar Arora had made a demand of Scooter from her and that he was harassing her for this demand.xxxxx It is wrong to suggest that my sister had not complained to us regarding demand of Scooter by the accused Vijay Kumar.It is incorrect to suggest that there was never demand of stitching charges of the suit piece and the fridge from the side of the accused.It is further incorrect that Shashi did not tell me or showed me any such beating marks.PW 4 Ravi Kanta Mehra ...I again enquired from Shashi as to why she had come late.At this, Shashi began weeping.She also told me that she had been beaten by Vijay Kumar Arora and by her mother in law and father in law....When we were taking our meals, Shashi had also complained that she was being harassed by her in laws side.xxxxx It is incorrect to suggest that Shashi had not made any complaint whatsoever regarding any alleged treatment to her by her in laws when she had met me at the time of marriage of Ramesh.My husband had also attended the marriage of Ramesh.My husband was also present when Shashi had narrated the facts of ill-treatment and showed marks of injuries on her face.xxxxx ...Shashi had said that she had no grievance of being beaten by her husband and mother in law but of being beaten by her father in law....Shashi had showed blue marks of beating on her face.PW 6 B.L.SHARMA ...Q. Had Shri Ram Nath told you anything?He had been complaining that he had married Shashi but demands were being made from her.He had also been complaining that her in laws side had been making demands of various items.I have been suggesting to him that since she was his daughter and had been married, he should help adjusting her there as far as possible.Shri Ram Nath had been telling me that financially he could not render much help.He also asked me to help him financially but I could not render any financial help.xxxxx ...It is incorrect that Ram Nath had never complained me regarding demand of cash or any items from him by the in laws side of Shashi.As per the statement of Appellant/Convict, Vijay Kumar Arora under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he was put the following questions regarding demand of dowry and physical assault:Q. It is further in evidence against you that 2-3 months after the marriage deceased Smt.Shashi made complaints to her father Shri Ram Nath about ill-treatment by both of you on account of demand of Refrigerator, Scooter etc. What have you to say?We have carefully considered the possibility of Shashi having suffered a homicidal death.The medical opinion is that her death was the result of 100 per cent burns and toxemia.Strangulation or asphyxiation was not detected thereby distinguishing the present case from Mittal, Prabhudayal and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan.In fact, the Appellant/Convict and his two sisters, as well as one neighbour, have testified about the screaming of the deceased on the fateful night.If the Appellant/Convict with or without assistance had sprinkled kerosene oil on Shashi it is only to be expected that she would have struggled to save her life.Apart from 1st to 2nd degree burns on the right wrist and dorsum of the right hand of the Appellant/Convict no other injuries on him or his mother have been noted.So far as the deceased is concerned, in addition to the fatal burns sustained by her, a "cut open drip wound 2cms over lower inner of left leg" has been recorded.Could this have been caused as a consequence of her resisting the dousing of her clothes with kerosene oil and/or igniting her clothes; or because of her futile efforts to stave off against her assailant/s.Unfortunately, this has escaped the attention of the prosecution and no explanation or opinion has been sought for or obtained from any person.The fact that it has been described as a 'drip wound' leads to the inference that it was very fresh.Since the prosecution has not delved into this aspect, we have no alternative but to ignore this significant and remarkable feature.According to the Postmortem Report the other injuries found on the deceased were - "(1)Superficial burns present all over body except patches over scalp; lower front of abdomen; perineum; left buttock and inner part of right buttock.Lungs : Both congested wt.- Rt.340 gm.240 gm Head No fracture of skull bones Brain and membranes - slightly congested wt.1360 gm.Opinion Death in this case was due to shock and toxemia due to burns by fire."The following questions and answers in the course of examination of the accused persons Vijay Kumar Arora and Beena Arora under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. are, in our opinion, of far-reaching consequences -Vijay Kumar Arora Q. It is further in evidence against you that on the same night at 2.30 AM or 3.00 AM you asked PW Ramnath to come to your house in Karampura, Moti Nagar.What have you to say?I was asleep.I was awaken by the shrieks of Smt. Shashi.I came out in the veranda and saw her in flames.I tried to extinguish the fire by my hands & water.My hands were injured in this process.I called a doctor and rang up the house of my father-in law.I do not remember the exact time.I told the family of my father-in-law to come.Q. You have heard the entire evidence recorded in your presence.What have you to say?Shashi herself told me that She caught fire when she had gone to the stove to boil milk.She told me that the stove "bhabak gaya".I will file our written statement if so advised.Q. It is further in evidence against you that in your house there was a gas stove in working order along with full gas cylinder and half gas cylinder.What have you to say?It is correct that the gas stove could be burnt only with the help of a tool.May be in this year only.Now all my desires have vanished.I do not know where.We were never together on any of our first functions after marriage.May be due to any circumstances.Now I have no grudges for anything.I am 25 years old.I got married on 30th Jan' 82, Saturday.Only one year of my married life has crossed and see the changes in my life.I am a woman and I think on this earth every woman wants to be with her husband -at least, on functions.My Viju never cared for my these feelings.When I denied to call my father they started pushing me and my father-in-law gave me a slap.Approximate area of burns about 90%.Cuticle peeled off at places, base reddened.Singeing of tips of scalp hair, eyelashes and eyebrows present.No smell of kerosene at present.(2) Cut open drip wound 2 cm over lower inner of left leg.Internal Examination:- Abdomen Stomach contains 50 ml.Lungs : Both congested wt.- Rt.340 gm.240 gm Head No fracture of skull bones Brain and membranes- lightly congested wt.1360 gm.Opinion Death in this case was due to shock and toxemia due to burns by fire.The learned ASJ has dwelt in detail on the use of the word 'superficial' and has found its use to be inappropriate.We are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the Trial Court inter alia for the reason that the deceased had suffered third degree burns which cannot be categorised as superficial.The Trial Court has further come to the conclusion that these injuries could have been sustained only in a conflagration and that too in a closed area.The learned ASJ has taken note of the fact that human tendency would have been to run into the open, which in this case was at the end of the passage which is 12x3 feet in width.A scanned copy of the passage showing its dimensions is as follows:The investigation has been woefully and in all likelihood willfully substandard, with a view to help the Appellant/Convict.The learned ASJ has with justification summed up that the investigation was conducted with 'utter dishonesty'.So far as the passage is concerned, where according to the Appellant/Convict the deceased had received extensive burn leading to her death, blackening through smoke and soot particles should have been visibly present.In a fire of this volatility it is most unlikely that the towel hanging in the passage should have been only partially burnt.Furthermore, assuming that the deceased had actually got up, within two hours of going to sleep, for preparation of milk, it is implausible that she would have attempted to light a kerosene stove in this dingy and cramped passage, used for washing of clothes and utensils, rather than in the adjoining kitchen.Fifthly, a gas connection was available in the kitchen.One full cylinder as well as a partially used cylinder were found in the kitchen.No kerosene oil containers have been located.All these factors overwhelmingly indicate that the kerosene oil stove was planted on the site in a vain attempt to hide the homicidal death.Sixthly, the deceased, Shashi was wearing a cotton night gown, of which only a small patch was found remaining on her arm.A brief burst of flames (bhabhak jana) can, at the most, cause first degree burns and could not be sufficient to totally and completely ignite cotton garments.The MLC Report records that the clothes of deceased were smelling of the kerosene oil.This clearly shows the presence of kerosene oil on the clothes and body of the deceased which could not be the result of "bhabhak jana", as per the explanation proffered by the Appellant/Convict.Anyone who has operated a kerosene oil stove will know that the brief inflammation that is sometimes caused during the initial ignition of the stove is because of excess oil escaping through the feeder hole which excess gathers in a small circular receptacle or section well above the tank.A scanned copy of the stove burner is as follows:Seventhly, the deceased was brought to the Hospital by her husband, Appellant/Convict and Dr. S.K. Bindal.In his statement, Dr. S.K. Bindal has admitted that the Appellant/Convict and he were childhood friends.Q.13: It is further in evidence against you that you along with your friend Dr. Satish were present there and you took PW Ram Nath and his son Ashok to the Ward and found Smt. Shashi lying unconscious there.What have you to say?Ans.13: Dr. Satish is a doctor nearby our house.He was called to the house as I have stated above and we went to the hospital.Dr. Satish is not my friend but I am familiar with him.I had taken Shri Ram Nath my father-in-law to Shashi's bed in the Ward where she was unconscious.Failure to produce a witness of this nature can only lead to the conclusion that defense were apprehensive of his capacity, capability to sustain examination or to resile from the statements favorable to the Appellant/Convict.Eighthly, reliance by the defense on an alleged statement of the deceased that she sustained her injuries because of "bhabhak jana" of the stove is not trustworthy for the simple reason that the deceased was in extreme pain and was surrounded by the very persons who are suspected to have perpetrated the assault on her.The Appellant/Convict has stated that he went to fetch Dr. Satish along with his brother.This travel to and fro would have taken at least fifteen minutes, during which time the deceased was surrounded only by her in-laws.It has not been seriously controverter that relations between the deceased and her in-laws as well as her husband, far from being normal, were severely strained.Thereafter, she was admitted to the LNJP Hospital at 2:45 A.M. which means that almost one hour would have elapsed (if not more) since she suffered her burns.Although the parents of the deceased were informed of this incident, there was confusion both in regard to the time when they were spoken to as also to which hospital she had been admitted.The parents of the deceased had gone on a wild goose chase to Willingdon Hospital because, according to them, they were informed by Appellant/Convict to this effect; thereafter, they even visited the house where the incident took place but the sister could not inform them to which hospital the deceased had been taken; that after dropping the mother of the deceased back home, the father and the brother of the deceased thereafter left for LNJP Hospital at 5:00 A.M. Therefore, even if a statement was made by the deceased that her death was caused by an accident, it would have been the result of fear, being alone with her in-laws family for almost three hours.We, therefore, discount any significance in the so-called statement in the MLC attributed to the deceased.The learned ASJ has gone to the extent of opining that the Appellant/Convict had put the parental family of the deceased on a wrong track, and we are in agreement with this opinion.Ninthly, the injuries sustained by the Appellant/Convict are not indicative of his alleged efforts to extinguish the fire on the body of the deceased.He has sustained burns on the dorsum of his right hand only.On the contrary these would have been sustained if the palms were on the body of the deceased or the Appellant/Convict, thereby shielding them from getting injured.Tenthly, PW1 has specifically deposed that dowry items given at the time of marriage were of the value of Rupees Seventy Five Thousand and that a demand for a gold set had been raised at the time of the birth of the daughter but a gold chain was given instead.When a demand for a fridge had been made, he had paid a sum of Rupees Four Thousand to Appellant/Convict.In Cross-examination he has stated that a demand for a scooter had also been made.The right of Cross-examination is an integral and inalienable feature of the defense, because it is a tool or method by which the falsity of statements made can be brought to the surface.Mere facile suggestions that these statements are incorrect, without any more, serves no useful purpose.The nature of the Cross-examination of the Father, PW1, Sister PW3 and the Mother, PW4 as in fact all other witnesses routinely only gives these suggestions which have been categorically and forthrightly negatived by the witnesses.Their testimony has not been dainted in any manner.Apart from physical beatings given to the deceased not only by the Appellant/Convict but also by her father in-law must be believed as also demands for a scooter and fridge.PW1 has deposed that he had paid a sum of Rupees Four Thousand to the Appellant/Convict in response to the claim for a fridge.There is thus ample evidence on record to provide the reason or motive for the Appellant/Convict and members of his family to conspire to murder the deceased.The answers of Appellant/Convict as well as the co-accused, mother, namely, Smt. Beena Arora, do not shed any light on their possible innocence; on the contrary the answers are evasive.We have extensively quoted from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan to show that in cases, such as the present, the Appellant/Convict as well as members of his family are obliged to offer a reasonable explanation of events indicative of their innocence.Rather than doing so, the Appellant/Convict has put forward a story of the deceased having caught fire by accident, which, in our opinion, is totally false.For all these manifold reasons as well as other grounds which have weighed in the mind of the learned ASJ in convicting the Appellant/Convict we affirm the impugned Judgment and Sentence.In our view, the Appellant/Convict may have been assisted by his mother and/or any other member of his family in the commission of the dastardly act of putting the deceased on fire.During the pendency of this Appeal the Appellant was enlarged on bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,040,503 |
a Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of hy the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner ad Kachru @ Hiralal in Crime No.170/2017 registered by P.S. M Siddiqueganj District-Sehore under sections 376, 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.of As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is cousin of the rt prosecutrix.The prosecutrix is a 23 years old unmarried girl.ou On 09.03.2017, the petitioner raped the prosecutrix in her house and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to C anyone; therefore, the prosecutrix kept mum.However, when h she became pregnant, she informed the matter to her ig parents.H Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix was a major girl on the date of the incident.She did not inform about the incident to anyone.The first information report was lodged after a delay of more than 5 months.The reason that has been given for delay is not cogent.This appears to be a case of consent.The charge- sheet in the matter has been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 16.08.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner is first cousin of the prosecutrix and it was sh highly immoral on his part to have raped the prosecutrix.hy Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Kachru @ Hiralal, is allowed.M It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of rt the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all ou dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions C enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.h ig Certified copy as per rules.H (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE BIJU BABY b 2017.10.23 23:23:08 -07'00'
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
670,465 |
W.P. Nos. 9425 and 20165 of 1993 A. WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONSIn Group 'A'.The case of Alexander Educational Foundation as set out in the affidavit is shortly as follows :- The Foundation is a Charitable Organisation, registered under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose of running Educational Institutions, particularly in medical and para medical fields.The Management is carried on by a Board consisting of eminent persons in the field of medicine and medical education and the trustee is himself a Doctor and his entire family consists of medical practitioners, running a highly successful and reputed General Hospital at Thambaram under the name of Philips Hospital.It has completed 25 years of service to the patients in the area.The Foundation was started with the express intention of setting up medical/para medical educational institutions in the Union territory of Pondicherry, where it was found that no adequate or proper educational institutions were available, apart from the nationally renowned institution - Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER).The petitioners sought to establish two institutions, one a Polytechnic for grant of Diplomas and another for a full fledged institute for the grant of Degree in the field of Pharmacy, Medical Lab Technology and Nutrition.Consequently, the Pondicherry Community Polytechnic was started in 1985 with the affiliation of the Board of Technical Education, New Delhi and recognition of the All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi.The Polytechnic has also been recognised as a Community Polytechnic by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, entitled to receive grant-in-aid from the Central Government, though the grant has not been received yet on account of non-cooperation and refusal by the Government of Pondicherry to give a 'No Objection' letter for receipt of the grant.The Pant Institute of Technology was started in the year 1987 for giving education leading to grant of Degrees in the three subjects mentioned earlier.The petitioner required affiliation with the Pondicherry University and sought the same for the course of the Bachelor of Pharmacy.After inspections by a Committee appointed by the University, affiliation was granted to the same by the University subject to certain conditions.The Government of Pondicherry passed an order on 20-6-1988 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the recognition granted in 1985 should not be withdrawn.The University also passed an order seeking to withdraw the affiliation granted in 1987 for the three courses, viz., B.Sc., Pharma, B.Sc., M.L.T. and B.Sc., Nutrition, citing the Government's derecognition alone as the cause.Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 7797 and 7798 of 1988 for issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the show cause notice and to forbear the Government from interfering with the administration of the Polytechnic, A Mandamus was also prayed for directing the University to continue the affiliation already granted.The writ petitions were admitted and interim stay of the notice issued by the Government was granted.The same is pending.In that situation, the Student Body started agitating and the petitioner was subjected to lot of litigation at the instance of students.The Government and the University started diverting the existing students of the institute to other colleges to complete their courses.As the petitioner has already invested crores of rupees in setting up the institution in Pondicherry and with a view to find a permanent solution to the problem, the petitioner approached the Government and the University of Pondicherry to bring about an amicable and permanent solution.It is managed by a governing body and the syllabus is fixed by the Board of Studies constituted by the governing body and chaired by the Dean of Studies.It is a course of three years with six semesters of five subjects each and examinations are conducted by the Board of Studies, which will be responsible for awarding marks.The second respondent in the Writ Petition discontinued his studies in 1986 leaving arrears in the first, second and third semesters.He had to complete nine subjects in the first, second and third semesters together with other subjects in the subsequent semesters (4th, 5th and 6th).The case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 is as follows :- The fourth respondent was a student of M.A. Degree Course conducted by the Institute of Correspondence Education (I.C.E.), University of Madras.He failed in two papers.He had not paid the tuition fees in one lumpsum within the prescribed date.The proviso to clause (a) of Section 20(1) enjoins the Central Government to consult the Chief justice of India before making any appointment of the President of the Commission.The other four Members of the National Commission have to possess similar ability, integrity and standing and adequate knowledge or experience in the subjects referred to therein.ORDER Srinivasan, J.Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith.It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable.In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.The petitions can be classified into three groups :-A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions;B. Writ Petitions filed by Universities, and C. Writ Petitions filed by the Director of Government Examinations.Writ Petitions falling in Group 'A' :Writ Petitions falling in group 'B' :Writ Petitions falling in Group 'C' :W.P. 15743 of 1993 is filed by the Loyola Institute of Business Administration while all the other petitions are filed by Dr. Alexander Educational Foundation.However, the Court dismissed the petition for direction permitting the petitioner to admit students to the three courses pending the Writ Petition.A Division Bench called for a report from the Inspection Committee whether the conditions imposed for affiliation were complied with.It was found in the report that almost all the conditions were satisfied and consequently, the Bench passed an order directing the University to grant provisional affiliation for six years from the academic year 1988-89 subject in certain terms regarding creation of an endowment to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs in instalments.Pursuant thereto, the University granted affiliation on 21-11-1988 for B. Pharm Course.With reference to B.Sc., M.L.T. and B.Sc., Nutrition, the petitioner approached the University independently and applied for affiliation.After the Inspection Committee submitted its report, recommending the grant of affiliation for the academic year 1989-90, the Academic Council and the Executive Council of the University concurred with the recommendation.Accordingly, the affiliation was granted by letter dated 16-2-1989 for B.Sc., M.L.T. and B.Sc., Nutrition courses for the academic year 1989-90 onwards.Thereafter, both the Institutes were conducting courses for Diploma and Degree respectively.The Institutes were subjected to ten inspections between 1987 and 1990 and all the reports were substantially in favour of the petitioner and they recognised unequivocally that the Institutes were well-equipped and had the necessary infrastructure to impart education on Degree/Diploma level in the field of para medical sciences.Despite the petitioner's request for postponing the same, it was said to have taken place in the absence of the petitioner and based on a report by the Inspection Committee, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9-4-1991 as to why the affiliation granted for the three Degree Courses be not discontinued on the ground of insufficiency of infrastructural facilities.The petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 7725 and 7726 of 1991 challenging the same.The Writ Petitions were admitted and interim orders staying the implementation of any final order which may be passed in such proceedings was granted.The University passed final orders disaffiliating the petitioner Institution in respect of B.Sc., M.L.T. and B.Sc., Nutrition.Later an order was passed disaffiliating the petitioner in respect of B. Pharm.Course also.Thereafter, the prayers in the writ petitions were suitably amended challenging the orders of disaffiliation.They requested the petitioner to withdraw the appeal before the Supreme Court as a precondition to have any settlement talks.Accordingly, on 14-7-1992 the petitioner withdraw the S.L.Ps.with the permission of the Supreme Court.On 3-8-1992 the Secretary of the petitioner had a meeting with the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Pondicherry and the Vice-Chancellor of the Pondicherry University.The Committee was to go into the various issues involved and submit a report for the purpose of enabling the University to decide on the reaffiliation of the institution.In spite of lapse of seven months and odd, the Committee had not met; nor had it submitted any report to the University to reconsider the affiliation.In spite of the above circumstances, the petitioner continued to conduct the classes for the existing students who had joined the course when the petitioner had a valid affiliation.However, there was a tremendous student unrest resulting in a major law and order problem in the Institute.If the Government and the University co-operate, the Institute could be run properly and impart excellent education to the student body.At this juncture, several students instituted complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums under the Act claiming refund of their fees, alleged capitation fees and damages on the allegation that the petitioner has provided a deficient service and that they are consumers' within the meaning of the Act. The Consumer Forum has taken on file such complaints and issued notices to the petitioner.In some matters, orders have been passed by the Forum against the petitioner.The petitioner is, therefore, obliged to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum from entertaining, hearing or disposing of complaints filed by the students and for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Forum.In W.P. Nos. 6446, 7577, 9585, 20608, 20609, 20894, 20895 and 21083 of 1993, the prayer is for issue of Writ of Prohibition.In W.P. Nos. 19409, 19410, 19412, 19461 and 19462 of 1993, the prayer is for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in C. Nos. 71, 73, 69, 70 and 72 of 1993 and quash the orders passed on 23-8-1993 by the Forum.In W.P. 15743 of 1993, the petitioner is Loyola Institute of Business Administration, whose case is shortly as follows :- It is an educational institution approved by All India Council for Technical Education, conducting Post Graduate Diploma Course in Business Administration.He claimed compensation on the above grounds.The petitioner filed objections to the complaint stating inter alia that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Even on merits, the petitioner contended that the second respondent was not entitled to any relief and that he got the marks due to him as per the norms and Rules of Board of studies as all other arrear students appearing along with the second respondent had been dealt with.The petitioner contended that the second respondent was not a 'consumer' and the petitioner was not rendering any service as contemplated by the Act and that imparting education and holding examinations are outside the scope of the Act. The Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.The petitioner having no alternative remedy, has approached this Court with a prayer for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the complaint O.P. No. 165 of 1993 on the file of the first respondent in the Writ Petition.B. WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE UNIVERSITIES.In this Group, W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 is filed by the Registrar, University of Madras and the Director of Institute of Correspondence Education, Madras University while the other Writ Petition W.P. No. 5262 of 1993 is filed by the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraja University.He was accordingly informed of the same.Later it was verified and found that necessary fees had been received by the Examination Section on 22-10-1991 and immediately the results were announced.Alleging that the delay in publishing the results has caused great loss to him, the fourth respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and prayed for a direction to publish the results of the Second Year Final M.A. Economics Course.An ex Parte order was passed directing payment of Rs. 28,000/- as compensation and also publication of the results and issuance of mark sheets.But, even by that time, the results had been published.The Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the fourth respondent is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act and the University is outside the scope of the Act, as the functions of the University do not fall within the definition of "service" in the Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that the provisions of the Act do not have any application to the petitioners and the functions of the University.In the other Writ Petition filed by the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraja University, the prayer is for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivaganga in O.P. No. 1 of 1992 on its file and to quash the orders dated 16-10-1992 passed by the Forum.The second respondent in the Writ Petition passed B.Sc.He was a student of the third respondent.According to him, though results were published, the Mark Sheets were not issued to him and on account of the delay in issue of the same, the admission give to him by the Loyola College in the M.Sc.Course was cancelled resulting in heavy loss and mental agony to him.He prayed for a compensation of Rs. 13,000/-.The petitioner filed a statement of objection contending that the Mark Sheets could not be issued since the internal marks in two subjects were not sent to it in time by the third respondent college and that there was no delay on its part.The Forum, however, held that the petitioner was alone to be blamed for the delay and granted a compensation of Rs. 3,500/- to be paid within one month and in default to pay a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- in addition.Contending that the mater is not governed by the Act and the Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint of the second respondent, the Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer already set out.C. WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS.The results of some of the candidates were withheld as they could not be released for want of vital particulars from the Examination Center or due to certain discrepancies at the time of processing results by the computer.However, she filed a complaint before the Kanyakumari District Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- alleging that the delay in sending the Certificate to her prevented her from applying for higher studies and getting admission in any college.The Forum passed an order granting a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- overruling the objection of the petitioner that the Act will not apply to the petitioner.Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Consumer Grievances Application No. 112 of 1992 on the file of the second respondent and quashing the order dated 13-4-1993 on the ground that the Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.After the receipt of Mark Sheets, he applied for retotalling on payment of necessary fees.It was found on such retotalling that there was an error in the marks awarded earlier and the mistake was rectified.The Forum overruled the objection of the petitioner as to its jurisdiction and passed an order awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.The Commissioner, by order dated 29-7-1986, determined the amount payable to the Bank at Rs. 3,03,87,487.07 and by order dated 8-10-1986 directed payment of a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-.By a further order dated 28-10-1986 another sum of Rs. 144 lakhs was paid making a total of Rs. 179 lakhs.One of the points framed by the learned Judge was relating to the manner of appointment of the Commissioner of Payments.While dealing with that point, the learned Judge observed that the Commissioner of Payments had no judicial experience at all to deal with a huge claim running to crores.The learned Judges said :-But the time has come when the University should exercise a greater degree of control over them through the colleges, so that the academic life of the University may be promoted and the students induced to live and move in an academic atmosphere.Hostel life will thus form a very important part in the organisation of academic life in the city.... ... ...At present, in spite of the best endeavours even in the city of Madras, intellectual loneliness is the characteristic of those scholars and professors who pursue higher research as Oepigraphists, archaeologists, historians, economists or pure scientists.By founding special University chairs in selected subjects and manning them by professors of high qualifications, specially recruited for the purpose, or by professors selected from among members of the staffs of the existing colleges who will give courses of lectures and inter-collegiate system of teaching and instruction, or supervise research work of students, it is proposed to create an academic atmosphere and further facilities for research work which must form an essential of the modern cultural University.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,047,248 |
2- Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2012 at about 9:30 am, complainant Ved Prakash Sharma along with his friend Manish Sharma was going to Ishagarh from village Kadwaya.When they reached near village Dhanwara, the applicants armed with luhangi, lathi & farsa stopped the complainant and abused him.Thereafter, they assaulted him by aforesaid arms due to-( 2 )- CRR.No.672/2013 which he sustained injuries on his eyes, nose and other parts of the body.The matter was reported to the Police Station Ishagarh, where the case was registered at Crime No. 334/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 294 of IPC.The injured Ved Prakash was sent for medical examination.In the medical examination, ten injuries were found on different parts of the body of complainant like left ankle joint, nose, left forearm and left hip joint, and x-ray examination was advised.The x- ray report of the complainant indicates that the complainant Ved Prakash Sharma received fracture on his mid shaft of left tibia bone and fracture of shaft of left fibula bone.3- After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ashok Nagar who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences involved in the matter are triable by the Court of Sessions.4- The trial Court pronounced the order and framed the charges against the applicants for commission of aforesaid offences.The charges framed under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC are the subject matter of challenge in the instant revision petition.5- Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complete prosecution story contains omnibus allegations.Basic ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC are absent in the present case.Eye witness Manish Sharma has not supported the version of the complainant with regard to the role played by Satish Chandra and Kailash in the incident.As per the medical report, the injuries found on the body of complainant are simple in nature.Under these circumstances, the charges framed against the-( 3 )- CRR.No.672/2013 applicants under Section 325 & 326 of IPC are totally baseless.Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.6- On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State supported the impugned order and submitted that prima facie sufficient grounds are available to frame the charges against the applicants for the commission of offence under Sections 325 & 326 of IPC.The trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicants.Hence, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.7- I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the copy of charge-sheet.8- The respondent No.2 Ved Prakash Sharma was examined by the Doctor and as per the MLC report, following injuries were found:-(i) Incised Puncture wound (stab wound) on left mid part anteriorly to leg fresh prefused bleeding on wound, size 4x3x deep to muscle(ii) Contusion below left eye size 3 x 2 cm.(iii) Contusion below right eye size 2x2 cm.(iv) Painful swelling on left ankle joint.(v) Abrasion on right side forehead size 2x2 cm.(vi) Painful swelling on nose and blood coming out both nostril.(vii) Redness and contusion on multiple postery chest wall 2x2 cm, 3x4 cm.(viii) Dental injury in mouth.(ix) Painful swelling on left mid forearm.(x) Painful swelling on right posto WP (waist).9- As per MLC report, the injuries on left ankle joint, left forearm and right hip joint were referred for x-ray and as per x-ray report, the-( 4 )- CRR.No.672/2013 injury of left leg, left ankle joint and nose are said to be grievous in nature.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,048,703 |
It is stated that they are poor coolies and that they had spent about 90 days in prison already.3.He also highlighted the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2009 and more than a decade had lapsed in the meanwhile.They had not come under any adverse notice thereafter.The petitioners herein were convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 07.03.2011 in S.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in the following manner:-A1 guilty Under Section 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-307 r/w., 34 of in default 6 months R.I. IPC Under Section Rs.500/- fine in default one week 341 of IPC R.I.A2 guilty Under Section 1 year R.I.(each count)Under Section Rs.1,000/- each in default 324 of IPC two 3 months R.I.counts Questioning the same, they filed C.A.No.11 of 2011, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.But the appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2011 and the judgment of the Court below was confirmed.Questioning the same, this criminal revision case has been filed.4.I am satisfied that these are mitigating factors and that therefore even while sustaining the findings of guilt and the conviction imposed on the petitioners, the period of imprisonment imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused to P.Ws. 1 to 3 particularly cut and stab injuries inflicted by the petitioners herein.The fine amount imposed on the petitioners is enhancedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 from what has been already imposed on them to Rs.25,000/- each.The said amount shall be recovered from the petitioners herein and paid to P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively as compensation.5.With this modification in the matter of sentence of imprisonment, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar,.2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar.3.The Inspector of Police, Sulakkarai Police Station, Virduhunagar District.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.ias Crl.R.C.(MD)No.435 of 2011 25.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,050,514 |
That person informed him that he is leaving and threatened him that he and his father will a certainly identify him, when they would meet next and thereafter he left hy the bus.Bus reached Beohari and was leaving for Rewa at about 10.25 ad a.m., the Police including the petitioner at the Beohari Road intercepted the bus and abused the complainant with obscene words.The accused M persons threatened him to implicate in such offences, that he will not be of able to come out.Holding his colar, abusing him, kicking him, he got him down from the bus.He was beaten.He was carrying Rs.7000/- in rt his pocket.The accused persons abused him by obscene words and threatened him.Due to fear, the complainant kept quiet.When he was going to report the matter to SDO(P), Beohari, he was again threatened, therefore, complainant did not lodge any report.He was then allowed to leave with the empty bus.a hy The petitioner/R.N. Sharma preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to invoke the extraordinary ad jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the Criminal Complaint Case M No.08/2009, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beohari for offences under Sections 392, 294, 323, 506-II, 166, 167, 327, 120-B/34 of of the Indian Penal Code registered as Sessions Trial No.257/2009, rt pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol for ou offences under sections 394, 294, 506-II read with section 120-B and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The complaint case filed by the respondent/Brij Kishore Sharma, in ig brief, is that the petitioner-R.N. Sharma was the ASI at Police Station, H Beohari.Shrinath Singh, Jagjiwan Singh and Sushil Kumar were working as T.I., Constable and Head Constable of the Police Station, Beohari respectively at the relevant time.The complainant-Brij Kishore Sharma was the conductor of Ramgopal Satyanarayan Bus Service.It is alleged that the complainant was going in bus No.MP-17-A/4703 from Rewa to Anuppur on 14.1.2009, at about 10.00 a.m., when the bus reached Shahdol by-pass near Ban Ganga, it stopped for passengers to get down and board the Bus.A person boarded the Bus and stated that he has to travel upto Beohari and he wanted to sit in the front seat.When the complainant said that all seats are booked, therefore, he can sit on the rear side, he identified himself as SHO of Police Station, sh Beohari.He abused the complainant by obscene words and said that he e will see that the bus does not go upto Beohari.The complainant ad requested him to sit on the conductor's seat as he could not identify Pr him, for he was not in his official uniform.The fitness papers and other related papers of the bus were ou taken away.Rajendra Prasad @ Rajjan Halwai of Beohari was present at C the time of offence.The cleaner-Arvind Kumar and the driver-Ramanuj h also tried to save him.They allowed the passengers of the bus to leave ig and directed to refund their money, to the passengers.Rs.2250/- were H given by Rajjan Halwai.The complainant was falsely involved in the case of Motor Vehciles Act. Receipt No.10757/46 dated 14.1.2009 was issued by the petitioner R.N.Sharma.The rt vehicle earlier was plying on the basis of an agreement with the Road ou Transport Corporation.But the period had also exhausted.Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions and read out the statements of the witnesses.Pr Whereas the petitioner was discharging the official duty of the ASI at police station -Beohari, when the alleged offence has been committed.a He placed reliance on an order dated 17.9.2009 passed in hy M.Cr.C.No.2070/2008 [Bhupendra Singh vs. Heeralal] wherein the ad petitioner-Bhupendra Singh, Station House Officer at Police Station, Gurh, District Rewa was prosecuted without sanction as contemplated M under section 197 of Cr.P.C., such proceedings were quashed.Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed.The order dated a 24.8.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beohari is set hy aside.The Sessions Trial No.257/2009 against the petitioner is quashed.If the sanction is accorded, he M is at liberty to continue the proceedings.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
670,523 |
P.W. 6 Sukhlal has again not been able to point out as to why Shreebai jumped into the well.JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J.This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh.It is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Additional Session Judge Vidisha.The respondent was proceeded against for an offence said to have been committed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.His wife Shreebai has said to be have committed suicide and respondent said to have abetted in this crime.It is not in dispute that Shreebai died of drowning.The only question which is required to be gone into in this case is whether the respondent took any positive step with a view to induce the deceased to commit suicide.The evidence which has been brought on record be now noticed:The prosecution story is that the respondent always used to demanding Rs. 20,000/- by way of dowry.The marriage took place about ten to eleven years before the date of occurrence.The further prosecution story is that the respondent would misbehave with his wife.It is also stated that he had illicit relation with the wife of his younger brother.There was some exchange of hot words four to five days prior to the date of which Shreebai committed suicide by jumping into a well.Premabai P.W. 2, is the mother of deceased.She has stated that the respondent was having illicit relations with the wife of his younger brother and would pick up quarrel with her.Sitaram P.W. 3, is witness to the fact that Shreebai was found in the well and he had reported the matter to the police.P.W. 4, has stated that he has his house adjacent to the house of respondent and he could hear exchange of hot words between the respondent and Shreebai.He was unable to indicate any reason as to why Shreebai jumped into the well.The requirement to show that positive steps were taken with a view to induce the person concerned to commit suicide was held to be imperative."Some other decisions dealing with this aspect of the matter be merely noticed.These are:
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,053,087 |
The applicant has lodged a first information report against the opp.party no. 2 and 9 others under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 353, 392, 477 I.P.C. and 3(1) (10) SC/ST.Act. In counterblast the opp.party no. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint.Order Date :- 27.7.2017 Gss
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
670,574 |
The facts are these : Nithu Singh of village Bhainsi Police Station Khatauli was a soilless old man of 70 years.He had two daughters, named Smt. Qabooli (P.W. 6) and Smt. Harphooli.Smt. Qabooli was residing with her father in this village for a few months preceding the occurrence in question.On the night between the 21st and 22nd January, 1968, Nathu Singh deceased was asleep in his Dukarya (two-door room) while his daughter, Smt. Qabooli, was sleeping in the tethri of the house separated by a courtyard from the Dukarya.At about 2 or 2-30 a.m. , she woke up on hearing a noise.She thought that their servant had come to take the cart.She called her servant by name.She at the same time saw one or two strangers moving inside the room.She raised an alarm, but, on account of fright recoiled into her apartment of the house.After about half an hour, she heard the voices of the villagers.Reassured, she came out to the Dukarya and found IIyas appellant and his co-accused Mahabir in the custody of the witnesses.The alarm which she had raised earlier, had attracted the villagers, viz., Gyan Singh (P.W. I), Ved Singh (P.W. 9) and Mangat Singh (P.W. 5) and others to the house.These persons saw the appellant and his companions Mahabir, Ranpal, Ram Swarup and Jai Prakash was strangulating Nathu with a safa; Ranpal accused was procuring his thumb impression on a sheet of paper.Ilyas appellant was holding Nathu's hand and helping Ranpal.Mahabir and Ram Swarup accused were holding the feet of Nathu.Satya Prakash, who was armed with a gun, scared them away.Ranpal, Staya Prakash, Jai Prakash and Ram Swarup succeeded in Tunning away.Mahabir and Ilyas were however, caught by Gyan Singh and the other prosecution witnesses.The witnesses then saw that Nathu was dead.The left thumb .of the deceased was found smeared with ink.Ved Singh (P.W. 9) wrote a note and sent it to the Police Station, Khatauli, two miles away, through one Qahool Singh.On receiving this note the case was registered .at 3-45 a.m. in the Police Station.Brahmanand Sharma, reached the scene of occurrence at 4.45 a.m. He held the inquest and interrogated Gyan Singh (P.W. 1).He interrogated P.W. 8 Mangat and Maangey.Mahabir has not appealed.The plea of the accused in his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was one of denial of the prosecution case.He pleaded' innocence.He said that he was plying rickshaw on hire.He had brought Mahabir in his rickshaw on hire from Khatauli to Bhainsi.He was waiting with his rickshaw on the road to collect his hiring charges.Villagers on suspiction caught him on the road and seized his rickshaw.They gave him a beating and confined him in the kotha.He and his rickshaw were taken to the Police Station next morningAppellant is a rickshaw puller by occupation and is, a resident of village Jaooda.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.Ily as, aged 16 years, has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby his Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34, Penal Code was maintained.The witnesses challenged the miscreants.He took over the custody of Mahabir and Ilyas.He searched for the other accused persons but could not find them.Jai Vcakash awd Ram Swarup Absconded and were proceeded against under Sections 88 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The trial Court convicted Satyo Prakash under Section 302 and sentenced him to death.Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.They were further convicted under Section 147 Penal Code.On appeal by the convicts the High Court maintained the conviction of Ilyas and Mahabir but acquitted Satya Prakash and Ranpal.Hence this appeal by Hyas.Police Station Kotwali.At the trial the prosecution examined throe eye-witnesses, namely.The High Court found that out of these witnesses, Mangat Singh ;(P.W. 5) only was a witness of the vicinity while the other two lived far away.It further found that all these three witnesses have "given a parrot-like story narrating to have seen what they could not have seen oh account of their houses being at a long distance".It, therefore concluded that in all probability they were "tutored witnesses and their statements cannot be accepted in full".It was added:Smt. Qabooli has made a completely true statement and the of the other witness can be accepted only to the extent it is corroborated by the version given by Smt Qubooli (emphasis supplied.) On the above premises, the High Court held:What has, therefore been established beyond doubt is that two persons (Mahabir and Ilyas) werd arrested soon after the murder of Nathu Singh.Mahabir had given out the names of his companions as Ranpal, Ram Swarup and Satya Prakash.The testimony of the three, eyewitnesses can, therefore, be accepted only to the extent that they were in a position to arrest these two persons soon alter the incident.It rejected the plea of Ilyas in these terms:She was not asked, if Ilyas was then pleading his innocence.His conduct wag thus not of an innocent person who did everything possible to impress upon the people that he had been arrested by mistake and was innocent to the crime.No witness was examined by Ilyas in his defence.It was vehemently argued by the learned Advocate for Ilyas that he was a Muslim aged only 16 years belonging .to another village Jaooda and could have no cause to join others in the commission of the crime.We need not make any comment on this point.Hyas, even though a Muslim and a young boy, could be friendly with other offenders.He may have been hired for the purpose.In this connection, Mr. Vimal Dave has drawn our attention to Exh. Kha-2 which is an order, dated February 16, 1968, passed by A. D. M. (J) on an application made by Ilyas on February 14,1968 (i.e. , about 23-24 days after the occurrence) requesting for return of his rickshaw which had been taken away by the police from the pucca road near Bhainsi.This order, Ex. Kha-2, is to the effect:Rickshaw malik ki supardagi men dia jave (Rickshaw be handed over to the custody of the owner).Counsel has further referred to the cross-examination of Gyan Singh P.W. 1).Mangat Singh (P.W. 5), Ved Singh (P. W. 9) and Mr. Sharnia, Investigating Officer to whom this defence version was specifically put.The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 9 inasmuch as they claimed to have seen the accused persons, including Ilyas appelkint, inside the Dukarya collaborating in the strangulation etc., of the deceased, was clearly unbelievable, if not positively false.All the three prosecution witnesses say that they went to the spot on hearing the hue and cry raised by Smt. Qabooli.The houses of Ved Singh and Gyan Singh were admittedly situated at a long distance from the house of occurrence.Mangat's house was no doubt in the vicinity.He first shouted to his father for help.He went out only after the arrival of P. Ws.Ved Singh and Gyan Singh, and then, In their company, went to the house of Nathu.All this must have taken some time.In the circumstances -as the learned Judges of the High Court also rightly held these witnesses were "narrating to have seen what they could not have possibly seen".On parity of reasoning, the account given by these witnesses in regard to the place and manner of the appellants' arrest was equally unreliable.- Their infirm evidence on this precise point was not confirmed by the, testimony of Smt. Qabooli who was foundSmt. Qabooli disclosed in cross- examination that When she started raising an alarm, one of the intruders silenced her under pain of shooting her dead.of fright she kept quiet for sometime and raised the alarm again, presumably after she had gone back into her room (tethri) and chained the door from inside.She did not stir out for about half an hour till she recognized the voices of her co- villagers outside.There upon she went out into the courtyard and saw Mahabir and Ilyas in the custody of these prosecution witnesses and others.All that Smt. Qabooli's evidence established was that Ilyas was seen about half an hour after the occurrence in the custody of the prosecution witnesses in the house.Her evidence falls short of proving that Ilyas was arrested inside the house or while running away from the house.The only firm finding reached was that he had been arrested soon after the incident.This tenuous circumstance, in our opinion was not sufficient to fasten the guilt on- the appellant, conclusively.At the most, it raised a strong suspicion against him, which could .be no substitute for proof.In the final analysis the whole case against the appellant with regard to the manner, place and other circumstances of his arrest, had narrowed down into a conflict between the untrustworthy version of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 9 on one side and the statement of the appellant under Section 342, criminal Procedure code on the other.The plea set up by the teenaged appellant, who was admittedly a rickshaw-puller by occupation, viz., that he had brought Mahabir in his rickshaw on hire from Khataxili, and was beaten and arrested by the villagers on suspicion while standing with his rickshaw on the pucca road at Bhainsi, could not be called an afterthought, It was asserted by him as early as February 14,1968, i.e. , only 23-24' days after the incident when he made an application to the A. D. M. (J) for the return of his rickshaw.This version was specifically and persistently put to P. Ws. 1, 5, 8 and 9 in cross-examination; also.In the ultimate analysis, this conflict had to be resolved in favour of the appellant.I He had no apparent motive to join the who were residents of village Bhainsi, in committing the murder of Nathu.He be set at liberty forthwith.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,067,965 |
Order Date :- 11.5.2016 Irshad (Kaushal Jayendra Thaker)
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
|
67,075,166 |
Heard the counsel for the parties and case diary perused.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Only single blow has been alleged to be inflicted.Another victim Lalsingh suffered some grievous injuries but he received injuries allegedly caused by Manuram and not by present applicant.Charge- sheet has already been filed and confinement of applicant, since 4/4/2019 amounts to pretrial detention.He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and would make himself available before the trial Court as and when required.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer made by the applicant.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,076,228 |
Sunil Rokadia and others) whereby charges under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34 and 506-II of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.More than eight years has lapsed and learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has no instruction regarding the pendency of the trial.However, if the trial is pending, the applicant is at liberty to raise all the issues before the trial Court.The revision is disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,094,243 |
This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No. 71/2014 registered at police station Noorabad, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 34, 325, 326 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the case was registered u/s 341, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.The applicant was arrested by the police and was released on bail as the alleged offences were bailable.During investigation, an Ex-ray report of the injured Ramakhtyar was received from the hospital wherein a fracture has been detected on the right metacarpal of the complainant.On the basis of which offence u/S 326 was further added during investigation, owing to that the police has wanted to arrest the applicant again in this case.. Apart from this, as per FIR crime No. 71/14 the injury of the said injured was inflicted by the applicant with Luhangi-Lathi.The said weapon is not a sharp aged weapon.Consequently, incised wound cannot be caused with the said weapon.Learned counsel further contends that the report of cross case No. 72/14 was also lodged by Smt. Sunita w/o Damodar who is co-accused in this case against the M.Cr.C. No. 7014/ 2 0 1 4 injured Ramakhtyar and three others.On the aforesaid ground learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.C. No. 7014/ 2 0 1 4Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicants has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Copies of both the FIR are available for perusal.Upon which it is evident that a cross report was also lodged by Smt. Sunita w/o Damodar who is co-accused in this case.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, this Court deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail as the applicant/accused was earlier arrested by the police and was released on bail, hence this application is allowed.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,097,289 |
Case diary perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who is in custody since 09.01.2019 in connection with Crime No.19/2019 registered at Police Station- Nohta Balaghat District-Damoh (MP) for the offence under Sections 384, 354, 292, 363, 366(A), 342, 323A, 506 of IPC & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.A s per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix on 9.1.2019 stating therein that on 7.1.2019 at about 2:00pm, when the prosecutrix was coming back to her home after attending school, co-accused Harsh gave her lift and took her towards jungle and, there Harsh tried to outrage her modesty, meanwhile, it is alleged that applicants along with other co-accused came there and made her nude videos and further it is alleged that the co-accused persons demanded money from the father of the prosecutrix and warned that her video shall be made viral.It is further alleged that accused persons have made the video viral.On this report, the case, as mentioned above has been registered against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegations levelled against him are false and frivolous.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 29/01/2019 22:16:02
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
671,019 |
Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 18-12-1983 at 1.30 p.m. the deceased Umrasingh and one Ramesh (P.W. 6) were sleeping the KHALA (threshing-flour) belonging to the deceased.All the appellants armed with different weapons together came out from the house of the appellant Prema and mounted attack on Umraosingh.Ramesh tried to intervene, but he too was assaulted by some of the appellants.Kamlabai (P.W. 2) and Shyamubai (P.W. 3) were working in their fields.Kamlabai saw the appellants moving towards the Khala of Umraosingh.On this, she rushed to inform Balaram (P.W. 1) the elder brother of her husband, in his Khala.She returned along with Balaram when the appellants were seen coming back to the house of Prema.After sometime, Chowkidar Peera (P.W. 5) and members of the family of Umraosingh reached the spot.Peera and Balaram went to the Police Station for lodging the report where Balaram lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/1).Umraosingh seems to have survived only for ome time during which he is said to have disclosed the three names i.e. Kanhaiya Nihalji and Chandar.Thereafter, he became unconscious and eventually succumbed to the injuries.Dr. B. C. Sokhiya (P.W. 4) undertook to post-mortem examination and gave the post-mortem report (Ex. P/2).He found on the body of the deceased Umraosingh following antemortem injuries opining the cause of death being the shock due to haemorrhage:Incised wound on left side of head just above left parietal eminence.4" x 1/4" x bone deep clotted blood present.Incised wound on back on left supra scapular region 1.5" x 1/4" x 1/4" clotted blood present.Incised wound on posterior aspect of left fore-arm 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" clotted blood present.Incised wound on posterior aspect of left forearm 4" x 2" bone deep, clotted blood present.Oblique incised wound on thinear eminence of left hand 2" x 1" x 1", clotted blood present.Incised wound posterio-lateral aspect of left thigh lower one third, 3" x 1.5" X 1" clotted blood present.Incised wound posterior aspect of left thigh lower one-third 4" x 3/4" x 1/4", clotted blood present.Incised wound on posterio-lateral part of left knee 5" x 3" in pieces.Lower end of femur and upper part of left bone are cut and separated, tendons muscles blood vessels nurves were cut, clotted blood present.Incised wound transverse on posterio-lateral part of left food 2 1/2" x 1" x 1" talus bone cut-- Clotted blood present.Incised wound on- medial aspect of middle of left leg 2" x 1" 1/2-- clotted blood present.Oblique incised wound just above the right medial malleolus of right leg 2" x 3/4" x 1" clotted blood present.Incised wound on medial aspect of right anklejoint just below the medial melleolus 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1" bone cut, clotted blood present.Incised wound on medial aspect of right foot 4" x 1/4" x 1/4".Oblique incised wound on anterio-lateral aspect of right leg 2" x 1", clotted blood present.Incised wound on posterio-lateral aspect of right leg 4" x 2" x 3", bone tibia and febula were cut.Clotted blood present.Incised wound on right thigh 2" x 1/4" x 1/4", clotted blood present.Incised wound on right side upper arm posterior 1 1/2" x 1" bone-deep, clotted blood present.Incised wound oblique in direction just above the injury No. (17) 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4".Two incised wound on' the medial aspect of right upper arm l" x 1/4" x 1/4" and 1/2" x 1/4".Multiple small abrasions on front of right side Knee, clotted blood present.Abrasion on right side fore-arm 3" x 1/4" clotted blood.Spot map was prepared.Bloodstained earth and clothes were also seized.The report (Ex. P/44) from Chemical Examiner was obtained.After investigation, challan was filed.The charge under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to the deceased Umraosingh and charge under Section 323 and in the alternative under Section 323/149 of the Indian penal Code with regard to Rameshwar alias Ramesh (P.W. 6) were framed against all the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.a) All male members of the family have been roped in due to enmity and group rivalry through omnibus allegations.So-called dying declaration naming three appellants is also unnatural and a concocted piece.c) Delay in identification parade remains unexplained and it is totally worthless when there is no descriptive marks as regards stature, physique, colour etc. Then the identification parade is rendered undependable.d) There is no proof from the doctor as regards the nature of injuries being sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.Hence, even otherwise charge under Section 302/149 of the of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable.e) The evidence furnished by the witnesses is unnatural and unreliable.This factor demonstrably seems to be fatal particularly in a case involving the fate of as many as 12 persons, among whom four are in their teens and two are below 21 years, on a capital charge.It is not disputed that the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 244/84 are male members of one family civil design for their implication on omnibus allegation appears to be discernible in order to see that all of them are incarcerated, and the entire family is left to the lurch.The appellants Chandarsingh, Nihalji, Kaniram and Bapusingh are real brothers.Dulesingh and Manaklal are the sons of Chandarsingh Auchdilal and Laxman are the son of Nihalji.Some of the appellants were admittedly witnesses in a case of murder of Kesharsingh son of the present appellant Chandarsingh, in which the deceased Umraosingh and one another were accused persons.This fact is also available from the answer to a question recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (See statement of Prema).It is reiterated by the appellants even when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they have been roped in due to enmity.It is also an admitted fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased.P.W. 1 Balarm is the elder brother of the husband of witness Kamlabai (P.W. 2).(P.W. 3) Shyamubai is the niece of the deceased.P.W. 2 Kamlabai is the mother of P.W. 3 (para 1 of P.W. 2).P.W. 6 Rameshwar alias Ramesh was in jail for some time along with the deceased Umraosingh and happened to be very close to the family of the deceased.Moreover, he has a bad load of antecedents against him (para 5 of P.W. 6).Peera Chowkidar (P.W. 5) is the staunch enemy of the appellants as his both the sons were arrested along with Balaram P.W. 1 and the deceased (paras 7 and 11 of P.W. 5) in the case of murder of Kesharsingh, the son of the appellant-Chandarsingh.This witness is said to have gone with P.W. 1 to lodge the First Information Report and this perhaps explains how the names of the appellants figure in the First Information Report without any specification of role or particularisation of weapon as such and why the apparent fabrication of the case begins.P. W. 5 and P. W. 1 seem to be the real villains of the piece.Although it is laid down by Kalki's case State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 : (1981 Cri LJ 1012) the "related is not equivalent to interested" it is trite law that a very close and cautious scrutiny of the evidence of such witnesses though not discardable just on the ground of relationship becomes necessary and in appropriate cases corroboration from independent source ought to be insisted upon so as to lend assurance to the story.It may be pointed out that brief statement of the deceased, pressed into service as dying declaration, was not accepted even by the trial Court as dying declaration, (para 53).The fate of the case thus, hinges on the credibility or otherwise of the ocular versions of P.W. 1 Balram, P.W. 2 Kamlabai, P.W. 3 Shyamubai, P.W. 5 Peera and P.W. 6 Rameshwar.The relevant portions of these witnesses were read out to us.P.W. 6 Rameshwar who claims to be an injured person in the same incident begins his statement in the Court as "I do not know Umraosingh" (para 1).If incident was witnessed, then where was the occasion to enquire from the deceased (para 2 of P.W. 1)? This means that the claim of being an eye-witness or a material witness for that matter is false.The deceased named only three.The witnesses foisted the case on twelve.We have carefully read the statements of all these witnesses ourselves.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,105,010 |
It is alleged that he helped the prosecutrix and co-accused in leaving the township.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix.He is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM Balaghat, to appear before the committal 'Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Courts.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,711,213 |
