id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
17,699,585 |
2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of these Appeals may briefly be stated thus :::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::PNP 3/13 APEAL472judgment P.W.4 - Parashu Ishwar Devudkar, a Police Head Constable who on 26 September 1988 was attached to Police Station Gadhinglaj and was on bandobast duty at village Kaulage, was informed by Deputy Sarpanch and one Nagu Konkeri of village Jarali at 3.00 p.m. about the likelihood of some untoward incident.P.W.4 Head Constable Devudkar accordingly informed the Deputy Sarpanch and Nagu to go to the police station and lodge a complaint. P.W.4 Head Constable Devudkar thereafter returned to Police Station Gadhinglaj and along with two police constables proceeded to village Jarali in a jeep.On reaching near the village, he noticed accused Nos.1 and 2 coming by road and appeared to be frightened.Accused Nos.1 and 2 were therefore taken into custody and P.W.4 Head Constable Devudkar proceeded to the field of one Rayappa.He noticed two persons whose hands and legs were tied.He noticed Rama who was lying injured.P.W.4 Head Constable Devudkar therefore untied P.W.1 - Rama and referred Rama to the hospital for treatment.Deceased Birappa was found to have died.On the next day, he had pointed out the scene of incident.P.W. 7 - P.S.I. Shivprasad Galimath, who was also attached to Police Station Gadhinglaj was informed about the incident by the P.S.O.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::PNP 4/13 APEAL472judgment He accordingly proceeded to the hospital at Gadhinglaj and enquired with the Medical Officer if the injured was in a fit condition to give his statement.On the basis of the said report of P.W. 1 - Rama, an offence vide Crime No.219 of 1988 was registered under Sections 302, 307 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested under arrest panchanama at ExhibitThe clothes on the person of accused Nos.1 and 2 were accordingly seized.On 27 September 1988 he visited the scene of incident at about 6.00 p.m. and noticed the dead body of deceased Birappa.10. P.W.1 - Rama Banne, brother of deceased Birappa deposes that accused No.1- Maruti was his cousin, while accused Nos.2 to 4 were the friends of accused No.1 - Maruti.There was a dispute about the agricultural land between the family members of accused No.1 and deceased Birappa and P.W.1 - Rama.According to P.W.1 - Rama on the day of the incident at about 12 to 12.30 a.m. he had learnt that the accused had gone in the field which was the joint family property for uprooting the groundnut crop.The Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgment dated 12 August 1993, by these Appeals challenge the conviction and sentence.Since original accused No.1 was not sentenced, a reference is made by the Trial Cort under Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for passing sentence against him.The Appeals and the Reference are being accordingly decided by this common judgment.An inquest panchanama of the dead body was drawn at Exhibit 25 in the presence of panchas.The dead body was referred for postmortem examination.Statements of witnesses were recorded.The clothes of deceased Birappa were seized.Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted.Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Birappa was conducted ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 5/13 APEAL472judgment by P.W.5 - Dr. Rao.P.W.5 - Dr. Rao noticed the following external injuries:::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::An incised and cutting wound of 3" x ½ " x ¼ " on the right parietal bone in middle (transverse).Bleeding was present.An incised and cutting wound of 1" x ½ " x ¼ " on the right eyebrow oblique, bleeding was present.An incised and cutting wound of 1" x ¼ " x ¼ " on the middle of the right lower leg, bleeding present.The right humorous was fractured in the middle.Right lower end of femur is fractured."On internal examination, he noticed that the right parietal bone was fractured in the middle and the fracture was transverse in length about 1 inch.Large blood clots were found on the brain beneath the fracture.He therefore opined that the probable cause of death was due to fracture of the skull, hemorrhage and shock.On 26 September 1988, P.W. 5 - Dr. Rao had examined P.W.1 -Rama and had noted the following external injuries :An incised and cutting would of 8" x scalp deep x ¼ on its right temporal bone, starting from middle of the skull upto right ear, vertical, Margins are clean and even severally bleeding.An incised and cutting wound of 3" x skull deep x ¼ 1" below the injury No.1 severally bleeding.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::An incised and cutting wound of 2" x skull deep x ¼ on the left temporary bone severally bleeding.An incised and cutting wound of 1 ½ " skull deep x ¼ " above the right ear.Bleeding was present.An incised and cutting wound of 3" x skull deep x ¼ " on the center of the skull.Bleeding was present.A contusion on the right elbow joint, the joint is swollen.An incised and cutting wound of 3" x ½ " x ¼ " on the left shoulder joint.Bleeding was present.A contusion on the right palm dorsal aspect.The palm is swollen and painful.A contusion on the left palm, dorsal aspect.The palm is swollen and painful.A contusion of 6" x 1" on the right infra scapular region.Echgomosis present.On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit 3 framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.Prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses.P.W.6 - Shobha Dhangar, ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 7/13 APEAL472judgment an eyewitness to the incident did not support to the prosecution and was declared hostile.The entire prosecution case therefore revolved round P.W.1 - Rama, who was the sole eyewitness to the incident.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Ms. Varsha Palav, learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Accordingly P.W.1 - Rama went to the agricultural field and requested the accused not to uproot the groundnut crop.All the accused thereafter rushed towards P.W.1 - Rama and deceased Birappa questioning them as to why they had come in the field.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::deceased Birappa on his head and on the other parts of the body.Accused No.2 - Pandurang dealt with blows of axe on the head, waist, legs and hands of Birappa.Accused Nos.3 and 4 also assaulted Birappa with sticks.When P.W.1 - Rama went to the rescue of Birappa, Rama was also assaulted by all the accused.Accused No.2 - Pandurang assaulted Rama with an axe on head, left shoulder and right leg.Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 also assaulted Rama with sticks.Due to the assault, Birappa had fallen on the ground.Accused Nos.2 and 3 thereafter had tied the hands and legs of Birappa.Accused Nos.1 and 3 had also tied the hands and legs of P.W.1 - Rama.The accused thereafter fled from the scene of incident.In the cross examination he has admitted that the agricultural field is recorded in the name of his paternal uncle Rayappa.He has further admitted that the agricultural field where the incident had occurred belongs to Rayappa.He has admitted that they had animosity towards accused No.1 - Maruti and his family members as a share in the agricultural land had not been given to P.W.1 - Rama and others.He has further admitted that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were cultivating the field with the consent of accused No.1 - Maruti.He has admitted that he had not ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 9/13 APEAL472judgment met Nagu while he was going towards the agricultural field.He has admitted that there was a commotion during the incident, but the neighbouring agriculturist had not rushed to their rescue.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::Prosecution has examined P.W. 6 - Shobha as an eyewitness to the incident, but P.W. 6 - Shobha did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.Nothing of substance has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W.6 - Shobha.In respect of the injuries sustained by deceased Birappa, it is apparent that injuries 1 to 3 were incised wounds which could be caused due to axe.Injuries 4 and 5 are the fractures of the humorous bone and the lower end of femur.The evidence of P.W.1 - Rama indicates that accused No.2 had assaulted deceased with an axe on his hands as well as on his legs.The injuries sustained at Sr. Nos.4 and 5 could also be caused by axe and would not necessarily be due to sticks.In respect of the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 - Rama, it is apparent that injuries 1 to 5 and 7 were caused by axe.Injuries 6, 8, 9 and 10, it is admitted by P.W.5 - Dr. Rao, could be possible due to fall on hard and blunt substance.The assault on P.W.1 - Rama was in the agricultural field.Injuries 6, 8, 9 and 10 which are contusions on the right elbow joint, right ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 10/13 APEAL472judgment palm, left palm and on the right infra scapular region, could be caused due to fall on account of assault by sticks.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::The evidence of the prosecution therefore clearly indicates that it was accused No.2 - Pandurang who had alone assaulted deceased Birappa and P.W.1 - Rama.The evidence does not conclusively establish that accused No.1 - Maruti and accused Nos.3 and 4 had also assaulted either P.W.1 - Rama or deceased Birappa with sticks.Thus, accused No.1 - Maruti and accused Nos.3 and 4 would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.A reference is made by the Trial Court under Section 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code for passing appropriate sentence against accused No.1 - Maruti as he was deaf and dumb and could not understand the proceedings.Statement of accused No.1 - Maruti under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also not recorded though a charge was framed against him and the charge was explained to him.Accused No.1 - Maruti had denied his guilt and claimed to be tried.However, since are are inclined to allow the Appeal filed by accused No.1 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 11/13::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::- Maruti, the reference would no longer survive for consideration as according to us accused No.1 - Maruti would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the findings arrived at by the Trial Court.It is true that P.W.1 - Rama is the brother of deceased Birappa.However, P.W.1 - Rama is an injured witness whose report came to be lodged promptly.If the testimony of a witness is a mixture of truth and falsehood, the Court has to perform the exercise of separating the grain from the chaff i.e. truth from the falsehood.Upon performing that exercise, according to us, implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W.1 - Rama regarding the assault on him as well as regarding the assault on deceased Birappa by an axe.We do not find any ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 ::: PNP 12/13 APEAL472judgment ground whatsoever for rejecting the testimony of P.W.1 - Rama.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::Prosecution had examined P.W.6 - Shobha as an eyewitness to the incident.But P.W.6 - Shobha did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.However, according to us absence of corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1 - Rama, would not in any way affect his credibility.Since we are acquitting accused No.1 - Maruti, the Reference would not survive for consideration and would have to be answered in the negative.Accordingly Criminal Appeal 472 of 1993 is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of Appellant No.2 - Laxman Babu Konkeri and Appellant No.3 - Bhima Sidda Mang / original accused Nos.3 and 4 is hereby quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted.Their bail bonds stand cancelled.This Appeal is dismissed insofar as it challenges the conviction of Appellant No.1 / original accused No.2 - Pandurang Babu Konkeri.We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence of Appellant No.1 / original accused No.2 - Pandurang Babu Konkeri.His bail bond stands cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::PNP 13/13 APEAL472judgment Eight weeks' time is granted to Appellant No.1 / original accused No.2 -Pandurang Babu Konkeri to surrender to his bail.Criminal Appeal 502 of 1993 is allowed and the conviction of the Appellant / original accused No.1 - Maruti Rayappa Dhangar is hereby quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted.His bail bond stands cancelled.Criminal Reference 3 of 1993 is accordingly answered in the negative and is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration.(P. V. Hardas, J.) (A.S. Gadkari, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:43 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,769,962 |
ORDER Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.This is a petition to interfere in revision with the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of six months simple imprisonment awarded on him.The facts are briefly these.The petitioner was a lorry driver.On 10th October, 1947, at about 6-45 p.m. on the road between Tambaram and Vandalur, he was driving his lorry, M.S.P. 3163, at a fast and dangerous pace.He was taking furniture to a school.He wanted to overtake three bullock carts heavily laden with hay, and, with that object, first swerved swiftly to the right and then quickly to the left, with the inevitable consequence that the deceased, a man aged 30 going along the road in the opposite direction, and a bit tipsy, got knocked down and killed.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,997,735 |
Brief facts of the case are as under:"(i) That the process of externment started when the petitioner received a notice dated 03.02.2017 under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 whereby the W.P.(Crl.)260/2019 Page 1 of 12 petitioner was asked to tender his explanation regarding the allegations leveled in the said notice.As per the said notice, an externment proposal under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 was sent by the SHO/Sonia Vihar through ACP/Khajuri Khas for the externment of the petitioner as he was involved in the following cases:-W.P.(Crl.)260/2019 Page 1 of 12(ii) It was proposed, that the petitioner be externed as he was found to be engaged in various offences and his movements were calculated to cause alarm, harm and danger to persons and property and his presence in Delhi or any part thereof would be hazardous to the community.It was also alleged that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give their evidence in public because of the apprehension of retaliation by the petitioner.W.P.(Crl.)260/2019 Page 2 of 12Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) for Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) with SI Jitender Kumar, PS- Sonia Vihar CORAM:HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J W.P.(CRL.)The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C.") for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi.1) FIR No. 94/1992 under Section 452/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokal Puri2) FIR No. 114/1992 under Section 354/506/34 IPC registered at PS Gokal Puri3) FIR No. 330/1999 under Section 3/4 D.P.P.Act registered at PS Khajuri Khas4) FIR No. 50/2001 under Section 420/379/506/34 IPC registered at PS Khajuri Khas5) FIR No. 53/2012 under Section 325/341/34IPC read with Section 27/54/59 Arms Act registered at PS Sonia Vihar6) FIR No. 242/2013 under Section 308/323/34 IPC registered at PS Sonia Vihar7) FIR No. 349/2016 under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC registered at PS Sonia Vihar(iii) The petitioner appeared before Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District and submitted his reply on 23.05.2017, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the said case.On 10.10.2017 the SHO/Sonia Vihar was examined as Prosecution Witness and the petitioner was asked to produce defence witness in his defence.Accordingly on 21.11.2017 the petitioner produced one defence witness namely 'Maha Singh' whose statement was recorded and was kept on record.During the course of proceedings before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District the petitioner was found to be involved in FIR No. 101/2018 U/s 308/354/323/341/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.Nonetheless, there can be no dispute to this fact, that an externment order brings societal and personal deprivation and is a great blow on the finances of the externee because an order of externment makes an inroad into the cherished and valuable right of a person to have his W.P.(Crl.)260/2019 Page 11 of 12 domicile at the place of his choice.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,770,016 |
The accused/respondent was facing charge of murder in connection with the death of one Harishchandra Naik.Originally, the case of the prosecution was that the accused was hired by another person, one Pandurang Babu Naik and was in fact paid Rs. 1, 00, 000/- to do away with Harishchandra Naik as Pandurang and Harishchandra had enmity.They were brothers.During the course of the trial, so far as the said theory of conspiracy and payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is concerned, nothing could be brought out and, in fact, the said person Pandurang Babu who was originally joined as accused No. 2 was discharged.This left only the accused/respondent facing the charge of murder.The motor-cycle was hired at Margao for going to Partagal.On the way, near about the town of Canacona, they stopped at a bar known as "Jana Bar" and had drinks.In fact, the motor-cyclist Joseph Gomes took only soft drink, while the respondent helped himself to two or three pegs of whiskey.The effect of the drink was marked in the display of the movements of the respondent and, therefore, the owner of the bar refused to serve any more drinks to him.ORDER N.J. Pandya, J.In the course of drinking the respondent and the motor-cyclist were sitting inside the bar-room initially, but since the respondent complained that he was feeling hot they moved out into the verandah.It being the month of January, soon daylight was over and the respondent/accused with the said motor-cyclist continued to sit outside.About 15 to 20 minutes of the respondent/accused and the motor-cyclist coming out into the verandah, the said Harishchandra also came to that very Bar.When the bar owner refused to serve the accused, the accused and the motorcyclist were about to leave when the accused expressed desire of urination.The bar is situated on N.H. 17 going from Margao to Karwar.The motor-cycle on which the said pilot Gomes had brought the accused was near to the bar and across the road the motor-cycle of the said Harishchandra was parked.The accused had chosen to cross the road for the aforesaid purpose and was near the motor-cycle of the deceased Harishchandra.Harishchandra also finished his business in the bar and went towards the motor-cycle.He was about to sit on it when the accused, who was standing there, apparently had an altercation with him, details of which are not there.All that is indicated is that the accused threw something on the face of the said Harishchandra and thereafter took out a knife from under his shirt on the waistband and inflicted blows.So far as the said pilot Gomes is concerned, upto this part of the incident he has alone seen the incident, as per his version.The importance of limiting his knowledge about the incident to this part only can readily be appreciated when it is noted from the deposition of Dr. Madhukar Usgaokar, P.W.18, alongwith the post-mortem note produced by him, that the deceased had three stab wounds, one of which was in the chest region, another in the stomach region towards right side, what is described as hypocondium part and one in the lumbar region.So far as the chest injury is concerned, it was towards the right side and had penetrated the lung as well the liver.The stomach injury had brought omentum out and the injury in lumbar also had brought out parts of the intestine.In the opinion of the doctor, the all-important stomach injury could have proved fatal.Injuries having been caused by sharp cutting instrument like knife, particularly, M.O. 9, there is not much controversy.There is no doubt controversy as to whether M.O.9 was ever used by the accused and was ever employed for commission of the crime because the learned Sessions Judgedid not believe the evidence as to its recovery, nor did he believe the evidence as to the link sought to be established between the said weapon and the accused.However, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, everything would hinge on the testimony of P.W. 3, the said pilot Joseph Gomes.The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has discussed the matter at length and so far as the testimony of P.W.3, is concerned, he has dealt with it almost after reproducing his entire testimony both in chief and cross, in para 10 onwards at page 18 of the paper book.Finally, at the end of paragraph 12, pages 190 to 191, he comes to conclusion that P.W.3's testimony does not inspire confidence.The main reason for him to come to this conclusion is what he considers to be a discrepancy between expert testimony in the form of doctor's evidence, P.W.18, read alongwith Post Mortem Report.In the Post Mortem Report there are three injuries referred to by the doctor, while this witness merely states about one injury.Moreover, it being a dark night or early evening in the month of January, the learned Judge felt that without the help of artificial light, the witness could not have seen anything and therefore, his story should be discarded.So far as injuries are concerned, one more doctor has been examined as P.W. 8, because inspite of the injury the deceased was lying for sometime and was treated by the said witness, P.W. 8, Dr. Suresh Mahale.The clear description in the case papers produced by P.W. 8, make out that the injuries were of the nature of incised wounds capable of being caused by sharp cutting instrument like knife.No doubt it is true that the accused does not belong to the area.According to the prosecution case he was brought from outside and this seems to be made out by the fact that in the course of the hearing of this Appeal also, to secure his presence efforts were made to bring him from Bombay and finally he could be located.Through P.W. 16 he tried to make out a case that he came to attend a wedding.However, so far as the accused himself is concerned, in further statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, he has taken the stand of total denial.As against that, Joseph Gomes, P.W. 3 as far as the incident is concerned states that he picked up the passenger and took him to the aforesaid place in Canacona and with great difficulty persuaded him to leave the Bar, and then the incident happened.The story of P.W. 3 does not stop there.On seeing this incident suddenly happening this witness was very much frightened.At that time he was just in the process of crossing the road because he found that the accused/respondent was hardly able to control himself and was apparently under the influence of alcohol.When he was frightened, the natural move on his part was to come back to his motor-cycle and putting the key in the ignition was about to start the motor-cycle.It is at that time that the accused sat on the pillion seat and pointing knife on the neck of the said P.W. 3 made him drive back towards Margao.On the way, nearby a parked motor-cycle when the witness P.W. 3 slowed down his motor-cycle, he was given a push by the accused and the witness fell down and the motor-cycle also fell down.The accused made good his escape.There came on the scene one of the brothers of the deceased, who knew P.W. 3 Joseph Gomes and at his instance P.W. 3 was given medical aid and from there he was taken to the police.The police took him in custody, obtained remand orders and thereafter he was kept for prosecution record as a suspect.Later on he came to be released.In this background, when the said witness P.W. 3 had the occasion of carrying the accused as a passenger upto a distance of about 50 kms.( as per the questions put to him in cross-examination and when for almost one and half hour the accused/respondent and the said RW.3 sat together in the bar, though they were meeting for the first time, so far as ability to see and narrate whatever he had seen, particularly the material part relevant to the incident, it is difficult to hold that his testimony cannot be accepted.So far as the apparent contradiction in the oral testimony and the medical evidence is concerned, that was material to be considered and only if the stand of the prosecution through the witness PW. 3 was that he had seen the entire incident and yet instead of narrating about all the three injuries he was talking about one injury only.The witness has stated whatever he has seen and his occular testimony is restricted to the first blow only.It is not the prosecution case that this witness had seen other blows also being inflicted.So far as want of artificial light is concerned, in the aforesaid background of physical proximity shared by the said P.W. 3 with the accused for almost three hours or more and when in the background of the situation that witness is waiting eagerly and anxiously for his passenger, who is apparently under the influence of alcohol, to return so that P.W. 3 can reach him safely back to Margao, the fact that he saw the accused standing there urinating nearby the motor-cycle of the deceased and suddenly blow being given by the accused, there could be no hesitation on the part of the witness to identify as to who the assailant is.A doubt is sought to be created about his inability to see for want of light.In our opinion, in the aforesaid background of facts this is just an attempt, but it cannot succeed.The Appeal of acquittal is, therefore, to be allowed.It is of course another thing as to which offence in fact the accused has committed.That being the position, when only one blow is said to have been established and the link of the accused with that blow is accepted to have been established for the aforesaid reasons, so far as the accused is concerned, in the absence of any other material, he should be held to have committed the least possible offence.But for the testimony of P.W. 18, we would have readily agreed so far as the sub-mission as to the offence punishable under section 326 is concerned.However, this being a blow which could have been resulted in fatality, the question of treating the offence to be one of grievous hurt would not arise.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,005,095 |
pk CRM No. 7562 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.15 in connection with Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 231/15 dated 9.6.15 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Yasmin Dalia @ Yeasmin Dalia & Ors.the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,953,688 |
Post for .02.2017 (ALOK VERMA) JUDGE .02.2017 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE BEFORE HON.MR.JUSTICE ALOK VERMA, JUDGE M.Cr.C. No.9175/2012 Sumitrabai & another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/State.____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ( Passed on this day of February, 2017 ) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against st the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class Mandsaur, in Private Criminal Complaint No.893/2012, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present applicants under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.The brief facts relevant for disposal of this application are that complainant Babulal, who was respondent No.2 -before this Court filed a criminal complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate st 1 Class alleging that the civil suit was pending between the complainant and Gram Panchayat-Raiwas Dewara, district- Mandsaur, of which the applicant No.1 was the Sarpanch and applicant No.2 was the Secretary.It is further alleged that they forged the document "Bhawan Anugya Patra" on 05.03.2011, which was signed by the applicant No.1 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and applicant no.2 being Secretary of the Panchayat.It was mentioned in the document that the document was issued on the basis of judgment passed by the Court.The existence of the document came in knowledge of the complainant, when it was filed in the civil suit, and thereafter, he filed an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, for obtaining copies of all the relevant record relating to issuance of such document.However, no such record was found in the office of the Gram Panchayat and it was informed to the complainant that no such record exist and on this basis, it was alleged that the document was forged by the applicants, the criminal 4 complaint was filed.When the complaint was filed before the concerning Magistrate, the learned Magistrate on the basis of statements recorded under Section 200 and 205 Cr.P.C. and also on an inquiry report received from Police Station-Y.D. Nagar, Mandsaur, registered a crime against present applicants under Section 420 Cr.P.C.Learned Revisional Court found that no offences under Section 420 was made out, however, offences under sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC were made out, and therefore, directed the Magistrate to rehear the case afresh and pass a fresh order.On this, the impugned order was passed by which the cognizance was taken against the present applicants, however, as according to the learned Magistrate, the respondent No.2 was public servant, and thus it was directed by the Magistrate that the complainant should obtain necessary sanction from the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C.Aggrieved by this order, present application is filed on the following ground:-No appeal was filed by the present applicants.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,958,189 |
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?The appellant- Shahid Riza @ Raju, vide impugned judgment dated 27th August 2008, has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and by order dated 2 nd September, 2009 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.Learned trial court has held that on 22 nd January, 2007, the appellant had thrown acid on the person of his wife- Shabana Parveen, the complainant at their house, due to which the complainant had suffered 30% to 35% burn injuries.The allegations in brief are that on 22nd January, 2007 at about 7.30 pm, the appellant, husband of the complainant, came home and he got entangled in a heated argument with his wife-complainant when the appellant started abusing the complainants father.The appellant threatened the complainant that he had made arrangement for her and pulling her by her hair he poured acid on her face from a bottle that he took out from his pocket.The acid burnt the face of the complainant and also injured their one and a half years old daughter Shahin who was in her CRL.A. 95/2010 2 lap.She has stated that by the time her father arrived on the scene the appellant had run away.She has stated that she and her daughter were medically treated in a hospital thereafter.She had correctly identified clothes that she and her daughter were wearing at the time of the incident.Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2), father of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) has corroborated the testimony of PW1 on all material aspects.He deposed that by the time he reached the house of his daughter hearing her cries, the appellant had fled away.He had correctly recognized the pieces of the quilt and blanket on which acid had fallen that the police had seized after the incident.He had correctly recognized the clothes worn by her daughter and grand-daughter at the time of the incident.Dr. Hitesh Gupta (PW-11) who had prepared the MLC of the complainant stated that he had found 30-35% burn injuries on PW1 and that he referred her to surgical emergency after administering first aid to her.Dr. Tushar Mohan (PW-10) has proved the MLC of the complainant, ExPW 10/A. He has stated that he had examined all the papers of the treatment of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) and as per his opinion the injuries on the complainant were grievous while those on her daughter Shahin were of simple nature.HC Satender Tomar (PW-6), the IO of this case stated that on the day of the incident when he reached the spot he felt the pungent smell of acid.He found that the complainant PW1 and her daughter were admitted and under treatment at GTB Hospital.He recorded the statement of the complainant (Ex.PW-1/A) and that of her father.He collected pieces of quilt and blanket, converted them into pullanda, sealed them and seized them vide memo (Ex.PW-1/A) in which she has blamed the appellant.Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for the State CORAM:The complainant raised an alarm upon which her father came there but the accused fled from the back gate of the house.FIR No.42/2007 was lodged on the basis of this incident at P.S. Khajuri Khas.The appellant was arrested and chargesheet was filed in the court after investigation.CRL.A. 95/2010 2PW2/A).On 23rd January, 2007, he arrested the appellant on being pointed out by Sarfaraz Ahmed, brother of the CRL.A. 95/2010 3 complainant.He has stated that the appellant was sent to hospital for medical examination as he had burn marks on his hand.Dr. Praveen (PW-CRL.A. 95/2010 38) has proved the MLC (Ex.He has stated that the appellant Shahid Riza was examined under his supervision and that injuries sustained by him were multiple burn marks over the dorsum of his right hand and he was referred to surgical emergency.He has stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case and that on 22nd January, 2007, acid was thrown on the complainant by Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) when Shabana Parveen (PW-1), Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) and Sarafaraz Ahmed (PW-3) were quarrelling over Rs.60,000, that he had given to Shabana Parveen (PW-1) at the time of compromise in the dowry case.He has also stated that when he came forward to save Shabana Parveen (PW-1), his hand got burnt.It is not possible to accept the defence story and the version put up by the appellant that there was a quarrel between Shabana Praveen (PW-1), her father Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) and her brother Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) over Rs.60,000/- and acid was thrown by Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) or Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3).It may be noted that Shabana Praveen (PW-1), after the incident, was taken to the hospital by Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) and Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) and not by the appellant.The appellant admits his presence at the time when the acid was poured and Shabana Praveen (PW-1) got injured.During the pendency of legal proceedings, as per the testimony of Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2), Rs. 60,000 was given to Shabana Parveen (PW-1) at the time of bail in the CRL.A. 95/2010 4 dowry case.Thereafter, the matter was settled/ compromised.Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) has stated that Rs. 60,000 was returned to the appellant when compromise was arrived at and Shabana Parveen (PW-1) joined the company of the appellant and they started residing together.Shabana Parveen (PW-1), in her cross examination, has stated that Rs. 60,000 was paid by way of draft or cheque to her father during the pendency of the dowry case but the said amount was returned.CRL.A. 95/2010 4Further in the cross examination of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) it was put to her that she and the appellant wanted Rs. 60,000 from her father for starting business and there was quarrel between her, her father and her brother.During the cross examination of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) the appellant had suggested that there was a quarrel between her, Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) and Shabbir Ahmed (PW-3) on money matter when the acid was thrown on her face.The suggestion that Shabana Parveen (PW-1) had not seen the assailant who had thrown the acid was denied.It was not suggested to Shabana Parveen (PW-1) that Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) had thrown the acid.It is clear from the testimony of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) and Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) that Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) had provided for and given money to the appellant to start his business.Both of them- Shabana Parveen (PW-1) and Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) have stated that money for purchase of the plot on which House No. C-363, Street No. 7, Second Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and for construction of the house on it was given to the appellant by Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2).Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) has stated that he was an income tax payee and used to earn a substantial amount but his income had gone down due to the litigation.The appellant was earlier an employee of Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2).In view of the said evidence it is not possible to accept that there was a quarrel between daughter Shabana Parveen (PW-1), father- Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) and brother - Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) on account of money matters and Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) or Sarfaraz Ahmed (PW-3) had caused acid burn injuries on the complainant.There is also evidence on record in the form of statements of Shabana Parveen (PW-1) and Shabbir Ahmed (PW-2) that the appellant had got married for the second time and there were inter se disputes between the parties on this account.Charge in the present case was framed under Section 307 IPC, but the trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC.Learned CRL.A. 95/2010 5 counsel for the appellant submitted that this has resulted in injustice and the appellant is entitled to acquittal as no charge was framed under Section 326 IPC.CRL.A. 95/2010 5To decide this contention, it is relevant to examine the charge framed against the appellant vide Order dated 20th May, 2007, which reads:"That on 22.1.2007, at about 7.45 pm, at a place inside H.No.C-365, Street No. 7, Second Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, you threw acid on Sabana Parveen and Shahin and caused acid burns injuries to them with such intention or knowledge and under such circumference that if by that act you would have caused their death then you would have been guilty of an offence of murder and thereby committed an offence of attempt to murder punishable under section 307 of the Penal Code, and within my cognizance.The petitioner has been convicted under Section 307 IPC.Counsel for the appellant made an all out effort for getting the appellant acquitted.No effort, however, was made to argue that the offence committed was not an attempt to murder but causing grievous hurt.One has to look at the substance and not technicalities to be satisfied that there was a fair trial and the appellant was made aware and had knowledge as to what he was being tried for and the main allegation against him was brought to his notice and explained.CRL.A. 95/2010 8
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,960,667 |
" On 23.4.97 wireless operator gave an information that lady constable Prabha had given wireless message that knife was inflicted on one person in juuggies at A-1 Block, Jahangir Puri, Shiva Marker, Mangal Bazar Road.The same was recorded as DD No. 60B. The said information was conveyed to Inspector and inspector reached at the spot viz opposite A-1 Market near jhuggi.He found HC Govind Singh and constable Dhiraj present at the spot ad one person wo name and address was known as Pardeep Kumar S/o Narain Dsss aged about 35 years in dead condition.On inspection of dead body there was sign of injury and blood clot with sharp edged weapon on the left side of body and injury and clot of blood on the right side ear of the body and blood was ossing from on both the said injuries.The deceased was wearing pant of kathai colour, underwear (Katch) of blue colour.There was torn baniyan and without chappal in his legs/ there was one leg of cot towards head of the dead body.The head of the dead body was towards southern side and legs were on northern side.Smt. Munni Devi was present at the spot and her statement was recorded.In her statement Smt. Munni Devi stated that at about 8 P.M. on 23.4.97 she was sitting on cot in front of her jhuggi, her son Ajit aged 8 years and Dalip aged 10 years were coming from Mangal Bazar road.After seeing Jagran when they reached at jhuggi near park in front of A-1 market her neighbor Rashid S/o Munna @ Total CRL.A.909/2001 Page 2 of 20 had caught hold her son Dalip and started beating him.She stood up and tried to rescue her son.In the meantime, Rani W/o Munna also came and caught hold her hairs and started quarrelling with her.After hearing noise of the quarrel her husband Pardeep Kumar also reached there and Munna @ Total also came and they started quarrelling, during quarrel with them, Munna called Anwar and Sunder and went to his jhuggi and came with a churiin his hand and Sunder came with leg of cot and told that they will finish Pradeep.Anwar and Rani W/o Munna and her son Rashid gripped her husband Pardeep Kumar and Munna @ Total inflicted knife blow on the chest of her husband Pardeep Kumar and also inflicted on the head on her right side of her husband and Sunder attacked with leg of cot on her husband Pardeep Kumar as a result of which her husband became in pool of blood and fell down and Sunder left the spot, after leaving the leg of cod there.Said other person also left the spot.Her husband Pardeep Kumar expired at the spot.Rani W/o Munna, Rashid S/o Munna, Anwar, Sunder and Munna @ Total had caused the deathof her husband Pardeep Kumar.On the basis of said statement of Smt. Munni Devi a ruqqa was prepared and sent to the police station for registration of F.I.R and on inspection of the dead body said inspector investigated the matter and got the site photographed.Site plan was prepared and the exhibits were taken into possession from the spot.All the accused Munna, Anwar and Sunder were arrested.Munna @ Total made a disclosure statement and got recovered a knife and a case u/s 27/25/54/59 Arms Act was registered.Accused Anwar and Sunder Lal made disclosure statement and all the three accused pointed out the spot.The statement of witnesses were recorded and opinion of doctor was obtained.The appellant's bail bond stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the jail authorities within 7 days.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.The present appeal instituted under the provision of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') assails the judgment dated 21.9.2001 and the order on sentence dated 24.9.2001, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Session Case No. 121/1997, titled as 'State vs. Munna & Ors', emanating from F.I.R No. 222/1997 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to CRL.A.909/2001 Page 1 of 20 as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Jahangirpuri; whereby the appellant, Sunder Lal, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-.In default of the payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to further undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of 2 months.The benefit of section 428, Cr.P.C, has been granted to the appellant.The exhibits were sent to office of F.S.L. the proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. against Rani and Rashid were conducted.After completion of investigation challan U/s 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was prepared and filed before concerned Metropolitan Magistrate."CRL.A.909/2001 Page 2 of 20CRL.A.909/2001 Page 3 of 20Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and charges were framed against the appellant under sections 302 read with 34 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To establish the case against the appellant, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses at trial.The statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the case.The appellant did not lead any defence evidence in his support.Broadly speaking, the Trial court convicted the appellant (along with his co-accused, Munna) on the statement of the eye witnesses, Smt Munni Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-1') and Dalip (hereinafter referred to as 'PW-4') coupled with the circumstantial evidence of post mortem report and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'the FSL').Mr. Akshay Chandra, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, asseverated the innocence of the appellant and that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case.He assails the CRL.A.909/2001 Page 4 of 20 impugned judgment of the Trial court on the following grounds:c. That there were improvements in the evidence of PW-4 in his testimony in court, which were not stated by him to the police in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., to following extent:i. that Rani (wife of the co-accused) held the hair of his mother, PW-1, ii.that Munna stated to Anwar and Sunder that let us finish-off Pradeep (Pradeep ka aaj kaam tamam kar dete hain), iii.d. That PW-1 & PW-4 being the wife of the deceased and the son of the deceased, respectively, were interested witnesses and as such their testimonies could not be considered trustworthy and reliable;e. That the motive to commit the present offence was not proved in the Trial court as only PW-1 alleged the same and no other independent witness or evidence was adduced to establish motive to commit the present offence;f. That no finding was given by the doctor in the post mortem report that, the deceased was hit in the head with the leg of the cot and as such, the appellant could not have been said to have caused the death of the deceased in absence of such finding;g. That common intention under section 34 IPC could not be attributed to the appellant, in the absence of a finding of injury on head of the deceased and that the only act attributed against him was of being called to the spot and going to bring the leg of the cot;Ms. Kolluru also pointed out that, both being injured eye witnesses, their statements have a higher sanctity in law.It is further submitted on behalf of the State that, the appellant was convicted by the Trial court under section 302 read with section 34 IPC; hence, the role of the appellant could not be seen in isolation, but has to be examined in light of the acts and conduct of the other accused persons, as well as his own.We have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record.To effectively adjudicate the present appeal, it is incumbent upon us to reproduce the entire testimony of PW-1 & PW-4, both of CRL.A.909/2001 Page 8 of 20 whom were injured eye-witnesses in the instant case, before the trial court.The testimony of PW-4 is as follows:" S/O ] xU age 13 years r/o LnFmA-1 Market lUa m D ] ] h1] gkSd Dk] h1| The witness is able to give answer to question let his statement be recorded on oath ] DhF1kg I 23.4.07 ] 8 ] D | ] Mother Dairy D a D [ I t D a D D a D |] Wt | ] ] m ] ] m | ] ] m | ] ] m | ] | o ] nWk ] nWk | ] nWk D UmY h| ] nWk | | | , | ] nWk CRL.A.909/2001 Page 10 of 20 D | | ] o e Wk S h1| Xxx by Sh V K Jain Adv ] | ] Nt D | ] D | ] ] | ] ] GNt | ] | D | 25.4.97 ^kW h> | ] Wt D confronted with the statement mark A of the witness where it is not recorded | D hconfronted with mark A statement where it is not recorded.D o confronted with mar A where not recorded | D ] an l] | | h5 LnFm _kSk | D h5 6 DOt | 10-20 6 DOt | ^kW | D o | D h5 D o | D ] h1|"CRL.A.909/2001 Page 10 of 20From a holistic and conjoint reading of the above testimonies which are credible and trustworthy and have not been shaken in cross examination, it is evident that both PW-1 & PW-4 have categorically testified that the appellant came to the spot on being called by Munna (co-accused) and exhorted that, "Pradeep ka aaj kaam tamam kar dete CRL.A.909/2001 Page 11 of 20 hain".It is also unequivocally testified that subsequent to the above exhortation, the appellant went and brought the leg of the cot, struck the deceased on his head, consequent upon which, the deceased collapsed on the spot.CRL.A.909/2001 Page 11 of 20Both, PW-1 & PW-4, are injured eye witnesses.The testimony of an injured eye witness is kept on a higher pedestal and is accorded a special status in law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as (2010) 10 SCC 254, reproduced as follows:"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."So far as the argument of existence of contradictions in the testimony of PW-1, as well as the improvement in the testimony of PW-4 vis--vis his statement under section 161 Cr.CRL.A.909/2001 Page 12 of 20The further argument made by the counsel on behalf of the appellant that PW-1 & PW-4, being the wife of the deceased and son of the deceased, respectively, are interested witnesses, does not appeal to us.However, there shall be no order as to costs.The Trial Court Record be sent back forthwith.Copy of the judgement be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail and also be sent for updation of the records.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) BRIJESH SETHI (JUDGE) AUGUST 21, 2018 dn /ym CRL.A.909/2001 Page 20 of 20CRL.A.909/2001 Page 20 of 20
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,966,046 |
[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] Challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 05.10.2019, passed by the first respondent, branding the detenu viz., Vijayapandian as 'Goonda' in M.H.S.Confdl No.77/2019, the petitioner, mother of the detenu, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.Coming to the defects said to have been committed by the first respondent while passing the impugned detention order, the learned Senior Counsel further canvassed before us that when the detenu surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyoor, on 03.09.2019 he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody upto 06.09.2019 and subsequently, he moved bail application and the same was also pending for consideration, whereas the first respondent, who has passed the impugned detention order, has not been properly guided by the sponsoring authority informing him about the pendency of the bail application.On the other hand, he has wrongly misrepresented that there was no bail application filed.Therefore, the detention order proceeding on the basis that no bail application was pending on the date of passing the same, clearly reflects the non-application of mind 3/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.1127 of 2019 and want of subjective satisfaction, which would certainly vitiate the legality of passing the impugned order of detention.On this score, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.3.Proceeding further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the first respondent has committed yet another fatal error and while comparing the case of the detenu, has wrongly referred to an unconnected case as a similar case.5.Admittedly, when bail was granted to one Muthupandi in Cr.M.P.No. 328 of 2019 on 23.01.2019, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, in the case on hand, the detenu surrendered only on 03.09.2109 and remanded to judicial custody, therefore, passing the impugned order of detention, dated 05.10.2019, cannot be based on the statutory bail order issued under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, which clearly reflects the non-application of mind and want of subjective satisfaction while passing the impugned detention order.On this score, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.The detenu, namely, Vijayapandian, aged about 33 years, son of Muthupandian, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.1127 of 2019 is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.6/7http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD)No.1127 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.AND B.PUGALENDHI, J.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,967,106 |
C. is dismissed.C.C. as per rules.Case diary perused.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.343/2018, registered at Police Station Khajuri Road, District Bhopal, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 376 and 323/34 of the IPC, Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of POCSO Act and 75 Juvenile Justice (Protection & Care of Children)The case of the prosecution is that, a private registered society in the name of Sai Viklang Sanstha, Bairagarh Kala, Bhopal is run by Samajik Nyay Avam Nishaktjan Kalyan Sanchalanalaya, Madhya Pradesh, where 42 boys and 58 girls are registered and used to stay there.Co-accused M.P.Awasthy, Caretaker applicant's husband Vijay Kumar Mishra and other co-accused, who are said to be relative of founder M.P.Awasthy, were involved in exploitation of minor girls and boys and they have tried to outrage the modesty of girls frequently.On that basis and on the direction of Director of the Department, an enquiry committee has been constituted, who had after detailed enquiry submitted a report in which they have confirmed the allegations against the applicant and co-accused persons.On that basis, aforesaid offence has been registered.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.51478/2018 (Smt.Mita Mishra Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent lady and has been falsely implicated in the case.There is no chance of her absconding or tampering with the evidence.She is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court.In view of the aforesaid, it is requested that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the application.Applicant is an employee of the Society and her responsibility was to take care of the girls, but it appears that she had not discharged her duties with responsibility and allowed the outsiders and also the Caretaker M.P.Awasthy to indulge in unlawful activities and never complained about the incidents, which were happening against minor girls to any superior authorities.Some of the witnesses have also uttered against her regarding her misbehaviour and not taking care of them.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the involvement of applicant in the crime and gravity of crime, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.Accordingly, this M.Cr.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,967,341 |