Vide present petition, petitioners seek direction thereby quashing of FIR No. 76/13 registered at Police Station Janakpuri for the offences under Section 406/420/120-b/34 IPC.The present case is of civil nature, however, the petitioners could not have been booked in a criminal case.He further submits that pursuant to order dated 20.06.2013, while granting the bail the Trial Court directed the petitioner to refund the amount to the victims.Accordingly, he has refunded the amount.Learned counsel submits that the cause is of civil nature, accordingly the case may be quashed against the petitioners.M.C. 4908/2015 Page 1 of 3State of Uttarakhand & Ors.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the FIRs registered against the petitioners they have paid the amount to the victims whomsoever came forward.However, the case against the petitioners is that they advertised to sell products online giving huge discounts with the intention of cheating and also used the money paid by the complainant and other victims for their personal use which amounts to cheating.The petitioners after taking the money in advance from the complainant and from other victims on the promise to deliver the order/product however did not deliver the product and also refuse to return the money which amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust.The complainants also served a legal notice dated 30.01.2013 upon petitioners, despite that refused to deliver the ordered product and also advance money taken by lowering the complainant and other 34 victims.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the present case is not the only case against the petitioners, however, there are four other FIRs also registered which are as under:-1. FIR No. 67/2013, registered at Police Station EOW wherein 25 victims are there.FIR No. 124/2013, registered at Police Station EOW wherein 39 victims are there.M.C. 4908/2015 Page 2 of 39. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners have cheated 700 to 800 people throughout India accordingly FIRs have been lodged and after investigations police has filed the charge-sheet in the present case before the Trial Court and case is pending for arguments on charge.Keeping in view the allegations of the petitioners and the charge sheet already filed before the Trial Court I am not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage but the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the issues raised in the petition before the Trial Court at the time of passing of the order on charge.Petition is accordingly disposed of.M.A. 17571/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 10, 2015 Hkaur/jg Crl.M.C. 4908/2015 Page 3 of 3M.C. 4908/2015 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,217,395 |
The second charge was that the three accused in furtherance of their common intention harassed and tortured the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry to such an extent that she died on 10 th May, 2013 within seven years of marriage and thereby the three accused committed the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.The third and the alternative charge was that the three accused in furtherance of their common intention murdered Poonam Sharma on 10th May, 2013 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.According to Dev Narayan Pandey (PW-2) (the father of the deceased), they had given sufficient dowry in cash and household articles at the time of marriage.Version of PW-7For this purpose, what is relevant to note is that according to Smt. Lata Dubey (PW-7), the elder sister of the deceased, on 19 th April, 2013, the deceased had come to her house and stated that she had been beaten by the accused persons for dowry.PW-7 further stated that the deceased generally used to come to her residence when she was given a beating or was subjected to any physical or mental cruelty.At that time, the father and brother of PW-7 were not available in Delhi, therefore, the deceased stayed with her for 2-3 days.According to PW-7, on 20th April, 2013 at about 9.30 pm, A-1 came to her house to take the deceased back with him.After sometime, A-2 and A-3 also reached there.In the meanwhile, Suresh Kumar Dubey (PW-9) (husband of PW-7) also reached there.The three accused quarrelled with him as well.This resulted in PW-7 and PW-9 calling the police.The police then reached there and all the three accused were taken to the PS.The complainants also reached the PS.According to PW-7, during the quarrel, A-3 had criminally intimidated the deceased that they would murder her.According to PW-7 on 9th May 2013 at 2.30 pm, she received a missed call from the deceased, who at that time was staying at her matrimonial home.The next day i.e. 10th May, 2013 at around 4.45 am, PW-7 called the deceased who told her that three accused had been beating her and subjecting her to torture and that she was not feeling well.The deceased asked PW-7 to visit her.At around 7.45 am, the deceased again called PW-7 and repeated her request.At around 9 am on 10 th May, 2013, PW-7 is supposed to have visited the matrimonial home of the deceased.She found the deceased in an injured condition and not even in a position to speak.At that time A-2 and A-3 were present in the house.PW-7 learnt that A-1 had gone to the parental house of the deceased at the time.When PW-7 tried to reason with A-2 and A-3, they became offensive.PW-7 then returned to her house.After about two hours, she received a call from her brother stating that the deceased had expired.The parents of the deceased and PW-7 were called to the mortuary.The arrival of the policeThe evidence of Sub Inspector (SI) Vijay Kumar (PW-20), who was posted at PS Mandawali, was to the effect that at around 11.30 am, information was received at the PS by way of DD No.17A that the deceased had been "admitted to the hospital by her husband Pawan Sharma, in dead condition." On receiving information, PW-20 along with Constable (Ct.) Rajpal reached the LBS Hospital and found the deceased dead in the emergency ward.They collected her MLC (Ex.PW3/A) which showed that the deceased had been brought there by A-1 at 11.35 am with the alleged Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 5 of 25 history of found still at home.However, she was brought dead.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 5 of 25PW-20 found A-1 present at the hospital.Subsequently, Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW-21), the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Mandawali also reached the hospital.Satish Pandey (PW-5), the younger brother of the deceased, also reached the hospital and informed their other family members.The crime team officials also came to the hospital and took the photographs of the deceased.By that time, A-2 had also reached the hospital.In his initial statement to the police made at the hospital, PW-2 stated that the husband and in-laws of the deceased had subjected her (deceased) to torture.On this basis, both A-1 and A-2 were detained by the police.According to the Investigating Officer (IO), Inspector Daya Sagar (PW-26), he was given the rukka and copy of the FIR at around 4.45 pm on 10th May 2013 and he took over the investigation from PW-20 who apprised him about what had happened till that point.PW-26 then interrogated both A-1 and A-2, who made disclosure statements and were arrested.The personal search of both the accused was also conducted.A-2 was left behind in the PS with Woman Ct.PW-26 then reached the spot along with A- 1, PW-20 and Ct.A1 is supposed to have pointed out the room inside which all the three accused gave the deceased beatings and strangulated her.Though, police in connivance with Smt. Poonam and Lata Dubey and her family took signatures of accused Pawan and Sudhir and thumb impression of accused Savitri Devi on blank papers to avoid taking action against injuries sustained by accused Savitri at the hands of deceased Poonam and her sister's family.That DD No.55A pertained to a quarrel at House No.A- 1/14 Jhuggi, Railway Quarters, Mandawali.When PW-22 reached the house, he came to know that the injured had been taken to PS Mandawali.At PS, he found the deceased and the three Appellants present.A-2 was Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 9 of 25 carrying some injuries on her person.She was taken to the LBS Hospital and a medical examination was conducted by the doctor.No complaint was lodged since the parties were related and they settled the matter amicably.Another DD No.54A pertaining to the same incident had also been lodged.The attested copies of DD Nos.54A and 55A were marked as Ex.PW22/A and PW22/B. The statement of the deceased was Ex.PW22/C. The statement of A-2 and her MLC were marked as Ex.These three appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2016 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (DSJ) in Sessions Case No.483/2016 arising out of an FIR No.271/2013 registered at Police Station (PS) Mandawali, convicting the Appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 26 th December, 2016 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.The charge framed against each of the Appellants was that between 27th June, 2012 and 10th May, 2013 at House No.357A, Top Floor, Pandit Mohalla, Mandawali, Delhi the three of them i.e. Pawan Sharma (Appellant in Crl.No.1106/2017) (Accused No.1: A-1); Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of A-1, (Appellant in Crl.No. 188/2018) (A-2); and Sudhir Sharma, the brother of A-1 (Appellant in Crl.No.59/2018) (A-3) in furtherance of their common intention subjected the deceased Poonam Sharma, wife of A-1, to cruelty for or in connection with the demand of dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 2 of 25The case of the prosecution was that after the marriage was solemnized, the accused started subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment; pressurizing her to bring dowry.However, it must be noticed that this part of the case of the prosecution has been disbelieved by the trial Court.The Appellants have been acquitted of the offences both under Section 498A as well as Section 304-B IPC.The State has also not filed an appeal against the said acquittal.Consequently the Court proceeds to narrate the case of the prosecution only so far as it is relevant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 3 of 25After reaching the PS, according to PW-7, the accused stated that they were sorry and the matter was settled.They claimed that they would not indulge in such activities again and on their assurances, PW-7 and PW-9 sent the deceased back with them.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 4 of 25The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 6 of 25 Singh (PW-13), who found the following external injuries on the deceased:A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 6 of 25"1.Injury No.l Multiple Crecentric abrasion present over left side of neck and mandibular area of size 3 x 2.2 cm, 1.4 c.m.Above from mandible and 2.2x2.2cm, 1.8cm from left ear, 1.5x.2 c.m, 4 c.m.Below from the mandible, .4x.3 c.m., 6 cm below from the mandible, .4x.2 c.m., 8 c.m.below the mandible, 1x3 c.m., 1 c.m.From the mid line of clavicle, .3x.l cm, 4cm from the clavicle, .8x.3 cm, 2 c.m., above from the clavicle,Multiple crecentric abrasion present over right side of the neck and mandibular area of size .8x.3 c.m., 3.5cm from the mandible, l x.2 cm, 3.6 cm from the mandible, 1.1 x.2 cm, 3.8 cm from the mandible, 1.5x.2 c.m., 4 cm from mandible, 2x.2 cm, 1.5x.08 cm, 7 cm from the mandible.Contused lacerated wound .5x.3 cm over the inner side of upper lip.Contused lacerated wound .5x.6 cm over the inner side of the lower lip.Bilateral sub-conjunctival haemorrhage present.Abrasion over right knee patella region of size .7x.2 cm, 42 cm from the heel."Abrasion over left knee area .7x.3 cm, 41cm above the heel.Abrasion over left knee of size 2x 1.4 cm above the heel."In the uterus, there was a female foetus aged about 4/5 months.In lungs, right side of lung adherent to the chest wall bilateral large multiple petechial Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 7 of 25 haemorrhage.Both lungs congested."A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 7 of 25The presence of ethyl alcohol.The opinion as to the cause of death was kept pending for want of chemical analysis of the preserved viscera.Subsequently, after the receipt of the CFSL report dated 22nd August 2013 (Ex. PW-13/C), PW-13 gave an opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia on manual strangulation.He further opined: "All injuries were antemortem in nature.Deceased was under influence of ethyl alcohol 58.7 mg/100 ml of blood.Injuries 1 and 2 collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Homicidal death." It may be noted that at the trial, there was virtually no cross-examination of this witness.He too is stated to have taken the police to the place of occurrence and also to have made a disclosure statement.After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and by an order dated 28th September, 2013, charges were framed by the trial Court against the Appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove.Statements of the accusedThe prosecution examined 26 witnesses.In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr PC, when the incriminating circumstances were put to them, each of the Appellants denied them and claimed innocence.As far as A-1 is concerned, it is interesting to note that he did not deny the incident of 20th April, 2013 but gave a different version of what Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 8 of 25 transpired on that day.His answer reads as under:A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 8 of 25In fact, Poonam was adamant and insisting to live separately from the family of accused and to pressurize for the same, she had gone to her sister's house and when accused Savitri Devi went to bring Poonam back, then Smt. Savitri Devi was beaten by the Poonam and her sister Lata Dubey at her house and Smt. Savitri Devi suffered head injuries and police in connivance with Smt. Lata Dubey and her family members concocted a false story against the accused persons to save them.The police was called on 100 number by accused Sudhir from his mobile no. 8595202251 on 20.04.2013 but police in connivance with Smt. Lata Dubey and her husband made a false story to save them."In reply to a further question about the dispute having been settled in the PS on 20th April, 2013, A-1 stated:PW22/D and PW22/E respectively.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 9 of 25In relation to the above evidence, A-1 claimed that DD Nos. 54A and 55A were false and were fabricated in order to save the deceased and the family of her sister.According to A-1, the statement of A-2 was fabricated by the police by procuring her thumb impression on blank papers.However, he did not deny that A-2 was injured in the incident.When PW-2 then asked A-1 what had happened, A-1 is supposed to have asked PW-2 to take back the deceased, "otherwise she would be killed".Thereafter, PW-2 asked A-1 to drop the deceased at the house of PW-2 on which A-1 is supposed to have furiously left from there.In response to the above circumstance put to him under Section 313 Cr PC, A-1 replied as under:"It is correct as far as call being made by accused Pawan to Sh.Dev Narain Pandey but all other contents are incorrect.Accused Pawan had called his father in law Dev Narain Pandey informing about Poonam who was creating scene and insisting to have separate house Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 10 of 25 and thereafter accused Pawan left for his father in law's house at 7.30 am as Dev Narain Pandey called him to talk about.There was nothing said about dropping the Poonam to her father's house by Dev Narain Pandey nor accused made any threat to kill Poonam if she is not taken back as alleged.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 10 of 25In other words, A-1 did not deny having spoken to PW-2 in the morning of 10th May, 2013 and thereafter meeting PW-2 in his house at 7.30 am.He also admitted that a quarrel did take place between the deceased and A-1 regarding her insistence on living in a separate house.According to A-1, A-2 and A-3 were not present at the matrimonial home of the deceased at 9 am on 10th May, 2013 since A-2 had gone to the temple of Baba Balaknath, Chander Vihar at 7.30 am and returned only at 9.40 am.A-3 was working as a driver under one Sandeep Khurana at Madhu Vihar, Delhi.When asked whether he had anything else to say, A-1 stated as under:"The deceased was having love affair with me prior to our marriage and the marriage was performed in a very simple manner.After marriage, deceased Poonam regularly insisted and demanded me to live separately away from my widow mother and unmarried brother and due to this she used to create scene and quarrelled day to day with my mother in which her father and other family members used to instigate her.I along with my family have been falsely implicated in this case."As far as A-2 is concerned, she pleaded alibi and stated:"On the date of incident i.e. 10.05.2013, 1 was not present at my house since at about 7:30am I had gone to a temple Baba Balak Nath, Chandra Vihar, and returned back at about 9.30am.I am not aware as to how the deceased Poonam Sharma had sustained aforesaid injuries.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 11 of 25However, she was suffering from fits and for that she was on regular medication and may be on that count she might have sustained injuries as mentioned above."29. A-3 also claimed alibi and stated as under:"On the date of incident i.e. 10.05.2013, 1 was not present at my house since at about 8:00am I had gone for my job.I am not aware as to how the deceased Poonam Sharma had sustained aforesaid injuries.However, she was suffering from fits and for that she was on regular medication and may be on that count she might have sustained injuries as mentioned above.Thus it was claimed that on 10th May, 2013 at the time of the incident, none of the accused were present in the house and were elsewhere at the time of occurrence as claimed above.The impugned judgment of the trial CourtThe trial Court, as already noted, acquitted the Appellants of the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC.However, it concluded that as far as the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was concerned, the following circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt in the following manner:(i) The death was homicidal.There was no explanation from the side of the accused as to how the deceased received the aforementioned eight injuries as noticed in the post-mortem report, when she was present at her matrimonial home.(ii) There was no explanation from the three accused as to how the deceased came to have consumed liquor.No suggestion was put to PW-13 that it was Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 12 of 25 a suicidal death and not homicidal.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 12 of 25(iii) The evidence of PW-7 was trustworthy and reliable and it was consistent with the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report.Again, no explanation was forthcoming from the accused for the said injuries.Neither the Pujari of Balak Nath Temple nor Sandeep Khurana, the employer of A-3 had been examined in support of their respective plea of alibi.On the contrary, the testimony of PW-7 regarding the presence of both A-2 and A-3 in their house at the time of her visit and at the time she found the deceased in an injured condition remained unrebutted.For the aforementioned reasons, the trial Court proceeded to convict the Appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP for the State.Submission of counsel for the AppellantsThe learned counsel for the Appellants focussed essentially on the deposition of PW-7 and pointed out that she was an unreliable witness.It is submitted that it is unusual that despite finding her sister in an injured condition in the morning on 10 th May, 2013 PW-7 did not inform anyone of it, left the house while at the same time leaving the deceased behind and later came to know from her brother about the death of the deceased.It is Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 13 of 25 further pointed out that the call detail records (CDR) of the mobile phones of PW-7 were not collected by the IO.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 13 of 25Attention was also drawn to the confrontation of this witness in cross- examination which brought out the improvements she made over the statement initially given by her to the police.It is further submitted that the incident on 20th April 2013 has been wrongly projected by the prosecution as an incident in which the accused beat up the deceased and her relatives whereas it was the other way around.It was A-2 who was injured in the said incident and the MLC brought forth by PW-22 bore this out.As regards the alibi pleaded by the accused, it is submitted that as far as A-1 was concerned, he was at the house of his father-in-law on the morning of 10th May 2013 and this part of his assertion has been confirmed by PW-2 himself.It is submitted that A-1 came back to find that the deceased had expired and he himself immediately took her dead body to the hospital.As far as A-2 is concerned, it is pointed out that she was at the Balak Nath temple from around 7:30 a.m. for around two more hours and she too came back from the temple to find that the deceased had expired.As far as A-3 is concerned, he left for work as a driver with Mr. Sandeep Khurana at 8:00 a.m. and, therefore, was not present when the murder took place.Mr. Chetan Lokur, learned counsel for the Appellants, submitted that with the trial Court having acquitted the Appellants of the offences under Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 14 of 25 Sections 498A and 304B IPC, and with the State not having challenged that acquittal, the case proceeded as one involving the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC alone.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 14 of 25Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to his guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures.The prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of the circumstances.The approach of the court should be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated.The court should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same objectively.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 17 of 25The first of these is that the deceased died a homicidal death.It was death on account of injuries suffered by her.It was a death as a result of manual strangulation.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 18 of 25 house at the time when the deceased probably died.The post mortem report indicates that the post mortem took place on 11 th May 2013 at around 2.30 pm.The time since death was indicated as 28 to 30 hours prior to the examination.Although PW-7 has stated that when she visited the matrimonial house of the deceased at around 9 am, she found A-2 and A-3 there, the fact remains that it is not in dispute that A-1 and the deceased was staying together with A-2 and A-3 in the same house.It is not as if A-2 and A-3 were only visiting A-1 and the deceased, they were all living together.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 18 of 25In fact, the incident of 20 th April 2013 is a clear indication that there was a quarrel between the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other.Consequently, the plea of alibi could not be proved.Likewise, it is pointed out that as far as A-2 is concerned, an application was filed to examine the priest at the Baba Balak Nath Mandir to prove that she was present there from about 7:30 a.m. till 9:45 a.m. Here again the said application was not pressed.It is also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence.One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access.It is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife."A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 22 of 25 showing that the deceased was residing in the same house with the three accused, it was for the accused to explain how the deceased was found dead in the house where all of them lived together.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 22 of 25The site plan shows that the house was not a very big one.It is not as if the accused would not have been aware of what was happening to the deceased inside the house.If indeed A-1 found the deceased dead when he came back from the house of PW-2, that would have been around 8.15 am.A-2 returned from the temple around 9.30 am.It could not have taken them two hours thereafter to take the deceased to the hospital.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 23 of 25This was a fairly small house where the three Appellants and the deceased lived in two rooms.Therefore, it is not A-1 alone who will have to explain the unnatural death of the deceased in the house, but A-2 and A-3 as well.The order of conviction and the order on sentence passed by the trial Court calls Crl.A.188/2018 & connected appeals Page 24 of 25 for no interference.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,219,332 |
In a nut-shell the case of prosecution is as under:(A).On 10th January 2002 victim Nilesh was brought to the Rural Hospital Georai, Dist-Beed.Doctor at Georai found Nilesh to be dead when he was brought to the hospital in auto rickshaw.In another auto rickshaw, injured PW-3 Anup Mundada was also taken to the same hospital but looking to his injuries, Doctor forwarded him to Government Hospital at Beed.Police Inspector Ramesh Ghorale (PW-21) reached the hospital at Georai and came to ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 5 know about victim Nilesh to be brought dead.He got the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit 15) done and took steps to get Post-mortem done.He came to know that colleague of the dead, in injured condition, had been taken to Government Hospital, Beed.P.I. proceeded to Beed.At Beed, the injured PW-3 Anup was operated upon.In the course of night after the operation, P.I. - Ghorale recorded statement of injured Anup at about 1.10 a.m. after the doctor examined and certified him.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The said statement was then forwarded to the P.S.O. at Police Station, Georai and in the same night offence came to be registered at 4.30 a.m. (vide Exhibit 28).In the morning of 11th January 2002 P.I. Ghorale recorded Spot Panchanama (Exhibit 24) between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Inter alia blood stained mud was collected from spot.Before recording the Spot Panchanama, between 5.30 - 6.00 a.m. police seized the blood stained clothes of injured Anup (vide Panchanama Exhibit 51).Statements of witnesses were recorded.(B).The accused came to be arrested on 14 th January 2002 at about 15.15 hours and he was taken in the custody.The blood stained clothes of the accused were also seized (vide Panchanama Exhibit55).When the accused was in custody, on 18th January 2002 he gave discovery of the blood stained knife used at the time of incident.Vide Memorandum Exhibit 57-A the statement of accused was recorded and vide Panchanama Exhibit 57-B, the knife came to be discovered.(C).The post-mortem was done on the dead body of the victim Nilesh on 10th January 2002 itself between 10.30 - 11.30 p.m. He had died due to stab injury.Police collected the post-mortem report (Exhibit 60).When the accused was arrested on 14 th January 2002, he was also got examined for his ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 7 injuries from one Dr. Vinod at Civil Hospital, Beed.It was found that he had injuries which were possible in scuffle.Police also collected medical certificate (Exhibit 69) of injuries of the injured Anup from Civil Hospital, Beed from Dr. Upendra Kulkarni (PW-18).(D).In the course of investigation, police came to know that the accused after the incident which took place near gate of the Shetkari Sahakari Ginning Mill, which also had Cotton Federation in same premises at Georai, had run up to another mill namely Somani Ginning Factory at Padalshingi and taking help from some persons there, had travelled in Jeep to Beed where he also called for his family.Anup resides at Aurangabad.He is a graduate and is a businessman.He and Nilesh used to meet each other whenever Anup used to go Georai or Nilesh used to go to Aurangabad.They had friendly relations.Anup is in business of iron racks.On 10th January 2002 he had gone for this purpose to the place of one Bandu Seth Somani at Georai.He finished his work at that place at about 2.30 - 3.00 p.m. and went to the house of Nilesh.From family, he came to know that Nilesh had gone to the ginning factory.PW-3 Anup also came to the ginning factory which is to the south of Georai.Anup has deposed that he saw that Nilesh was standing at the gate of the ginning factory.They met and talked.As they had not taken meal, they went to Gulmohar Hotel, a Dhaba which was nearby, at about 3.30 p.m. They sat at the hotel till about 6.00 p.m. as the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 21 accused grader Dhanade was not available and was to come by that time.According to PW-3 Anup they were at that hotel for about 2 - 2½ hours and thereafter on motorcycle they came back to the ginning factory which was at about one furlong.It was about 6.30 p.m. by this time.PW-3 Anup states that they saw the accused standing near a heap of cotton.PW-3 Anup identified the accused before the Court.According to him, he and Nilesh went near the accused.The evidence of PW-5 is that when he saw that the quarrel is going on and these persons came outside the gate, he could not bear it and proceeded to STD Booth in order to give ring to the house of Nilesh.When he was ringing on phone at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed towards this witness and informed him that the accused had stabbed Nilesh and also his friend.PW-4 has also deposed that when he saw the stabbing, he rushed towards the STD Booth but noticed PW-5 to be there and told him about the incident which was unfolding.At this point of time, PW-6 Kailas Sutar who is labourer and was near Hotel Deepali, got attracted.cria413.05 26 Evidence of PW-5 and 6, both, shows that when PW-4 so rushed towards PW-5 and told about the incident taking place, they noticed the accused running away from near the spot towards Mondha Naka.The evidence of PW's 3 to 6 further makes it clear that after Nilesh was stabbed, he fell to the ground with bleeding injury and PW-3 Anup who had been stabbed in the stomach, sat down holding his wound.The evidence shows that blood was coming out from the injuries of both these persons and their clothes got blood stained.Evidence is that PW-5 Ankush called for rickshaw and Nilesh was put in the auto rickshaw.PW-5 with the help of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban, one Jeevan Dabhade and PW-6 Kailas lifted and put Nilesh in auto rickshaw and proceeded to Rural Hospital at Georai.The cross-examination of PW-5 Ankush brought on record the fact that after admitting Nilesh at the hospital, this witness was there for about half an hour.According to the witness, he had thereafter come home.It was suggested to him that after returning home he came to know that due to the injury on chest, Nilesh has expired.The witness had accepted the suggestion.He was manager of Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, which is part of same Taluka Georai.The evidence of this witness and PW-8 Ramesh Gholap, the watchman of Somani ginning factory at Padalshingi, shows that when the accused ran from the spot, he reached this Somani ginning factory.The evidence of PW-8 Ramesh Gholap is that on 10th January 2002 at about 8.00 p.m. he was working at Somani ginning factory when the accused reached that factory and went to clerk T.G. Jadhav.The evidence of PW-8 is that Jadhav asked him to bring a jeep on hire as the accused wanted to go to Beed.Jadhav told this witness also that there had been quarrel between accused and Nilesh and so the accused wanted to go to Beed.PW-8 has deposed that at this time when he saw the accused, the accused appeared to be frightened and that there were blood stains on the shirt and pant of the accused.PW-7 and PW-8 have deposed that they both went to the bus stand at Padalshingi and jeep was hired.PW-9 Kachru Chavan was the driver.PW-9 Kachru has deposed that on 10th January 2002 he was at the bus stand of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 70 Padalshingi and PW-7 Vaijnath and PW-8 Gholap came to him and wanted that their officer should be dropped at Beed.The evidence shows that PW's 7 to 9 then came by jeep to Somani ginning factory and the said officer i.e. accused went and sat in the jeep.Merely because PW-1 was friend of Nilesh, does not ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 82 mean that the witness would be giving false evidence.X 2 cms.X 2 cms., edges were sharp.The injury was admeasuring 3 cms.X 3 cms.and had sharp edges.This injury was also caused within 24 hours next before my examination with a sharp object.Nature of the injury was grievous."It is clear that intestinal coil had become visible and PW-3 in the course of incident had suffered serious injury in his abdomen.Oblique in firce, both tail ends present."As per the post-mortem report, the death occurred due to this stab injury on the chest.14 deposed that he had collected blood sample of the deceased for chemical analysis.According to the witness, the injury was possible by knife.In ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 94 the cross-examination of this doctor also, the accused tried to create doubt to suggest that certain words were inserted in Column 17 of the post-mortem report.JUDGMENT [PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.:The State has filed the present Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2005 against acquittal of Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Dhanade.Criminal Revision No.97 of 2005 came to be filed by Laxman Karande, the father of deceased Victim Nilesh Karande, while Criminal Revision No.102 of 2005 was filed by injured PW-3 Anup Mundada.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Case of ProsecutionIn the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 6 afternoon at 12.00 noon, the blood stained clothes of the victim Nilesh were also seized vide Panchanama Exhibit 53 by the Police Inspector.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Police recorded statements of persons with whose help the accused had gone to Beed and met an Advocate through a friend Ganesh.Police collected evidence from one Madhuban Lodge, Beed where in the concerned night accused went and stayed for some time with his family.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::cria413.05 8 (E).Regarding the actual incident, prosecution found in the investigation that the deceased Nilesh wanted receipt regarding cotton he had supplied and accused, who was working at the Federation as a grader, was not available on the day concerned when Nilesh went to the factory and Nilesh was waiting there.At that time PW-3 Anup, who had acquaintance with the deceased and who lives in Aurangabad, had gone to Georai for his work and went to meet the deceased.As they had to wait for accused, they went and had food at Hotel Gulmohar, which is near the factory.At about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased and PW-3 Anup went back to the factory, the accused was standing near heap of cotton.Deceased Nilesh asked regarding the receipt of cotton.At that time exchange of words started between the deceased and the accused.Accused was saying that he would grade the cotton on lower side and cause loss to the deceased.After the quarrel started, the deceased, the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 9 accused and PW-3 came outside the gate of the factory.Near the gate also the quarrel continued and in the course of the quarrel, accused slapped Nilesh and PW-3 Anup reacted, giving back two slaps to the accused.Then the accused took out a button knife from his pocket and hit Nilesh with the same in his chest.Blood started oozing out.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::When the accused was about to assault the deceased again, PW-3 Anup intervened and in the result, the accused hit knife in the abdomen of victim Anup causing bleeding injury.His intestine came out.Anup tried to catch hold of the accused and at that time the accused gave another knife blow to Anup on his ribs.Thereafter the accused ran away.The incident was seen by the watchman of the gate of the mill, PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, who ran to nearby STD Booth which was near Gulmohar Hotel, at which place already supervisor of the mill Ankush Mulay (PW-5) was there dialing and told him about the incident.PW-4 Suresh, PW-5 Ankush Mulay and PW-6 Kailas Sutar and others who ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 10 were there near the spot noticed accused running away.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Charge-sheet filedThe prosecution found sufficient evidence to charge sheet the accused and the charge-sheet was filed and the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge was framed under Section 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).The accused pleaded not guilty.The defence of the accused, in brief, is that the deceased Nilesh and PW-3 Anup along with two other persons were at the Beer Bar near the mill and they had consumed liquor and quarrel took place between them.They had come out of the Beer Bar and near the factory, the incident took place wherein those two other persons caused the injuries which (according to the defence) are being attributed to the accused.The trial Court recorded evidence of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 11 witnesses.The accused examined one defence witness Naib Tahsildar Ganpat Yedke, who recorded dying declaration of Anup on 11th January 2002 in the morning.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::We have heard counsel for both sides in these matters.The State, injured Anup as well as father of the victim, who have filed these matters, claim that the Judgment of acquittal is not at all maintainable.According to them, the evidence has not been properly appreciated.There was no reason to discard the cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution.There was direct evidence available of PW's 3 to 6 regarding incident.PW-4 had witnessed the complete incident while PW's 5 and 6 had partly seen the same.The documentary and medical ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 12 evidence fully supported the prosecution.There was evidence regarding extra judicial confessions made by the accused after he ran away to Padalshingi and hiring a jeep went to Beed where, with the help of a friend, he had contacted an Advocate for advice.There was no reason for so many persons to speak against the accused.PW-3 Anup was grievously injured in the incident and had no axe to grand against the accused and there was no reason to disbelieve him.There was no enmity between the witnesses and the accused for the witnesses to speak against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Presence of PW's 3 to 6 near the spot was natural.The incident suddenly occurred and trial Court wrongly discarded the evidence.People who gathered at the spot after the incident had helped the deceased and injured to take first to the Primary Health Center Georai.Doctor had rushed the injured Anup to Beed and the persons helping the injured, took him to hospital at Beed.The people who helped, did not even know the injured ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 13 at that time.While admitting PW-3 Anup at the hospital at Beed, in the record name of one Praveen Sharma was recorded as a person who brought him.The victim did not even know this Praveen Sharma but defence had been taken as if this Praveen Sharma and one businessmen of cotton at Georai had grievance against the accused and they brought about false case against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution has submitted that the Appeal needs to be allowed and the accused should be convicted of the offences.One Praveen Sharma and other businessmen who were dealing in cotton at Georai, had differences with the accused and after the incident occurred for which two unknown persons were responsible, the blame has been put on the accused.It has been submitted that the FIR ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 14 was not registered in the concerned night between 10th - 11th January 2002 and it was created subsequently because copy of the FIR was sent to the J.M.F.C. only on 14th January 2002 and not within 24 hours as required by Section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.").::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the witnesses were not reliable.PW-3 Anup was not knowing the accused and although accused was named in the FIR which was recorded in the night at about 1.00 a.m., he did not name the accused in the dying declaration which was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. Although PW-3 Anup claimed that when victim was stabbed, his shirt got torn, the shirt before the Court did not have such tear.The trial Court rightly discussed the evidence and found that there were various contradictions and omissions and the witnesses were not found to be reliable.The trial Court has discarded the evidence of the witnesses from Somani Ginning factory also.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 15 extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and should not be relied on.The witness from Madhuban Lodge PW-16 Kishor Kadam had not supported the prosecution and was hostile.The learned counsel supported reasonings recorded by the trial Court to claim that the reasonings recorded by the trial Court are possible view and thus according to the counsel, the Appeal and Revisions deserve to be rejected.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The counsel for the accused referred to the case of State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2488(1), the case of Peddireddy Subbareddi and others vs. State of A.P., reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 1391, the case of Anok Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 598, the case of Rama Gopal Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 All M.R. (Cri) 2393, and the case of Mukteshwar and another vs. The State, reported in 2004 Cri.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::At the time of arguments, we had asked the counsel for both sides to address the Court in ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 19 the alternative also.We had told the counsel that suppose we come to the conclusion that offence is proved, what would they like to submit regarding the sentence.We gave opportunity to the counsel for both sides to address on the said count also.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Having heard counsel for both sides, we have carefully gone through the whole record of this matter.The Points for Consideration are:(1) Whether prosecution proved that the accused committed murder of Nilesh Karande and also attempted to commit murder of PW-3 Anup Mundada?(2) Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is maintainable and if not what should be the Order?For better appreciation, the evidence of these witnesses needs to be considered together.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Evidence of PW-3 Anup shows that he was knowing deceased Nilesh since 4-5 years.Coolies were working there.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Nilesh had shown the accused who was grader to this witness.He deposed that time was about 6.45 p.m. and there was light in the premises.The evidence is that Nilesh demanded receipt from the accused and the accused told Nilesh that he would grade the cotton at lower level and cause damage to Nilesh.There was exchange of words between the accused and victim Nilesh.This happened when they were near the heap of cotton.This quarrel attracted PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe who was at gate of the ginning mill/factory as well as PW-5 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 22 Ankush Mulay, the supervisor who had come for work at the ginning factory.PW-4 Suresh @ Baban has deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. He put on all the lights of the ginning premises and he was near the gate.He has deposed that at about 6.30 p.m. he noticed Nilesh along with his friend was there and Nilesh was demanding receipt from accused Rajkumar Dhanade, standing near heap of cotton.According to this witness, the accused told Nilesh that he would not give receipts.Then there were abuses and catching and pushing between them.This watchman started proceeding towards the spot where such incident was taking place but then saw that Nilesh along with his friend (PW-3) and accused were proceeding towards the gate and all of them came to the gate and also came out of the gate.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Now if the evidence of PW-5 Ankush is perused, it corroborates, as even this witness says that although on that day ginning mill was not working as machine work was going on, he had come for work.He deposed that he was sitting in his office ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 23 doing work when he heard noise from outside.Time was about 6.00 - 6.30 p.m. The noise of quarrel was going on and he noticed that there were three persons, the victim Nilesh Karande, his friend and accused.Even this witness has stated that while so quarreling these persons came outside the gate.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The evidence further is that outside the gate of the ginning factory also the quarrel continued.The evidence of PW-3 Anup is that there was exchange of words and abuses were going on and the accused slapped on the cheek of Nilesh and because of which he got angry and in return this witness gave two slaps to the accused.PW-3 has deposed that when this incident occurred, they were at about 30 - 35 ft. from the gate.PW-3 Anup has deposed that after such exchange of slaps, the accused took out the knife from his pocket and assaulted on the right middle side of the chest of Nilesh and then withdrew the knife from the chest where after blood came out and the shirt had got ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 24 cut.This evidence of PW-3 is corroborated by PW-4 Suresh who has deposed that he tried to resolve the quarrel from some distance after these persons had come out of the gate.He has also deposed that accused gave slap to Nilesh and the friend of Nilesh (PW-3) got angry and gave two slaps to accused and accused took out knife from his pocket and gave stab in the chest of Nilesh causing injury to Nilesh.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 further shows that when the accused stabbed Nilesh, PW-3 tried to rescue, at which time the accused gave knife blow to the abdomen of PW-3 causing injury.PW-3 tried to catch hold of the accused and the accused gave another blow by knife on the left rib of PW-3 Anup.Thereafter the accused started running away from the spot.When the incident of stabbing as above was taking place, PW-5 Ankush who had earlier seen ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 25 accused quarreling, had already proceeded to the STD Booth which is nearby.PW-6 has deposed that he was in front of the hotel when PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed from the side of ginning factory and told about the incident to PW-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::5 Ankush who was on the STD Booth, telling him that in the quarrel between Nilesh, his friend and Dhanade (accused), Nilesh was lying on the earth.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that coolies from the federation put PW-3 Anup in another auto rickshaw and proceeded towards Rural Hospital, Georai.Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that he however remained near the spot for discharge of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 27 his duties (being watchman).::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::The witness however, was unable to name the person who told him at his house about the death of Nilesh.The cross-examination of this witness shows that after the incident, many people had gathered at the hospital and they were discussing amongst themselves about the incident.Police reach HospitalIn the evidence of PW-19 Head Constable Bansi Jadhav, defence brought on record Exhibits ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 28 71 to 73, the Station Diary Entries.Exhibit 71 is entry dated 10th January 2002 of 8.15 p.m. recording that the hospital had informed that dead body of Nilesh Karande had been brought at the hospital.There is entry of the time of 9.15 p.m. to arrange for Bandobast at the federation.PW-21 P.I. Ghorale has deposed that Nilesh had been brought to the hospital and was declared as brought dead by the doctor.According to him, consequently he held Inquest Panchanama Exhibit::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::PW-21 Ghorale has deposed that after Inquest Panchanama, the body was sent for post-mortem.He came to know that there was colleague of the deceased who was injured and had been sent to the Government Hospital, Beed.According to him, he consequently proceeded to the hospital at Beed.Now coming back to the evidence of PW-3 Anup, he has deposed that near the spot of incident, there was Deepali Hotel and 10 - 12 persons rushed to the spot.Those persons took ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 29 Nilesh to the hospital in auto rickshaw and some of the persons who gathered, took him to the hospital in another auto rickshaw.He deposed that when he was taken to the hospital, the time was about 7.15 - 7.30 p.m. Anup and Nilesh both had been taken to Rural Hospital, Georai.His evidence is that seeing his injuries, doctor advised that he should be shifted to Beed.He was taken to Civil Hospital, Beed.According to him, he was operated there for his injuries to the abdomen.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::His evidence is that in that night between 1.00 -1.15 a.m., PW-21 P.I. Ghorale came there and recorded his statement.According to him, when the witness came home, he inquired and came to know that Nilesh had died.The evidence of PW-3 is that when P.I. Ghorale recorded his statement, doctor was present in the ward.Anup has deposed that the FIR Exhibit 28 was recorded as per his say and he signed the same.He has also deposed that the doctor has signed the endorsement on the FIR.He did not know the name of the doctor but deposed ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 30 that endorsement was made by doctor in his presence.This evidence is corroborated by P.I.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Even the P.I. has proved the endorsement of the doctor.The endorsement of the doctor even after recording of the statement has been proved by P.I. Ghorale.Discussing Evidence of PW's 3 to 6The learned counsel for the accused referred to the cross-examination of PW's 3 to 6 to argue that there were various contradictions and omissions and the conduct of these witnesses was such that they were not reliable.This argument appears to have weighed with the trial Court.As such, it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence of these witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Re: Hole or not in Shirt Article 9: In the course of evidence, PW-3 deposed that when Nilesh was stabbed, his shirt got cut.The witness identified the clothes of Nilesh as well as himself and the accused in the course of his evidence.The learned counsel for the accused confronted the witness with shirt Article 9 which was stated to be of Nilesh, to bring an admission on record that there was no hole on the right front side of the said shirt.From this, it is argued that when the witness stated that the stab was to the right front side of the chest, the hole was not there.If the evidence of PW-11 Panch Arun Govindrao is perused, which relates to the seizure of clothes of deceased Nilesh and Panchanama Exhibit 53 is seen, the police did seize shirt of Nilesh which had a cut where knife was stabbed on the front side.The shirt concerned did not have any special marks is matter of record.We have seen record of trial Court.Exhibit 2 filed by Police is list of Properties which Police produced ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 32 in trial Court.In it, the description of this shirt clearly records that the shirt has a tear in front due to knife blow and that there is hole.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::Property received appears to have been entered in Court records.No objection regarding description was raised.Prosecution evidence on this count cannot be doubted.Re: Unreasonable expectations/wrong appreciation of evidence: Learned counsel for the accused then submitted from cross-examination of PW-3 Anup that in the cross-examination various details were asked to the witness regarding which the witness was unable to say.The counsel ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 33 submitted that the trial Court noticed that in the examination-in -chief the witness posed himself to be very smart person with photographic memory and gave various details of the incident as well as the clothes and knife perfectly, but in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::examination when he was asked further details, he pleaded ignorance.Now when we peruse the evidence of PW-3 Anup, he appears to have been asked in a gruelling cross examination details like, does he have an idea if police officials (as named in the cross-examination) had come to the Rural Hospital; had the persons who were taking him to the hospital asked him about the incident; could he say in which jeep he was carried and who was the owner of the jeep and whether the police had carried him in jeep from Georai to Beed; can he identify the persons who brought him to Beed Hospital; what was asked by the doctor at Beed Hospital etc. etc. ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 ::: cria413.05 34 These type of various details were sought from the witness and when he has stated that he could not tell about those details, the trial Court declared (in Para 19 of the Judgment) that the witness was evasive and although gave minute details of the events from afternoon till the incident, was avoiding details in cross-examination and that had he given the details it would be against prosecution.One has to put himself in the place of the victim.The details regarding before stabbing taking place and when the actual stabbing was taking place could have been registered in the mind of the witness.Details of the main incident can get embossed on the mind.The same thing cannot be said for part of the incident after the witness was stabbed and was in bad condition.It cannot be forgotten that the witness ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 35 had been stabbed in his stomach and rib and had bleeding injury where he was holding his stomach.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:02 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::In fact in the cross- examination of PW-3 Anup, he was referred to his MLC papers and an endorsement, where consent was being sought by the doctor that his small intestine had come out and he was willing for the operation.The MLC papers put up to the witness show that by 8.00 p.m. this injured had been reached to the hospital at Beed.Medical Certificate Exhibit 69 and evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra shows that intestine of PW-3 Anup was seen from the injury.With the injuries he had, it is too much to expect that he would remember details of time and persons around him who were not even known to him, when he was being rushed from point to point in injured condition.PW-3 Anup was asked (in Para 21) and he deposed that when 10 - 15 persons gathered, he had told that grader Dhanade had assaulted him.He was then asked if when he was taken to hospital, he felt that FIR should be filed.The witness stated that he did feel that ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 36 FIR should be filed but he volunteered that his condition was not good and so he did not give it.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::It would be inhuman to expect that a person who has received stab injury in his stomach and who has been injured in his rib by knife and who is being rushed to the Rural Hospital Georai and from there being taken to Civil Hospital, Beed at about 32 K.M.s because of the nature of his wound, should first register FIR instead of seeing the doctor.Person in such condition, after he has been so injured, may not have been in a position to note the various details as the accused wanted to know.So observing, the trial court concluded that the witness does not ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 37 deserve any credit.It further observed that although the witness was in full senses, he did not try to lodge complaint in which he himself and his friend Nilesh were "brutally assaulted".Thus, the trial Court was aware that there was brutal assault, but still went on expecting that the complaint should have been first filed.Before referring to what has been branded as "material improvements", it would be appropriate to refer to the contents of the FIR.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Contents of FIR and PW-3If the FIR Exhibit 28 is perused, after the introductory part, it recorded that on 10 th January 2002 at about 3.00 p.m. complainant had come to Georai.He was knowing Nilesh since 4-5 years as they had met in a marriage and were on ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 38 visiting terms.He went to the house of Nilesh and as Nilesh was not at home he inquired as to where he had gone.He came to know that Nilesh is at federation and so he went to the federation, which is near a Beer Bar.Nilesh was standing in front of the gate of the federation.Thereafter he and Nilesh went to the Dhaba which was nearby and they had food there and thereafter on motorcycle came back to the federation, as Nilesh had to get receipts of cotton.When they went there, Nilesh asked Dhanade grader (accused) regarding the weighment of cotton.Accused did not give any value to Nilesh and insulting him he stated that he will grade the cotton on the lower side and started quarreling.There was oral exchange of words between Nilesh and Dhanade grader.Then all three of them came to the gate of the federation.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::At that time when accused was about to give second blow, PW-3 Anup went near and the stab was received in his stomach and when he tried to hold accused, accused gave blow in the left rib by the sharp instrument like knife and Anup was injured and thereafter accused ran away towards Georai.Thereafter 2-3 persons from Deepali Hotel and labourers from federation came there and they brought them to the Government Hospital.The incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. He was taken to Beed Government Hospital.Later on he came to know that Nilesh has died at Georai due to the assault by knife by grader.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Now if the above FIR is kept in view and the evidence of PW-3 Anup, which we have already discussed, is perused, what is tried to be shown by the accused as material contradictions or omissions when considered, it can be seen that these are matters more of details than the actual ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 40 incident.But the accused, however went into hairsplitting in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::examination of PW-3 Anup.Accused claimed that witness had not told the police that they were at Dhaba till 6.00 p.m. as Dhanade was not available till 6.00 p.m. Now if the FIR is read as a whole and the details stated are considered, the time when the victim and PW-3 met the accused would be around 6.00 p.m. Another contradiction is claimed from the evidence that it was not stated that when these persons went near the accused, he was standing near the heap of cotton.We do not think that this is a material contradiction or omission.PW-3 was asked and he claimed that he had told police that there were lights all over the premises.This may be material but looses its significance looking to the other evidence available on record of PW-4, the watchman who deposed that he had put on all the lights of the ginning mill premises at 6.00 p.m. Spot Panchnama shows that the Ginning Factory had wire ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 41 fencing as boundary and incident took place near gate.In the cross- examination of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban, it cannot be said that he has been questioned regarding his evidence that he had put on all lights of the premises.Apart from PW-4, the other evidence has also been lost sight of by the trial Court regarding visibility.It cannot be forgotten that the spot of incident was not an isolated place on any highway away from the city or in a jungle.It was a ginning factory with cotton federation.The Spot Panchanama Exhibit 24 proved by PW-1 and 2, in the description of the actual spot where incident took place, shows that on the northern side there was an electric pole beyond which there was Deepali Beer Bar.The evidence of PW-3 shows that the Hotel Gulmohar is to the south of the ginning factory at about one furlong.Evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban shows that near the ginning factory there is Deepali Beer Bar and near the Beer Bar there is STD Booth.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::PW-4 further deposed that these Hotels, Gulmohar ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 42 and Deepali, remain open till 12.00 O'Clock in the night.Thus it was not an isolated place and only because PW-3 has not mentioned in his FIR regarding light, and omission on that count is proved, it cannot be said that it is fatal to the prosecution case.Trial Court (in Para 35 of its Judgment) declared as Judicial Note that on 10th January 2002 there would have been Sun-set "long before" the time of incident of 6.30 - 6.45 p.m. Trial Court forgot that it was not a hit and run case.Evidence showed incident starting some time after 6.00 p.m. and continuing from inside to outside the Ginning Factory.Evidence of witnesses shows that incident must have taken place between 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. As discussed, PW-3 had been reached to Hospital at Beed 32 KMs.away by 8.00 p.m. after a hop at Rural Hospital Georai.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Available ancient as well as modern technological system of keeping data should have ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 43 been kept in view.Judicial Note should, when possible, be based on science and public data available rather than surmises.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Another portion of evidence of PW-3 which is claimed to be material omission, is that he had not stated that he saw the grader Dhanade running away in the light of electric light.The FIR shows that Anup did state that accused after the incident ran away.He did not tell about electric light would not be that material looking to above factors.There are further details sought from PW-3 if he had told while giving FIR that Nilesh had fallen on the earth and that he had sat down on the ground holding his abdomen.We do not find that this is material.To repeat, FIR is not an encyclopedia.When the FIR mentions that Nilesh was stabbed in the chest and this witness was stabbed in the stomach, these other details are fringe details which are not material.Omission is tried to be shown that PW-3 did not state in the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 44 FIR that he came to know about the death of Nilesh from P.I. Ghorale.When the P.I. (PW-3) himself was recording the FIR, if he had told the fact to PW-3 Anup, it is inappropriate to expect that the complainant would state that - I have learnt this fact from you - the P.I. who is recording my FIR.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::We have already referred to the contents of the FIR which say that at the time of FIR the complainant had been told that Nilesh had died due to stab injury.Re: Materials put up as Omissions though none existed: It is argued for accused that PW-3 did not tell police that when they had gone to the ginning factory some coolies were working there.If the FIR is perused, it does record that when the incident took place some labourers came from the federation to help, taking the injured to the hospital.Inspite of such reference in the FIR, the trial Court recorded the evidence as if there was an omission.Similarly, another omission is ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 45 tried to be shown that PW-3 had not told the police that accused had told Nilesh that he will cause his loss.The FIR shows that the accused had told Nilesh in the argument that he will grade his cotton on the lower side.This led to the quarrel.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::When this is so, to say that there is omission in this regard, must be said to be hairsplitting.Yet another omission was allowed to be brought on record by the trial Court that at the time of giving of FIR, PW-3 had not stated that there was exchange of words.The FIR does record that there was " 'kkCnhd ckpkckph " i.e. oral exchange of words.However, it is not significant as in this regard there is evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban also, where he has deposed that there was catching and pushing between these persons.In the cross-examination, there was no ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 46 denial and PW-4 could not be shattered and there are no contradictions and omissions brought on record in the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban.It has been then argued that in the FIR, like evidence, it was not mentioned that the stab was given to Nilesh on the right side of his chest and that after giving the stab, the knife was taken out (i.e. withdrawn) from the body of Nilesh.The FIR does mention that knife was stabbed in the chest.If at the time of evidence PW-3 stated that it was to the right middle side of the chest, this was a matter of details.When the evidence is that by the same knife after hitting Nilesh, accused stabbed PW-3, it is a simple matter that after stabbing Nilesh the same knife was withdrawn from the body of Nilesh and PW-3 was attacked.It was not necessary to recored in the FIR that after stabbing Nilesh the knife was withdrawn.This by itself cannot be said to be material omission.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::The Supreme Court observed in Para 32 and 38 as under:::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::He was confronted with the contents and accepted that the name as such of the accused was not written in the statement.No doubt the document as Article "D"Rather Article "D" which was recorded in the morning of 11th January 2002 at about 9.00 a.m. ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 49 gives more details of the incident which are now being tried to be shown by the accused as omissions in FIR.The FIR was registered in the night itself in which PW-3 had given name of the accused.No doubt in Article D, name as such of the accused is not mentioned, but if the evidence of DW-1 is perused and Article D is seen, it is clear that DW-1 did not record the said statement in the words of the witness.He admitted in the cross-examination that he went on putting questions to which PW-3 Anup went on giving answers.DW-1 did not keep any record as to what questions he had asked.It is not clear if DW-1 had asked PW-3 regarding name of accused.Thus, only because in Article D name of the accused was not mentioned, does not make the evidence of PW-3 unreliable.Article D is not dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. It is not statement to Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Still, even if it was to be given any value, although PW-3 may not have know earlier, there are witnesses like PW's 4 to 6 who knew the accused from before and who have also identified the accused.Thus, going through the cross-examination of PW-3, although the learned counsel for accused made much efforts to show that PW-3 is unreliable, we are not in agreement with the counsel for the accused.The reasonings recorded by the trial Court to disbelieve the PW-3, we find to be unconvincing.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::cria413.05 51 It was a case relating to communal riots.In that matter (see Paras 9 & 10), some dying declarations were recorded of the injured who survived.The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence regarding dying declarations recorded by Executive Magistrate of PW's 5 and 6 of that matter.In that matter, the witness had not given out names of accused in the dying declaration.The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence and found that the fact that PW-5 therein was under influence of general anesthesia and that he was not coherent were some of the important aspects that were required to be kept in mind.Hon'ble Supreme Court found in the facts of that matter that the Executive Magistrate had not inquired from PW-5 about alleged assailants.In present matter also, the above discussion shows that there is no material to show that DW-1 examined by the accused had inquired from PW-3 if he knew the name of the officer he was referring to.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Discussing PW-4 Suresh @ Baban TonpeWe have referred to the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban Tonpe, which corroborates PW-3 Anup.This watchman, when he came on duty, put on all lights of the ginning premises.The learned counsel for accused submitted that the witness was not reliable as he had come to the Court in the car of the father of the victim at the time of giving of evidence and his conduct showed that he could not be relied on, which has been discussed by the trial Court.When we peruse the reasonings recorded by the trial ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 53 Court with reference to this witness, the trial Court raised doubts about this witness by expressing that it was not explained as to how this witness could say that the victim Nilesh was accompanied with his "friend'.One look at the persons and the incident could have made the witness assume that they were friends.But trial Court wanted explanation.Trial Court then observed that the witness did not explain as to who he intended to give phone call when he rushed towards the STD Booth; that he did not explain why he did not make the telephone call; that he did not explain why he did not inform the relatives or police on telephone; or that, he did not explain the basis for identifying the knife.The trial Court doubted the evidence of this witness when he did not accept in the cross-examination that he had earlier discussed the matter with the father of the victim although he came in his car.We find that when such incident suddenly takes place, there could be various turmoils in the mind of a ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 54 witness, who may in split second take a step to do something and in another split second get diverted to something else.Here this witness when he saw the incident taking place, rushed towards the STD Booth.May be he wanted to make a call.But then at the STD Booth he saw PW-5 Ankush already trying to make a call and immediately witness told him the incident and PW's 4 to 6 then appeared to have got diverted seeing the accused running away from near the spot.If the veracity of the witness was to be doubted by asking such questions that the witness has not explained this or that conduct of his, it would be raising doubts for the purpose of raising doubts.Had the witness on his own given the explanations, he would have then been criticized for omissions and improvements.The details as were being searched by the trial Court, were apparently not with reference to the main incident.A watchman like PW-4 may not have risen so as to call up the relatives or police.By that itself the witness does not become unreliable.