This Appeal has been directed against the Judgment andOrder dated 29th December 2007 delivered by the learned AdhocAdditional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2006,whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the Appellant - Accused ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 2/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)(hereinafter be referred to as 'Accused' for the sake of brevity) for theoffence punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay afine of Rs.1000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, sentenced to suffersimple imprisonment for three months.The Accused further convictedfor the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay afine of Rs.2000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, sentenced to suffersimple imprisonment for three months.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::The prosecution case in brief is that, deceased Padmini wasthe daughter of the complainant PW-1 Kisan Karwate.She got marriedwith the Accused - Prakash and started cohabiting with him at PangraBandi.For about 5-6 months, accused persons treated her properly,however, thereafter they started illtreating her by demanding theamount of Rs.5000/-, which her father had deposited in her name inthe Bank.The deceased told them that the amount was spent in hermarriage, therefore, she should not be asked to bring the said amountfrom her parents.The deceased Padmini used to inform her parentsabout the said harassment, however, her parents pacified her and asked ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 3/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)to cohabit with the Accused.Three months thereafter, the deceasedPadmini visited her parent's house i.e. in the month of May-2006, atthat time she informed her parents about the said illtreatment at thehands of accused persons.At that time the accused came to that placeand fetched her back to her matrimonial home and insisted thecomplainant to send Padmini with him at that point of time only.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::Therefore, the complainant called for his neighbourers,accordingly they came to that place, they also pacified the Accused.TheAccused then said that he would treat Padmini properly and took her tohis house.On 4/8/2006 the complainant received a phone call from hiswife that their daughter had received burn injuries and she was takento the hospital at Akola.Complainant then went to the hospital andcame to know about the death of his daughter.He then lodgedcomplaint (Exh.25) against the Accused.He conducted the inquestpanchanama so also recorded the spot panchanama.The accusedpersons came to be arrested.The statements were recorded by thepolice.The seized articles were sent to the office of Chemical Analyser ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 4/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)for its analysis and after completion of investigation submitted thechargesheet in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Malegaon.Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned trial Judge after recording evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses and hearing both the sides, convicted the Accused asaforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::Mr. Kukde, the learned Counsel for Appellant - Accusedvehemently argued that the learned trial court has not assessed theevidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective andhas erroneously convicted the Accused.It is submitted that sameallegations were made against all the accused persons, however, on thebasis of same set of evidence the learned trial Judge has convicted thepresent Appellant, whereas the other accused were acquitted.It issubmitted that the allegations against the accused persons were that of ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 5/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)harassing Padmini for demand of Rs.5000/- which was deposited bythe complainant in the Bank and admittedly the said amount waswithdrawn by the complainant at the time of the marriage of Padminiwith the Accused - Prakash.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that there isabsolutely no evidence on record to show that the deceased Padminiwas harassed at the hands of Accused in any manner and a false casehas been foisted against him.As against this, the learned APP supported the Judgmentand order delivered by the trial court and submitted that the trial courthas properly assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses.The prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of parents of thedeceased i.e. PW-1 Kisan Karwate, who is father of the deceasedPadmini and PW-2 Deokabai Karwate, who is mother of the deceasedPadmini.The testimony of PW-3 Deepali Karwate and PW-5 DwarkaVyavahare, who are the sisters of the deceased Padmini and PW-4Shashikala Shinde, who is friend of deceased Padmini is on the samelines.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::6/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)The testimony of PW-1 Kisan Karwate, who is the father ofdeceased Padmini, indicates that for about 5-6 months after marriagePadmini was treated properly, however, thereafter accused personsstarted harassing her.They used to demand the amount of Rs.5000/-which PW-1 Kisan had deposited in the Bank.His testimony furthershows that when Padmini refused to bring the said amount, theAccused - Prakash used to beat and abuse her.Once Padmini visitedPW-1 Kisan's house and stayed with him for a week.Thereafter theAccused came to fetch her and insisted Padmini to accompany himimmediately.He abused Padmini.Therefore, PW-1 Kisan called hisneighbourers namely Gajanan and Tulshiram.They convinced theAccused not to harass Padmini and not to demand money.On this, theAccused assured that he would not harass Padmini, and therefore,PW-1 sent his daughter with him.On 4th August 2006 while PW-1 Kisan had gone toJamnagar, his wife informed him telephonically about Padminireceiving burn injuries and her death due to burns.As there was floodto Morna river, he could not reach to the house of Accused.So also his ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 7/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)family members could not reach there.The cross-examination of PW-1Kisan shows that he had deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- each in thename of his two daughters namely, Padmini and Deepali.He withdrewthe amount in the name of Padmini at the time of her marriage.Thesaid version of PW-1 Kisan makes clear that if at all the amountdeposited by him in the name of Padmini was withdrawn by him at thetime of her marriage, that means the said amount was not in the bankafter the marriage of Padmini with the Accused.If that was the case,and if the said amount was withdrawn by PW-1 Kisan, it is not madeclear that accused persons were harassing Padmini for that purpose.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::So also as per the testimony of PW-1 Kisan only once i.e.during the summer season when Padmini came to her parental houseand at that time she had stated about the illtreatment at the hands ofAccused i.e. only once Padmini complained about the said demand atthat time she stayed for a week.Thus, the testimony of PW-1 Kisanmakes clear that only once the accused demanded the said amount.Even if we accept the said case, it is not clear as to why the Accusedhad insisted for the said amount, when the amount was not deposited ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 8/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)in the Bank in the name of Padmini.The testimony of PW-1 Kisan is notconvincing as such and does not conspire confidence.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::The testimony of PW-2 Deokabai, the mother of Padmini isalso on the same lines.So also the testimony of PW-3 Deepali Karwateand PW-5 Dwarka Vyavahare, who are the sisters of Padmini shows thesame version as that of PW-1 Kisan.The testimony of PW-4 Shashikala Shinde, who is the friendof Padmini shows that Padmini was being harassed by her husband andin-laws and used to beat her.Padmini told her that it was difficult forher to lead life.Cross-examination of PW-4 Shashikala further showsthat she has not met Padmini for about three months prior to herdeath.It appears that all the aforesaid witnesses have made generalstatement about the demand of money and the illtreatment suffered byPadmini.Even the evidence of the neighbourer of the complainant alsoshows that Padmini informed him that she was being harassed by theAccused for demand of Rs.5000/- deposited in the Bank.From theevidence of aforesaid witnesses, it is not clear as to what sort ofharassment Padmini had suffered at the hands of Accused - Prakash. ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::9/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)All the witnesses have made general allegations against theAccused.As discussed above, the amount of Rs.5000/- which wasdeposited in the Bank prior to the marriage of Padmini was demandedby the Accused.So far as the death of Padmini is concerned, the spotpanchanama (Exh.35) shows that in the North-East corner of the roomthere was an earthen hearth on which the utensil containing a cookedrice was kept.In the said room, there was a bedding and some burntclothes were found, such as burnt pieces of Saree, used match sticksand match box.So also small kerosene bottle in which there was nokerosene, but a kerosene smell was found.From the aforesaid spotpanchanama, it appears that while cooking, the incident had takenplace.There was no kerosene can found at the place of incident.It is,therefore, not clear as to how the kerosene which might be in the smallbottle was sufficient for catching the fire.The postmortem report(Exh.34) shows the cause of death as 'shock due to burn injury'.The ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 ::: 10/15 386.Apeal.856.08.(Judg)burn injuries were about 74%.The C. A. Report shows residues ofkerosene on partly burnt cloth pieces as well as the empty bottle.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::Now coming to the allegations against the Accused thatthey had ill-treated Padmini which led her to commit suicide, it wouldbe advantageous to go through the provisions under section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::An useful reference can be made of the case Sanju aliasSanjay Singh Sengar V/s State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371wherein a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased.The appellant said to the deceased 'to go and die" and two daysthereafter the deceased committed suicide.She made a suicide note.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::Thus, overall assessment of the evidence shows that there isno convincing and cogent evidence on record to show that Padmini washarassed by the Accused so much so that she was driven to commitsuicide.As already discussed above, the prosecution has failed to provethat Padmini had committed suicide and the spot panchanamaindicates that it was an accidental death.The learned trial court shouldhave assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in itsproper perspective.As such, the interference is called for and theJudgment and Order passed by the learned trial court needs to bequashed and set-aside.Hence, the following order.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.[MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.]Yadav VG ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 10:20:30 :::
|
['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.
|
87,967,680 |
as (Allowed).2020 under Sections 279/304/427 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Md. Samir.... Petitioner....for the Petitioner.Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ms. Purnima Ghosh......for the State.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
87,974,699 |
Ramdhani Paswan, Shift Incharge rushed to the spot and with the help of Jung Bahadur and Bheem Singh, the deceased Prem Singh was sent to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal in a vehicle.However, the deceased Prem Singh had expired.A merg intimation, Ex.P/10 was recorded at Police Station Mandideep, Bhopal on the basis of information given by Radio Operator, Non-Urban Control, Bhopal.On the same day, at about 9.40 a.m., Ramdhani Paswan had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1 that a quarrel took place between the appellant and Prem Singh and therefore, the appellant gave a blow of rubber cutter on the neck of the deceased Prem Singh.The incident was seen by Kamta Prasad (P.W.2), Sohan Yadav, Trilokinath, Ramnath, Arjun Das Sharma and Mahendra Pandey.The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.C.S.Jain (P.W.5) did post- mortem upon the body of the deceased Prem Singh and gave his report, Ex.(Delivered on the 30th day of July, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 3.7.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.44/1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 29.7.1994, at about 00.30 a.m., the deceased Prem Singh as well as the appellant were working in Ralson Factory, Mandideep, which was a tyre factory.Suddenly, the victim sustained an injury on hisA typography photo of the injury was given in the connected document, Ex.P/9-A. He found one stab wound on left side of his neck and one incised wound on right knee of the deceased.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to the Sessions Judge, Raisen.-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that the deceased sustained injuries while he was working on a machine and the appellant was falsely implicated by the office bearers of the factory, so that they could be saved from giving any compensation to the family of the deceased Prem Singh.However, no defence evidence was adduced.Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of the prosecution, acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence under Section 302 of IPC but, convicted him of offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.C.S.Jain (P.W.5) has done post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he found two incised injuries on the body of the deceased.First wound was a stab wound on left neck from Jaw to neck and various vital organs of that place were found cut.Second injury was an incised wound on right knee.Full pant over the right knee was also found cut.According to Dr.C.S.Jain, the deceased could not remain conscious for more than half a minute after getting injury No.1 and he would have died within two minutes of the injuries caused.C.S.Jain did not give any cogent information as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or not.Primarily he gave a opinion that the death of the deceased was-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 homicidal but, in the cross-examination he has accepted that nature of death could be decided on the basis of other evidence.In the present case, Ramdhani Paswan (P.W.1) has stated that he was informed by Sohan Yadav that the appellant gave a blow of knife on the neck of Prem Singh then, he went to the spot and found that blood was oozing from the neck of Prem Singh and therefore, he transmitted the deceased Prem Singh to Hamidia Hospital with help of Jung Bahadur and Bheem Singh.Thereafter, in the morning at about 9.40 a.m., he had lodged the FIR, Ex.P/1, in which he mentioned the name of eye witnesses, such as Sohan Yadav, Trilokinath, Ramnath, Arjun Das Sharma and Mahendra Pandey.The eye witness Kamta Prasad (P.W.2) has turned hostile.He did not claim himself to be an eye witness.According to him, when he went to the spot, the appellant, Sikandar and one witness Ramnath were holding the neck of the deceased covering with some cloth.However, Bihari Shah (P.W.4) has stated that the appellant assaulted the victim Prem Singh.It is surprising that only one eye witness was examined against the appellant whose name was not mentioned in the FIR.Out of the eye witnesses mentioned in the FIR, only one Kamta Prasad was examined.When Kamta Prasad was examined on 4.8.1995, the eye witnesses Ramnath and Arjun Das Sharma have been given up on the same day.Again on the next day, the eye witness Trilokinath was given up and on 9.8.1996, learned Public Prosecutor has expressed that he did not want to examine-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 any of the witnesses except Sub Inspector S.K.Tiwari and therefore, out of so many eye witnesses only Bihari Shah was examined whose name was not mentioned in the FIR.Hence, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution that all the eye witnesses whose names were mentioned in the FIR would not have supported the prosecution's case, if they were examined.Bihari Shah (P.W.4) has accepted that after the incident, he did not inform the concerned supervisor or Manager about the incident and he continued with his work.He has also accepted that he was still working in the same factory when he appeared as a witness.He has also accepted in para 4 of his statement that 3-4 officers of the factory were present in the Court when he was giving his statement before the trial Court.However, his testimony should be assessed on the basis of other circumstantial evidence.Circumstances as proved by the prosecution are adverse to the testimony of Bihari Shah.The FIR, Ex.P/1 was proved as a corroborative piece of evidence.However, Ramdhani (P.W.1) could not give any explanation as to why he did not lodge the FIR at Police Station Mandideep soon after the incident.The incident took place at 00.30 a.m. and FIR was lodged at 9.40 a.m. though the deceased was sent to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal with two labours.There was no reason with-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 Ramdhani for having lodged the FIR, soon after the incident.Initially, he has stated that he himself went to lodge the FIR but, thereafter, he has accepted that he was sent by Makkhan Singh, Manager of the factory alongwith other witnesses to lodge the FIR.According to Bihari Shah, he went with the complainant Ramdhani to the Police Station and all the eye witnesses were kept at Police Station up to 7 p.m. in the evening.It appears that since the management could not decide till morning that what would be the text of the FIR lodged by the supervisor and therefore, Ramdhani was not in a position to lodge the FIR before the police station soon after the incident.Such fact may also be collected from merg intimation, Ex.P/10 in which radio operator of non urban control, Bhopal has given an intimation to Police Station Mandideep that from Ralson Factory, Mandideep, 3-4 persons had brought the deceased Prem Singh to Hamidia hospital and informed that the deceased Prem Singh was caught by a machine having rubber cutter and he was declared dead by the concerned doctor.Ramdhani Paswan (P.W.1) had sent Jung Bahadur and Bheem Singh alongwith the deceased Prem Singh.These two persons have been given up by the prosecution.If Ramdhani was informed that the incident was caused due to assault done by the appellant then, that fact must be in the knowledge of Jung Bahadur and Bheem Singh then, certainly-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 these two persons have given a similar intimation to the Radio Operator, Non Urban Control, Bhopal relating to death of the deceased but, in that intimation it was mentioned that injury was caused due to an accident.If the deceased was caught by a machine and sustained injuries by rubber cutter then, such two injuries were possible to be caused otherwise, the eye witness Bihari Shah did not give any information about the second injury caused to the victim Prem Singh on his knee.Secondly, a rubber cutter is shown to be seized from the appellant by the document, Ex.Sub Inspector S.K.Tiwari (P.W.7) has proved the document, Ex.In the document, Ex.P/4, it is mentioned that a rubber cutter having sharp edges was recovered whose sharp edges were in 'U' shape.Hence, it-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 was necessary for the investigation officer to send the seized article to Dr.C.S.Jain to know as whether the injury of the deceased Prem Singh could be caused by that 'U' shaped rubber cutter? Shri Tiwari did not send that seized rubber cutter to Dr.Jain for his opinion.Looking to the description of injuries caused to the deceased Prem Singh, such injuries could not be caused by that rubber cutter because of its shape on sharp side, if the deceased was assaulted by that rubber cutter then, two parallel injuries should have been caused on the neck of the deceased due to its shape.Under such circumstances, the testimony of eye witness Bihari Shah cannot be believed.Bihari Shah was examined under the pressure of his employers and he was not a named witness in the FIR, whereas all the named eye witnesses were not examined before the trial Court, without giving any reason for their non examination.Hence, in such a circumstance, the chain of circumstantial evidence is to be examined by the Court.Ramdhani Paswan (P.W.1) has stated that he was informed by Sohan that such an incident took place in the factory and thereafter, he went to the spot.At that time, Ramnath and others have held the neck of the deceased Prem Singh with cloth.Ramdhani has stated that the deceased Prem Singh told him about the incident and hence, he tried to establish an oral dying declaration given by the deceased but,-:- 9 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 according to Dr.C.S.Jain (P.W.5) after getting such an injury, the deceased Prem Singh would have become unconscious within half a minute and he would have died within two minutes.After the incident, Sohan went to the place of Ramdhani and informed about the incident then, Ramdhani went to the spot.Hence, in doing so, it cannot be said that Ramdhani went to the spot within half a minute of the incident or the deceased was in a position to give any dying declaration.The evidence of oral dying declaration given by deceased to Ramdhani is nothing but, a bundle of falsehood, which was given by Ramdhani due to pressure of his employers, whereas he was working as a supervisor in the factory.His conduct is visible that he did not lodge the FIR for at least 4-5 hours.Hence, the story of oral dying declaration goes away.Prosecution has tried to prove that weapon of offence was recovered from the appellant.However, Sub Inspector S.K.Tiwari (P.W.7) did not give any reason as to why he took an interested person Ramdhani Paswan as a witness in seizure memo of the weapon.Also, the weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and blood was found on weapon but, the report, Ex.P/13 does not reveal that blood found on the weapon was human blood.Also, when a worker enters in a factory then, certainly he could not take any objectionable material alongwith him and therefore, it was not possible for-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 the appellant to take rubber cutter inside the factory.Bihari Shah has accepted in his cross-examination that deceased Prem Singh was working on a machine, which was automatic.It is not a case of prosecution that a rubber cutter was found loose at the spot and the appellant picked up that rubber cutter and assaulted the victim.Also, the appellant could not take that blood stained rubber cutter with him when he left the factory, whereas the rubber cutter is shown to be recovered from his house.Hence, possibility cannot be ruled out that one rubber cutter was separated by the management of the factory from the machine and it was shown to be seized from the appellant.Ramdhani Paswan (P.W.1) has stated that one rubber cutter was recovered from the appellant before him.However, he has accepted that he did not visit the house of the appellant.Signatures of witnesses were taken by Shri Tiwari in the factory itself.Secondly, description of rubber cutter as given in seizure memo, Ex.P/4 reveals that handle of the rubber cutter was covered with rubber, whereas Ramdhani has stated that handle of the seized rubber cutter was covered with a cloth.Such statement given by Ramdhani indicates that at the time of alleged seizure Ramdhani could not even see the weapon of offence, which was shown to be-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 recovered from the appellant.Under such circumstances, the testimony of Ramdhani as well as Sub Inspector Shri Tiwari cannot be relied and it is not proved beyond doubt that any rubber cutter was recovered from the appellant.-:- 12 -:-Also, Ramdhani Paswan (P.W.1) has accepted in para 4 of his statement that soon after the incident, the appellant was present in the factory.He did not escape.If he would have assaulted the deceased Prem Singh then, he would have been captured by other workers or he would have tried to leave factory premises.At least it was not possible for him to take that blood sustained rubber cutter to his house.His conduct indicates his innocence.-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 in the FIR.The Apex Court found that on assessment of evidence given by two eye witnesses in that case was not believeable, those were introduced to shape the prosecution case.All the named eye witnesses in the FIR did not support the prosecution story.Statement given by one eye witness Bihari Shah was not believable.The appellant could not take any rubber cutter in the factory or separate it from the machine, nor he could take that blood stained rubber cutter to his house .Eye witnesses gave-:- 14 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 the description of causing one injury by the appellant on the neck of the deceased, whereas no reason has been shown by the eye witness as to how the deceased Prem Singh sustained the incised wound on his right knee as found by Dr.When two workers were sent by Ramdhani alongwith the deceased Prem Singh, they intimated about the death of the deceased with an intimation that the deceased died due to an accident.He sustained severe injuries due to rubber cutter affixed in the machine and he was caught in that machine.FIR was not lodged within time.It was highly delayed.Ramdhani and Bihari Shah were under pressure of the management of the factory.Hence chain of circumstantial evidence is not only broken but, it gives opposite indication against the prosecution's case.The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant assaulted the victim Prem Singh by any weapon or he caused his death.Under these circumstances, possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased Prem Singh sustained injuries due to an accident.He was caught by an automatic machine and sustained injuries on his neck as well as on knee and the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter, so that the management could be saved from giving any compensation to the Legal Representatives of the deceased Prem Singh.-:- 15 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1555 of 1997 could not prove its case beyond doubt that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck, causing his death.Under these circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Sections 302 or 304 of IPC or any inferior offence of the same nature including offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is acceptable and hence, it is accepted.Conviction as well as sentence recorded by the trial Court of offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC against the appellant Sikandar Singh is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges appended against him.The appellant is on bail.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 30/7/2015 Pushpendra
|
['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.