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 55 trial Court questioned that the witness did not explain on what basis he could identify the knife before the Court and it was difficult for anyone to know particulars of a weapon from a distance.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Now if the Spot Panchanama proved by PW's 1 and 2 is perused (which evidence we will discuss later), it can be seen that the spot of incident of stabbing from the gate of ginning mill was hardly at a distance of about 35 ft.PW-4 deposed (in Para 4) that he tried to resolve the quarrel from some distance.Thus he was between these 35 feet.Although the trial Court criticized the witness claiming that he could not have noted the particulars of the weapon, if the evidence of PW-4 Suresh @ Baban is perused (in Para 7) when asked, he deposed that he could identify the knife if shown.The knife was shown and the witness accepted that it was the same knife.Thereafter the Court on its own recorded particulars of the knife in bracketed portion.In Judgment, however, the trial Court criticized that the witness could ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 56 not have noted the particulars.The witness never stated about particulars but accepted when the knife was shown to him that it was the same.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Witness may recall the instrument by general impressions also which he may recall.The trial Court declared that the witness was interested recording that the interest of the witness appeared to be flowing from the fact that young deceased was vice president of the Municipal Council of Georai.But then, the evidence of PW-4 nowhere refers that he had any knowledge whether or not the deceased held any such post.The witness is being doubted because he came to the Court in the car of the father of the victim.The evidence of PW-4 shows that he admitted that he come to the Court in the car of the father of the victim.Distance between Georai to Beed is about 32 K.M.s.If this PW-4 who is a mere watchman at the gate of the factory and apparently not a rich person, took a lift, it would be too insulting to brand him as unreliable only because he had taken ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 57 the lift.There is no material that State took care to provide for transport of the witness.It is a matter of common knowledge that people are reluctant to come forward as witnesses.This is something which is cutting through the administration of criminal justice.Although the witness is criticized, we find that if the witness was not honest or had he been tutored, he would not have given any such admission.The admission rather shows that the witness is honest, truthful and reliable.The trial Court further criticized this witness declaring that the witness claimed that on day of incident victim had delivered cotton to the federation but was unable to say what was the quantity and in whose name it was provided.It was forgotten that questions on this count were asked in the cross-examination by the accused and in that course he had stated that cotton of Nilesh was received on that day.The witness was not given opportunity to explain the basis of his knowledge and when asked further ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 58 details, he deposed that he did not know in whose name and how much quantity of cotton was given by Nilesh.We are unable to accept the reasons recorded by the trial Court for discarding the evidence of this witness.The approach on this count, cannot be maintained.The accused was unable to bring on record any contradictions or omissions in the evidence of this witness.The main evidence of this witness regarding putting on lights of the whole premises and seeing the incident from inside the premises till the stabbings taking place at short distance from the gate can hardly be said to be questioned or shattered.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Discussing PW-5 Ankush MulayComing to the evidence of PW-5 Ankush Mulay, the supervisor, we have already referred to his evidence earlier regarding incident.In short, his evidence is that he is supervisor at the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 59 ginning mill and was on duty on the day concerned although the ginning was closed on that day as machine work was going on.The witness has not stated that it was a holiday as such.The witness deposed that at the time of incident, he got attracted due to the noise of quarrel and saw the victim, accused and friend of the victim proceeding towards the gate and that they were quarreling and then outside the gate quarrel continued because of which he went to the STD Booth to give a phone call to the house of victim, at which time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban rushed to him and told about the stabbing and they saw the accused running away from near the spot.The trial Court has disbelieved even this witness.Trial Court observed that this witness did not claim that he had seen the actual stabbing but still deposed that the friend of Nilesh was stabbed with "knife".But then when the evidence is that PW-4 Suresh @ Baban had rushed to this witness and told him that the accused had stabbed the victim with ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 60 knife, there is nothing surprising if the witness accepted this to say that there was injury by knife.In the cross-examination of this witness, trial Court allowed it to be recorded (in Para 3) that he had not stated before the police that on 10th January 2002 he was working in his office.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Trial Court referred to this as an omission for criticizing the evidence of this witness.It is duty of Court to high light while recording, the part or word concerned by putting it in inverted commas and explaining in bracket.When what has been deposed is also appearing in Statement to Police, Courts should not allow asking if it was so stated to police.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::For its own ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 62 remembrance and benefit of appellate Courts factual notes need to be kept by trial Courts in evidence, in interest of justice.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::In present matter, without referring to police statement by Court, or drawing attention of witness, the Advocate for accused was allowed to bring in the evidence of PW-5 something which did not match with the record.After referring to a few examples, it was observed in Para 27 that:The aforesaid examples are not intended to be exhaustive but only illustrative.The same instance may fall under one or more heads.It is for the trial Judge to decide in each case, after comparing the part or parts of the statement recorded by the police with that made in the witness box, to give a ruling, having regard to the aforesaid principles, whether the recital intended to be used for contradiction satisfies the requirement of law."::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::cria413.05 63 .Trial Court criticized PW-5 on the basis that he had deposed that police personnel had come to the hospital but this witness did not explain as to why he did not disclose the incident to police.If the evidence of PW-5 is perused, although he refers to police personnel coming to the hospital, there is no evidence that police personnel came when he was still present.The witness has deposed that after taking the victim to the hospital, he was there for half an hour and then he had returned home.Looking to the time of the incident and Station Diary Entry Exhibit 71, the cross-examination cannot be so read that the police had already reached when the witness was at the hospital.The witness is criticized by the trial Court that he did not disclose the incident to the people who had gathered.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 64 record shows that immediately on 11th January 2002 statement of this witness was recorded by police.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::We do not think that for reasons recorded by the trial Court, the evidence of the witness could be discarded.Discussing PW-6 Kailas SutarThe evidence of PW-6 Kailas Sutar who was at the STD Booth and got attracted to the incident when PW-4 rushed to the STD Booth and informed about the incident to PW-5 Ankush, has deposed that he had seen the accused running away from near the spot.The evidence of this witness also has been ignored by the trial Court observing that it was unnatural that after PW-4 saw the incident and came to PW-5 and told him about the incident and then this witness could have seen the accused running away from near the spot.If the evidence of this witness PW-6 is perused, he has deposed that he was in front of Hotel Deepali.The STD ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 65 Booth was near this Hotel.The witness deposed that at that time PW-4 Suresh @ Baban "rushed"::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::from the ginning and told Ankush about the occurrence and then when they saw towards Mondha Naka, they saw the accused running away.Logically appreciated, when the spot of incident and the STD Booth near Hotel Deepali were at short distance, if PW-4 rushed and told PW-5 Ankush about the incident which was taking place, the time factor for PW's 4 to 6 would be overlapping to some extent and in quick succession to some extent, and there is nothing surprising if in culmination, simultaneously they could notice the accused running away from near the spot.We do not find anything unnatural in the evidence of PW-6 Ankush when he deposed that he saw the accused running away from near the spot.The evidence of this witness PW-6 Kailas has been discarded by the trial Court on the basis that he was not a person who was providing cotton ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 66 to ginning mill and that he does not know any coolies, labourers at that place and he has no concern to visit that place.When the witness, who is labourer and resident of the small place like Georai, there is nothing unnatural if in the evening he comes to a hotel or is near the hotel.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::His presence cannot be questioned merely because he is not supplier of cotton to the nearby ginning mill.His evidence was discarded by the trial Court observing that it was his version before the police in statement that he had come to know that Nilesh was assaulted with knife on his chest and as such he died, later on.When witness accepts he told a fact to police and it has been so recorded, there is no further question of going on to mark and prove portion "A".In the flow of putting up portion which the witness was not even denying, in evidence the witness was further asked and he stated that he had narrated before the police the fact that after sometime he came to know that as Nilesh was assaulted with knife on his chest, so he died.What witness was telling was regarding he getting knowledge about death due to incident and not that he came to know about incident itself later on.The trial Court clearly misread the evidence and came to perverse findings on this count.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::cria413.05 68 Subsequent Conduct of AccusedApart from the direct evidence of PW's 3 to 6, there is other evidence also available like subsequent conduct of the accused.There is evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath Kale.The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 shows that the accused reached that ginning factory and went and met one clerk Jadhav.PW-7 Vaijnath has deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. of 10th January 2002 he was called by that clerk Jadhav and he saw that the accused was sitting with said T.G. Jadhav.At that time said Jadhav informed PW-7 Vaijnath that the accused had a quarrel with Nilesh Karande (victim) and that the accused wanted to go to Beed and so wanted a jeep ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 69 to be called.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::The evidence shows that these four persons then travelled by Jeep MH-23-C-659 to Shahunagar at Beed and on the way the accused met a friend and told the said friend that there was quarrel between him and Nilesh Karande and to go and bring his family members (i.e. of the accused) to the room of his (another) friend Ganesh.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::Accused expressed that he wanted to go to his village and so the family was required to be brought.The evidence of these witnesses shows that PW-7 to PW-9 along with accused then went to the place of one Ganesh.The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 is that when the accused met Ganesh, he told Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between him and Nilesh.Then they met landlord of Ganesh who was Advocate.Advocate advised accused to lodge ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 ::: cria413.05 71 FIR to police station or be prepared for his arrest.It appears that after this, the accused paid the hire charges of the jeep and PW-7 to PW-9 returned.The evidence of PW-7 Vaijnath records that when they went to house of Ganesh, they took tea there and the accused informed entire incident to Ganesh about the occurrence of quarrel between him and Nilesh.Thus, the evidence of these witnesses brought on record by the prosecution discloses that after running away from the spot, the accused took help at Somani ginning factory to go to a friend Ganesh at Beed and consult an Advocate.In the course of such taking of help, he appears to have made extra judicial confession about his quarrel with victim Nilesh.We are aware that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and in this matter the witnesses have not stated specific words used by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:03 :::However, what is material is the conduct of accused brought on record by the prosecution which discloses his guilty conscience and also connects ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 72 him to the incident.The accused had reached Somani ginning factory with blood stains still on his clothes.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The cross-examination of PW-7 Vaijnath brought on record the fact that even before incident there were occasions when this witness had called for and used jeep of PW-9 Kachru for travelling between Georai and Beed.examiner wanted to test the knowledge of this witness and the witness gave him the number of the jeep when asked.The cross-examination of PW-7 further shows that the accused was acquainted with grader Bookwala of Somani ginning factory and so he used to go there and so he was known to the witness.Distance between Beed to Padalshingi appears to be 19 Kilometers.PW-7 was unable to tell the name of the Advocate.examination of PW-7 confirmed that in the presence of this witness, the accused had told the incident to Ganesh, and Ganesh had called the Advocate.The ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 73 full expanse of the incident however came to be known by this PW-7 only on 11th January 2002 from the newspaper.This can be seen in view of the details brought on record in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Thus the evidence is natural and shows that when accused was seeking help he told broad factors about the incident.Inspite of the cross-examination, the witness could not be shattered regarding the fact that he was involved in the travelling of accused from Padalshingi to Beed and the extra judicial confessions of involvement of the accused.Similarly cross-examination of PW-8 watchman Ramesh Gholap also did not elicit any material on the basis of which the witness could be disbelieved regarding the travel of accused to Beed and the statements made by the accused as well as evidence that the accused appeared to be frightened and there were blood stains on his shirt and pant.PW-9 driver Kachru was also cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::cria413.05 74 examined.The witness could not say.It was suggested to him that he did not know what police wrote in his statement.The witness accepted the suggestion.The witness was referred to his evidence that at the house of Ganesh the accused had told about the quarrel.The omission was brought on record in cross-examination that it was not told to police that such statement was made at the house of Ganesh.Looking to the other evidence available and the fact that PW's 7 to 9 have no reason to depose against the accused, we find the evidence of these witnesses also to be reliable.The trial Court discarded evidence of these witnesses terming the same as unnatural that a friend of accused like Jadhav would inform his subordinate (?) Kale (PW-7) and colleague Gholap (PW-8) that his friend was involved in a quarrel.The evidence of PW's 7 and 8 does not disclose that Jadhav was any fried as such of the accused.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::cria413.05 75 Rather the evidence is that accused was acquainted with one grader Bookwala and so he used to come and thus was known.The evidence of PW's 7 to 9 was questioned by the trial Court also on the basis that their evidence did not disclose as to which friend the accused met on the way before going to Ganesh.We are not as such in agreement with trial Court for discarding the evidence of PW's 7 to 9 who have withstood the cross-examination and nothing material has been brought on record to show that they had any special interest against the accused.The accused, after the incident, was in trouble and may have reached Somani ginning ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 76 factory for help and once he was there, he may not have been able to avoid PW-7 and PW-8 from coming to know about the incident.He may have harboured hope that as an officer he would get help at the place concerned.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Stay at Lodge at Latur that nightEvidence of P.I. Ghorale (PW-21) shows that in the investigation he came to know that the accused after running away from the spot, had gone and stayed at a lodge in Latur.Consequently, the witness says that he had sent PW-20 P.S.I.Radhakishan Thakur for search of record.There is evidence of PW-20 Radhakishan Thakur.He has deposed that on directions of PW-21, he on 21st January 2002 took along the accused and went to Latur.They had gone to Madhuban Lodge.PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur deposed that at the said lodge, he found entries in the register regarding staying of four persons under the leadership of name given as ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 77 "Vishvas Patil".PW-20 P.S.I. Thakur says that he got extract of entry of the register xeroxed and also prepared Panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Prosecution examined PW-16 Kishor Kadam, serving at Madhuban Lodge.PW-16 deposed that in the night of 11th January 2002, in the night a man, a woman and a child had come to the lodge at about 2.00 - 2.30 a.m. They were charged Rs.250/-.They however left lodge at 5.00 a.m. in the morning itself.At the time of evidence, this Kishor claimed that he could not identify if the accused before the Court was the same person.The Special Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him.The witness, however, claimed that he does not remember if the person who had come, gave his name as Vishwas Patil and it was the person brought along by Police (i.e. accused).::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Criticism of FIR - baselessThe learned counsel for the accused argued that the FIR said to be recorded in the night concerned in the matter Exhibit 28 is doubtful as in the dying declaration given to DW-1 in the morning of 11th January 2002 did not record the name as such of the accused, while in the FIR recorded in the middle of the night he had mentioned the name of the accused.The offence was registered vide Exhibit 28 in the night between ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 79 10th and 11th January 2002 at about 4.30 a.m. Section 157 of Cr.P.C. requires sending report to Magistrate forthwith.The investigation shows various urgent steps taken by the Investigating Officer on 11th January 2002 regarding the investigation.PW-3, the complainant Anup could not be shaken in cross-examination regarding his evidence that Exhibit 28 was recorded in the same night.The evidence of PW-3 Anup as well as P.I.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The endorsement of doctor has been proved by both these witnesses.No doubt, prosecution did not examine the doctor but Exhibit 28 does show endorsement of doctor regarding the condition of the PW-3 at the time of recording of statement which was converted into FIR.There is evidence of PW-19 Head Constable Bansi Jadhav who has also deposed that he was on duty in the night of 10th -Regarding late sending of FIR to the Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence was registered on 11th January 2002, and 12th and 13th January 2002 happened to be second Saturday and Sunday and thus the Court was closed and thus according to the Special Public Prosecutor, the copy of FIR was possible to be submitted to the Court of JMFC only on 14th January 2002, which cannot be said to be delayed as no system of receiving copy of FIR on holidays is shown.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The evidence of these witnesses shows that PW-21 P.I. Ghorale had called them at the ginning factory for Spot Panchanama on 11th January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. Their ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 81 evidence brought on record details of the Spot in Panchanama, which came to be prepared.The Spot Panchanama Exhibit 24 shows that it was recorded on 11th January 2002 between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. The Spot Panchanama contains brief reference to the FIR No.8 of 2002 which had already been registered.There is no reason for PW-1 and PW-2 to depose falsely that they were called early morning of 11th January 2002 for the Spot Panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The counsel for accused submitted that Panch PW-1 accepted that Nilesh was his friend.PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::examined at length.They gave all the necessary details regarding the spot.It cannot be said that they were shattered as such regarding their evidence in respect of the spot.In the cross-examination, the evidence of these witnesses that Spot Panchanama was recorded between 7.00 - 8.00 a.m. of 11th January 2002 - the date and time was not denied.Apart from that, there is evidence of PW-10 Panch Amar Khandagale.He was a student at the concerned time residing at Georai.The evidence of PW-10 Amar shows that at about 4.00 -4.30 a.m. police had come to him and asked him to come along to the Government Hospital.The police took him for Panchanama from Georai to Beed to the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 83 Hospital for seizure of clothes of PW-3 Anup.The accused has questioned as to why the witness was taken from Georai and why Panch was not taken from Beed itself.PW-10 was a student of B.Sc.final and may not have objected to the police.By that itself the witness does not become unreliable.The Panchanama of seizure of clothes of the victim Exhibit 51 shows that it was recorded between 5.30::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::In the matter of Paresh Kalyandas ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 84 Bhavsar, referred supra, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with criticism raised in the facts of that matter (see Para 7) that the FIR dated 8th April 1990 reached the Magistrate after some days i.e. on 17th April 1990 and thus it showed that the same was brought in existence at later stage.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the evidence of PW-4, the complainant in that matter and PW-5 and considering the evidence and contents of the FIR, still found the report to be true and observed that even if it was to be accepted that there was some delay in sending the report to the Magistrate, that is not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the report.Seizure of ClothesThe evidence of PW-10 Amar Khandagale ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 85 shows that police had seized the blood stained clothes, Articles 6 and 7 from the person of victim PW-3 Anup.The witness was unable to give answers to such questions testing his power of observation.That does not make the witness suspect.The counsel for accused tried to create doubt by suggesting to the witness that between the portion of names of Panchas (in Panchanama Exhibit 51) and the body of the Panchanama, there was a gap.The witness denied the suggestion.We have perused the Panchanama.It cannot be said that there is any such gap which should create any suspicion.The witness accepted that the father of the deceased who was an Advocate, was sitting in the Court Hall at the time of evidence.So? The witness denied that he was deposing under any pressure.Going through the cross-examination of the witness, it cannot be said that he is ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 86 shattered.Prosecution established seizure of blood stained clothes of PW-3 Anup.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The clothes of deceased were seized by the police vide Panchanama Exhibit 53 by bringing on record evidence of PW-11 Arun Govindrao.There is evidence of PW-17 Constable Bhagwan Khade, who has deposed that on 31st January 2002 on the directions of PW-21 P.I. Ghorale, he had taken the articles in this matter to C.A. The evidence is that the articles were in sealed condition.The articles were sent along with letter and PW-17 obtained acknowledgment of C.A. The evidence of PW-21 P.I.Ghorale is that the Muddemal articles which required chemical analysis, were sent to C.A. for ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 87 analysis.He has proved letter Exhibit 84 in this regard.The letter Exhibit 84 read with C.A.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Reports Exhibits 106 to 108 shows that blood group of PW-3 Anup was group "O".Blood group of the deceased Nilesh was also "O", while the blood group of the accused was "B".C.A. Report Exhibit 109 shows that on the clothes of the accused blood stains were of group "O".The present matter contains direct evidence of the incident which can be relied on with or without the support of this forensic evidence.Incidentally, the forensic evidence also supports the prosecution.Discovery of KnifeWhile the accused was in custody, he was interrogated.The evidence of PW-21 Ghorale and evidence of PW-13 Subhash Mule discloses that while the accused was in custody, on 18th January 2002 the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 88 accused stated that he would show where the concerned knife relating to the incident is.In this regard, Memorandum Panchanama Exhibit 57-A was drawn which (after excluding inadmissible portions), shows that the accused informed the police that the knife concerned with the offence he will show where it is hidden at Padalshingi.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::The evidence of PW-13 and PW-21, further discloses that the police along with Panchas and the accused by jeep went to Padalshingi as per the say of the accused and they went near Somani ginning mill.The accused showed a cart track going from near the mill, which cart track was to the east of the said mill.After getting down from the jeep, the accused took the police and Panchas to a distance of about one furlong away from the road.From a spot where there was grass and bushes to the east of the cart track, the accused produced knife Article 15, taking the same out from the grass.Thus the instrument was discovered.Regarding this Panchanama Exhibit 57-B was recorded.This knife ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 89 has been identified in the evidence by PW's 3 and 4 as the instrument by which the deceased was stabbed and PW-3 was injured.As per C.A. Report Exhibit 109, the knife also had stains of blood of group "O".::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::In the cross-examination, PW-13 Subhash Mule accepted that he was knowing the victim since childhood and that he had good relations.In present matter only because PW-13 Subhash had good relations with the victim is no ground to doubt him.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Scuffle Injuries on person of Accused were thereProsecution has proved another circumstance.There is evidence of Dr. Vinod Ostwal, PW-15, which shows that on 14th January 2002 he had examined the accused.The accused had the following injuries:-"(1) Laceration over left side forehead admeasuring 0.5 cm.X 1 cm.(2) Laceration over L/t side of the cheek admeasuring 0.5 cm.X 2 cms.(3) Laceration right side of neck admeasuring 2.5 cms.X 0.5 cm.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::cria413.05 91 .In the opinion of the doctor, the Injury No.1 was possible by nail and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 were possible by nail or pin.The injuries were possible in scuffle.Accordingly, certificate Exhibit 63 was issued.The doctor denied suggestion in the cross-examination that the accused did not give the history as recorded by the doctor.Thus, there is substance in the submission of learned Special Public Prosecutor that the injuries on the person of accused show that he did indulge in a quarrel with the victim and PW-3 in which the incident took place.Injuries of PW-3The evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra Kulkarni from Civil Hospital Beed, brought on record injuries suffered by PW-3 vide medical certificate Exhibit 69 from the Civil Hospital, ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 92 Beed.It also shows that PW-3 was required to be given blood group "O".According to Dr. Upendra Kulkarni, PW-3 Anup had the following injuries:-::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Stab wound on chest infra axillary region on left side in 7th intercostol space, admeasuring 2 cms.The wound was caused within 24 hours next before my examination with a sharp object.A stab wound on left ilia fossa interstinal coils were seen.The evidence of PW-18 Dr. Upendra is that the injuries ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 93 of PW-3 were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.The doctor opined that the injuries of PW-3 were possible by knife which was before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Injuries of VictimAs regards the victim Nilesh, there is evidence of PW-14 Dr. Vijay Sickchi who did post-As per this doctor, Nilesh suffered following injury:-"Stab wound on chest (Rt) side towards the sterinum at the level of 4th ICs of size 3 cm.X 1 and 1/2 cm.deep to lung tissue.The doctor denied.We have seen the post-mortem report and we do not find any force in such cross-examination.The doctor denied that the injuries of the victim were not possible by the knife which was before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Search of Trial Court for Witnesses of PeripheryJudgment of the trial Court shows that it doubted which ever witnesses prosecution examined, while it went on to search for this or that witness who would at the most have given hear-say evidence.Trial Court doubted PW's 4 to 6 (in Para 31 of the Judgment) on the basis that although they claimed to have seen incident they did not show the spot to the Police and one Navnath had pointed out the scene of occurrence.On that basis, the trial Court observed that it could be ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 95 safely concluded that Navnath had knowledge of incident and he has not been examined.Trial Court observed that Praveen Sharma who took PW-3 to hospital was not examined and no explanation is there for the same.Trial Court observed that people who took the injured to the hospital, they should have extracted the information from PW-3 and why they had not lodged complaint.Trial Court observed that such persons had been kept away from the Witness Box.Ignoring the evidence of PW-6 Kailas Sutar who was near hotel near STD Booth, trial Court observed that it had come in evidence that some of the employees of the hotel had rushed to the scene of occurrence.The trial Court observed that prosecution should have collected their evidence and adduced it before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::Similarly, it observed that father and brother of the victim who had reached the hospital after incident, should have been examined and they could have told as to what they came to know after the incident.Thus, the trial Court went on searching ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 ::: cria413.05 96 for people who would have given what would be hear-say evidence.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::There must have been several of such witnesses.For such reasons, if their evidence is discarded, the accused would be most happy persons and the victims who were struggling for life or were already dead, would suffer great injustice.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:04 :::What one may notice, another may not.An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.Murder and Attempt to Commit MurderAs per part "2ndly" of Section 300 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 ::: cria413.05 108 Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide would be murder if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.In this regard, however, the Exception 4 reads as under:-In the moment of heat due to quarrel suddenly the incident took place.Prosecution has not shown any material which would show that the accused had criminal tendencies or that he had any criminal record.In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate not to award imprisonment for life as provided by Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. which is one of the options.It would be appropriate to pass sentence of imprisonment for ten years which would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 ::: cria413.05 110 matter.Similarly, for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. also, the sentence should be of ten years.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 :::For the above reasons we pass following order:-O R D E R (A) The Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2005 filed by the State is partly allowed.(B) The Judgment of acquittal passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.41 of 2002, dated 30th December 2004 is quashed and set aside.(C) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).In default of fine, he shall suffer further ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 ::: cria413.05 111 rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 :::(D) The Respondent - original accused Rajkumar Kerba Dhanade is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).In default of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 6 (six) months.Trial Court to ensure compliance of these orders.(H) Criminal Revision Application No.97 of ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 ::: cria413.05 112 2005 filed by Petitioner Laxman Karande, father of the victim and Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 2005 filed by PW-3 Anup are allowed in above terms.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 :::[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/JUL15 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2015 23:59:05 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,223,222 |
Three other accused namely Kartar Singh, Azad Singh and Surender were acquitted.A.498/2007 Page 1 of 11The process of law was set in motion when at 7:51PM on 20.8.2003 a wireless message was received at PS Sarita Vihar, contents whereof were noted vide DDNo.12-A, Ex.PW9/DA, that Ved Pal @ Jitu Pehlwan son of Shyam Lal had been shot in front of gate No.3, L Pocket, Madanpur Khadar .On receipt of information, ASI Mahender Kumar PW-15 along with Ct Bhagirath PW-10 proceeded to the place of the offence.The SHO of PS Sarita Vihar Inspector G.L.Mehta PW-26 was patrolling in the area.He also received the wireless message and on reaching the spot came to know that injured Ved Pal had already been removed to Apollo Hospital.Inspector G.L. Mehta PW-26 on reaching the hospital found that the doctor Crl.A.498/2007 Page 2 of 11 had declared Ved Pal as brought dead .Inspector G.L.Mehta met Kashmir Singh PW-5 at the spot , who handed over a statement in writing, Ex.PW- 5/A, informing that at 7:30 PM, Ved Pal, Kripal, Rishipal and he were riding two motorcycles .He and Ved Pal were on motorcycle no. DL3SX- 0375 being driven by Ved Pal.Kripal and Rishipal were on another motorcycle and were ahead of them.When they reached the house of Suraj Bhan, Kartar, Azad, Mahavir and Surender fired at them from the roof of Surajs house in standing position.Ved was hit by bullets and fell down .They managed to escape.Kripal informed the police by dialling 100 no. from the STD shop of Pawan Kumar.A.498/2007 Page 2 of 11Based on this statement FIR was registered.At the spot inspector G.L.Mehta prepared rough site plan Ex.PW-20/C and lifted earth control , blood stained soil and shoe as recorded in the memo Ex. PW-5/B. The motorcycle DL 3 SX 0375 at the spot was seized vide memo Ex.PW -5/C.Statement of Kripal Singh PW-8, the person who had given the telephonic information and also Rishipal Singh PW-14 were recorded u/s 161 CrPC on the same day.Since Ved Pal was declared brought dead at the hospital, the body was sent for the post-mortem.Dr. Jayant PW-3 conducted the post-mortem on 21-8- 2003 and noted 3 bullet entry wounds; one on the frontal region of the scalp; the second on the right upper anterior chest wall and the 3rd at the back.All entry wounds had tattooing.We are not impressed by this argument as merely being a relative would not make the statement of such a witness equivalent to that of an interested witness.After the post-mortem was conducted on 21.8.2003, supplementary statement of the complainant as also Rishipal and Kripal Singh were recorded as per which they gave a change version.In their earlier statements they had informed that the accused had fired from the roof top.But, guided by the post-mortem report which evidenced that the deceased was shot thrice at point blank range; evidenced by tattooing of the skin where the bullet entered, each of the three stated that after initial firing from the roof top, the accused came down and fired shots at them from a point blank range.The accused were apprehended.The appellant was arrested on 23.8.2003 and on interrogation by Inspector G.L.Mehta made a statement that the country made pistol Ex.P-3 with which he had fired 3 shots could be got recovered by him as also the 3 empty cartridges.He stated that after committing the crime he had crossed river Yamuna by swimming across and the country made pistol fell in the water of the river.Pursuant to the said disclosure statement he took the investigating officer to the spot at the Crl.A.498/2007 Page 7 of 11 river bank wherefrom he claimed to have swum across.No weapon could be recovered.He was further interrogated on 28.8.2003 and his supplementary statement Ex.PW-23/J was recorded.Pursuant to this disclosure statement by the appellant, investigating officer recovered one country made pistol Ex.P3 and three empty cartridges Ex.It is alleged that these articles were wrapped in a polythene of blue colour and concealed in the bushes on the bank of river near Shamshan Ghat , Madanpur Khadar.A.498/2007 Page 7 of 11The pistol Ex.PW-26/I it was opined as under:-" RESULT OF EXAMINATION (1) The revolver .32" caliber marked exhibit F1 is designed to fire a standard .32" cartridge.It is in working order in its present condition.Test-fire conducted successfully.(2) The country made pistol .325" bore marked exhibit F2 is designed to fire a standard 8mm/.315" cartridge.It is in working order in its present condition.Test-fire conducted successfully.Rev.605/2007 has also been dismissed today by a separate order.Vide order dated 13th August, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 2010 the Honble Supreme Court passed the following order :". . .we are of the opinion that it would be more appropriate if the judgement and order passed by the High court in Criminal Appeal No. 498/2007 is set aside and it is directed that the said appeal be heard along with the criminal revision petition that is pending in the High court.We order accordingly.We request Honble the Chief Justice of High court to list the criminal appeal along with criminal revision petition before a Division Bench for hearing since the charge sheet was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code.The criminal appeal is disposed of."Present Criminal Appeal 498/2007 was filed before this court by the Crl.A.498/2007 Page 1 of 11 appellant under Section 374(2) r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2007 and order on sentence dated 31.7.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month; for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act,1959, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month; for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Acts,1959, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for one month.3 bullets, one from the skull, the second from the chest and the third from the abdominal cavity were recovered and handed over to the investigating officer on 21.8.2003, soon thereafter the post-mortem was conducted.The cause of death was opined to be a fire arm injury which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature.After the post-mortem was conducted on 21.8.2003, supplementary Crl.A.498/2007 Page 3 of 11 statement of the complainant as also Rishipal and Kripal Singh were recorded as per which they gave a modified version.In their earlier statements they had informed that the accused had fired from the roof top.But, guided by the post-mortem report which evidenced that the deceased was shot thrice at point blank range; evidenced by tattooing of the skin where the bullet entered, each of the three stated that after initial firing from the roof top, the accused came down and fired shots at them from a point blank range.A.498/2007 Page 3 of 11All the (four) accused persons were put to trial.At the trial, the prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses.Three of these witnesses, PW-5, PW-8, PW-14 were tendered as eye witness to the occurrence.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused Mahavir (appellant herein) denied all the accusations but did not lead any evidence in his defence.Whereas, the other three co- accused examined Jagdish DW1,Dr.Anjali Goel DW2, Mohan Chandar DW3 , Ms. Jyoti DW4 in their defence.The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the 3 co-accused holding that the testimony of the 3 eye witnesses did not inspire confidence.The trial court observed that in their first statement made to the police they had stated that the firing took place from the roof top when the deceased and others were driving on motorcycles and were on the main road, and only in their supplementary statements recorded on 26.8.2003, had given a changed versions of initial firing being from the roof top followed by the accused coming down and firing at contact range.After the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 21.8.2003 it became apparent that the shots were fired at the contact range and not from a distance.Thus, since the dead body spoke for itself, finding material improvements made by the 3 alleged eye witnesses; improvements being guided by the post-mortem report, the Crl.A.498/2007 Page 4 of 11 learned Trial Judge, held that the eye witness account was not creditworthy.Moreover these three co- accused with the aid of defence witnesses were able to prove alibi beyond reasonable doubt and thus were held to be innocent.A.498/2007 Page 4 of 11With respect to the appellant, the learned Trial Judge has held that his disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the weapon of offence and the same being linked to the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant.Furthermore, the examination of the prosecution witnesses led to a clear conclusion that the appellant i.e Mahavir Singh had committed the murder of Vedu Pehlwan.While arguing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, the judgement passed by the learned trial court is without proper appreciation of facts and law and is based on surmises and conjectures, thus it is liable to be set aside.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the statement of PW 5 who is one of the eye witness and complainant in the present case is unworthy of credence, thus, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence of having murdered the deceased based upon the testimony of PWHe additionally contends that all the circumstances have to be seen in the light of the fact that there was a long Crl.A.498/2007 Page 5 of 11 standing bitter enmity between the appellant and the complainant.A.498/2007 Page 5 of 11It is further urged by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by placing reliance on the statement given by PW17 Ajit Kumar who initially deposed that he does not know the witness PW8 Kirpal and PW14 Rishipal but later on he admitted that he is the relative of the complainant.Statement of such related witness should not be taken into consideration.Counsel further urged that in view of the disclosure statement of the appellant and the recovery of a country made pistol at his instance, the appellant can at best be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.On the other hand counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.The disclosure statement Ex. PW 23/J by which the appellant disclosed about the cartridges and the ammunitions with which the offence was committed, pursuant to the disclosure a country made pistol Ex.As per the ballistic experts report the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased were opined to have been fired from the pistol Ex. P3 was ample evidence to convict the appellant.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and the perused the impugned judgement as well as the material available on record.The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that while the trial court has acquitted three co-accused while taking into consideration that the testimony of the three eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence, the present appellant has been convicted.The trial court has highlighted the fact that in the first statement made to the Police, the eye-P-3 and the bullets which were recovered from the body of the deceased were sent to a ballistic expert for opinion.In the ballistic expert report Ex.PW-26/I it was opined that the bullets recovered from the body of deceased were fired from the fire arm Ex. P3, which were recovered at the instance of the appellant.As per opinion Ex.(3) The .32" cartridges marked exhibits A1 & A2 are live ones and can be fired through .32" caliber firearm.(4) The 8mm/.315" cartridge cases marked exhibits EC1 to EC3 are fired empty cartridges.(5) The bullets marked exhibits EB1 & EB2 correspond to the Crl.A.498/2007 Page 8 of 11 bullet of 8mm/.315" cartridge.A.498/2007 Page 8 of 11(6) No opinion can be given regarding exhibit EBR3 due to insufficient data.(7) The .32" cartridge marked exhibit A1 above was test fired through the revolved .32" caliber marked exhibit F1 above.(9) The individual characteristic of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence fired cartridge cases marked exhibits EC1 to EC3 and on test fired cartridge case marked as TC1 were examined & compared under the Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identical.Hence the exhibits EC1 to EC3 have been fired through the country made pistol .315" bore marked exhibit F2 above.(10) The individual characteristic of striations present on evidence fired bullets EB1 & EB2 and on the test fired bullet marked TB1 were examined & compared under the Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identical.Hence the bullets marked exhibits EB1 & EB2 have been discharged through the country made pistol .315" bore marked exhibit F2 above.(11) The exhibits F1 & F2/ A1 & A2, EC1 to EC3, EB1 and EB2 are firearm ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959."The trial court has also taken into account that this change of version became apparent after the post-mortem was conducted and it became apparent that the shorts were fired at a close range and not from a distance.As far as the present appeal is concerned, the learned trial court has taken into account the disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of the weapon of offence and the same was linked to the bullets recovered from Crl.A.498/2007 Page 9 of 11 the body of the deceased.Thus and rightly so was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant.A.498/2007 Page 10 of 11PW 27/A Gopeshwar Haldhar and PW28 Hira Lal the fisher men at Yamuna river testified that on 20.08.2003 at about 8:00pm saved the accused / appellant from drowning who was trying to swim across the river Yamuna with a potly ( a small bag ) in his hand.They further testified that they dropped him on the UP side of the bank of river Yamuna in their boat and after a few days when police brought the accused/appellant they identified him, which also points to the guilt of the appellant.For the reasons aforestated, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.G.S. SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J st March 31 , 2016 Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,231,973 |
The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2019, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act & Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 IPC, Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, during pendency of trial.As per the prosecution case, on information applicant along with other co-accused were apprehended; on search 182 kg of cannabis (ganja) sealed in 35 bundles were recovered; provisions of N.D.P.S. Act was duly complied; the recovered cannabis has been tested positive in the chemical examination report.Perused the material placed on record and written submission submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant through email.Reliance has been placed on the judgment/order of this Court dated 15.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc.Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.Order Date :- 16.4.2020 S.Prakash
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,236,945 |
(Pronounced on : 24.01.2018) (Oral) Per S.K. Gangele, J.The prosecution story in brief is that on 6.7.1994 the appellant had taken out Jarawa, (article used in fencing field) and kept the jarawa in his badi, (courtyard).On this act Maghdhu and Pahadi Singh came at the house of Dukhiram and asked the reason for collecting Jarawa.Dukhiram replied that Maghdhu had also taken his Praya (straw), hence, I had brought his Jarawa and kept it in my badi, (courtyard).Dukhiram abused Maghdhu and said that it is all being done by Jageshwar and I would not let him live.After sometime, Dukhiram brought an axe from his house and Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/2 started to abuse in front of the house of Jageshwar.Jageshwar asked him not to do so.Dukhiram said that it is all being done by you and I would not let you live and tried to attack him with axe.Jageshwar catch hold his axe and Maghdhu tried to pacify the quarrel.In the course of scuffle Dukhiram gave a blow of axe on the neck of Jageshwar.He fell down on the spot and died.The family members of the deceased were also present on the spot.Maghdhu, Pahadi, Rambai (PW-4) and Sukwariya bai saw the incident.Rammu Singh lodged the report at the Police Station, Nouroujabad at around 8 o'clock in the morning.(month of June is typing error because the date of incident is 6.7.1994).The house of the accused is adjacent to my house.I went to the place where Dukhilal lad kept the jarawa.(used for fencing of field).Dukhilal was ploughing his land.I asked the appellant, that why he had kept the Jarawa of other person.He told me that in the month of Aghan Jageshwar and Maghdhu had taken two begs of jarawa and that is why I had taken their jarawa.I pacified the aforesaid person and came back to my house.Dukhilal came to the house of Jageshwar and abused him.Both were entangled with each other.Dukhilal had tangi (axe) in his hand and Jageshwar was holding a danda of bamboo tagged with a iron nail on it.They were beating each other.They reached at the house of Yayankat fighting with each other.Maghdhu gave a blow of danda at the accused.Kchhetrapal catch his lathi.Kchhetrapal and Maghdhu were entangled with each other.When I reached there, I saw that the face of Jageshwar was towards west side and the face of Dukhiram at the east side.I asked Jageshwar to leave from there.He was standing at a distance of 20-25 feet away.I had taken tangi from Dukhiram.In order to stop him.The accused pushed me and snatched tangi.He reached near Jageshwar with Tangi.The accused, Dukhilal had given a blow of tangi on the neck of Jageshwar.After that Jageshar fell down.Dukhilal said that Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/5 he wanted to kill Maghdhu and after saying that he jumped towards Maghdhu with tangi.In the meanwhile, father of Dukhilal came and then father of Dukhilal and I overpowered the accused, Dukhilal.The deceased was died.I lodged report of the incident at Police Station, Nourojabad, which is Ex. P-The Police came on the spot and prepared the spot map and I signed the same, (Ex.P-2).I also signed Ex. P-3, Naksha Panchanama.6. PW-2, Pahadi is another witness.He deposed that I was standing near my house Maghdhu called me and Rammu Singh and Maghdhu told me that accused-appellant, Dukhilal had taken my Jarawa.I and Rammu Singh went to the house of Dukhilal.I asked Dukhilal why he had brought jarawa.He replied to return my Pyara (straw), I would return back the jarawa.I said that if your dispute is not resolved by us then you can take help of others.Thereafter, I went to my house.Subsequently, I came to know that accused- appellant, Dukhilal had killed Jageshwar.7. PW-3, Maghdhu, is another eye witness.He deposed that at around 7.30 or 7 o'clock in the morning the accused- appellant, Dukhilal had taken my jarawa.I had brought Rammu and Pahadi and informed them.The accused- appellant had placed jarawa in his badi, (courtyard).Pahari asked Dukhilal why you had brought the jarawa of Maghdhu.The appellant replied that Maghdhu had taken two bundles of Kodo, hence, I had taken jawara in lieu of that.Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/6 After half an hour, quarrel began between Jageshwar and Dukhilal.They were entangled with each other.Dukhilal was having Tangi and Jageshwar was having Penari.I tried to pacify the quarrel.Kchhetrapal caught me.Rammu came to rushed to pacify the quarrel and tried to separate Dukhilal and Jageshwar.They were separated from each other.Meanwhile, Rammu Seth rushed to the place of incident.Rammu had separated my father and my father was standing at a distance of twenty hands.In the meanwhile, Rammu caught hold Dukhilal.Thereafter, the Police registered the offence and conducted investigation.The charge sheet was filed.The present appellant abjured the guilt during trial.The trial court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded jail sentence of Life with fine of Rs.5000/-.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant himself received injuries on his head.The prosecution did not explain the injuries.The deceased and the prosecution parties were aggressor and the appellant acted in private defence.The trial court has committed error in convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.The incident had taken place all of sudden in the heat of Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/3 passion, hence, alleged offence said to be committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304, Part A of IPC.In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court:-State (Delhi Administration) reported in (2017) 2 SCC 737,(d) Bhagwan Sahai and another Vs.3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as per evidence produced by the prosecution, this fact has been established that after the quarrel the deceased was standing at a distance and in that event the appellant had inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased after snatching a tangi.The intention and motive to kill a person could be developed at the time of incident, hence, the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.In view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is vital to consider the fact that whether the appellant is eligible to get the benefit of right of private defence.Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/45. PW-1, Rammu Singh, deposed that on 6th June 1994, I was brushing my teeth.After that, accused-appellant, Dukhilal caused injuries on the neck of Jageshwar by tangi (axe).In cross examination, he denied the fact that he had inflicted a blow of danda on the head of appellant.She deposed that the appellant was abusing my father and thereafter both my father and the appellant were entangled with each other.I was shouting to save my father.The accused-appellant, Dukhilal got himself set free from Rammu and caused injuries on the neck of my father, who was standing twenty hands away.My father fell down and died on the spot.9. PW-7, prepared the spot map.10. PW-5, Dr. S.K. Namdeo performed autopsy of the deceased.He deposed that he noticed one incised injury on the neck of the deceased 7x3x2" Due to the aforesaid injury skin of the neck, Carotid artery and Carotid Vain were cut.Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/7 The injury was caused by sharp edged weapon.The deceased had died due to aforesaid injury.PW-8, V.P. Singh is the Investigating Officer.He deposed that I was posted on 6.7.1994 at Police Chouki, Nourojabad.The report (Ex-1) of the incident was lodged by Rammu at the Police Station.I singed the same.Thereafter, offence was registered.The merge was also registered.I reached at the spot on the same day and prepared the Panchnama of the dead body, (Ex. P-2).Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem.I prepared the spot map, (Ex. P-3).The appellant was arrested on the same day.I signed both the documents.I seized a shirt of the accused-appellant, vide (Ex. P-6) and I signed the same.I signed the same.I recorded the statements of witnesses, namely Rammu Singh, Maghdhu, Pahadi, Rambai, Sukhbariya, Fulbai, Rajendra and Gangubai.FIR is Ex. P-1, which was lodged by Rammu Singh Rathore, vide Ex. P-1 at 8.30 in the morning on the same.This fact has been established by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant had taken out jarawa and kept it in his bari, (courtyard).Thereafter, Maghdhu and Pahari had gone to the house of the appellant and questioned him why he had taken out jarawa.He told them that Maghdhu had taken two bundles of pyara (straw) of kodo, hence, the appellant had taken the jarawa.Thereafter, there was quarrel between them.The witnesses have clearly deposed that there was scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.The deceased was armed with lathi of bamboo fitted with iron crunch over it.The appellant had also received injuries on his head.He deposed that he noticed lacerated wound on the middle of the head 1/8x1.8" and one abrasion on left knee.The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.PW-1 deposed that Maghdhu had inflicted a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased when the deceased was standing at a distance of 20-25 feet.After sometime, Dukhiram brought an axe from his house.In the course of scuffle, Dukhiram received injuries on his head.Thereafter, Dukhiram gave a blow of axe on the neck of Jageshwar.Jageshwar fell down at the spot and died.The incident is said to have taken place in the open place.The appellant had inflicted blow of Tangi on the neck of the deceased.State (Delhi Administration) reported in (2017) 2 SCC 737 has held that if an accused may cause an assault and he may have Cr.A. No. 1014 of 1995/15 appreciation that he may be assaulted without taking undue advantage cause injuries, the accused would be liable to be punished for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of IPC.In the present case the appellant inflicted a blow of tangi on the neck of the deceased.He himself received injuries.The deceased was armed with lathi, hence, in our opinion the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304, Part I of IPC.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.The conviction and jail sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside and the appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304, Part -I of IPC.He is sentenced to RI ten years.The appellant is on bail.Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,238,304 |
Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, thematters are heard finally.Theaccused Nos. 1 to 4 are the purchasers, accused No.5 is an advocate,accused No.6 is the proprietor, accused Nos. 7 and 8 are the Sub-Registrars and accused Nos. 9 to 18 are the power of attorney holders ofthe sellers.The case of the prosecution is that during the period between 2007and 2009, the accused No.1(Shri Deepak Dattatray Gadgil)-the authorizedsignatory of accused No.2(Shri Virendra Dattatray Mhaiskar)-ManagingDirector of accused No.3 (M/s.Aryan Infrastructure Investments Pvt.Ltd.)and accused No.4 (M/s.IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) along withaccused No.5(Advocate- Ajit Kulkarni); and accused No.6(wife of accusedShubhada S Kadam 5/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docNo.5 - Smt. Jyoti Kulkarni-Prop.Of M/s. Jyo Development Corporation);along with accused No.7(Ashwini Kshirsagar, petitioner in writ petitionNo.4572 of 2018), the then Sub-Registrar of Lonavala, Pune and accusedNo.8 (Anant Pandurang Kale, petitioner in writ petition No.4396 of 2018),the then Sub-Registrar of Maval, Pune, and accused Nos. 9 to 18, thepower of attorney holders entered into criminal conspiracy with eachother and, dishonestly and fraudulently attempted to cheat theGovernment of Maharashtra by way of grabbing the lands in Village -Pimploli, District- Pune.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::The following facts emerge from the record produced before theCourt.In the year 1995 to 1999, the Public Works Department (PDW), onbehalf of Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC)had acquired several parcels of lands in village - Pimploli for the purposeof Mumbai Pune Expressway.In the year 2000, MSRDC completed theconstruction of the Expressway and, in the year 2002, it was made fullyfunctional.Shubhada S Kadam 4/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.doc::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::The petitioners in all the above petitions have approached thisCourt invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaread with the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 for quashing and setting-aside the charge-sheet/criminal proceedings of special case No.52 of 2017 pending on thefile of learned Special Judge, CBI, Pune for the offences punishable underSections 120-B, 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(forshort "the IPC") and Sections 13(2) and 15 read with 13(1)(d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act").The above referred charge-sheet is filed against 18 accused.So far as the lands in question are concerned, in the year2003, the concerned Talathi record mutation entry Nos.638, 639, 640 and641 as per Kami Jasta Patras (statement showing reduction or increase inthe acquired land) sent by the Land Acquisition Officer stating that theacquired lands and the name of the acquiring body are deleted fromShubhada S Kadam 6/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docthe 7/12 Extract recording the entries in respect of these lands.Theaccused Nos.3 and 4, the two infrastructure companies were desirous ofdeveloping a special township and intended to purchase land for thesaid purpose.The accused No.6 who was carrying the business of realestate development in the name of Jyo Development Corporationrepresented to the accused Nos. 3 and 4 that it had acquired rights invarious parcels of lands in villages of Pimploli and Taje in Pune Districtand offered to transfer about 1000 Acres of land.On 26 th December,2006, the accused No.5- a practising lawyer in Pune engaged for duediligence, issued a public notice in relation to some of the landsproposed to be purchased, out of which, at least 5 parcels of land, wereallegedly already acquired by MSRDC.No objection was received fromMSRDC or any government authority to the public notice.On 9 thJanuary, 2007, the accused Nos.4 and 6 executed an agreement, underwhich, the accused No.6 agreed to transfer the lands to accused No.4free from encumbrance and encroachment and also undertook the workof identifying the lands, due diligence etc. On 22 nd January, 2007, theaccused Nos.3 and 6 respectively executed an agreement on similarterms.Between 2007 and 2009, the accused No.5-Advocate carried outsearch of revenue record for verifying the title of the lands proposed tobe purchased in Pimploli and Taje villages and issued search/title reportfor the same.The saidmutation entries reflected that the acquired areas and the name of theacquiring body has been deleted and, that is how, the name of MSRDCcame to be deleted and it was claimed that the original owners had clearand marketable title.Thereafter, various sale deeds and agreements tosell were executed and registered between the accused Nos.1 to 4 aspurchasers and, accused Nos.7 and 8 as confirming parties and thefarmers have claimed to own the lands in question as sellers eitherdirectly or through their power of attorney holders.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::The petitioners in writ petition Nos. 4396 and 4572 of 2018, intheir capacity as Sub-Registrars, registered the aforeasid sale deeds andagreements to sell and, the petitioners in rest of the petitions are thepower of attorney holders of the owners of the lands in question.In the year 2009, the purchasers became aware that out of 1353Acres of land purchased by them in the villages of Pimploli and Taje,about 105 Acres of land in Pimploli still belonged to MSRDC and,therefore, the sellers did not enjoyed a valid title.Therefore, theyexecuted and registered cancellation/correction deeds with respect toShubhada S Kadam 8/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docthose transactions.The petitioners in writ petition Nos.4396 and 4572 of2018 as Sub-Registrars of their respective jurisdiction also registeredthese cancellation/correction deeds which were presented before them.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::It is also pertinent to note that the accused Nos.1 to 4, thepurchasers as well as accused No.5 - Advocate and accused No.6 -Proprietor of M/s. Jyo Development Corporation) were discharged by theTrial court and the order of the Trial Court discharging them has becomefinal inasmuch as the same is not challenged by the CBI in higher Court.Shubhada S Kadam 9/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.doc::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::Mr. Kantawala and Ms. Salgaoncar, learned counsel for thepetitioners (who were the then Sub-Registrars) in writ petition Nos.4396of 2018 and 4572 of 2018 respectively made following submissions :-a) No case as alleged in charge-sheet is made out against thesepetitioners and though other prime accused have been discharged,continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners isabuse of the process and grave miscarriage of justice.b) The registering officer cannot look into title and the scope ofenquiry by such officer is limited to Section 34 of the Registration Act,1908 and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioners perusing the7/12 Extract and being aware that the lands in question did not have aclear title and that it belonged to MSRDC.c) The law does not confer/jurisdiction upon a Registrar/Sub-Registrar to go into the correctness of the contents of a documentpresented before him for registration.A registering officer is notrequired to and not empowered to look into title or otherwise into thecontents of a document.If the registering officer does not register thedocuments presented before him in accordance with the requirementsof Section 34 of the Act, then, it would be in breach of his duties andobligations under the Act and particularly Section 35 of the Act whichmakes it mandatory in such cases for the registering officer to registerthe document.Therefore, refusal to register despite satisfaction ofShubhada S Kadam 10/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docSection 34 would rather amount to an irregularity on part of theregistering officer.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::deliveredon 17th March, 2017 in writ petition No.9956 of 2016 .In addition tothis, the learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the learned SingleJudge of this Court in criminal application No. 821 of 2010 which wasfiled by the petitioner in writ petition No.4572 of 2018 for grant ofanticipatory bail.Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the CBI, vehementlyShubhada S Kadam 11/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docopposed the petitions.Mr. Venegaonkar lastly submitted that there is sufficient material onrecord to proceed against these accused and, therefore, the petitionsShubhada S Kadam 12/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docdeserve to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::Having gone through the petitions, the impugned charge-sheet andthe submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties and having given anxious consideration, we find merit in writpetitions filed by the Registrars.At the outset, we will deal with the submission regarding themaintainability of the petitions.The petitioner in writ petition Nos.4396and 4572 of 2018 have approached this Court for larger relief ofquashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that continuation of theimpugned proceedings itself is an abuse of the process and gravemiscarriage of justice.It is true that the petitioners had earlier filedapplications for discharge before the Trial Court and the same wererejected.However, in our considered view, this cannot take away thepetitioners larger right to seek quashing of the impugned proceedingsincluding the charge-sheet on the ground that continuation of the samewould result in abuse of process of law.It is now settled position thatthe petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can beentertained even after filing of the charge-sheet and during thependency of the application for discharge in the Trial Court.Referencecan be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in G. Sagar Suri andanr.versus The State of U.P. and ors (2000) 2 SCC 636 and AnandShubhada S Kadam 13/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docKumar Mohatta and anr.versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Department of Home and anr.(Passed in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of2018 on 15th November, 2018).We, therefore, hold that the petitionsare maintainable and proceed to deal with them on their own merit.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::This takes us to consider whether there is prima facie materialagainst petitioners in writ petition Nos. 4396 and 4572 of 2018 toconnect them with the offences under Section 420 read with 511 of IPC.Sections 420 and 415 of the IPC requires at the very least that arepresentation with a fraudulent intention should have been made to theperson deceived.Admittedly, the MSRDC/Government ofMaharashtra did not sustain any wrongful loss.On the contrary, thedocuments in question (sale deeds) have been cancelled by executantsShubhada S Kadam 23/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docand such cancellation and correction deeds were also registered.Inthese facts and circumstances of the case, mere execution andregistration of the documents by the petitioners and subsequentlycancellation of such documents, does not disclose any cheating or evenan attempt to cheat inasmuch as no title is transfered under thesedocuments, as the sellers themselves did not have title and suchdocuments could not be construed to be the one put to use to cheat anddeceive as they fall short of the ingredients of the offence of 'cheating'.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::The said petitioners are the power of attorney holders of thesellers and they are charged with offences under Sections 120-B and 420read with 511 of the IPC.As observed earlier, the sellers have not beenarraigned as accused, however, the petitioners who are the power ofattorney holders of the sellers have been impleaded as accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 420 read with 511 and 120-B of theIPC.Shubhada S Kadam 25/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.doc::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::Shubhada S Kadam 26/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.doc::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim(supra),considered the case where the second respondent therein filed acomplaint against the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3) and 2others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, alleging that hewas the owner of Katha No.715, Khasra Nos.1971 and 1973 admeasuring1 bigha, 5 kathas and 18 dhurs; that the first accused who had noconnection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executedtwo registered sale deeds dated 2-6-2003 in favour of the secondShubhada S Kadam 27/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docaccused in respect of a portion of the said land measuring 8 kathas and13 dhurs; and that the third, fourth and fifth accused being the witness,scribe and stamp vendor respectively in regard to the sale deeds hadconspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents; and thatwhen he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abusedhim and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted,but they will get possession of the land on the basis of the saiddocuments.The Apex Court in the backdrop of the above said facts heldthat no ingredients of cheating were made out in the charge-sheet andthat in such facts it may be possible for the purchaser to allege that thevendors had cheated them but when there was no false or misleadingrepresentation to the complainant.The relevant observation of the ApexCourt are contained in paragraph Nos.19, 20, 21 and 23 which reads asunder :::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co- accused.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds.The present case as a matter of fact stands on better footing inasmuch asno complaint from the Government or MSRDC was made to the effectthat any inducement/representation was made to them.Thus, in theabsence of any such representation/inducement to the MSRDC and thepurchasers having not filed any complaint, rather they were madeaccused and later on discharged, then, none of the ingredients of theShubhada S Kadam 29/30 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/12/2018 wp 4396.18.docoffence of cheating or attempt to cheat are made out.The petitionersare not attributed any independent role and cannot be fastened withliability independent of conspiracy or cheating, more so when the sellerswhom the petitioners represented are not accused, besides this, thebuyers have also been discharged.When all others concerned with thesame transaction viz. the purchasers, the advocate, and the buyers arenot charged with the offence of cheating or attempt to cheat, thepetitioners alone cannot be part of any alleged conspiracy to do so.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::Consequently, the criminalproceedings in Spl.All the aforesaid writ petitions stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:52:40 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,241,699 |
Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that on 16th May, 1997 at or about 10 am., there was an altercation between two rival groups over some disputes of 'Milan Tirtha Club.' After the said altercation was over, at or about 1 pm.the accused appellants came to the spot and assaulted the deceased and his relation and thereafter they took to their heels.The victim was taken to a nearby rural hospital and after giving a first-aid, the victim was referred to National Medical College Hospital, where he breathed his last on the next day of alleged incident.The victim's relation was also assaulted by the accused persons and he also sustained some injuries and had to take medical treatment.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) C.R.A No. 212 of 2011 Mohanlal Das & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Ors.Present: The Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Mr. Shakti Chakraborty, Mr. Apalok Basu, Mr. Amit Biswas, Mr. Tirthankar Dey.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.03.2011 and 31.03.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 13th Court at Alipore, the appellants preferred this appeal, ventilating their grievances that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives and also failed to consider the legal aspects on 'common intention'.It appears from the L.C.R. that the learned trial court has framed the charge, recorded evidence, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter passed a reasoned judgment.In the interest of effective adjudication, factual aspects and appreciation of evidence are to be considered very meticulously.The principal victim died on the next day in the said hospital having sustained serious head injuries.Disclosing this episode, the de-facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion.After registration of the F.I.R. the investigating agency came into operation.In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the available witnesses, prepared rough sketch map with index, collected injury report and post mortem report of the victim and thereafter submitted charge-sheet under Section 304/34 of I.P.C. against the accused appellants.Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer the trial court has framed the charges and read over and explained the contents of the charge to the accused appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To come to a finding we should now listen to the witnesses.P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that initially the accused appellant Mohan Lal was trying to kidnap one Kushal at or about 1 pm.The said Kushal, is the nephew of the de-facto complainant.Hearing the hue and cry, the victim came to the spot and then all the accused persons assaulted the victim with sticks, cycle chain and iron rod.When the son of the victim Surajit came to the spot, he was also assaulted.The F.I.R. was lodged in the evening.In course of his cross-examination, he specifically stated that Tapan Das assaulted the deceased with chain and other accused persons assaulted the deceased with iron rod and sticks.This P.W. 1 is not the eye-witness.P.W. 2 claimed to have seen the incident.According to him, he had seen the appellant Kalipada Mondal, Ashok Mondal, Monoranjan Mondal, Manabendra Mondal, Madhusudan Mondal, Tusthu Mondal, Mohan Lal Das, Sourav Das and Tapan Das, (who were being armed with lathi, iron rod and chain), assaulting the victim.He categorically mentioned in his evidence that Manabendra and Tusthu were armed with iron rod, Tapan Das was armed with iron chain and rest accused appellants were armed with lathi.All of them assaulted the victim.He was not cross-examined at all, on the point if he had told the Investigating Officer about the involvement of the accused appellants.P.W. 3 is the another eye-witness who mentioned the name of aforesaid accused appellants except the name of Madhusudan.He was also very specific in saying that Manabendra, Tusthu and Tapan assaulted the victim with rod and chain and other appellants assaulted the victim with lathi.In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that he told the Investigating Officer that the appellant Manabendra and Tusthu assaulted the victim with sticks and Tapan assaulted with a chain.So from his cross- examination, the defence could not fetch any dividend.P.W. 4 also mentioned the names of all nine assailants.He candidly stated about their roles.No specific denial about the involvement of the accused appellants were taken in course of cross-examination.P.W. 5 is an independent witness.He also witnessed the appellants assaulting the victim.In course of cross-examination he stated specific involvement of the accused appellants.Evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are very relevant because they are the independent witnesses.They also disclosed the involvement of the accused appellants in the commission of offence.Evidence of P.W. 9 is insignificant.P.W. 10 is one of the victims.He narrated the story of assault.His evidence is trustworthy on the ground that as he was assaulted from behind and possibly for that reason he could not say the names of the assailants of him.The defence could not shake his evidence in any way in course of cross-examination.Evidence of P.W. 11, 12 and 13 are also not much relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case.P.W. 14 is the autopsy surgeon who conducted the post mortem report.He found four injuries in the scalp including the stitched wounds.He opined that the victim died due to injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report.P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer.Defence Counsel asked him some questions but the defence did not put any question to him if the witnesses stated to him about the incident.A synoptical resume of the evidences go to show that three the accused persons assaulted the victim on his head and other areas of face.In all nine persons have been entangled.
|
['Section 34 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.
|
662,429 |
By this revision, the accused challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.It was the prosecution story that on 3.5.1981 at about 9.00 a.m. applicant Ramdayal Singh was driving a speeding truck (CPD 8478) along Indore-Bhopal Highway.Near Village Refiqueganj on that highway, the applicant by his truck knocked down a labourer of P. W.D. gang named Mohd. Khan who was at that time pushing a hand trolley along that road.Mohd. Khan was knocked down while he was on the left side of the road itself.He died on the same day.On trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sehore, convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to further R.I. for four months.In appeal Sessions Judge, Sehore, maintained the conviction of the appellant but slightly reduced the sentence by visiting the applicant with R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further R.I. for three months.Aggrieved by the appellate judgment, the applicant has now come in revision to this Court.3. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, in my opinion, on the prosecution evidence it was doubtful if applicant Ramdayal Singh was really driving the truck which caused the accident.In the first place, the F.I.R. did not name applicant Ramdayal Singh as the person who as driving the truck.On the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was recorded at the spot itself as Dehati Nalshi by Head Constable Omprakash Singh at the instance of PW 1, Shikh Hameed, living close by to the place of the accident.It is natural to expect that if applicant Ramdayal Singh was really driving the truck in question, his name should have been so mentioned in the F.I.R. The prosecution found it convenient not to prove the said F.I.R. by failing to examine Head Constable Omprakash Singh.Shikh Hameed, PW 1, on his part denied having made any kind of report at the spot or anywhere.In these circumstances, the F.I.R., although a document of the prosecution, went unexhibited and unproved.Can an unproved document of the prosecution be used by the defence? A view has been taken, with which I concur, that the defence should not be shut out from using the document like F.I.R. just because the prosecution failed to formally prove it.In the absence of such evidence by the prosecution, the defence is entitled to use a prosecution document although unexhibited and unproved.The decision of our High Court in Samedas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1969 JLJ SN 54 is one such decision.This is a formal objection and not one that should be advanced on behalf of the prosecution whose document Exh. P-l is.The defence should not be shut out from using this document because the prosecution did not formally prove it.The presumption is that such a First Information Report represents the actual information given to the police and taken down by them, and if the prosecution wished to imply that the record of the information made by the police was garbled, it should have given evidence to that effect.As such, it is open to the defence to say that Dehati Nalshi may be looked into in this case for showing the fact that it did not name the applicant as the driver of the truck in question.This circumstance may not be conclusive to establish the innocence of the accused, for the accused may be a stranger whose name might not be known to the eye-witnesses, in whose presence the report was lodged at the spot.Another salient feature of the case is that the applicant was not even caught at the spot.On the prosecution case itself, he had disappeared from the truck in question in another passing truck.The person who was, on the other hand, actually caught at the spot was the cleaner of the truck in question.They claimed that applicant was the person who was driving the truck.This fact by itself greatly contradicts the possibility that applicant Ramdayal Singh was seen before driving the truck.Cleaner's side, as is well-known, exists to the opposite of driver's seat.A person seen running away from the cleaner's side could be most unlikely the person who was seen before driving the truck.At that time the accused was seen sitting at the cleaner's side of the truck and running away in another passing truck.On the evidence already adverted to above, it was doubtful if the applicant/accused was really the person who was driving the truck and had caused the accident.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,251,159 |
(viii) Yeshwantrao Dattaji Chowgule & Ors.II 1993(1)Crimes 534;The owners however had been claiming infancy had Crl.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 7 of 10 independent existence on the plea of reconstitution of the establishment with slight change in the name of publication.The main activity however remained the same.The establishment did not comply.Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short as Code) against order dated 9th February, 2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which he dismissed the Crl.Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code upholding orders dated 27th November, 2006 and 19th December, 2006, passed by the Magistrate.Brief facts of this case are that, M/s Veer Arjun Newspapers (P) Ltd. is a company which is covered under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provision Act-1952 (for short as Act).Petitioner, who is Managing Director of the company is employer within the provisions of this Act. Petitioner had deducted employees share of Provident Fund contribution, Family Pension contribution, from the wages/salary paid to the employees for the period January, 1993 to June, 1997 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- but these payments have not been remitted to the Provident Fund Department, as required under para 38 (1) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 within 15 days of the close of the every month and have misappropriated the same and converted to their own use.Thus, petitioner is liable to be charged for the offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.As such a complaint for offences Crl.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 2 of 10 punishable under Section 406 and 409 IPC was filed by the Enforcement Officer with the police, who filed the charge sheet.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 2 of 10Trial court passed order dated 27th November, 2006, for framing of charge under Section 406 IPC.Accordingly, charges were framed.Petitioner filed revision petition against the order of Magistrate.The Establishment Code number was also not issued to the company to enable the petitioner or the company to deposit the P. F. contribution, as per the provisions of law.In support of its contentions, learned counsel for petitioner cited following judgments;M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 3 of 10M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 3 of 10Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others.FLR 1998(79) 279;(iv) State of Maharashtra Vs.Pankaj A. Gupta.(vii) Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.Ravi Shakar Srivastava, IAS & Anr.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 5 of 10Ranbir Singh, Regional Commissioner of Provident Fund Department, which shows that official who filed this complaint does have permission from the department to presecute this case, on the basis of alleged facts and narrated in the complaint, the learned trial court had considered the same to be a sanction.The establishment had not complied with the direction of the department.The dues of the concern for Jan 93 to June 97 work out to be as below:M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 7 of 10The squad of EOs have therefore filed an FIR for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of PF dues which is punishable under Section 406/409 of IPC with Indra Prastha Police Station on 11.08.1997 for non payment of employees share deducted from wages.Ranbir Singh Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Delhi."As rightly held by the first appellate court that whether the observation given by Mr. Ranbir Singh, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner will amount to a sanction or not or whether it is prior sanction or not, or as to its effect cannot be determined at the stage of faming of charge but can only be decided after evidence is being led.So under these circumstances, it is a matter to be decided only after recording of the evidence.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 8 of 10M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 8 of 10The other plea taken up by the petitioner is that since Establishment Code was not issued to the petitioner as such he could not deposit the contribution within the prescribed period.It is the defence of the petitioner and it is a matter of evidence to be decided by the trial court as to on which date Establishment Code was allotted to the petitioner.Apparently, as provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the petitioner, so under these circumstances there is no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order.The present petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.M. A. No. 4515/2007M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 9 of 10M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 9 of 10Trial court record be sent back.M. C. No.1290/2007 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,252,030 |
In both the applications, detailed order is passed by this Court while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail.The daughter of applicant Shyamrao lodged report against the complainant and others.On her report, offences punishable under Sections 307, 376, 511, 354, 354-A, 452, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Sections 3(1)(1)(4)(s)(u)(w-i)(w-ii), 3(2)(3) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act were registered against the complainant side.To counter blast the said report, complainant lodged report against the applicants.Shri Damle, learned APP has strongly objected the application.When the complainant came to know about lodging of report by the daughter of Shyamrao, he lodged report against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2019 23:02:44 :::anticipatory bail granted to the applicants in both the applications on 09th January, 2019 and 21st January, 2019 respectively is hereby confirmed.JUDGE *rrg.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2019 23:02:44 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,254,199 |
Applicant took Complainant/ Informant to Mumbai and alongwith others got a flight booked for Sudan.When Complainant/Informant reached Sudan, he found no such Company in existence in respect whereof agreement was made for employment.Thereafter Complainant/Informant and others stake Dharna at Indian Embassy at Sudan, who arranged return of Complainant/Informant to Delhi.After coming back, Complainant/ Informant demanded his money back but applicant, on one or the other pretext, hesitated in return of money and assured to give later on.On 15.08.2004 Complainant/ Informant went to the house of applicant and demanded money but he threatened him for life and declined him to return money and that is how he has committed offence under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC.1. Heard Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State of U.P.3. Facts in brief giving rise to this application are that opposite party 2 Ratan Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant/ Informant") filed application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kushinagar at Padarauna (hereinafter referred to as "CJM") alleging that applicant came to Complainant/Informant's house and stated that he has got special permission from Government of India and a recognized agent to send people abroad for employment and also shown an agreement.Complainant/Informant believed him and gave Rs.65,000/- on 16.10.2002 and Rs.30,000/- through bank draft on 07.11.2002, which was encashed by applicant.Magistrate has not accepted final report and in the meantime Complainant/ Informant moved an application before Police authorities for directing "Punah Vivechana".The order of superior authority is that statement of Complainant/Informant must have been got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and therefore, investigation should be directed.In effect, Investigating Officer was required to proceed with further investigation and it is not that investigation already made was to be ignored altogether and a fresh or new investigation was to be made.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,625,786 |
At about 11.00 a.m., whilehe was sitting in his paan shop, he saw the deceased with theaccused/appellant in a vehicle going towards Katni Road.MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.Leave granted.The First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2015 vide judgment dated 06.08.2015 convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children fromSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVISHAL ANANDDate: 2019.03.1216:47:10 ISTReason:1 Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”) andsentenced him to death.The judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur vide its judgment andorder dated 03.03.2016 in Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2015 andin Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2015, except in respect of theoffence under Section 363 IPC which means the accused wasacquitted under Section 363 IPC by the High Court.These appeals are presented by the convicted accused.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.02.2015,PW4 (the elder brother of the victim’s father) came over from hisvillage to drop the victim child to school in a vehicle bearingRegistration No. MP 19 T 2374, owned and driven by theaccused/appellant.PW4, on the assurance of theaccused/appellant that he would go along with the victim child toher school, as he had to pay his own daughter’s fees, alightedfrom the vehicle near the Sabzi Mandi.The child went along withthe accused/appellant towards her school in the vehicle, but didnot return home that day.Despite a frantic search by herparents, relatives and the villagers, the victim child could not be 2 traced.The father of the deceased suspected that theaccused/appellant had left his daughter somewhere else,however, the first information report (Ext. P1) came to be lodgedagainst an unknown offender and the accused/appellant wasapprehended after two days.After the trial, as mentioned supra,the accused/appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and theorder of conviction was confirmed by the High Court.Shri Mrigandra Singh, learned senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the accused/appellant, took us through the material onrecord, and submitted that the case of the prosecution mainlyrests on the last seen circumstance, but the said circumstancehas not been duly proved.This is because grave suspicion arisesagainst PW4 also, having regard to the evidence of PW5 RamjiShukla.He also submits that the evidence that led to therecovery of the dead body based on the confession of theaccused/appellant is liable to be rejected on the ground that thepanchnama was drawn at the police station and not on the spotof recovery of the dead body; and that the Investigating Officerdeliberately tried to conceal the main offender and framed theaccused/appellant, and such lapse in the course of investigationwould tilt the balance of justice in favour of the 3 accused/appellant.Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued in supportof the judgments of the Courts.The instant case rests on circumstantial evidence, theprosecution relying mainly on the following circumstances:a) PW4 (uncle of the deceased) and the deceased child travelled from their native place Itma to Maihar in the vehicle owned and driven by the accused/appellant.b) PW4 gave the custody of the child to the accused/appellant upon the assurance of the accused/appellant that he would take the child to school safely.d) The school bag and the dead body of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement.e) The accused/appellant came out with a false explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC. 4There cannot be any dispute as to the well settledproposition that the circumstances from which the conclusion ofguilt is to be drawn must or “should be” and not merely “may be”fully established.The facts so established should be consistentonly with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should notbe explicable through any other hypothesis except that theaccused was guilty.Moreover, the circumstances should beconclusive in nature.There must be a chain of evidence socomplete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for aconclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, andmust show that in all human probability, the offence wascommitted by the accused.The records reveal that the distance between Itma (thevillage of the deceased) and Maihar (the town where her schoolwas situated) was approximately 9 km. The deceased wasstudying at New Horizon Public School, Maihar in L.K.G. and wasaged about five years and two months at the time of occurrenceof the offence.The accused/appellant was the registered owner ofthe vehicle in which he was last seen with the victim, and wasdriving the vehicle on the day of the incident.His daughter wasalso a student of the same school as the deceased.All the 5 aforementioned facts are not in dispute.It is also practically notdisputed before us by the counsel for the defence that it is a clearcase of rape and murder of the child.However, according to thedefence, the accused/appellant is not responsible for the crime.PW1 is the father of the deceased.Since PW4 was working in Maihar town as an electricianin an electrical shop, PW1 sent his child (the deceased) with PW4to drop her to school at Maihar.At about 10.00 a.m., PW4 leftwith the deceased from home in the vehicle of theaccused/appellant and went to Maihar.PW4 has deposed that he was told by the accused/appellantthat he had to go to the victim’s school to deposit his owndaughter’s fees, and believing his words, PW4 requested theaccused/appellant to take the victim child to school.Theaccused/appellant assured PW4 that he would drop the victimchild to school.Hence, PW4 got off the vehicle, leaving the victimchild in the custody of the accused/appellant.Thus, PW4 is themain witness to depose about the last seen circumstance.PW4also withstood his lengthy crossexamination and no majorvariations were brought out in his evidence through the same.However, learned senior Counsel for the defence contendedthat the needle of suspicion also tilts towards PW4, inasmuch asPW5 has deposed that he saw the accused/appellant, thedeceased and PW4 together in the vehicle of theaccused/appellant, at a point near the Sabzi Mandi.Accordingto the learned counsel, if PW4 had really alighted from the vehicleat the Sabzi Mandi, he could not have been seen by PW5 at thesaid point.On the said basis, he submits that the evidence ofPW4 cannot be believed, since his statement before the Courtwas only meant to shield himself.We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW5 inorder to satisfy our conscience, and find that the Trial Court andthe High Court have on an evaluation of PW5’s evidence, rightlyconcluded that it supported the prosecution’s version.Thus, thecontention as raised above cannot be accepted.PW5 has deposed that at about 9.30 a.m., he saw theaccused/appellant sitting in the driver’s seat in the vehicle, andthe victim by his side, in her school uniform.PW5 has deposed in his crossexamination that he saw the accused/appellant, the deceasedand PW4 together in the vehicle of the accused/appellant.Thedefence counsel based on this deposition of PW5 vehementlyargues that PW5 fully contradicts the evidence of PW4 as he hasdeposed to seeing PW4 at a point inconsistent with where heclaimed to have got down from the vehicle of theaccused/appellant.PW2 and PW3 have deposed about the recovery of the deadbody as well as the school bag of the child based on thedisclosure statement made by the accused/appellant.Needless 9 to say, only so much of the statement as has led to the recoveryof the dead body and the school bag is admissible in evidenceunder Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both thesewitnesses have deposed that after the disclosure statement of theaccused/appellant was recorded, he led the police and thewitnesses (PW2 and PW3) to the spot where the school bag andthe dead body had been disposed of.The dead body was found ina well situated alongside Paraswara Canal.At this time, only anunderwear was present on the dead body.The police took outthe dead body of the deceased from the well, and after suchrecovery, recorded the recovery memo Ext. P7 and took thesignatures of the witnesses.Thereafter, the accused/appellantled the police and the witnesses to the school at Dubehi, on therooftop of which he had hidden the victim’s school bag.Therecovery memo of the school bag (Ext. P8) was prepared at thespot and the signatures of the witnesses were taken.Thoughcertain suggestions were made to PW2, the same were denied.The evidence of PW2, in our considered opinion, has remainedunshaken.In his crossexamination, PW3 has deposed that thepolice had prepared the police papers at several places, such as 10 village Paraswara, and at the police station.It is also admittedby PW3 that the inquest panchnama was prepared at the policestation.However, these admissions of PW3 will not take away theeffect of Ext. P7 and Ext. P8, which are the recovery memos dulysigned by the witnesses.It is clear from the evidence of PW2 andPW3 that immediately after the dead body was taken out from thewell and after the recovery of the school bag from the rooftop ofthe school at Dubehi, the recovery memos Ext. P7 and Ext. P8were prepared on the spot and the signatures of the witnesseswere taken.As mentioned supra, PW3 has also deposed in hiscrossexamination that certain police papers were prepared at thevillage Paraswara as well as at the police station and that theinquest panchnama was prepared subsequently at the policestation.However, on this basis, the entire case of the prosecutioncannot be doubted, inasmuch as neither the death of thedeceased nor the place of death is disputed.The evidence relatingto the recovery is relevant to show that certain incriminatingmaterial has been recovered at the instance of theaccused/appellant, and that the accused/appellant knew aboutthe place of throwing the dead body and the school bag after thecrime.We find that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is compatible 11 with the prosecution version.Since theaccused/appellant has offered a false explanation regarding theevents of that day, more particularly about the last seencircumstance, an adverse inference needs to be drawn againsthim.The imprisonment of aboutfour years as already undergone by the accused/appellant shallbe set off.We have arrived at this conclusion after giving dueconsideration to the age of the accused/appellant, which iscurrently around 38 to 40 years.Accordingly, the following order is made:The judgment and order of the High Court affirming theconviction of the accused/appellant for the offences punishableunder Sections 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of the IPC and underSection 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act standsconfirmed.The sentence alreadyundergone shall be set off.The appeals are disposed ofaccordingly.(N.V. Ramana) ............................................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar) ……………………………………..J.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