|
87,974,905 |
ECG was showing straight line.On local examination, strangulation mark on her neck.Patient declared brought dead and body handed over to police.I prepared MLC No. 10558/11 which is Ex. PW 12/A bearing my signature at point."Bruise 3.7 X 1.7 cm was present at left cheek 2.4 cm below left eye on dissection infiltration of blood was present.Linear reddish brown abrasion 3.5 X 0.1 cm horizontally placed at left side of neck , 2.5 cm below left angle of mandible and 2 cm below injury No.1 .A. 1667/2014 Page 7 of 22Linear reddish brown abrasion 3.3 X 0.1 cm was present at midline of neck, vertically placed just below the litigature mark and 4.5 cm above sterna notch.xxxxxx OPINION:PW18/A which bears my signature at point A."PW18 in his cross examination stated as under:"It is correct that postmortem was conducted on 09.04.2011 at about 12:45 pm and the time since death was assessed about from 12 hours to 24 hours."My daughter Asma Khatoon and her husband/accused came to my house.They stayed together for 8-10 minutes and accused alone left my house and my daughter remained with me.After 10-15 minutes, accused came to my house and took the key of his house from my daughter and he left my house.My daughter Asma Khatoon followed him.At about 11.30 am accused came again to my house and asked me to prepare yellow rice, I prepared the same.Accused again attended the call and replied back that Asma is still sleeping BEKHABAR.I thought there maybe a quarrel between them and that is why my daughter is not talking to me.Thereafter the accused disconnected my mobile.Thereafter I went to my bed and slept.At about 3.30 pm, accused came to my house and woke me up and asked me to come to his house and to see Asma.Accused told me that colour of body of Asma has turned blue.I along with accused rushed to his house and on Crl. A. 1667/2014 Page 14 of 22 reaching there I saw my daughter was lying on bed and her head was hanging downside.I also saw blood oozing from her nose and mouth.I started weeping.Accused again attended the call and replied back that Asma is still sleeping BEKHABAR' in her cross examination she reiterated her stand and affirmed that 'it was not told by the accused Azim Khan to me that the deceased was sleeping at her matrimonial home BEKHABAR'.This portion of the testimony goes on prove that there was an admission on the part of the appellant that the deceased was Crl. A. 1667/2014 Page 16 of 22 present in his house and was sleeping.It is further wrong to suggest that accused Azim brought the deceased to my clinic."From the perusal of the testimonies of the aforesaid two witnesses it has come on record that at about 03:30 pm the appellant was with the deceased and he had informed the brother of the deceased that Aashma Khatoon was not well and was being taken to the hospital.PW8 Dr. Asifa who initially examined the deceased in her examination in chief as well as cross examination categorically took a firm stand that the appellant had visited her clinic at 04:00 pm.The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2014 and order on sentence dated 01.11.2014 passed by Ms. Savita Rao, Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in Sessions Case No. 65/2011, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.It would be necessary to set out the brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal.The brief facts as noted by the trial court are as under:A. 1667/2014 Page 1 of 22On 08.04.2010, on receipt of DD no. 33 PP Jharoda, P.S. Burari, regarding admission of deceased Asma in Jaipur Golden Hospital and she having been declared brought dead by the doctors, Inspector Hari Kishan alongwith his staff reached at the spot at House no. 673, Gali no-4 Sangam Vihar and conducted investigation during which it transpired that some scuffle had taken place between accused and deceased immediately before the incident.No eye witness to the incident was found and on the basis of MLC of deceased, instant FIR u/s 302 IPC was registered.During investigation of the case, IO prepared site plan, got the scene of crime inspected through crime team, recorded statements of witnesses, got the postmortem examination on dead body of deceased conducted, arrested accused Aazim Khan and made efforts to search co-accused Nazim@Nasim Mulla but he could not be traced.Exhibits of the case were sent to FSL for expert opinion and after completion of investigation, instant charge sheet u/s 302/34of the IPC was filed in the court."It is pertinent to mention at this stage that as per the case of the prosecution the deceased was murdered by the appellant herein with the assistance of his friend Nazim.He was also arrayed as a co- accused in the FIR but as on date he is absconding from the clutches of law.After the investigation was complete, charges under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case.However, no evidence Crl.A. 1667/2014 Page 2 of 22 was led in his defence.It was admitted by the appellant in his statement that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 08.04.2011, he left his home at about 08.30 am to go to his work place which is at a distance of 14 kilometers from his house where he remained throughout the day and on being informed telephonically regarding the incident at about 4 pm, he came back to his house and reached the clinic of Dr. Asif at about 4.30 pm.The appellant further stated that a robbery was committed in his house six months prior to the incident and may be it was a second attempt in which the deceased had resisted the robbery and was murdered.Crl. A. 1667/2014 Page 2 of 22A. 1667/2014 Page 3 of 22Counsel for the State further submitted that the prosecution has proved the motive as well as last seen circumstance and therefore, the circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly establish the guilt of the appellant.Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof.While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it."Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to show that all the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence.A. 1667/2014 Page 6 of 22PW18 Dr. Asitesh Bajwa who conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased on 09.04.2011 deposed in his examination in chief that:"On 09.04.2011 he was posted as a Sr. resident, Subzi Mandi Mortuary, AAA Hospital, Delhi and conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Asma Khan, 26 years female, wife of Asma Khan.xxxxxxx External Injuries:Reddish brown imprint abrasion was en-circulating the neck.It was horizontally placed at the level just below thyroid cartilage, spring areas over left side of neck just lateral to midline of neck at front, at areas over nap of neck and right side of neck, 5.3 cm below right ear.Width of ligature mark at front of midline of neck was 0.5 cm, 7 cm below center of chin, 1.1 cm at right side of neck, 5.6 cm below right angle of mandible, 2.1 cm at left side of neck, 5.5 cm now left angle of mandible, 1.5 cm at nap of neck , 7 cm below posterior hair line.Reddish brown presented crescentric abrasion 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm was present at left side of nose, 0.8 cm from tip of nose.Reddish brown presented crescentric abrasion 0.5 X 0.4 cm was present at left side of face, 3.8 cm lateral to chin at midline.Bruise 2.1 X .5 cm was present at bridge of nose on dissection infiltration of blood was present.All the injuries were ante-mortem in origin.The cause of death in this case in my opinion was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature.Time since death was about 12-24 hours.Viscera for chemical analysis, blood in gauze piece and nail clippings along with inquest papers were handed over to IO.My detailed report is Ex.If the deceased was declared brought dead by Dr. Asifa, the PW8 at about 4 pm on 08.04.2011 and the deceased was further declared brought dead by PW12 Dr. Pradeep Dua at about 5 pm in Jaipur Golden Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW12/A then the period of occurrence comes from 08.04.2011 12.45 pm to 4 pm on 08.04.2011."The evidence of PW12 and the contents of the postmortem show that the deceased had died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem Crl.A. 1667/2014 Page 8 of 22 strangulation.Indisputably, the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature.A. 1667/2014 Page 8 of 22Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant was living heapily with the deceased and his two children and there was no reason or motive for the appellant to commit the murder of his own wife.In this context, it is relevant to examine the evidence of the relevant witnesses i.e. PW3 Gore Khan (brother of the deceased), PW6 Aamir Khan (brother of the deceased) and PW11 Amir Jahan (mother of the deceased).PW3 Gore Khan, brother of the deceased in his examination in chief deposed as under:"On 8.4.2011 my younger sister Soni made a telephone call on my mobile and she told that face of Asma had swelling.I told Soni to take Asma to Jaipur Golden Hospital for medical examination.My mother Amir Jahan and some neighbours brought Asma to Jaipur Golden Hospital.There was mark on the neck of Asma.Police was called and the police official made enquiries from me.I told to the police that my sister had strained relations with my brother in law Azim Khan.I told them that my sister was living with her husband from last 8 years.I used to visit the house of my sister Asma.About four days ago before the death of Asma, I had gone to the house of my sister Asma.She was normal on that day.She did not tell me anything.I also visited the house of my sister two days prior to her death, she was normal on that day also."This witness in his cross examination stated as under:"It is wrong to suggest that on 8.04.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening I myself had informed accused Azim Khan had no love affair with my younger sister Soni @ Crl. A. 1667/2014 Page 9 of 22 Sabana nor he was having any physical relationship with my younger sister.It is correct that none of my family member has stated any such thing to the police and police themselves had made the story to solve the case and to create a motive.It is correct that as per religious laws, four marriages are permissible without divorce."A. 1667/2014 Page 9 of 22PW6 Aamir Khan, brother of the deceased in his examination in chief deposed that:"Accused Azim Khan used to harass my sister Aashma Khatoon and accused used to say my sister that he would marry with some other female an would leave her.Accused used to say my sister that she is not of his liking.Whenever I visited at the house of my sister Aashma Khatoon, accused used to abuse my sister."Witness in his cross examination also deposed in the same line and stated that:"I had stated to the police that accused used to say that my sister was not of his liking and accused would desert her.XXXX My sister used to be harassed by the accused off and on but I cannot tell the specific dates of such instance."From the perusal of the above testimonies, it has come on record that all the aforesaid witnesses have deposed on the same lines and stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and atrocities at the hands of the appellant.It has further emerged from their testimony that the appellant disliked the deceased and even tried to poison the deceased on an earlier occasion.On conjoint reading of the above testimonies, would show that both the appellant and deceased had a strained relationship and the appellant had adequate motive to eliminate his wife.A. 1667/2014 Page 10 of 22Last Seen TheoryLearned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the last seen theory.Learned counsel for the State rebutted the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to last seen theory and laid emphasis on the testimony of PW11 mother of the deceased.It was Friday, I asked my younger daughter to call accused and my daughter Asma.My younger daughter made a call on the mobile of Asma which was attended by the accused who told me that Asma is sleeping and I may come alone.I asked him to come with children and to eat yellow rice.Accused along with children came and ate the yellow rice.I asked him why he is sad.Accused along with children went from my house.Thereafter I addressed Friday prayer and I made a call on the mobile of my daughter to enquire about her.I asked accused what happened to her and even I slept (sic) accused.I came back to my house for taking dupatta which I was not wearing at that time."A. 1667/2014 Page 14 of 22PW11 in her cross examination deposed as under:-"it is correct that the facts deposed by me on 08.10.2012 regarding visits of deceased and accused at my home, stayed for 8-10 minutes, accused left my house alone, my daughter remained at me at 11:30 am.Accused came again and asked me to prepare yellow rice and accused came again to my house at 03:30 pm are pertaining to the zumma one week prior to the day of occurrence.XXXXX I had told to the police in my statement that my daughter Asma Khatoon and her husband/accused came to my house and they stayed together for 8-10 minutes and accused alone left my house and my daughter remained with me (confronted with Ex-PW11/DA and Ex- PW11/DB where it is not so recorded.) I had told to the police in my statement that after 10-15 minutes accused came to my house and took the keys of his house from my daughter and he left my house and my daughter Asma Khatoon followed him.I had also told to the police that at about 11:30am accused came again to my house an asked me prepare yellow rice (confronted with Ex-PW11/DA and Ex-PW11/DB where it is not so recorded).I had told to the police in my statement that I thought that there may be a quarrel between them and that is why my daughter is not talking to me and therafter accused disconnected my mobile, thereafter I went to my bed and slept.(confronted with Ex-PW11/DA and Ex-PW11/DB where it is not so recorded).I had also told to the police in my statement that at about 03:30pm accused came to my house and woke me up.(confronted with Ex-PW11/DA and Ex-A. 1667/2014 Page 15 of 22I had also told to the police in my statement that I alongwith accused rushed to his house and on reaching there I saw that my daughter was lying on bed and her head was hanging to the down side and I also saw blood oozing from her nose and mouth and I started weeping and I asked accused what happened to her and even I slapped accused.XXXXXXX' It is also wrong to suggest that on the day of occurrence, it was not told by the accused Azim Khan to me that the deceased was sleeping at her matrimonial home BEKHABAR"From the scrutiny of the above testimonies we find that PW11 mother of the deceased deposed in her examination in chief that 'After 10-15 minutes, accused came to my house and took the key of his house from my daughter and he left my house.My daughter Asma Khatoon followed him' again in the cross examination she reiterated her stand by deposing that 'after 10-15 minutes accused came to my house and took the keys of his house from my daughter and he left my house and my daughter Asma Khatoon followed him'.Deposition of mother establishes the fact that on the fateful day when the appellant left the house of PW11, the deceased followed him.PW11 further deposed that 'I made a call on the mobile of my daughter to enquire about her.As per the postmortem report also the deceased died on 08.04.2011 between 12.45 pm to 4 pm.A. 1667/2014 Page 16 of 22What is to be seen is whether the version of PW11 presented in the court was substantially similar to what was said during investigation.It is only when exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the case, the court has to consider whether the witness was stating the truth or not.In our view PW11 mother of the deceased the witness to last seen evidence categorically and explicitly described all the events which took place on the date of the incident.Her testimony establishes the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and the time gap was not so long to make the last seen theory redundant.Thus the prosecution has been fairly successful in proving the circumstance of last seen against the appellant.Plea of alibiLearned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant has taken a categorical stand that on the day of incident he left the home at about 08:30 am and returned from his workplace at 04:00 pm on being informed telephonically about the incident.PW6 Aamir Khan brother of the deceased deposed in his examination in chief that:-"In the month of April in 2011, in the first week of that month, I do not remember the date, at about 03:30- 04:00 pm accused made a call at my mobile no. 7428232624 and told me that Aashma Khatoon is not feeling well and she is being taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital."A. 1667/2014 Page 17 of 22PW8 Dr. Asifa who initially examined the deceased deposed in her examination in chief that:-"Accused Azim, present in the cover today (correctly identified) who resides in our back lane came to my clinic on 08.04.2011, at about 4 pm and asked me to medically examine his wife at his residence as she was not well.I reached at his residence and found his wife Asma dead.I told this fact to some persons who had already collected there."This witness in her cross examination stated as under:" I am running my clinic along with my husband for last 7 years, I am B.U.M.S. It is correct that I did not examine the pulse rate, blood pressure, heart beat and status of pupils of deceased Asma.Volunteer, on the basis of color of her skin which had turned bluish, I opined her to be dead.It is wrong to suggest that the deceased had already been brought to my clinic by her family members or that subsequently at about 4.30 pm, accused Azim came to my clinic.I cannot tell whether accused Azim accompanied the deceased to Jaipur Golden Hospital.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely with regard to presence of accused at my clinic at 4 pm.It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely with regard to presence of accused at my clinic at 4pm.A. 1667/2014 Page 18 of 22 Moreover, a conjoint reading of testimonies of PW6, PW8 and PW11 establishes the fact that the appellant was present at his house in the company of the deceased from 08:00am to 04:00 pm.Thus, the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant in relation to presence of the appellant at his workplace does not hold ground.In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra: 1992CriLJ1545 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house.Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed.
|
['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.
|
1,407,634 |
JUDGMENT A. Alagiriswami, J.1.This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras confirming the sentence of death passed on the appellant.Hussain Khan, had some lands which the appellant and his father had been cultivating for some years.They fell into arrears in respect of the lease amount due to the landlady.The prosecution case was that on 5-1-70 when P. Ws. 1 to 5 went to harvest the second crop raised by P.W. 3, the appellant and others came and at tacked the persons who were harvest ing the crop which resulted in the death of one Velayudhan.The contention on behalf of the appellant and others was that they had never sur rendered the possession of the land, that they had themselves raised the crop and the landlord was trying to evict them with the help of P. Ws. 1, to 5 and when P. Ws. 1-5 tried to harvest the crop and the appellant and others objected to it these prosecution witnesses joined together and beat up the appellant and others.Both the Courts below examined the question of the possession of the land at great length and came to the conclusion that P.W. 3 was in possession of land and had cultivated the crop and that the appellant's party were the aggressOrs.The question as to who was in possession of the land assumes considerable importance in the circumstances of the case.The special leave has been granted limited to the question regarding the nature of the offence, if any, of which the appellants could be convicted.If the finding of the Courts be low that P.W. 3 was in possession should be upheld then it is obvious that the appellant will have nothing to say in his favour.If on the other hand it is held that he had not surrendered the possession of the land and did continue to be in possession and raised the crop and the prosecution party had tried forcibly to harvest the crop, then the question of the appellant's party's right of private defence would arise.We have carefully gone through the evidence and are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts bellow regarding the possession of the land has been arrived at only by ignoring certain relevant pieces of evidence.It may be argued that the fact that only the counter lease deed (Ex. P-2) was produced and not the original lease deed, may not be of any importance.So also the fact that there was no document to evidence surrender of possession by the appellant's party of the land which they earlier had under their possession.But it is difficult to believe that having voluntarily surrendered possession of the land on 16-2-69 and not having raised any objection either at the time when the P.W. 3 raised the first crop or harvested it or even when he raised the second crop the appellant's party would take it into their heads for the first time to object when the second crop was about to be harvested nearly a year after the alleged voluntary surrender.In his examination under Section 342 the appellant had stated before the Sessions Court that he was cultivating the land.On his examination before the committing Magistrate he had stated that he went and shouted why they were harvesting what he had cultivated.In that the appellant and his father Armugham are said to have shouted "You mother seducers, we have taken the field on pattom.Don't harvest." In his evidence also P.W. 1 has stated that the "accused said that they had cultivated that field and objected to our harvesting that field", though he also stated that he had previously harvested the field as requested by P.W. 3 and the accused did not object to his harvesting at that time.That, as we said earlier is difficult to believe.There is the further admission by this witness that after 20 days of the occurrence the accused themselves harvested the paddy from that field.Inspector of Police was not even asked whether this evidence of the two witnesses was true or not.It would seem to disprove the prosecution case that P.W. 3 was in possession.P.W. 3 himself has admitted that the accused said that he should not harvest the land saying they were previous lessees.P.W. 4 has also given evidence to that effect.Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 that the accused did not object to the harvesting cannot be accepted.It may also be mentioned that it had been suggested to P.W. 2 that he and his associates were out to evict the accused from paddy field on behalf of P.W. 10 and they created the quarrel and in that quarrel Velayudhan died.It was suggested to P.W. 3 that his party had attempted to harvest the land in spite of the protests of the accused and that led to assault between the accused on the one hand and P.W. 3 and his co-workers on the other, and in the confused melee Velayudhan sustained injuries.To P.W. 5 also the suggestion was put that he and others were engaged by P.W. 10 to evict the party of the accused.That these suggestions were not wholly baseless is evident from what we have discussed above.The behavior of P.W. 3 is very significant.He did not enquire before he took the land on lease from P.W. 10 as to who was cultivating the land.He also did not enquire as to what rent was paid by the previous lessees.He did not pay any advance rent by way of deposit.As the appellant and his father were said to be in arrears for 3 years it is unlikely that P.W. 10 would have leased the land to P.W. 3 without any deposit.He is a mere cooly.It is not suprising, therefore, that it was suggested to him that he and his father in-law helped land owners to get their lessees evicted! from their land and that he was paid by P.W. 10 to evict the accused from the land and on such payment he and others went to the land to harvest the paddy crop.His uncle, P.W. 2 stated that he and P.W. 3 would go for cooly work.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,407,700 |
ORDER Ravindra Singh, J.This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16-8-2002, passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002, whereby the order dated 24-4-2002, passed by learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda was set aside and the record was sent back to the Court of learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Banda and order dated 19-9-2003 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003, whereby the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 was allowed and the order dated 17-4-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Judicial Magistrate, Banda taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, IPC and summoning the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 to face the trial in the abovementioned offences in Criminal Case No. 81/IX of 2002, was set aside.Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Banda on 14-12-2001 and the S.O. of the Police Station Marka was directed to register the case and investigate the same.After doing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report dated 29-1-2002 mentioning therein that the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 8 were falsely implicated.Against that final report, the petitioner filed a protest petition along with affidavit.Thereafter the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Banda after considering the evidence collected by Investigating Officer, came to the conclusion that prima facie offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, IPC is made out against the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 8 and there is sufficient ground to proceed further.The order dated 24-4-2002 was challenged by the accused persons by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002, the same was allowed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) on 16-8-2002 by observing that it was proper for the Magistrate to record the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. treating the protest petition as complaint and the record of the case was again sent back to the Court of learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of the law.Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Banda, in pursuance of the order dated 16-8-2002 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special judge (E.C. Act), recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses Surendra Singh and Indra Pal were recorded under Sections 202, Cr.The order dated 17-4-2003 was challenged by the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 8 by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003, the same was allowed by learned Addl.Against that order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.That order was set aside by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002 on 16-8-2002 by observing that it was necessary, to record the statement of the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under Sections 202, Cr.In the light of the observations made by the revisional Court vide order dated 16-8-2002, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and the statements of two witnesses under Section 202, Cr.In the present case, the FIR was lodged by the petitioner and after doing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report, against that final report, the petitioner filed a protest petition.This order was suffering from illegality so the revisional Court set aside this order on 16-8-2002 in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002, on the ground that the petitioner had filed a protest petition along with his affidavit and the same was considered by learned Magistrate.From perusal of the order dated 16-8-2002, passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002, whereby the revision filed by accused was allowed, it appears that the learned revisional Court has not passed the specific order remitting the matter to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order.Therefore, the order dated 16-8-2002 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002 is illegal.From the perusal of the order dated 17-4-2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda, it is apparent that he had recorded the statements of the petitioner and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. in the light of the observations made by the revisional Court vide its order dated 16-8-2002 and took cognizance and summoned the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to face the trial.So there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 17-4-2003 but the revisional Court set aside the order dated 17-4-2003 by allowing the Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003 on 19-9-2003 filed by the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 only on the ground that the learned Magistrate had treated the protest petition as a complaint.From the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 19-9-2003, it appears that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda has not applied its judicial mind and passed an illegal order on the following grounds :--(i) The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda had recorded the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the order passed by the revisional Court, thereafter he took the cognizance and summoned the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to face the trial;(ii) Whenever a final report is filed in the Court by the police, the notice is sent to the first informant for filing the protest petition, against that final report if the protest petition is filed by the first informant.Thereafter, if the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie any offence is made out against the accused and there is sufficient ground to proceed further against the accused.The order dated 16-8-2002, passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2002 is also under challenge in the present writ petition.It will not be proper to pass any order against the order dated 16-8-2002 because in pursuance of the observations made in the abovementioned order, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Banda had recorded the statements of the petitioner and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.The respondent Nos. 2 to 8 had challenged the order dated 17-4-2003 by filing Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003 which was allowed on 19-9-2003 by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda.The petitioner had not challenged the order dated 16-8-2002 immediately thereafter and subsequently some other order as mentioned above had been passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda and learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda which is under challenge.In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 19-9-2003, passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Banda in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003 is illegal and hereby set aside and the order dated 17-4-2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Criminal Complaint Case No. 81/IX of 2002, Yogendra Singh v. Kamal Singh, taking cognizance and summoning the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, IPC is affirmed and learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Banda is directed to proceed further in the aforesaid case, in accordance with the provisions of the law.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,077,379 |