662,625 |
He in his cross-examination deposed that he heard from his employer that one xerox machine, some money and some documents were seized from the accused.Therefore, his evidence also does not appear to have any substance.The only other independent witness is Ganesh Roy (P.W. 1), manager of the Dewan Hotel.His deposition is that during the period between 16th February, 2001 and 21st February, 2001 the police asked him about the convict.He showed the room No; 14 where the convict had put up.Police arrested him and took him in custody.Police seized certain articles.A seizure list was prepared wherein he put his signature.He has identified his signature.He has also identified a xerox machine, papers, voltage stabilizer and three fifty rupee denomination notes which were seized by the police in his presence which have collectively been marked material Exhibit 'I.' In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know the contents of the seizure list which was marked exhibit '1'.P.W. 3, Sisir Sinha is a Constable who was present during the raid conducted at the Dewan Hotel.According to him a person was arrested with colour duplicating machine for preparing fake currency notes and three fifty rupee fake notes were also recovered from him.He however was unable to say whether the accused was the same person.P.W. 5 Nripen Roy is a homeguard.He also accompanied the officer-in-charge of the New Jalpaiguri Outpost who had conducted the raid.He deposed that the officer -in-charge seized the xerox machine along with three fifty rupee notes in his presence.He subsequently came to learn that those were fake currency notes.The seizure list Exhibit '1' goes to show that on 21st February, 2001 at 4.25 hours three fifty rupee fake notes, one xerox machine, one voltage stabilizer, one gold star multipurpose office paper (extra white) packet containing 115 pieces of white paper and one used white paper suspected with some impression of Indian currency were seized from the Room No. 14 of the Dewan Hotel.JUDGMENT Girish Chandra Gupta, J.The appellant-Roney Dubey, a resident of Jammu, was charged under Sections 498-A, 489-C, 489-D and 489-E. He was convicted by a judgment and order dated 25th November, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No. 19/2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 37/2002 for offences under each of the aforesaid sections and by a further order passed on the same date, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six months under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 489-C and further imprisonment- for 10 years as also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 489-D of the Indian Penal Code.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently subject to the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The convict has come up in appeal.On search, three fifty rupee denomination notes of the Indian currency, believed to be counterfeit, were recovered from the pocket of his underwear.On thorough search, one xerox machine, one voltage stabiliser together with accessories, one gold star multipurpose office paper packet containing 115 pieces of white papers and one used white paper with some impression of the Indian currency were seized from the room No. 14 in the presence of the witnesses.The accused is alleged to have stated on interrogation that he copied the Indian currency notes of fifty rupee denomination from the coloured xerox machine for the purpose of using the same as genuine.It was, on that basis, complained that the accused possessed fake counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 50/- each aggregating to a sum of Rs. 150/-.No legal evidence, according to him, is there on the record which might even remotely suggest any incriminating factor against the accused.Therefore the point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentences ordered by the learned trial Judge can be upheld on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.In all nine witnesses were examined.P.W. 2 was partly examined-in-chief.Even his examination-in-chief does not appear to have been concluded nor did he appear to face cross-examination.Therefore, his evidence has to be rejected outright.P.W. 4 Biplab Kumar Sen is a chance witness who according to his own deposition met the accused/appellant on 21st February, 2001 in a bus and travelled with the accused-appellant after being acquainted with him for about 35 minutes.The convict is deposed to have assured the P.W. 4 a job.The convict is further deposed to have held himself out as a proprietor of 2/3 companies, located at various places like, Siliguri, Darjeeling and other places.According to the P.W. 4 the convict gave him the address of Dewan Hotel.P.W. 4 at the material point of time was going to the North-Bengal University.After completion of his job at the University when he went to meet the convict at Dewan Hotel he was told that the convict had been arrested.The deposition of this witness does not, in our opinion, have any connection whatsoever with the charges levelled against the convict.P.W. 6 Shri R.K. Moktan, an Inspector of C.I.D., Jalpaiguri Outpost deposed that on 21st February, 2001 he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar Police Station.He endorsed the written complaint and drew up the formal F.I.R. P.W. 7, Sub-Inspector P. Barman submitted that charge-sheet.He also collected the F.S.L. report.He did not play any other part according to him.The F.S.L. report has been marked for identification.P.W. 9, Sub-Inspector D. C. Ghosh at the material point of time was officer-in-charge of New Jalpaiguri Police Outpost.He proved the seizure list prepared by Sub-Inspector Buddhadev Roy on the basis that he knew his handwriting.There is no evidence to show that the xerox machine, the voltage stabiliser, the white papers or the paper containing some impression of Indian currency belonged to the convict.The seizure list goes to show that from the possession of the convict three fifty rupee notes were recovered which was believed to be fake.The suspected currency notes, it appears, were sent for expert opinion.The report furnished by Shri T.R. Nimze, a chemist, however was not tendered in evidence.It has been marked 'X' for identification.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,266,972 |
(Passed on 27/08/2019) The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Revision No.36/2017 by which the learned Additional Judge, confirmed the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.1455/2016 whereby the charges under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506 Part- 2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed against the applicant.(2).After the marriage she visited total 4-5 times in her matrimonial house.During the visit, the applicant and her family members used to harass her and kept all ornaments and articles given in the dowry with them.When she made demand for returning the aforesaid, then they abused her with filthy language and threatened her for dire consequences.On the basis of written complaint, offence under Section 498-A, 406, :2: 294, 506 Part-2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant bearing crime No.26/2016 at police station Civil Lines, Dewas and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Dewas.:2:(3).From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devas vide order dated 17.07.2017 has framed charges under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506 Part-2 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has against the applicant.Being aggrieved by the said order criminal revision No. 36/2017 has been preferred before the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, which also came to be dismissed.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,269,141 |
The charge against the Appellants was that both of them along with their mother Prakashi Devi (who remained a proclaimed offender throughout - PO) subjected the deceased Renu, wife of A-1, to cruelty by demanding dowry between 18th February, 1999 to 31st March, 2001 at their house at Village Masoodpur, New Delhi thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC; secondly, all of them in Crl.She told me that I should go upstairs and she would be coming soon.I went upstairs and try to sooth baby and try to handover him but the baby kept on crying and Renu did not turn up.I again came downstairs and told my wife that she was not paying heed to what I say the child was continuing crying and she was not coming up.I insisted on her coming up leaving the work, she told that child was not going to die by weeping.On this I got enraged and gave her two three slaps and then my wife accompanied me upstairs and sooth the child.Thereafter, when we went to bed, my wife was full of anger.I tried to console her and expressed my sorry-ness for getting enraged.I went upstairs.She was not there also.Then I came to first floor and called her name but nobody replied.Then I found bathroom door closed inside."Sanjeet with his wife and child was living separately from us.Sanjeet used to live in new building and we use to live in old house.Sanjeet was living on second floor and we were living at first floor.I am innocent and I have been falsely implicated in this case.I used to visit my material uncle whenever he had more agriculture work and needed a helping hand and used to stay home when there was no work with my material uncle.I also used to take fabrication contracts and used to do job work on orders.My shop and my brother shop was same but our business was different."Two defence witnesses were examined.Rattan Lal (DW-1), who was an intermediary in the marriage of A-1 with the deceased on 18th February, 1999, inter alia stated that at the time of the marriage, there was no particular settlement about any gifts to be given.When he enquired from the parents of the deceased whenever they visited his jewellery shop, they would tell him that the deceased was living happily (moj mein hai').Even the deceased, who used to visit a temple close to DW-1s shop, had told him that she was living alright when he enquired about her well being.When asked whether he knew the cause of the death of the deceased, DW-1 stated that "people were saying that she hanged herself".He also stated that he had learnt from a lady named Simbal that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and A-1 over feeding of milk to the child and that when the deceased had refused to do so, A-1 had slapped her.DW-1 stated that he did not go to the PS after learning about the death of the deceased.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 4 of 21She complained about this to her parents Mahesh Chand Chaudhary (PW-1) and Kaushalya Devi (PW-3).Laxmi Devi (PW-2) is the sister of PW-1 and lived in Gurgaon.According to her, the deceased had come to her house in the last week of May, 2000, when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.The deceased disclosed to PW-2 that her mother-in-law and the two accused had beaten her and turned her out of the house.PW-2 then called and informed PW-1, who reached the house of PW-1 from Rajasthan after about 5/6 days.A-1 was then called to the house of PW-2 and counselled by both PW-1 and PW-2 that he should not do such things and should take care of the deceased since she was pregnant, and the deceased was sent back with him thereafter.PW-13 also admitted to not lifting finger prints from the bathroom which was purportedly the place of occurrence.He also admitted that:Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22 nd March 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 39/2001 arising out of FIR No. 130/2001 convicting both Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 1 of 21 Appellants Sanjeet Malik (Accused No.1 - A-1)) and Sonu @ Munesh @ Mahesh (A-2) for the offences under Sections 498-A, Section 302 and Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 31st March 2003 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year for each of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 304-B IPC; and to three years rigorous imprisonment (RI) along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.As far as A-1 is concerned, by an order dated 29th August, 2007 passed in Crl.Appeal No.309/2007, his sentence was suspended as well.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 2 of 21 furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased by bodily injuries other than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.The alternative charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was also framed against all of them, for having committed the murder of the deceased.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 2 of 21On behalf of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined.When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, each of them denied them.As far as A-1 is concerned, he stated as under:"I had an altercation with my wife when I came back from my work place.I had found the child weeping on second floor and my wife was on the first floor washing cloth.I thereafter went in sleep.After some time, I heard cries of my child, and woke up and saw Renu was not with my bedside.I bang the door but nobody opened it.I then taped through ventilator and found that she was hanging inside the bathroom.Then I immediately broke open the door and got Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 3 of 21 untied the rope and got her down."A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 3 of 21As far as A-2 is concerned, he stated as under:He inter alia stated that A-2 was living with him since 1995-96 and worked with him in his fields.According to him, after hearing of the death of the deceased, he and A-2 came to Delhi on a scooter and returned back on the next day.The case of the prosecution was that soon after the marriage between the deceased and A-1 on 18th February, 1999, the deceased started being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home.On the fateful day i.e. 31st March, 2001, at around 5.20 pm, information was received which was reduced in writing as DD No.23-A about the death of a lady at her matrimonial home in Masoodpur Village.Sub Inspector (SI) Prabhu Dayal (PW-12) attached to PS Vasant Kunj reached the house along with Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-6).In a room on the first floor of the Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 5 of 21 house, he found the lady lying on a charpai (cot).On making enquiries, he learnt that she had hung herself in the bathroom.PW-12 found the chunni (thin cloth worn on head) hanging in the bathroom tied to a pipe and found that this was hardly 4/5 feet above the bathroom floor.According to PW-12, he was of the opinion that such a hanging was not possible and upon learning that it had been only two-two and a half years since the wedding, he then informed the senior officers as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).He also called the crime team to the spot and took photographs from his camera (Ex. PW-12/B-1 to B-12).PW-13 then visited the spot and a site plan was also prepared.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 5 of 21On 7th April, 2001, on the basis of secret information PW-13 arrested A-As regards Prakashi Devi (PO), proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) against her were conducted.Importantly, this witness admitted that "I did not show chunni to the doctor.The chunni was seized from the spot but not shown by me to the doctor."In the impugned judgment dated 22nd March, 2003, the trial Court came to the following conclusions:(i) With Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar (PW-5), who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, having given the opinion that it Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 6 of 21(ii) Unfortunately, the ACP and the SHO of the concerned PS closed their eyes and did nothing to investigate the case, despite there being sufficient evidence at the spot to register a case of murder.This was a case of homicide and not suicide.However, neither the SHO nor the ACP took immediate steps to start investigation.(iii) The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 was sufficient to bring home the charges under Section 498-A/304-B read with Section 34 IPC.(iv) The medical evidence clearly showed that the cause of death was asphyxia following strangulation "possibly caused by ligature mark."(v) It was an undisputed fact that the deceased died a homicidal death.The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 11 bears out the fact that the in-laws of the deceased were not happy with the dowry she had brought and kept harassing her to bring more money from her parents.(vi) The plea of A-1 about having come back from work and thereafter having slapped his wife as she was neglecting the child, and that he was asleep when he heard the loud cries of the child again and then went looking for her has all been disbelieved by the trial Court.The doors of the bathroom were not found broken by SI Prabhu Dayal (PW-12), as was claimed by A-1, who stated that he had broken the door down after peeping into the bathroom and spotting the deceased hanging.It was not possible to accept that this was a case of suicide Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 7 of 21 because the height of the tap to which the chunni was tied was not sufficient for hanging to take place.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 7 of 21(vii) The offences both under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC were made out against all the accused.(viii) The trial Court concluded that both A-1 and A-2 had jointly killed the wife of A-1 and therefore the case under Section 302/34 IPC was made out against them.A further question was whether a person can be convicted for both under Section 302 and 304-B IPC simultaneously.The trial Court proceeded to sentence the two Appellants in the manner indicated hereinbefore.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State.No witness has spoken about having seen A-2 present at or around the time of the incident.This explains why the charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.The prosecution first approached the case with the broad premise of the deceased dying an unnatural death and being subjected to harassment and cruelty for bringing dowry.Time since death - around about 42-46 hours."A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 9 of 21The peculiarity does not stop there.More than a month thereafter on 28th June, 2001, pursuant to a written request to him made by the IO, Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar (PW-5) gave a subsequent opinion in which he stated that on the basis of the findings in his own port-mortem report, such findings were "consistent with homicidal - strangulation".It is important at this stage to carefully peruse the medical evidence because it is central to determine whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal.He made inquiries and learnt that the deceased had hung herself in the bathroom.They read as under:I had told the IO that husband and his other family members had told me that Renu had hanged herself in the bathroom but after seeing the bathroom and the chunni tying only about 4-5 ft. above the floor and that in my opinion, hanging was not possible.Confronted with Ex.I had told IO that I had taken photographs from my camera and gave negatives and positives to IO.The chunni was seized Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 11 of 21 from the spot, but not shown by me to the doctor."A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 11 of 21With the initial opinion given by PW-5 in the port-mortem report being that strangulation by "soft ligature material" was possible, it was important for the IO to have shown the chunni to the doctor to ask him whether strangulation was possible by that ligature material.This was a serious lapse in the investigation.Delving further into the port-mortem report, it is seen that the specific observations of PW-5 therein as regards the external examination and ligature mark were as under:"External Examination:Injuries No.1.Nail mark abrasions were present on front of the neck parallel to each other size 1 cm x 0.1 cm located 6 cm below the chin.Nail mark abrasions were present on front of neck 1 cm x 0.1 cm transversely placed.Two oval irregular shaped abrasions each 0.5x0.5 cm present on chin parallel to each other.4. Abrasion on right side of the neck 0.3 x 0.3 cm in size.Ligature Mark:Ligature mark is 4 cm long x 1.5 cm wide, transversally placed on front of the neck and slight / oblique at left.It is superficial.It is located 6 cm below the chin and 8 cm above the suprasternal notch.The mid circumference of the neck was 28 cm.The margins of the ligature marks were soft.No ligature material was supplied at the time of post-mortem examination."The ligature mark was transversally placed on the front of the neck and Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 12 of 21 slightly oblique at left.This has some significance in terms of medical literature.One of the characteristics as far as hanging is concerned, is the ligature mark.In Modi's Jurisprudence, Chapter-20, Page-510, the differences between hanging and strangulation have been set out in a tabular form.Lungs showed congestion oedema and exude dark colour blood on squeezing, the purl surface showed haemorrhages spot.Heart was normal."For instance, the trial Court observed:"One can see that the chunni has been tied to water-tap pipe, which goes to geyser and the distance between floor and water tap could not have been more than 5ft.The ceiling f bathroom itself is always lower and it is- generally at 8.5ft. or 9 ft.The geyser affixed below the ceiling is more than 2ft. long and the pipe going from tap to geyser is more than one ft. long.Distance can easily be seen because of the tiles used in the bathroom and each tile is around 4" wide and a counting of tiles can give actual distance from the floor to the tap.No person can hang himself by tying a chunni with a tap about 5ft. high from the floor.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 15 of 21"The photographs of deceased show that she was not a weak and frail girl and was a healthy girl.The ingredients constituting the two offences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients."In other words, only if the charge under Section 304-B IPC were to fail that the Court can proceed to examine if the charge under Section 302 IPC Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 17 of 21 would stick and that is why it has been suggested that it should be framed as an alternative charge.It was never intended that a person could be convicted for the offences both under Section 302 as well as 304-B IPC.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 17 of 21He did claim to have apologized to his wife but clearly she was not assuaged.When A-1 woke up after having gone to sleep due to the cries of the child, he found that the deceased had committed suicide in the bathroom.The prosecution has not even attempted to lead any evidence in that regard.Clearly therefore, A-2 can by no stretch of imagination be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 18 of 21As far as A-1 is concerned, the altercation was not about dowry at all.It was about giving milk to the child who was crying.Therefore, at the highest, it could be said that as a result of A-1 slapping the deceased, she was so mentally disturbed that it led her to commit suicide.The Court considers that on the basis of the evidence that is available on record, the conviction of A-1 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC should be converted to one under Section 306 IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide.Offence under Section 498-A IPCThat leaves us with the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.PW-2 has further corroborated their evidence by confirming that the deceased had come to her house even earlier in May, 2000, after she was treated cruelly by the in-laws for not bringing dowry.Even in this regard, as far as the allegations against A-2 are concerned, they appear to be vague and not very specific.The allegations against A-1 would obviously be on a higher footing.However, the Court is satisfied that the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of A-1 for the Crl.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 19 of 21 offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.A. Nos. 307/2003 & 309/2003 Page 19 of 21The net result of the above discussion is as under:(i) A-2 is acquitted of all the offences with which he has been charged and the impugned judgment of conviction and consequent order on sentence qua A-2 is hereby set aside.(ii) |A-1 is acquitted of the offences under Section 302 IPC.His conviction for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is converted into the conviction for the offence under Section 306 IPC.His conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed.(iii) The appeal filed by A-2 being Crl.Appeal No. 307 of 2003 is hereby allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,270,938 |
C.R.M. 11137 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 22, 2010 And In re.: Supriya Chakraborty Mr. Prabir Majumdar ...For the petitioner Ms. Madhuri Das ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 135 of 2010 dated 26.5.2010 under Sections 498A/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.Perused the petition as well as the petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,275,689 |
Case diary is available.This is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Their second application was dismissed in MCRC No.6645/2015 vide order dated 21.08.2015 with liberty to file afresh application after filing of the charge-sheet.Accordingly, this third application is filed availing the liberty granted by this Court to the applicants after filing of the charge-sheet.The present applicants were arrested by Police Station- Kalapipal, District - Shajapur in Crime No.250/15 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 325 of IPC.According to the prosecution story, the incident took place on 26.06.2015 at about 11:00 pm.The dispute arose on the way between two fields.The co-accused Mansingh challenged complainant to come on his land and they were waiting for him.Thereafter, accused persons went and started started using abusive language against him.When Leeladhar came to intervene, he was given blow by Farsi on his head.Arguments heard.Case-diary perused.He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and present applicants are not required for investigation.He further submits that as per the prosecution story, applicant Kripal Singh was having Iron Rod in his hand.Total 10 injuries were found on Inder Singh.The application is allowed.It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.The applicants are further directed that on being so released on bail, they would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) Cr.P.C meticulously.as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,628,052 |
It is also directed to run the sentences concurrently.Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint made by complainant Ramanand Sharma, on 26.09.2001, at about 2:00 in the night Police Station Dehat, District Shivpuri lodged report in Crime No. 203/2001 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 357, 307, 332, 186, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.In the report, it is alleged that Ramanand Sharma, Sub Inspector posted at Police Station Dehat along with Town Inspector Rajendra Kumar Sharma and Driver Irshad on receiving information from the informant had gone to spot inspection.During spot inspection, near Gayatri Hotel at Jhansi Tiraha, the police party saw accused Surendra Sharma having weapons in his hands and they suspected that he was present there for committing-( 3 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) offence.When they tried to caught hold of accused Surendra Sharma, at that time on hearing his noise, co-accused Meena, Geeta, Vimla, Gayatri, Narendra Sharma and Sanjay having lathi, luhangi in their hands reached there.Accused Sanjay assaulted the complainant with luhangi on back side of his head, due to which he sustained injury on his head.Accused Geeta Sharma also caused injury on the head of the complainant.Accused Narendra Sharma with intention to kill Rajendra Kumar assaulted him with lathi on his head, which was prevented by Rajendra Kumar with his right hand and his right hand finger had broken.The accused had taken away Surendra Sharma along with them.(Passed on 09th September, 2019) This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of-( 2 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.9.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 12/2002 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 333/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- each, under section 332/149 of IPC sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each and under section 148 of IPC sentenced to undergo three months RI with default stipulations.After due investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri who committed the case for trial.The learned trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 147, 148, 186, 353/149 and 33/149 of IPC.The appellants-accused have denied the charges.The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case.The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence found the appellants-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 333/149 of IPC, 332/149 and 148 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.-( 4 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP)It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record and erred in convicting the appellants.It is further contended that FSL report, x-ray film and duty chart of the complainant and other officials has not been produced before the Court.It is also contended that no eye witness has been produced before the trial court.The Head Moharrir, who had made entry about his departure and return, has not been examined and the Rojnamcha is also not proved.It is also established from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that there was previous enmity between the accused and Police.It is further contended that the offence under section 333 of IPC is not made out against the appellants because in the absence of x-ray film it cannot be said that any fracture is caused to the injured and the trial Court has erred in holding that the injury sustained by the injured is proved.From the evidence of prosecution witness M.L.Agrawal, Medical Officer (PW-12), it is apparent that the injury occurred due to fall and this fact is not even mentioned by the Court below in para 12 of its judgment.There is no documentary evidence available on record to prove that on the date of occurrence Mohanlal Sharma (PW-2), Narendra Sharma (PW-3) and Irshad-( 5 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) Khan (PW-4) were discharging their official duties.No document in respect of the vehicle used in the incident has been produced by the prosecution witnesses.There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of Investigating Officer Vineeta Malviya (PW-13), Rajendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5) and Ramanand Sharma (PW-6).It was alleged that appellant No.6 was having weapon, whereas Rajendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5) in para 8 of his deposition has stated that "we had caught appellant/accused Surendra but could not succeed to recover katta from him.It is unnatural that two police personnel, out of them one was having revolver, failed to recover the weapon from a person, which indicates that the entire prosecution story is concocted.The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in respect of accused Sanjay has been prepared with two inks, which also puts dent on the prosecution story.On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants prays for acquittal of the appellants from the aforesaid offences.In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments in cases of Prayag Singh and others Vs.State of MP (Cr.A. No.599/99), Mulla Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. (AIR 1968 Allahabad 132), State of Punjab Vs.Sunny Kumar and others (CRM-A-823--( 6 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) MA of 2012 (O&M), Shrilal and others Vs.State of MP (1999(1) JLJ 365 and Bir Singh and others Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1978 SC 59).Learned Panel Lawyer, on the other hand, supported the finding recorded by the trial Court.I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it is apparent that no eye witness was examined before the trial Court.The Head Moharrir who, as per prosecution story, had made entry about his departure and return, has not been examined and Rojnamcha is not proved before the trial Court.Previous enmity between the accused and police has also been very well proved.M.L.Agrawal, Medical Officer (PW-12) had stated before the trial Court that the injury may occur due to fall.No official record is produced before the trial Court to establish that on the date and time of incident Mohanlal Sharma (PW-2), Narendra Sharma (PW-3) and Irshad Khan (PW-4) were discharging their offical duties.There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement-( 7 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) of prosecution witnesses Vineeta Malviya (PW-13), Rajendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5) and Ramanand Sharma (PW-6).As per prosecution story, the offence was committed by lathi and Rajendra Kumar Pandey (PW-5) in para 8 of his deposition has stated that "we had caught appellant/accused Surendra but could not succeed to recover katta from him.".It is very unnatural that just after the incident the accused was caught by the Police but alleged weapon was not recovered from the possession of the accused, which creates doubt in the prosecution story.The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been duly proved.It is also astonishing that out of three accused persons one accused is a lady and as per prosecution story at the time of incident three police personnel were present on the spot and these three accused persons have committed alleged offence and case has been registered under Section 333 of the IPC.It is surprising that such situation could not be handled by three police personnel where out of three one accused is a lady.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.It is the basic principle of criminal justice that guilt should be proved beyond doubt, hence-( 8 )- Cr.A.577/05 (Geeta Sharma & Ors.State of MP) on the basis of above, benefit of doubt is granted to the appellants.In view of aforesaid analysis, I find that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and material in proper perspective and erred in convicting the appellants.Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be allowed.Consequently, this appeal is allowed.The conviction of the appellants under Sections 333/149 of IPC, 332/149 and 148 of IPC and sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the above offences.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.