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):Mahendra Kumar aged 21 years working as helper-cum-conductor on bus bearing registration no.His father Tika Dass lodged a missing report vide DD no.41-B at 11:15 PM on 09.08.1988 with police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi.On 10.08.1988 at the instance of his father Tika Dass, first information report (FIR) no.173/1988 was registered in police station Kalyanpuri for investigation into the offence under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the basis of suspicion that he had been possibly abducted.In the course of investigation into the said FIR by the police, it came to be revealed that Mahendra Kumar had died in circumstances that seemingly indicated death suffered due to injuries in road traffic accident.His dead body having been found on 11.08.1988 in the jurisdictional area of Sector-20, Noida, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, it was sent for post-mortem examination.FAO No. 506/2003 Page 1 of 4Tika Dass filed a claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) seeking compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the MV Act, 1939), inter-alia, stating that the death had occurred due to involvement of two buses one bearing registration no.DEP-6563 and the other bearing registration no.According to the case set up, Mahendra Kumar was employed as helper-cum-conductor of bus registration no.DEP-6563 of Raman Grover (first respondent in the appeal) and that it was involved in a collision against the other bus no.It was submitted that the collision had taken place on account of negligent driving on the part of Mahesh Kumar and Jagat Singh, drivers (fourth & fifth respondent herein) who were respective drivers of the two buses.It was stated that bus no.DEP-7226 was owned by Ranvir Singh (second respondent herein) and was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd. (sixth respondent herein).Upon notices being issued, sixth respondent (the insurer) of bus no.DEP-7226 appeared to admit that there was an insurance cover taken against the third party risk in respect of the said vehicle.The third respondent (owner of bus DEP-7226) appeared and filed written statement only to say that the vehicle was subject to insurance cover.The other parties impleaded as respondents, however, chose to suffer the proceedings exparte.FAO No. 506/2003 Page 2 of 4While the inquiry was under way, the original claimant Tika Dass died.His legal heirs including his widow Tara Dai and son Anand Tika Dass Ramtake were substituted in his place and prosecuted the matter further.During the inquiry, the son of the original claimant appeared as solitary witness (PW1).The insurance company (sixth respondent), however, subsequently suffered the proceedings exparte.The tribunal by judgment dated 04.03.2003 held that the allegations of rash/negligent driving on the part of the drivers of two vehicles had not been proved as the sole witness (PW1) was not an eye witness and was not in a position to vouchsafe sequence of events that had led to the alleged collision.It was further held that no other documentary proof had been adduced from which negligence on the part of the drivers of either of two vehicles could be inferred.With such finding returned, the tribunal proceeded to grant award in the sum of `25,000/- on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the MV Act, 1939 and directed the sixth respondent (the insurer) to pay with interest the said amount within the period specified apportioning the same amongst the two claimants who had taken over the proceedings on being substituted upon the death of the original claimant Tika Dass.The appeal at hand was filed to question the above result of the claim petition mainly contending that the tribunal should have applied the principle of 'res ipsa loquitor' and on that basis held that the accident had occurred due to fault on the part of the drivers of the two buses and calculated the compensation payable in accordance with law on fault FAO No. 506/2003 Page 3 of 4 liability rather than restricting it to the award on principle of no fault liability.FAO No. 506/2003 Page 3 of 4During the pendency of this appeal, Tara Dai, widow of original claimant Tika Dass also died.The appeal has been prosecuted further by the legal heirs.At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the claimants do not know or have access to any clear evidence as to the negligence on the part of drivers of any of the two buses mentioned in the claim petition.He submitted that no eye witness could be brought out since the police had not been able to unearth the entire set of circumstances in which Mahendra Kumar had suffered the fatal injuries.He pointed out with reference to DD no.41-B dated 09.08.1988 and the FIR that was registered later and the police proceedings relating to the discovery of the dead body to submit that the claimants till date have not been able to find out the entire truth nor have come across any relevant witness.In above facts and circumstances, the view taken by the tribunal cannot be faulted.In absence of any material showing negligent driving on the part of any of the drivers compensation on the principle of fault liability could not have been awarded.The appeal is dismissed.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 26, 2016 ssc FAO No. 506/2003 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,779,618 |
It is stated that the deceased Ram Kalav was pulling a rickshaw / rehri loaded with tiles at Karkari Flyover, Read No.57, Patpar Ganj, Delhi and was involved in an accident with a car being driven by the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.4015/2014 Page 1 of 7 Arshad Ali, as a result of which, Ram Kalav got injured, and he was removed from the accident spot to the MAX Hospital, Patpar Ganj, Delhi by the petitioner / accused himself.Further, the petitioner is also stated to have paid the entire medical bill of the hospital raised towards the treatment of Ram Kalav.M.C. No.4015/2014 Page 1 of 7This petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the FIR No.206/2013 registered under Section 279/304-A IPC at Madhu Vihar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner / accused and respondents 2 to 8, all of whom are stated to be the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kalav.Issue notice.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, and Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate for the complainant, enter appearance and accept notice.It is stated that the matter has thereafter been amicably compromised as recorded on 31.05.2013 before the MACT Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi.A copy of the said order has also been annexed to this petition.M.C. No.4015/2014 Page 5 of 7I am of the opinion that a quietus be given to the matter since the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Kalav, who died because of the unfortunate accident, have settled the matter on terms with the petitioner and are not interested in pursuing the same any further; and in view of the fact that the petitioner, who is now stated to be pursuing the M.B.A. degree, had acted in a responsible manner by removing the injured Ram Kalav to the hospital, where he got him admitted and also paid for his treatment.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.206/2013 registered under Section 279/304-A IPC at Madhu Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.M.C. No.4015/2014 Page 6 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,782,110 |
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 2, 2014 in connection with Serampore Police Station Case No. 125 of 2014 dated March 4, 2014 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of I. E. Act.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.)
|
['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.
|
140,784,066 |
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-3 Jalaun at Orai has convicted all the four appellants of having committed the alleged offence of murder of one Smt. Priti aged about 20 years, the wife of the appellant Ashok Kumar to whom she was married a year ago.The husband his two brothers Pappu and Prabhat as well as their father Om Prakash had been charged under the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 304 B read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act initially, but later on after recording the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution particularly, P.W.1 to P.W.5 and the Court having declared them hostile at the instance of the prosecution, the charges were altered under Section 302/34 IPC, and consequently all the appellants were tried simultaneously in Session Trial No. 254 of 2009 along with Session Trial No. 255 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2009 and were finally convicted with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.In the absence of deposit of fine, the appellants have to undergo further two months imprisonment.Aggrieved all the appellants have joined together in this appeal and have prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the trial Court as mentioned above mainly canvassing that the deceased had committed suicide being frustrated of her ailment and inability to bear a child.The prosecution story in brief is, that information was received at the Police Station through a written report dated 12.07.2009 of Ram Kumar, the village Chaukidar who has been examined as P.W.3 about the incident having occurred at 11:00 am on the same day.According to the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the death of Smt. Priti was caused on account of burning.The inquest report gave a description of the status of the site and the burn injuries.A site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer namely the Circle Officer Mr. Arun Sirohi which is dated 16th July, 2009 and was exhibited as Exhibit-Ka-6 on record.The post-mortem was carried out on the next day on 13th July, 2009, and the same is exhibited as Exhibit-Ka-3 on record.The prosecution made a request for declaring the witnesses hostile and they were declared as such.Thereafter the deposition of P.W.1 was continued on recall on 25th October, 2010 whereafter the formal witnesses including Dr. Avnish Kumar who carried out the autopsy and the concerned Police Officials including the Investigating Officer P.W.9, P.W.10 were all examined.Resultantly the only conclusion that could be arrived at was the involvement of the accused, the probability whereof was eminent looking to the cause of death due to burning and the near proximity of the accused residing under the same roof.The trial Court further held that the accused were unable to discharge their burden by giving any explanation or coming forward with any explanation about the circumstances in which the deceased could have possibly committed suicide in view of the stand taken by the accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased on account of a long ailment and not being able to produce a child had developed a frustration that led her to commit suicide.This factum as suggested on behalf of the defence in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken to be an additional incriminating circumstance to conclude that the appellants having failed to discharge their burden or having proved suicide, the same clearly pointed to the involvement of the accused.The trial Court also assessed the evidence in relation to the broken door of the premises of the room in which the dead body was found.The trial Court noticed that there was only one door in the room for any passage that has been recorded in the inquest report about which there is no explanation by the defence, nor any cross-examination has been conducted in order to counter the existence of such fact leading to the inference that the said premises could not have been entered into otherwise also by any one else apart from the household inmates.When the charge came to be altered at the instance of the prosecution, the testimony upon cross examination was found by the trial court to be acceptable to the extent that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden of bringing the circumstances on record that were sufficient to establish the links of the chain of events to establish that it was a case of homicide amounting to murder.Accordingly, the onus shifted on the defence to explain as to how and in what circumstances, the deceased met her death.The trial Court after assessing the natural circumstances that could have led to the happening of the incident and the conduct of the accused came to the conclusion that the defence that had set up a plea of suicide and the issue of ailment of the deceased having failed to establish the same, this was not a case of suicide but was of homicide.Consequently, assessing the circumstances, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the involvement of the accused cannot be ruled and the excuse set up by them was unbelievable.The trial court, therefore, took the view that the absconding of the appellants from the scene of occurrence was by itself a sufficient indication that they had realized the consequences of the guilt.In view of the attending circumstances and the corroborative material on record including the inquest and post-mortem report, there was no doubt that the deceased had been done to death by a deliberate act of burning.The written report of Ram Kumar who is PW-4 and is a Village Chaukidar recites that at about 11.00 a.m. on 12.07.2009 he was informed of the death of Preeti, aged about 20 years wife of the appellant Ashok Kumar, by caste Barber, to the effect that she had died due to burn injuries.It also recites that the members of the family had run away leaving behind the dead body inside the premises.The information was being tendered for appropriate action.The cause of death in the opinion of the witnesses to the said inquest were burn injuries but in order to know the real cause of death, the body wad advised to be sent for post mortem.The body was received in a sealed bundle and was described as one day old.This led to the harassment of his daughter and in order to resolve the controversy, after having come to know of these complaints from his daughter, he along with one of his cousin in-laws Santosh went to the house of his daughter and tried to satisfy the members of the family that he had done whatever was within his means.On 15.07.2009 he was informed that the in-laws of his daughter on 12.07.2009 had set fire to his daughter after sprinkling kerosene oil and she had died.On receiving the said information he had rushed to his daughter's place where he was informed that the dead body had been sent for post-mortem to Orai consequently he was tendering his written information report taking appropriate action.The First Information Report, therefore set out the case of dowry death.The charge-sheet was filed against three of the appellants dated 3rd September 2009 and against the appellant Om Prakash which is dated 25th September, 2009 after they had surrendered in Court.He, however denied the entire story relating to the dowry death of his daughter and on the request of the ADGC Criminal, on such statement being given, he was declared hostile whereafter the cross-examination commenced by the Government prosecutor.The defence cross examined him thereafter and according to the statement of PW-1, the information about the death of the deceased was given by the appellant Ashok Kumar.It was also stated that when he arrived at the house of his daughter, he found that the doors of the room, from where the dead body was recovered, was broken.He further stated that the deceased had caught fire while she was trying to lift the can of the kerosene oil which fell on her and therefore neither Ashok Kumar nor his family members can be held guilty for the same.He also stated that no attempt had been made by him to enter into any compromise with the accused outside the Court nor he had entered into any such compromise that could have prevented him to come and depose before the Court.The next statement that was recorded was that of Smt. Sangeeta, PW-2 who is the mother of the deceased.She narrated that her daughter was well read and that she had no difficulty nor had she faced harassment at her in-laws place but at the same time she also stated that she was not ill or suffering from any ailment.However, she also turned hostile, on the issue of demand of dowry and any such statement having been recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.We may note that PW-3 after having seen the document which was the written information given at the police station on 12th July 2009, he verified the same and proved it.He admitted his signatures on the said document but at the same time he also turned hostile narrating that he had not dictated the contents of the said document nor had he tendered it in the police station.The ADGC Criminal sought permission of the Court and the said witness was declared hostile whereafter the ADGC Criminal proceeded to cross-examine him.The said witness went on to deny the fleeing away of the appellants from the scene of occurrence and as a matter of fact also went on to depose before the Court that it is wrong to allege that since he had good relations with the appellants therefore, he was turning hostile.The cross-examination by the defence led to further statements by PW-3 which for the first time set up the alibi on behalf of the defence.On suggestions being put by the defence, he said that it is correct to say that the accused Prashant Kumar was living at his aunt's place in village "Aiyaana" when the incident occurred.In the same tenor, he also stated that the accused Pappu who is working in a factory in Delhi was living in Delhi for the past several years and at the time of incident Pappu was at Delhi.In the same way the said witness also stated that the appellant Om Prakash, who is the father of all the three other accused, is working as a Secretary in a Co-operative Society and on the date of the incident, he was on duty executing recoveries on behalf of the society in Village "Nunaicha".Coming to the husband, namely Ashok Kumar, the said witness categorically stated that Ashok on the date of the incident had gone to tend to his fields and was not present at the time of the incident.Simultaneously, he also stated that Ashok Kumar had started living separately from his father long back, and his Kitchen as well as his residence were both separate.When he was examined by the Court, he did admit that the accused-appellants were his neighbours and that at the time of the incident he was also present in some part of the village where he received information from some person about the incident.On being further examined, he said that he did not remember the name of the person who gave this information.He however admitted that the information was received by him within half an hour of the incident.Thus, this witness who is a village Chaukidar and who can be one of the main links in the evidence set up by the prosecution had also wavered to the extent as indicated in his statement.PW-4, Rahul is the real brother of the deceased who also did not support his stand during investigation and rather went out to suggest the death of his sister as accidental while cooking food.PW-5 is the real aunt of the deceased.The maternal uncle of the deceased Jeetu who was examined as PW-7 sailed in the same boat.All these witnesses, therefore right from PW-1 to PW-7 were got declared as hostile by the prosecution as indicated above.Upon being recalled, he again reiterated his stand and denied having entered into any compromise and also expressed his inability to disclose as to who had first informed the police and as to how the inquest and the post mortem was carried out.It will be appropriate to note at this stage that PW-8 has proved the post mortem report.He has clearly deposed that carbon soot particles were found in the trachea of the deceased.He has also stated that the death of the deceased must have taken place between 11:00 am and 12:00 noon on the date of the incident.On cross-examination by the defence, he stated that there was no sign of struggle on the deceased but the deceased had suffered 100% burn injuries.On this count, he further added that it can be said that the deceased had either immolated herself or could have been set on fire by somebody else.The last sentence, however categorically stated that there is a greater probability of the deceased having met her death by self immolation.On a query by the Court, he categorically stated that there was no part of the body which could be said to have not been burnt.The Clerk Constable, Yashwant Singh deposed as PW-9 and proved the contents of the FIR recorded by him.He testified, the investigation upon the receipt of the report and also substantiated the inquest and the recovery.He also narrated the manner of arrest and surrender of the accused and then the recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses referred to hereinabove.The defence cross-examined him on which he categorically stated that he had come to know that the appellant Om Prakash and Pappu were both present on the date when the incident had occurred.He denied having any information of their being away from the village.There were other queries relating to the affidavits but he categorically stated that the place from where the body was found is a room said to be that of the appellant, Ashok Kumar and that the Kitchen was beside the said room.He however submitted that there was only one door in the room from where the body was recovered.He also stated that he had come to know that the family was living together but the said fact is not recorded in the case diary.A perusal of the said statement of the Investigating Officer nowhere indicates any further cross-examination by the defence in respect of the evidence that was brought forth by the prosecution.P.W. 11 Mahesh Chand Pathak was examined, who deposed having prepared the inquest report and also the recovery of the containers that were described to be of kerosene oil, other recoveries including the burnt parts of the clothes of the deceased as also the jewellery on the body of the deceased.He further categorically stated that the bangles that were found on the hand of the deceased were not broken, but the same was not described in the inquest report.He on a suggestion by the defence about the existence of container of kerosene oil denied planting of any such evidence.It is thereafter that the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. of the accused was tendered.While answering question No. 3 the accused Ashok Kumar replied that the entire evidence led, that of P.W. 3, P.W.8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, are based on in-correct information having been tendered to the Investigating Agency.It is to be noted that the said query also related to P.W. 3 Ram Kumar, the Village Chaukidar, who had turned hostile and had made certain statements referred to herein above.At the end, the accused Ashok Kumar categorically stated that the deceased on account of her ailment had set herself on fire and committed suicide.The same is the status of the statements made by other accused Prabhat Kumar, Pappu and Om Prakash.The Trial Court after having assessed the evidence and as indicated above, concluded that the accused appellants were unequivocally responsible for the death of the deceased, the death having taken place in their own premises during day light hours at 11 a.m. The Trial Court, however, recorded the fact that there was absence of motive as the witnesses had turned hostile and the initial case set up by the prosecution of dowry death had not been proved.The Trial Court, therefore, after discussing the statements of the witnesses and conduct of such witnesses becoming hostile came to the conclusion that they had been won over.The Trial Court further recorded that the fact that the death of the deceased was unnatural remains undisputed and that she was found dead inside the room of the premises of the appellants also remains undisputed, therefore, there is no occasion to seek any further indicators like direct ocular testimony either of the parents of the deceased or of any villagers.The Trial Court then went on to hold that the onus shifted on the appellants to establish that they were not involved in the commission of the offence, once the body was found in a room with a broken door that was the only passage of egress and ingress in the premises.The suggestion of the defence that the deceased had locked herself inside the premises was not believed by the Trial Court on the ground that no independent witness or circumstance had been pointed out to explain as to how the door was broken, when the police had arrived and the inquest was carried out.The defence also did not cross examine the Investigating Officer on this issue and this by itself, therefore, was taken to be an incriminating circumstance to construe that the defence had been unable to offer any valid explanation.On the issue of hostility as already indicated above, the Trial Court held that they had been won over and while discussing the evidence with regard to the presence of the accused, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that no independent witness was produced by the defence to establish that one of them was at Delhi, the other was discharging his duty as a Public Servant, one of them was at his aunt's place and the husband was tending to his field.In these circumstances, the Trial Court concluded that all the accused were very much present when the deceased was done to death as she had suffered 100% burn injuries and that she had not committed suicide.It is this finding of the Trial Court countered by Sri Sharma by inviting the attention of the Court to the inquest report as well as the post mortem report contending that no other injuries were found on the body of the deceased externally and this fact stood corroborated by the statement of the doctor, who also stated that there were no signs of struggle so as to indicate that the deceased was under such pain that led her to either struggle or resist herself before her death.He, therefore, submits that this is not a case of homicide, but of a suicide, as the deceased had in all probability voluntarily caused her death.We have considered the submissions raised and have gone through the entire records as also the circumstances as indicated on behalf of the appellants and that on behalf of the prosecution by the learned A.G.A.At the very outset, we find that there is no dispute about certain facts.The circumstance of her death inside the room of her husband Ashok as per the site plan and the statement of the formal witnesses establishes that it is not a strange place, but the own house hold of the deceased where all the inmates including the accused lived.It is something different that the other accused apart from the husband may not have been present on the date of the incident.It is undisputed that she was lawfully married wife of the appellant Ashok Kumar.It is also undisputed that initially when the F.I.R. was lodged and the Investigating Officer proceeded, the charge submitted was one under sections relating to dowry death.It is also undisputed that the charge came be altered after the witnesses of fact namely P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 turned hostile.In the above back ground what is also evident is that the issue of demand of dowry and the immediate cause of motive also stood dissolved with the alteration of charges.Thus all the appellants claimed to be tried for the offence of murder read with ingredients of section 34 I.P.C.In order to further analyze the arguments advanced in depth, there is one circumstance, which emerges to be almost non existent is that of the theory of accidental death being caused on account of an accidental fire having caught the deceased while cooking food.We may refer to the statement of P.W. 4 Rahul, who is the brother of the deceased.He in his cross examination stated that one of the accused Prabhat, who is the younger brother of the appellant, Ashok informed him that his sister had died an accidental death.The conclusion drawn in the post-mortem report, therefore, appears to be correct that the deceased had died due to 100% burn injuries that were ante-mortem in nature.He has categorically stated and verified the aforesaid fact as also the timing of the death.Thus from this evidence, it is conclusively established that the deceased had died an unnatural death having sustained burn injuries that were 100% and were of the first and second degree.State of M.P. 2012 (4) SCC 327 and Veer Singh & Others Vs.What we find from the evidence that is on record is the statement of PW-3, the village Chowkidar.His statement stands on a different footing as the other prosecution witnesses who are stated to have been won-over and described as such by the the trial court.Ram Kumar P.W.3 has also turned hostile but at the same time his information to the police initially that the family members including appellants had fled away has to be examined.The prosecution produced the said witness as one of its star witnesses as he was the first witness who informed the police about the death of the deceased.On a cross examination by the defence after having been declared hostile by the prosecution, he stated that the appellant Prashant Kumar was not in the village and was with his aunt in village Aaiyana, District Auraiya.Similarly, the appellant Pappu the brother of the husband was working at a factory in Delhi.Om Prakash, the father was on duty who was working as a Secretary of a Co-operative Society.The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for murder charge.For reference see Gurcharan Singh and another Vs.On 07.04.2002, mother of the Appellant-accused had gone to another village-Dahigaon.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,784,104 |
Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, counsel for the complainant.Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.161/19 registered by Police Station Silwani, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 451 and 506 IPC and subsequently added Sections 325 and 307 IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicants is that, on 11.06.2019 Ram Singh Rathore lodged a report alleging that the applicants along with other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly.They were armed with wooden sticks and iron rods and they beated Ravi Shankar, Bhanu Pratap, Ram Babu and Sumer.They received injuries whereas, Ravi Shankar received fatal injuries on his head.His zygomatic arch was fractured.On that basis, FIR has been registered against the applicants under aforementioned Sections.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 Gendalal is 72 years of age.He cannot take part in the free-fight.There was free-fight between both the parties.On the report of accused party, criminal case was registered against the victim party and both the parties received injuries in that free-fight and considering all injuries sustained by injured, the ingredients of offence under Section 325 are made out and not under Section 307 of the I.P.C.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the application.Counsel for the objector has vehemently opposed the application and submits that injured Ravi Shankar received fatal injuries on his 2 MCRC-49975-2019 head and zygomatic arch was fractured.If the injured was not given proper treatment he would have died.Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.Consequently, this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant nos. 2 & 3 is dismissed and application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant no.1 Gendalal, is allowed.It is directed that applicant no.1 Gendalal shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2019.12.05 11:35:55 +05'30'
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,416,338 |
Four accused persons faced trial.The appellants before the High Court werepresent appellant Raju Pandurang Mahale (A-1), Gautam (A-2), Pankaj (A-3)and Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4).A-1 to A-4 were convicted for offencespunishable under Sections 376 (2) (g) IPC and each of A-1, A-3 and A-4 wassentenced to suffer Rl for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500 with defaultstipulation; but Gautam (A-2) was awarded 2 years RI.Additionally, A-l,A-2 and A-4 were found guilty for offences punishable under Section 342read with Section 34 IPC.Gautam (A-2) did not prefer any appealquestioning his conviction.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Husbandof the prosecutrix (PW-5), at the relevant time, was undergoingimprisonment for life after his conviction in a murder case.Theprosecutrix, along with a daughter of two years age, was residing with hersister (PW-6).Accused no.4-Raju @ Rajesh s/o Sudakar Kopekar and accusedno.l- Raju s/o Pandurang Mahale were friends of the husband of prosecutrix.It was for this reason that the prosecutrix was known to them.Both theseaccused persons were on visiting terms with the prosecutrix and her husbandused to go to their bruise.Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (accused no. 4) wasworking in Railways and was required to go out of station sometimes.Theprosecutrix, on request, by him, used to stay with his wife during hisabsence in connection with his duties.Atabout 9.30 p.m. of 12.1.1996, appellant Raju Pandurang Mahale came to thehouse of the prosecutrix and told her that Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar(accused no. 4) had gone for night duty, and that his wife was alone athome.She was also told that wife of Raju (A-4) had called her to stay withher.The prosecutrix was reluctant to go to the house of Raju (A-4).She,however, relented on persistence of appellant Raju (A-l).She agreed to go,also for the reason that earlier, appellant Raju had taken her daughter andshe had been left at the house of Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4) byAppellant Raju.She was raped, thereafter, byRaju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4), when the prosecutrix regainedconsciousness, she found Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4) was lying on herperson and Pankaj Ganpat Avhad (A-3) was in the room.She alleged thatPankaj Ganpat Avhad had taken her nude photographs.In the morning, theprosecutrix was threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody and wasasked to go home.The prosecutrix went to her sister's house and narratedincident to her sister (PW-6).Thereafter, they went to the police stationand lodged the report.Investigation was undertaken and charge sheet filed.JUDGMENT2004(2) SCR 287The Judgment of the Court was delivered byARIJ1T PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the convictionrecorded in terms of Sections 342 and 354 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') by the Trial Court, andaffirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment by learned Single Judge of theBombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.Two appeals were disposed of by acommon judgment.Criminal Appeal no. 3 of 98 was filed by the presentappellant along with one Pankaj, while the connected Criminal Appeal no.50/98 was filed by Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar.A-3 alone was convicted for offence punishableunder Section 292 IPC.While A-4 was convicted for offence punishable underSection 323 IPC.A-l, A-3 and A-4 were convicted for offences punishableunder Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC.For offences relatable toSection 342 read with Section 34-IPC, six months RI and for the offencepunishable under Section 354 IPC one year custodial sentence was imposed.The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the conviction andsentences of A-l and A-3 for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g).So far as the appeal filed by A-4 is concerned, he was convicted forthe offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, though his conviction interms of Section 376 (2)(g) was set aside.The conviction of A-1 and A-2and A-4 for the offences punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34IPC, and the conviction of A-l, A-3 and A-4 for the offences punishableunder Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC was also maintained with thesentence imposed.Conviction of A-4 in terms of Section 323 IPC wasmaintained.In essence so far as the appellant is concerned, his convictionfor the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC andSection 354 read with Section 34 IPC was maintained as noted above.On reaching the house of Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4), the prosecutrixfound her daughter sleeping on a cot in the house.She, however, did notfind the wife of Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4) at home.On the contrary,Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4), who was reported to have gone on duty, wasvery much present there.On questioning by prosecutrix, as to why she hadbeen called by sending misleading information, Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar(A-4) stated that he had wanted her to come to his house for company.Gautam Suresh Shejwal (A-2), a friend of Raju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4) wasalso sitting in the house.He went outside the house and closed the doorfrom outside, forcing the prosecutrix to remain in the house with Raju @Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4) along with appellant Raju s/o Pandurang Mahale andher two years old daughter who was sleeping on the cot.Appellant Raju s/oPandurang Mahale brought liquor bottle and liquor was consumed by him andRaju @ Rajesh S. Kopekar (A-4).Thereafter, both these accused personsassaulted the prosecutrix and forced her to consume liquor.Soon sheexperienced giddiness and lost her balance.The Trial Court and the High Court accepted the evidence of the victimprosecutrix to be cogent and taking note of the additional factors broughton record made the conviction and awarded the sentence as aforenoted.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,163,547 |
It is stated that BGEL was formed with 40% equity participation of GTME.It is stated that at the relevant point of time, Entreprise Jean Lefebvre, France (EJL) was a subsidiary of GTME and specialized in road construction works.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 1 of 27It is stated that the Public Works Department, Rajasthan on behalf of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MRTH), Government of India, Respondent No. 1 herein, awarded to BGEL the contract of carrying out the construction of works in a portion of the Delhi-Jaipur National Highway 8 (NH 8) in the year 1992 (hereafter referred to as `the ADB-II contract).It is stated that BGEL bid for the contract as a JV company.According to the Petitioners, the ADB-II contract, valued at Rs.80 crores, was performed to the satisfaction of the NHAI.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 2 of 27By a letter dated 10th July 1995, NHAI informed BGEL that it had pre- qualified for the project subject to the condition that a proper JV agreement with EJL should be furnished prior to the bidding.It bid for only one package, as against three packages for which it had pre-qualified.It is stated that BGEL and EJL entered into a technical assistance agreement dated 14 th December 1995 whereby EJL agreed to provide technical assistance to BGEL to execute the said contract on the terms and conditions stipulated therein.According to the BGEL, technical obligations and responsibilities initially agreed upon to be borne by EJL in the MOU dated 2nd April, 1995 continued to be the responsibilities of the EJL in the subsequent technical assistance agreement dated 14th December 1995, a copy of which is stated to have been enclosed with the bid submitted by BGEL to NHAI.However, NHAIs version is different.According to NHAI, a letter dated 25th January 1997 was written by EJL to Snowy Mountains Engineering Corp. Ltd (Supervision Consultant), a copy of which was marked to NHAI, stating that they are not JV partners with BGEL as far as the project was concerned and that EJL was in fact providing only technical assistance to BGEL under a technical assistance agreement.The letter dated 25th January 1997 of EJL was followed by a letter dated 11th April 1997 by Mr. Bernard Merchant of EJL confirming that he had never signed, executed or approved any JV agreement between BGEL and EJL.In the meeting convened by the NHAI on 28th April 1997, the Chairman of BGEL confirmed that EJL was not a partner in the JV and that they were providing only technical assistance.During the review meeting held on 25 th January, 97 at New Delhi it transpired that the assertion of the BGE-EJL (JV) that it has a JV Agreement and that both partners are jointly and severally liable for the execution of the work was incorrect.At the said meeting EJL had stated that they had undertaken to provide only technical assistance to BGE and denied existence of any Joint Venture with BGE.EJL has now furnished an affidavit to NHAI in which it has been stated that the EJL has not entered into, signed, executed, ratified or approved whether in writing, verbally or by any other means any JV agreement with the BGE relating to bid for Contract-I and they have not signed any deed or document or done anything or omitted to do anything to give power or authority to BGE to include any liability and/or to enter into any Contract or agreement of any nature on behalf of the EJL in respect of Contract-I. This position was also confirmed by BGEs representative Shri P. C. Agarwala during the meeting with you taken by Chairman, NHAI on 23.4.97 at New Delhi.In view of the above it is obvious that you had secured pre- qualification as also the contract by misrepresentation.In view of the above, the Contract is voidable at the option of NHAI and NHAI therefore hereby rescinds the same with immediate effect without prejudice to its or her legal rights and remedies.NHAI is also accordingly taking over the complete W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 5 of 27 possession of the site."W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 5 of 27According to the BGEL, a meeting was held on 14th June 1997 between the representatives of BGEL and NHAI.It is stated that at this meeting, NHAI agreed to issue a suitable clarification that the rescinding of the contract would not prejudice BGEL from being pre-qualified and for bidding for future contracts.It is stated that on 4th August 1998, the Board of NHAI deliberated and discussed the whole issue regarding the action to be taken against the BGEL and ultimately proposed to recover Rs.5.17 crores from the Petitioners towards damages.It was also decided to drop the proposal for blacklisting the Petitioner.Consequent upon the said meeting, a letter dated 28th August 1998 was written by the NHAI to BGEL as under:"Sir, Please refer to this office letter of even No. dated the 9th June, 1997 wherein you were intimated that your contract with NHAI for the work mentioned in the subject had been rescinded with immediate effect and without prejudice to the Authoritys other legal rights and remedies.Consequent to the problems created by your firm resulting in the rescission of the contract and the need to fix up another agency for completing the same, NHAI has suffered certain losses and damages which are payable by you.These losses and damages have been carefully assessed in consultation with the Engineer for the project, namely, M/s SMEC, Australia and W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 6 of 27 the same amount to Rs.5,17,30,230/-W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 6 of 27The cost of such works payable to you as intimated by the Engineer amounts to Rs.2,10,38,266/-.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 8 of 27Its technical bid was accepted.On 10 th November, 2003 NHAI declared the bid of the BGEL to be the lowest.In spite of failure of M/s BGE-EJL (JV) to execute the work, the constituent firms are participating in the tender in NHAI work.The constituent partner M/s Birla GMTE is still working as contractor with NHAI.Jallundur Bye-pass work and some other works are being executed by the firm.No comments have been offered on this issue.It may be examined in detail that the firm which has failed to execute the work and secured the contract through fraudulent manner is being allowed to participate in the tender and execute the work and furnish the considered comments.The Petitioners Birla GTM-Entrepose Limited (`BGEL), and its Ex- Chairman, Ex-Director and Chief Executive Officer have filed this petition challenging an order dated 6th October, 2008 issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Respondent No.2 banning/black listing BGEL from participating or bidding for projects of/or to be undertaken by NHAI either by itself or in association with any person or entity for a period of five years from the date of the order.The Petitioners state that BGEL is a joint venture company (JV) incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a JV agreement W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 1 of 27 dated 18th January, 1990 between National Engineering Industries Limited and GTM Entrepose, France (GTME).The Petitioners state that the said JV agreement provided that technical assistance of specialist subsidiaries of GTME would be available to BGEL through technical assistance contracts to be entered into on a case by case basis.In 1995, the MRTH, on behalf of the NHAI, invited pre-qualification applications for a National Highways project under the ADB loan assistance (hereafter as `the project) to be followed by invitation to pre-qualified bidders for international competitive bidding for execution of the project.BGEL, on behalf of itself and EJL, submitted the pre-qualification application dated 3rd April, 1995 enclosing a copy of the Memorandum of W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 2 of 27 Understanding (MOU) dated 2nd April, 1995 between BGEL and EJL.BGEL claims that while making the application, it had disclosed that BGEL and EJL proposed to enter into an agreement for forming a separate company to be called Birla - Jean Lefebvre Construction Ltd (`BJL).However, the said agreement did not materialize.It is stated by NHAI that when the JV agreement enclosed with the bid was examined, it was noticed that it was not in conformity with Clause 5.2 of the Instructions to Bidders.A further modified power-of-attorney, purportedly executed jointly by the partners of the JV, was also submitted authorising BGEL to sign the contract on behalf of JV.NHAI issued a letter dated 1st July 1996 accepting the bid of BGEL.By a contract agreement dated 19 th August 1996, NHAI awarded the contract for the execution and completion of the works with respect to the said project to BGEL.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 3 of 27It is stated that a coordination meeting was held on 25 th January 1997 at the office of NHAI to review the progress of the project.This meeting was attended by the representatives of NHAI, BGEL and EJL.According to BGEL, during the meeting it was clarified that EJL, a subsidiary of GTME, had disclosed its intention to provide technical assistance to BGEL and that the sole responsibility for EJLs technical assistance agreement and the liability arising under the contract rested with BGEL.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 4 of 27W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 4 of 27According to NHAI, the above disclosure came as a shock to it since it had awarded the contract to BGEL only on the basis that the bid was submitted by a JV.On account of the above misrepresentation by BGEL, upon which NHAI had acted in good faith, the NHAI issued a letter dated 9 th June, 1997 rescinding the contract.The relevant portions of the said letter contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 read as under:It has, accordingly, been decided that in case you pay to NHAI the net amount of Rs.3,06,91,964/- (Rupees three crores six lakhs ninety one thousand nine hundred and sixty four only) as full and final settlement in respect of the rescinded contract, NHAI will release your performance security amounting to Rs.2618 lakhs held by us in the form of Bank Guarantee.It is requested that your unconditional acceptance of the above proposal for full and final settlement in respect of the rescinded contract, may be communicated to the Authority within seven days of the receipt of this letter failing which we will presume that the proposal is not acceptable to you.In case you propose to convey your acceptance of the above proposal within seven days, you may simultaneously take action to pay the said amount of Rs.3,06,91,964/- by a Bank Draft payable at Delhi or Gurgaon in favour of the project Director, Project Implementation Unit I, NHAI, Gurgaon.In case either your acceptance of the above proposal is not received within seven days of the issue of this letter or after receipt of your acceptance the payment is not received by the Project Director, PIU, Gurgaon, within 30 days of the issue of this letter, we shall presume that the proposed settlement is not acceptable to you and we shall feel free to take recourse to other W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 7 of 27 options available to us for recovering the losses and damages incurred by us which may include encashment of your Bank Guarantee held by us.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 7 of 27In response to the above letter, BGEL, on 3rd September 1998, conveyed its "unconditional acceptance" of the proposal made by NHAI and asked to be furnished the detailed particulars of how the sum of Rs.5,17,30,230/- as damages had been arrived at.On 28th September 1998, BGEL made payment of a sum of Rs.3,06,964 to the NHAI, which was acknowledged by NHAI by its letter dated 28th September 1998 which reads as under:"Sir, Please refer to your letter No. dated 3.09.1998 on the above subject, wherein you have submitted your unconditional acceptance of our proposal contained in this office letter No.1105/1/198/Tech/PU dated 28th August, 1998, in full and final with respect to the rescinded.Further referring to your letter No. HO/19/98-99/295 dated 28th September, 1998 submitting therewith an amount of Rs.3,06,964/- as net balance payment to NHAI, in compliance to our above mentioned letter, please find enclosed herewith the Bank Guarantee No. 83/96-97 amounting to Rs.26,18,05,046/- (Rupees Twenty Six Crores Eighteen Lakhs Five Thousand and Forty Six Only) dated 24.07.1996 from UCO Bank, 10 Brabourne Road, Calcutta and amendment thereto dated 31.07.1996, duly discharged submitted by you towards performance Guarantee for the above contract."It is stated that thereafter NHAI awarded BGEL the following three W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 8 of 27 construction contracts:The Petitioner protested against this move by letters dated 27th January 2004 and 17th February 2004 by pointing out that the issue has already been settled by the letter dated 28th August 1998 of the NHAI and the payment by BGEL of the damages, as declared by NHAI.Nevertheless, NHAI did not award the Jalandhar- Amritsar Project to BGEL and the bid itself was cancelled.A show cause notice dated 25th February 2004 was issued by NHAI to BGEL seeking to blacklist it in view of the misrepresentation which led to rescinding of the contract in question.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 9 of 27At this stage, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.3377-80/2004 in this Court.Subsequently, an order dated 9 th February 2005 was passed by a Division Bench of this Court disposing of Writ Appeal No. 651 of 2004 directing that the decision of the Competent Authority of NHAI pursuant to its inquiry into the matter will be placed in a sealed cover and produced before the learned Single Judge for directions.The learned Single Judge , who heard the Writ Petition (C) No. 3377-80 of 2004, on 30th July 2009, opened the sealed cover which contained the impugned order dated 6th October 2008 and made it available to the counsel for BGEL upon whose statement that he would like to challenge the said orders in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.The NHAI was directed not to give effect to the said impugned order for a period of four weeks and not to give it publicity in the meanwhile.While directing notice to issue in the writ petition on 28th August 2009, this Court directed that NHAI will not give publicity to the impugned order.The said interim order has continued.Submissions of counselW.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 10 of 27On its part, BGEL decided not to contest the charge that it misrepresented facts since it did not want to jeopardize its chances to bid for future contracts.It is stated that by acting on the above full and final settlement, the Petitioner gave up whatever defence it may have had against the charge of misrepresentation, and agreed to accept the terms and conditions imposed by NHAI.Having altered its position and having given up its defence on the basis of such full and final settlement offered by the NHAI, which it accepted, the BGEL cannot now be sought to be blacklisted by NHAI for a matter that already stood closed.W.P.(C) No. 11247/2009 Page 11 of 27It was observed as follows (SCC @ p. 282):"The declarant could not be dragged and chased in criminal proceedings after closing the other opening making it a dead end.It would have to lodge its claim on M/s BGE-EJL (JV).If M/s BGE-EJL (JV) disputes the same, reference to arbitration will have to be made.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,636,432 |
The award dated 26th September, 2017 passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- has been awarded to Om Vati is under challenge in these appeals.In MAC.APP.100/2018, the claimant is seeking enhancement of the award amount whereas in MAC.APP.131/2018, the insurance company is seeking to set aside the impugned award.2. Om Vati, mother of Anoop Singh claimed compensation for the death of Anoop Singh.According to the claimant, her son, Anoop Singh was hit MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 1 of 8 by a car bearing No.DL-7-CE-9502 on 14th March, 2012 near Jahangir Puri Bus Stand in respect of which the police registered FIR No.75/2012 under Section 279/304A IPC at P.S. Jahangirpuri against Anuj Bedi.The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of car bearing No. DL-7-CE-9502 by Anuj Bedi.MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 1 of 8The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs.6,656/- per month, deducted 50% towards his personal expenses and applied multiplier of 7 according to the age of the mother of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.2,79,552/-.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.The total compensation awarded is Rs.4,54,552/- (rounded off to Rs.4,55,000/-).Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC.APP.100/2018 urged at the time of hearing that the Claims Tribunal has not added the future prospects of 40%.Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC.APP.131/2018 urged at the time of hearing that the insured vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the accident.It is submitted that no accident took place with the insured vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.Without prejudice, it is submitted that the compensation for loss of love and affection is no more a permissible head and is liable to be set aside.MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 2 of 8With respect to the contention of the appellant in MAC.APP.131/2018 that no accident took place from the offending vehicle, it is noted that the Claims Tribunal examined two eye witnesses in the witness box as PW-2 and PW-3 who both deposed that they were standing on the side of the road for crossing the road to go to the coaching centre - CNC Programming at Jahangir Puri, Delhi when the offending vehicle driven rashly and negligently by Anuj Bedi, hit the deceased.The driver of the car stopped the car, looked behind through the window and ran away from the spot.Both the witnesses noted down the car number and informed the police.The witnesses tried to stop a vehicle to take the deceased to the hospital but no car stopped whereupon they stopped a rikshaw (rehra) and took the deceased to BJRM Hospital at Jahangir Puri, Delhi where PCR van came and they handed over the injured, Anoop Singh to the PCR.PW-2 deposed that he made a call to the police at 100 number from the mobile no. 958239XXXX.That petitioner has also examined two eye witness namely Mukesh as PW-2 and Sh.It has also been deposed by PW-2 that he made a 100 number call to the police by the mobile no. 9582391566 and the said mobile was of his friend Rohit Kumar who is PW-3 herein.That in the cross examination of both these eye witnesses, there has not been any iota of evidence to disprove of the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the spot of the accident.Therefore, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are very material and inspire the relevancy.That, the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of R-1 who is driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-7CE-9502 (Car) and an FIR No. 75/2012, U/s 279/304A of IPC was registered against the R-1 who is driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.Anoop Singh met with an accident on 14.03.2012 at about 07:00 P.M and because of the road traffic accident Sh.Anoop Singh died and the said accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the R-1 Sh.Anuj Bedi who was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.xxx xxx xxxIt has also been argued by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 that R-1, driver of the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the IO of the case FIR No. 75/12, u/s 279/304A of IPC, PS Jahagir Puri, Delhi.This argument of Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company as well as the evidence of R-1 and R-2 are MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 4 of 8 immaterial and cannot be substantiated in the eyes of law inasmuch as the vehicle number was provided by PW-2 and PW-3 and are not related either to the deceased or the family of the deceased or would not have any other consideration.It has also been stated that as per the documents, supplied by R-1 before the Court were scrutinized and the register ( security guard and receptionist) maintained at the office of Kochcar & Company Gurgaon, Haryana revealed that the said register was non paginated and not duly signed by any authorized signatory at any stage.Even the entries of register have been found to be bearing blank rows and repeated numbering and the same has been done with alterier motive.The IO of the case has also tried to collect the CCTV Footage of the office of the Kochar & Company on the date of the accident and the time to preserve has already been lapsed.21. R-1 could have taken the defence of his presence in the office of Kochar & Company and can provide CCTV Footage MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 5 of 8 to prove that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time and date of the accident but he has not been able to place on record the same.Therefore, the testimony of R-1 cannot be relied upon."MAC.APP.100/2018 & 131/2018 Page 5 of 8The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and the multiplier of 17 has to be applied and 40% has to be awarded towards future prospects.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection which is no more a permissible head and is, therefore, set aside.The compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.The compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.Adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total compensation is computed as Rs.9,80,476.8 (rounded off to Rs.9,80,500/-).Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.J.R. MIDHA, J.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,638,372 |
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.75 of 2010 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Manalurpettai Police Station, Villupuram District.Earlier, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a crime was registered for an offence under Sections 448, 294(b), 324, 323 and 506(ii) IPC against 4 persons.After investigation, the Inspector of Police filed a final report in respect of accused 1 to 3 and leaving alone the 4th accused.In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.15937 of 2010 seeking a direction for further investigation in Crime No.75 of 2010 for the purpose of including some other accused involving the case and also to include the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC.This Court, by order dated 11.08.2010, passed the following order:-Considering the grievance of the petitioner and after hearing the learned Government Advocate(Crl.I, Thirukoilur and stands posted for the appearance of the accused, this Court directs the petitioner to prefer a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirukoilur.Such complaint shall be jointly tried with the case in C.C.No.125 of 2010 and by following the procedure contemplated for cases arising out of a police reportBut, the Court below without following the said order passed by this Court, considered the private complaint independently and dismissed the same.Challenging the above said order dismissing the private complaint, the present criminal revision case has been filed.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.ToThe Judicial Magistrate.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,643,704 |
KURIAN ,J.Leave granted.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counselappearing for the respondent-State.The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 376 and506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentence of tenyears and one year respectively with default clause.Having regard to thefacts and circumstances of the present case, We are of the considered viewthat hearing of the appeal be limited to quantum of sentence.Neither theTrial Court nor the High Court has given any indication for the award often years under Section 376 IPC.Having regard to the facts of the case, weare of view that ends of justice would be met by limiting the sentence tothe prescribed minimum.Therefore, the sentence under Section 376 ismodified to the prescribed minimum of seven years.We make it clear that noother modification is made in the sentence under Section 506 or in thedefault clause.However, the sentences shall run concurrently.The appeal is partly allowed as above.[KURIAN JOSEPH] ......................[ARUN MISHRA]NEW DELHI;
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,643,958 |
Heard on admission.The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.1.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.714/2011, whereby the respondent No.1 was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 17.4.2011, the deceased Krishna W/o Kallu Barman consumed some poisonous substance and she has informed to the Executive Magistrate in her statement, Ex.P/10 that the respondent No.1 was harassing her and he was threatening her that he would abduct the deceased and therefore, she committed suicide.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed which was duly committed to the Court of Sessions.CRA No.1213/2013 The respondent No.1 abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to political enmity.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after considering the evidence adduced by the proseuction, acquitted the respondent No.1 from the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that there was no relation between the deceased and the respondent No.1, so that presumption under Section 306 of IPC could apply.The allegations as made in the dying declaration Ex.P/10 do not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was made out.She could inform about the activities of the respondent no.1 to her husband and family members.She would have lodged FIR against the respondent No.1 and CRA No.1213/2013 therefore, it was not the position that the deceased had no option except to commit suicide.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent No.1 from the aforesaid charges.There is no basis by which appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant Veeru Raikwar may be accepted.Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,648,481 |
Shri Vishal Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.Revisional powers under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. of this court are invoked to assail the order dated 19/5/2015 in Sessions Case No. 745/14 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, framing charges against the petitioner-Man Singh under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 450, 452, 506(part-III), 307/34 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.Reading of FIR alongwith charge-sheet filed by the petitioner in regard to Crime No.350/14 dated 10/7/2014 indicates that there is allegation that on 10/7/2014 in the night at 12-45, the petitioner alongwith 3 others, namely, Bharat, Banti and Jairaj committed house-trespass in the house of the complainant and started abusing.On being asked not to do so, there is allegation of all of them assaulting the victim and his family members, as a result, 9 persons were injured including one Nisha who sustained fracture of 3 rd and 4th metacarpal bone.Others have sustained minor injuries on non-vital as well as vital parts of the bodies.The FIR further further discloses that the petitioner wielding firearm also threatened the victim and his family members.In sum and substance, the allegation against the petitioner is of lurking house-trespass and attempt to commit murder.Though, assault has been made while wielding dangerous weapon but only one grievous injury was inflicted on non-vital part of the body.Though, some of the injured have sustained minor injuries on vital part of the body, i.e. head, but considering overall allegations contained in the FIR and supportive statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it appears that there was prima facie intention on the part of the petitioner alongwith others to cause death.Though, the attempt to cause death was made but due to providence, life of the injured was 2 Crr.780/15 Man Singh Kannojiya Vs.State of M.P.The material on record is insufficient for this court to conclude that three was no intention to commit murder.The said intention can be gathered from the evidence which is adduced during trial in the shape of Pws. & Dws., which stage has not yet come.On the prima facie assessment of the material available on record in the shape of charge-sheet which is filed herewith, there is enough evidence prima facie to sustain impugned charge under section 307 of I.P.C.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,653,346 |
Contention, in this complaint, was that on 26.8.2016, at 9.30 PM, while, complainant, alongwith his son, Mukesh, was at home, situated at Modalpur, on hearing some noise, he thrown light of Torch towards that direction and saw that 7-8 persons were demolishing the wall of his house.They were Vijendra Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Udham Singh, Residents of Village Chorauli, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, accompanied by 4-5 other unknown persons, who can be identified by him in identification parade, if any.On being objected by the complainant, they did assault, with abuse and scuffle, and they also extended threat of dire consequences.On making hue and cry, many persons rushed due to which accused persons ran away from the spot.Hence, it was misuse of process of court and, therefore, this proceeding, with above prayer for setting aside same.3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record as well as impugned summoning order.From very perusal of the complaint, which was filed for an occurrence of 4.1.2017, it is apparent that dispute regarding boundary wall, in between Vijendra and complainant, has been there and for this dispute, alleged occurrence has been said to have been committed, wherein proceedings, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.PC, in between two sides, were said to have been taken by the Executive Magistrate.This fact of dispute and same being a motive for this repeated filing of complaint is being argued by learned counsel for applicants.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,654,062 |
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) Admit.Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.The application seeks quashing of charge sheet and proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 3145 of 2012 (State .v.The parties are present before the Court.The applicant No.1 is personally present before this Court and the respondent No.2 is also personally present before the Court.We have asked the respondent No.2 as to whether she wants to proceed with the trial.She said that the matter is settled and she is not interested in continuing with the prosecution.In view of above, there would be no purpose in continuing the proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2017 01:21:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2017 01:21:30 :::498-A r/2 Sec. 34 of I.P.C."::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2017 01:21:30 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,657,850 |
The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Ram Bahadur son of Hira Lal in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that in May, 2003, the informant had married his daughter Nanhi @ Sumitra with Rajiv son of Kalicharan resident of Village Kangawan, Police Station Bisalpur according to Hindu rites and rituals.At the time of marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity but the in-laws of his daughter were not happy with the same and were demanding additional dowry in the form of Motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- for opening shop.Informant and his daughter told that they were poor person and were unable to fulfill the additional demand but the accused did not agree and were adamant on their demand.The daughter of the informant told many times to him that the accused persons would kill her if the demand is not fulfilled.The informant alongwith Indradeo, the son of his brother in law (sarhu), tried to pacify the matter, but husband of the deceased Rajiv, father in law Kalicharan, mother in law, sister in law (Nanad) Chala and sister-in-law Rani and her husband Hariom repeatedly subjected her to harassment and cruelty due to non-fulfilment of the additional demand of dowry and gave threat to kill.The informant tried many times to pacify the matter but they told that without fulfilment of additional demand of dowry, the daughter of the informant will not be allowed to remain in their houses.On 16.7.2008, informant was informed on telephone that his daughter was killed by them.On information when informant and his son reached village Kangawan, he saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the room.Head was lacerated.There was mark of injury on the neck.G.D. entry (Ext. ka-4) was also made at the same time.Investigation of the matter was entrusted to the Circle Officer, Bisalpur.The Investigating Officer started investigation.He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. ka-13).Inquest report (Ext. ka-5) was prepared.Other police papers i.e. letter to Chief Medical Officer, photo lash, challan lash (Ext. ka- 6 to ka-9) were also prepared.Autopsy report (Ext. ka-2) was prepared after conducting the post mortem on 17.7.2008 at 4.00 p.m.As per the post mortem report, the deceased was average body built.Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Srivasava,B.D.Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate withCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3858 of 2011 Appellant :- Chala @ Chanchala Respondent :- State Of U.P.Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. AdvocateCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4342 of 2011 Appellant :- Kali Charan And Anr.Respondent :- State Of U.P.Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.These criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/ appellants against the judgement and order dated 18.6.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Pilibhit in Session Trial No. 498 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Rajiv and others) convicting and sentencing the appellant Rajiv for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and the appellants Kalicharan and Poonam for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment to each of them and accused appellants Rajiv, Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and accused appellants Rajiv, Kalicharan, Poonam Devi and Chala @ chanchala for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 3,000/- fine to each.In default of payment of fine, they were also directed to undergo additional imprisonment of 6 months and 3 months respectively.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Since these criminal appeals have been filed against the common judgement and order and have been heard together, therefore, the same are being decided by this judgement.Eye was closed, mouth was half opened and the rigor mortis was passed of in upper extremities and was present in lower extremities.On examination of the dead body of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found:Ligature mark around the Neck 34 cm x 0.8 cm Horizontally placed & transversely placed (L) end 10 cm below low end of (L) ear lo & 8 cm below the chin.Subcutaneous tissue congested margins abraded ecchymised Jugular venous pooling present.Hyoid Bone fractured.Abraded contusion size 4 cm x 1 cm over (R) upper part of Neck starting from front of neck going to (R) side 3 cm below chin.Abraded contusion 12 cm x 6 cm over post medival and lateral aspect of (R) lower part of upper arm including elbow and upper part of Forearm.Abraded contusion 8 cm x 4 cm over (L) lower back 8 cm above post superior iliac spine.Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm over lat.aspect of upper part of (D) thigh.Contusion 6 cm x 5 cm over lat.aspect of (R) shoulder."In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused by asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. ka-12) against all the accused appellants was filed.Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance.Supplied copy of the police papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused appellants.The case being exclusively triable by the sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions.Accused/appellants appeared and charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act was framed.All the accused have denied the charges framed against them and claimed their trial.Trial proceeded, and on behalf of prosecution, eight witnesses were examined., PW-1, Ram Bahadur, PW-2 Ram Sewak, PW-3 Dr. C.B. Chaurasia, PW-4 Constable Roshan Lal, PW-5 Janki Prasad, PW-6 Sub-Inspector Phool Singh, PW-7 Munnu Lal Verma, Circle Officer and PW-8 Bal Govind, Circle Officer.After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted the marriage of deceased Nanhi @ Sumitra with accused appellant Rajiv but denied the entire allegations levelled by the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial court has found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, hence this appeal.I have heard Shri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal as well as in the connected criminal appeals and Shri Rajiv Patel, learned AGA for the State at length, and perused the entire record carefully.Castigating the impugned judgement and order, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellants Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala were living separately.There was sufficient evidence to establish this fact but the trial court wrongly appreciated the fact and rejected the plea of the appellants.There are general allegations.Prosecution could not prove the nexus between cause of death and the demand of additional dowry.If the case of the prosecution as a whole is taken into consideration, then also the role regarding demand of additional dowry, causing cruelty and harassment is attracted only against the accused appellant Rajiv, who is the husband of the deceased.The findings of the trial court are based on surmises and conjectures.It was further submitted that accused appellant Rajiv is in jail in this matter for more than seven years out of the maximum sentence of ten years imposed upon him by the trial court.A girl born from the wedlock of the deceased and the accused appellant Rajiv is alive and none is to look-after her.Hence, a lenient view in the matter be taken.Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that ante-mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased.Prosecution witnesses have proved the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304-B IPC.Death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstance.There is no evidence on record to establish the separate living of the appellants Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala.The findings of the trial court are based on the evidence available on record.There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the said findings warranting interference by this Court.Since the trial court has taken a lenient view on the point of imposing sentence upon the accused appellants, the findings of the trial court on this point need no interference.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence.In the FIR, allegation regarding demand of additional dowry is that in-laws of the deceased were demanding a motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- cash for opening a shop.Therefore, due to non-fulfilment of said demands, the appellants have committed the present offence.It is also the case of the prosecution that informant and other family members tried to sort-out the matter but accused appellants were adamant to the additional dowry.Medical evidence discloses that there was one ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.One abraded contusion on the right side of the neck, one abraded contusion on the back of right shoulder, abraded contusion on the left side under the waist and contusion on the left thigh and right shoulder.Cause of death is shown asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.Deceased died in the house of appellants.The finding of the trial court is that all the essential ingredients for drawing presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act were proved by the prosecution.The trial court has acquitted appellant Chala @ Chanchala for the offence under Section 304-B IPC but has convicted and sentenced her for the offence under Section 498-A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Other accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Now the question is as to whether from the evidence available on record against the accused appellants regarding demand of additional dowry, case under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC is made out.From a perusal of the FIR, it is evident that only allegation is that in the marriage of the deceased, the informant had given dowry as per his capacity but the in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the same and were demanding additional dowry in the form of a motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- to open shop.PW-1 Ram Bahadur, who is the informant as well as the father of the deceased has stated that accused appellants were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding a motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- as has been mentioned in the FIR.PW-2 Ram Sewak, who is the son of the informant and brother of the deceased has stated similar facts.PW-1 and PW-2 are the witnesses of demand of additional dowry made by the accused appellants and cruelty, harassment, etc. given to the deceased.Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides for penalty for giving or taking dowry and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides for penalty for demanding dowry.If the provisions enumerated in Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are taken into consideration in context with the present matter, it is evident that the prosecution could not make it clear what sort of demand was made before the date of marriage.Prosecution could also not prove that there was any agreement between the parties to pay certain amounts in the form of dowry.Certainly, the demand said to have been made by the accused appellants was made after the marriage.Prosecution was also not able to connect the additional demand of dowry with the accused appellants Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala.If any shop was to be opened on the strength of Rs. 80,000/-, it could be attributed to the appellant Rajiv, who is the husband of the deceased, who could take direct benefit with the demand of the said dowry.Similarly, from the demand of motorcycle also, accused appellant Rajiv was beneficiary.If for the sake of argument, any demand of additional dowry was made after the marriage, the same could be attributed only to the accused appellant Rajiv.The appellant is a young man and has already undergone 6 years of imprisonment after being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court.We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.We accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B, I. P. C., reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.The other conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed."Minimum sentence provided under Section 304-B IPC is of seven years.The trial court vide impugned judgment and order has imposed ten years sentence upon the appellant Rajiv.Applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgements and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the accused appellant Rajiv has served-out substantial portion (about seven years) of the sentence imposed upon him, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant Rajiv awarded to him under Section 304-B IPC is reduced / modified to the imprisonment of eight years.In the light of foregoing discussions, Criminal Appeal No. 3858 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 4342 of 2011 are liable to be allowed.Conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Kalicharan, Poonam for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and accused appellants Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are liable to be set-aside.Further, Criminal Appeal No. 4479 of 2011 is liable to be allowed in part and the conviction of the appellant, namely, Rajiv under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be upheld.The impugned judgment and order dated 18.6.2011 is liable to be modified to the extent as discussed above.Accordingly, criminal appeal no. 3858 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 4342 of 2011 are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Kalicharan, Poonam for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and accused appellants Kalicharan, Poonam and Chala @ Chanchala for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are set-aside as these accused appellants are found not guilty for the aforesaid offences.They are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.They are on bail.They need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.Further, criminal appeal no. 4479 of 2011 is allowed in part and the conviction of the appellant, namely, Rajiv under Sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld.A compliance report be sent to this Court.Order date : 24th September, 2015 safi
|
['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.
|
23,757,964 |
Mr. Abul Mansoor...appears for petitioner.Mr. A. Banerjee...appears for respondents.The Court : The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of lodging complaint of commission of offences under sections 415,420 and other related sections of the Indian Penal Code, the police authorities have not taken any action.This application is, accordingly, disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,760,691 |
He further submitted that subsequently the said FIR was transferred to the first respondent herein and the first respondent herein has registered the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2015 under Sections 417, 376, 506 (ii) and 109 of IPC.He further submitted that in the said FIR, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he introduced the defacto complainant/ second respondent to the Accused No.1 and except the said allegation, no other allegation has been made against the petitioner.He further submitted that in the statement which was recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.When this matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2020, Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that he is reporting “No instruction” for the second respondent.Considering the same, the Registry was directed to print the name of the second respondent in the cause-list.Accordingly, the name of the second respondent was printed in the cause-list, but the second respondent has not appeared either in person or through counsel.Hence after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and on perusing materials placed before this Court, order is being passed in this petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, the 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.24054 of 2019 Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, has registered an FIR in Crime No.13 of 2015 on 06.04.2015 under Sections 417, 506(i) of IPC against one Karthikeyan(A4).P.C also, the defacto complainant/second respondent has stated that the petitioner herein has introduced her to the Accused No.1 and subsequently, the accused No.1 had sexual relationship with the defacto complaint by giving false promise that he will marry her, but thereafter, he refused to marry her and thereby cheated her.He further submitted that when the defacto complainant has made request to the accused No.1, he refused to marry her and intimidated her.Therefore, the entire allegations are against A1 only and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.24054 of 2019Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner herein, accused No.1 and the defacto complainant/second respondent were working as Assistant Professors in Arul Migu Meenakshi Amman Engineering College, Thiruvannamalai District and at that time, the petitioner has introduced the defacto complainant with the accused No.1 and thereafter accused No.1 and defacto complainant loved each other and subsequently he had sexual relationship with her by giving false promise.Therefore, the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to proceed further and hence he requests to dismiss this petition.A perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner herein, accused No.1 (Karthikeyan) and the defacto complainant/second respondent were working as Assistant Professors in a Private Engineering College at Thiruvannamalai District.The defacto complainant further stated that the petitioner herein introduced her with the accused No.1 and thereafter accused No.1 and herself loved 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.24054 of 2019 each other and taking advantage of the same on 06.02.2015, the accused No.1 had sexual relationship with her by giving false promise that he will marry her.She further stated that subsequently the petitioner has informed her that marriage for accused No.1 was fixed with another girl and after that, she made requests to accused No.1 to marry her and at that time, both the accused criminally intimidated her but except the aforesaid allegations, no other allegation was made against the petitioner.The defacto complainant has not specifically stated that when the petitioner herein has made such criminal intimidation with her.Further she has not stated that due to the said threatening she really got frightened.Therefore, it appears that, the aforesaid allegations were made only with a view to rope the petitioner in the aforesaid case.The trial Court is directed to proceed against the accused No.1 and dispose of the case in S.C.No.17 of 2019 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.24054 of 2019 uninfluenced by the observations made by this court in this order.P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., ebsiIn the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.17.02.2020 Index:yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ebsiInspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kancheepuram.The Mahila Court, Chengalpet.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.24054 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12752 and 12753 of 2019 6/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.24054 of 2019 7/6http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,764,674 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 13.5.2015 relating to Crime No. 151/15 registered at Police Station Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol, for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and under section 3 (1) (xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality.The prosecutrix is a widow of 32 years of age.The prosecutrix had alleged that the applicant had relation with her for last 3 years.No external or internal injury was found on her person.Looking to her allegation and conduct it appears that either she was a consenting party or the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody without any substantial reason and if he is not released on bail, then his future will be spoiled in the company of harden criminals inside the jail.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.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 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,765,436 |
Item No. 51And In the matter of: Rafik Sk. & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Debabrata Acharya Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 130 of 2013 dated 21.06.2013 under sections 447/323/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,773,492 |
[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner is the aunty of the detenu viz., Ajith S/o.The detenu came to adverse notice in Crime No.100 of 2019 on the file of Keelapalur Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 363, 324, 506(ii), 448 and 427 IPC.The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 07.07.2019 in Crime No.143 of 2019 on the file of Keelapalur Police Station for offences u/s.147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2060 of 2019 Prosecutor appearing for respondents.Perused the materials on record.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite the admitted position that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the ground case, the detaining authority has informed a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application since in a similar case bail was granted by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, in Cr.M.P.No.68 of 2018 in respect of Crime No.230 of 2017 on the file of Vikkiramangalam Police Station, for offences u/s.307, 302 IPC altered to 302 (Double Death) IPC.Learned counsel submits that in the case cited as similar, the offences are different from that of the offences in the ground case.The non-consideration of such aspect reflects non-application of mind.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, the 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2060 of 2019 offences alleged in the similar case, relied on by the detaining authority in arriving at a subjective satisfaction, are different from that of the offences alleged in the ground case.Hence, we find that the order of detention suffers from non application of mind.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu viz., Ajith S/o.Sampath, in Cr.M.P.No.16/2019 dated 04.08.2019, is quashed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.SUBBIAH, J and 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2060 of 2019 R.PONGIAPPAN, J gm H.C.P.No.2060 of 2019 03.12.2019
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
237,777 |
ORDER S.K. Pande, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16-12-2002, passed by ADJ, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 1-B/2001 allowing the application under Section 151, CPC for stay of suit, this revision under Section 115, CPC is preferred by the petitioner.Madhu was married to respondent Surendra.Respondent Ashadevi, Basant Kumar, Ramkumar and Shiv Kumar are family members of respondent Surendra Kumar.Therefore, on a complaint made to the police, criminal case was registered against the respondents.Respondents were tried in S.T. No. 194/2000, Court of ASJ, Jabalpur for offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC.Vide judgment dated 27-8-2001 respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 304B, IPC.However, respondents Surendra and Smt. Ashadevi on conviction under Section 498, IPC, were sentenced to R.I. for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.Against the conviction and sentence, respondents Surendra, Ashadevi have preferred a criminal appeal pending in High Court.Plaintiff/petitioner Sudharani being mother of Madhu instituted C.S. No. 1-B/2001 (Annexure P-1) in the Court of 4th ADJ, Jabalpur for recovery of Rs. 13,21,000/- towards Stridhan of Madhu and damages etc. The suit has been resisted by the respondent by filing written statement (Annexure P-2).After framing of issues when the trial was at the stage of evidence, respondent filed application (Annexure P-4) under Section 151, CPC requesting to stay the proceedings of C.S. as the criminal appeal arising out of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 194/2000 has been preferred by the respondents Surendra and Smt. Ashadevi and the same is pending in the High Court.Being aggrieved, this revision is preferred on the ground that the order impugned suffers from material irregularity.Civil proceedings can be stayed under Section 151, CPC when criminal proceedings in respect of same subject-matter is pending on the ground that the continuance of civil proceedings would embarrass and prejudice the accused in effectively contesting the criminal case.C.S. No. 1-B/2001 (Ex. P-1) has been instituted and the respondents have filed their written statement (Annexure P-2), the issues were settled and at the stage of evidence application for stay of suit (Annexure P-4) was filed.Trial in S.T. No. 194/2000 in the Court of ASJ, Jabalpur since has been concluded.The appeal against the conviction/sentence has already been preferred and is pending in High Court.The impugned order suffers from material irregularity and deserves to the set aside.Parties to bear their costs.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,790,273 |
The petitioner was working as an Assistant in charge of the deposit holders loan section.During that period of time, one Manisekaran PW-2 had a fixed deposit for a tenure of six years for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only] in the Co-operative Bank.On 20.04.1989, the petitioner requested loan from PW-2 to the tune of Rs.7,500/-[Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only].This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in Crl.PW-2 took a loan of Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] against the fixed deposit and gave that money to the petitioner.On 22.12.1992, the PW-2 received a letter from the Society informing that the fixed deposit has matured and the total amount of deposit along with interest of Rs.20,327.90 [Rupees Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Seven and Pise Ninety only] is available.PW-2 went to the Bank and to his shock he found that apart from Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] which he had taken as loan and given to the petitioner, another sum of Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] has been taken as loan by forging his signature.PW-2 found that his signature has been forged in various documents like loan application [Ex.P-7], Promissory Note [Ex.P-8], Security letter [Ex.P-10] and also the receipts [Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12] as if PW-2 has repaid the loan.Immediately on coming to known of this, PW-2 gave a complaint Ex.P-13 to the Secretary of the Co-operative Bank.On coming to known of this development, the petitioner gave a letter Ex.P-14 agreeing to return back this money.PW-14 who was the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society during the relevant point of time gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police CCIW CID, Kancheepuram and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.17 of 1993 for an offence under Section 408, 409,420, 477 (A) and 109 IPC.PW-15 recorded the statement of witnesses and handed over the case for further investigation to PW-16, who continued with the investigation.PW-16 sent the relevant records to get the opinion of the hand writing expert and PW-12 gave his expert opinion and submitted a report Ex.On completion of investigation, Final Report was field by PW-16 for an offence under Section 408, 477(A), 467 and 465 IPC and Trial Court took cognizance of the Final Report.3.The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 30 documents in order to prove their case.The petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and 2 documents were marked from his side.4.The Trial Court after thoroughly appreciating the evidence given by the witnesses and also the various documents marked by the prosecution found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and convicted the petitioner and imposed a sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand Only] fine and in default one month Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Section 408 of IPC, one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 r/w 465 IPC, one year Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand Only] fine and in default one month Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Section 471 r/w 467 IPC and one year Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 477 (A) IPC (two counts) for each count and the sentence was directed to run concurrently along with the sentence that was independently imposed in C.C.No.327 of 2006 for another set of charges faced by the petitioner along with 3 others.5.On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence did not find any ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the case as projected by the witnesses was not in line with the case as projected by the prosecution in the FIR and the statements given at the time of investigation.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) prays for the dismissal of this Criminal Revision petition.8.This Court has gone through the oral evidence of all the witnesses and also the documents relied upon by the prosecution.From the records it can be seen that the petitioner was in control of all the records in the deposit holders loan section during the relevant point of time.PW-2 was well known to the petitioner and during the first occasion the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.7500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] from PW-2 who in turn took a loan against his fixed deposit that was lying in the Co-operative Bank.It is the categoric evidence of PW-2 that apart from this loan, he did not take any other loan towards the fixed deposit.On 03.08.1992, certain concocted documents are made ready as if PW-2 has returned the loan taken by him and on the same day it is made to appear as if he is taking a loan of Rs.7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only] by giving an application.9.The evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 clearly shows that the petitioner was instrumental in preparing the forged and fabricated documents.Their evidence is further collaborated by the expert opinion marked as Ex.The evidence of PW-12 and his report clearly shows that he has compared the disputed documents which are S-11 to S-22, S-39 to S-62, S-99 to S-101, along with the sample signature of the petitioner Ex.P-23 and also the sample signatures of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 and found that all the disputed documents contains the hand writing of the petitioner herein.If the petitioner has to undergo remaining term of imprisonment [if any] after deducting the period when he was already in Judicial Custody, he shall surrender before the Trial Court and serve the remaining sentence.If the petitioner does not surrender,the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram shall immediately issue Non Bailable warrant through the respondent Police and secure the petitioner in order to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment if any.15.This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part by confirming the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below and modifying the sentence to the extent indicated above.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.20.06.20181/2Index: yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking OrderKpTo1.The District and Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,Kancheepuram.3.The State Rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W. CID., Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram.4.Kancheepuram Co-operative Town Bank, Nallukara Street, Kancheepuram.5.Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.N. ANAND VENKATESH,.J KP Pre-Delivery Order inCrl.R.C.No.1307 of 201120.06.20181/2
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,545,132 |
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 8.7.2019 and order dated 23.6.2012, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the respondent.It is alleged that the order impugned are contrary to the directions given by this Court in earlier round of litigation, whereby this Hon'ble Court has directed to respondent to produce the documents pertaining to bank account of Shilpa Jain, if not then to file an affidavit and further directed to disclose his property on affidavit.It is alleged that the Gram Niyalaya Ambha by order dated 23.06.2012 in MJC No.95/2009 has decided an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The aforesaid application was allowed and petitioner/respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.An execution was filed by the respondent u/S. 128 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as MJC No. 18/2012 and the trial Court directed the employer of the petitioner to deduct the maintenance amount from his salary and sent it to the court.The employer has deducted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and sent the demand draft to 2 M.P No.4226/2019 the Court which was directed to be deposited in the account of Lalita Jain, though the wife of the petitioner was of Shipla Jain.The aforesaid order was put to challenge before this Court by the petitioner by filing Miscellaneous Petition which was registered as M.P. No. 1173/2018 and the same was finally heard and decided vide order dated 8.8.2018 and has disposed of finding no fault in directing the employer to deduct the amount of maintenance from salary of the petitioner, but as there was some dispute with respect to identity of the wife of the petitioner and directed for depositing the aforesaid amount in the bank account of Shilpa Jain.An application was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court seeking two months time for challenging the order dated 8.7.2019 before this Court and in pursuance to the same the order has been put to challenge.The main ground which has been raised by the petitioner is that the respondent has to fail to comply with the direction given by the Court in earlier round of litigation, until and unless there is a declaration sought by the respondent she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner, but the respondent has contended that Shilpa and Lalita are names of one person, but as there was no document to demonstrate the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble High Court has granted them a liberty to approach the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction seeking declaration to the aforesaid effect.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.No order as to cost.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,547,451 |
(76)(ap) C.R.R. No. 1753 of 2019 In re : Suman Biswas & Ors. ....Petitioners.Re: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.07.2019 Mr. Sekhar Kunar Basu, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee....for the petitioners.The revisionists are the former Principal and current Teachers and other office bearers of Saint Stephen's School in Dankuni.Pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Soumita Chakraborty, the opposite party no.2 herein on 15th June, 2018, an investigation was started by Chanditala Police Station and a charge-sheet has been filed on 7th February, 2019, inter alia against the petitioners under Sections 341/323/354B/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.A bare reading of the charge-sheet would indicate that there are no facts recorded warranting filing of the same nor are the ingredients of sections mentioned therein appeared to be fulfilled.The entire dispute is centered around an order of transfer issued to the said opposite party no.2, namely, Soumita Chakraborty on 15th June, 2018 from the Dankuni Branch of the School to the Budge Budge Branch.Admittedly, the service is transferable.The allegations leveled by the opposite party no.2 have been completely refuted by another letter in writing dated 7th September, 1 2 2018 by about 22 teachers and staff of the concerned School.The statement of one of the witnesses, who is the caretaker of the concerned School, indicates only that there was some disharmony regarding transfer of the opposite party no.2 from Dankuni to Budge Budge.Be that as it may, the Officer-in-charge, Chanditala Police Station shall produce the case diary of the case on the next date of hearing.There shall be a stay of all further proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1343 of 2018 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly arising out of Chanditala Police Station Case No. 245 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 under Sections 341/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of two weeks from date or until further order whichever is earlier.The petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this application upon the opposite party no.1 through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta and also upon the opposite party no.2 by Registered Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due Card and to file affidavit-of-service on the next date of hearing.The hearing of this matter stands adjourned and shall be listed two weeks hence retaining its position in the list.Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacating the interim order upon notice to the other side.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 3 4 4
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,547,785 |
The fourth respondent is the son of second and third respondents herein.All the petitioners were shifted their residence to Andaman from their native place for the purpose of their livelihood.He further submitted that even according to the first respondent, as against the petitioners, there are absolutely no specific allegations.This petition has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.110 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District, against the petitioners are concerned.The first petitioner is the daughter of the second and third petitioners herein.They owned a grocery shop at Port Blair, Andaman.Therefore, the petitioners absolutely had no knowledge about the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent herein.Even according to the second 2/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 2016 respondent, suppressed the earlier marriage between the first accused and the second respondent, the first accused got married the first petitioner herein.At the same time, the second respondent/defacto complainant filed H.M.O.P.No.151 of 2013 on the file first of the I Additional Sub Court, Melur Camp, Madurai for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed.Therefore, no charge has been made out as against the petitioners as alleged by the 2nd respondent herein.The charge itself is suppressed the earlier marriage between the 1st accused and the second respondent.Therefore, the petitioners had no knowledge about the first marriage between the first accused and the second respondent and they had no intention to marry the first accused with the second accused, while the first marriage of the first accused was inexistence.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of entire proceedings as against the petitioners.3/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 20163.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second accused was informed on 13.03.2014 that the first accused got married the second respondent on 07.11.2013, while the marriage was very much in existence.Further, he submitted that at the time of marriage, the first petitioner was presented with 100 sovereign of jewels, car and other household articles during their marriage.In fact, they assured during the marriage that if they presented whatever they demanded, they would not demand any further dowry in future.But, after the marriage, they demanded more dowry and also harassed the second respondent.Thereafter, the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial house by the accused persons.Therefore, the second respondent was constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.151 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Melur Camp, Madurai.While so, with the help of other accused persons, first accused got married the second accused and also gave birth to two children.Therefore, there are specific averments and allegations as against the petitioners and the points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it can be considered only before the trial Court during trial.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.4/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 2016The first petitioner got married with the first accused even with the knowledge that the first accused already got married with the second respondent and their marriage was very much inexistence.For the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st accused, A3, A9 to 12 helped the 2nd accused to get married with the first accused.Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials on record.According to the case of prosecution, the first accused got 5/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.For the said marriage, A9 to 11 helped and cheated the second respondent herein.Even the case of the prosecution is that suppressed the earlier marriage, the first accused got married the second accused.Except the allegation that the second accused got married the first accused when the first marriage was very much in existence, no other allegations to attract other offence under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 494, 506(2) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Provision of Women Harassment Act.In the case on hand, the petitioners had absolutely no knowledge about the earlier marriage between the first accused and the second respondent herein.7/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 20169.A perusal of the statement of 161(3) Cr.P.C. of the second respondent herein would reveal that the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent was suppressed by the first accused and got married with the second accused.In fact, the charge itself shows that the first accused suppressed the earlier marriage and got married with the second accused herein.Therefore, the offence under Section 494 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioners.10.Insofar as the other offences are concerned, there are absolutely no allegations as against the petitioners to attract those offence under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(2) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Provision of Women Harassment Act.. Therefore, the entire proceedings as against the petitioner cannot be sustained and it is clear abuse of process of law.As such the petitioners need not go for the ordeal of the trial before the trial Court.11.In view of the above discussion, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.110 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District is quashed insofar as the 8/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 2016 petitioners alone.The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as against the other accused persons and complete the same within a period six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.06.10.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Melur, Madurai District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.9/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18427 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
60,548,285 |
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13th Court, South 24 Parganas, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 02(09) of 2001 arising out of South Port P.S. Case No. 70 dated 3rd June, 2001 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code sentencing thereby the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life.On the statement of one Gurumurti Narayan, the case was registered wherein it was alleged that on 02.6.2001 in the afternoon he came to the clubroom.While he was in the clubroom with his friends, at about 9.00 P.M. one of his neighbours Smt. Rama Devi, wife of appellant Ram Chandra Yadav came to him and said that her husband had kept his second son confined in a room and inspite of calling him several times he was not opening the door of the room.On hearing this, the informant along with other members of the club went with Rama Devi to her room.The informant along with others found that the door was closed from inside and a light was burning inside the room.The informant saw through the window that Ram Chandra Yadav was standing with his son Pradip Yadav aged about 3 years.Ram Chandra was asked to open the door and let the boy go out.Ram Chandra abused them and said that unless they left they would be killed.In the meantime other people gathered there.The informant and others saw through the window that Ram Chandra had a 'bonti' in his hand and was saying that he would kill unless they left the place.Saying this, Ram Chandra gave a blow on the throat of Pradip Yadav with the help of 'bonti'.Information was sent to the P.S. and after a while the police Officer came from the P.S. Thereafter, police broke open the door and arrested Ram Chandra.Ram Chandra's wearing apparels were stained with blood at the time he was apprehended.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.The charge was framed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The defence version is that some persons assaulted Ram Chandra and his son and out of fear he closed the door and has been falsely implicated in this case.Mr. Mallick appearing for the appellant submits that the evidence of Court witness No. 1 Rama Devi, that is, wife of the appellant assumes much importance, in as much as, it appears from her evidence that there was altercation between her husband and some other people outside the house and 4/5 persons were assaulting her husband with fists and blows and thereafter her husband ran towards the room.Mr. Mallick submits that there were so many local people, but, none of them has been cited as witness in this case.Mr. Mallick contends that neither the bulb which was burning inside the room nor the broken parts of the door were seized by the police as proof that police broke open the door and seized the 'bonti' from inside the room.It is contended that prosecution could not prove the motive behind the commission of such offence.Mr. Mallick submits that the incriminating material as appearing in the evidence that the appellant was seen to cut the throat of the boy was not stated to the accused at the time of examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Mr. Mallick further contends that if the appellant is found guilty, the sentence may be reduced to Section 304 part I or part II of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Mitra, appearing for the State submits that although the appellant is convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life, there remains doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case, in as much as, it would appear from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 6) that the accused had injury on his person and he was sent to hospital for treatment.Mr. Mitra submits that in absence of motive behind the commission of such offence, the prosecution case has to be considered from the standpoint of probability.Mr. Mitra submits that although he is appearing on behalf of the State, these aspects of the case struck his mind and he has placed the materials on record before the Court for consideration.The learned Trial Judge on perusal of the evidence on record and after hearing the submissions of both sides recorded the order of conviction and sentence holding that from the evidence of Court witness No. 1 Rama Devi it would appear that she found her son Pradip in the lap of her husband and police arrested her husband by breaking open the door of the room.The learned Judge observed that from the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 it was clear that the dead body of Pradip Yadav was found inside the room with bleeding injury and subsequently police arrived there and recovered the dead body and arrested Ram Chandra Yadav by breaking open the door.The learned Judge observed that blood was detected in the wearing apparels of the deceased and on the 'bonti' by the FSL.The learned Trial Judge held that the boy was killed not by outsiders but by Ram Chandra Yadav.It has been stated in the F.I.R. that on the date of incident at about 9.00 P.M. Smt. Rama Devi, wife of the appellant came to the club room and informed the informant that her husband had kept her second son confined in a room and inspite of calling several times he was not opening the door.P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that he along with other members of the club rushed to the house of the accused and found from the window that a child was lying dead in a pool of blood inside the room and the door of the room was locked from inside.It is also in his evidence that the accused had a 'bonti' and started shouting and telling others to disperse immediately.He has stated that police entered the room by breaking open the door of the room and seized the 'bonti' (Mat.exhibit - 1).It is in evidence of P.W. 4 that he found through the window that the body of Pradip Yadav was lying on the floor with severe bleeding injury and accused was standing inside the room with a bonti in his hand and the accused threatened them to leave the place, otherwise he would kill them.It is also in his evidence that police came there and with their help arrested the accused Ram Chandra Yadav by breaking open the door of the room.He has stated that police seized one iron rod and 'bonti' from inside the room and also seized some blood from the place of occurrence.He has also signed in the seizure list.P.W. 5 has stated that after reaching the place of occurrence he found the door of the room closed from inside and through the window he saw that Ram Chandra was standing inside the room and gave blow to his son on the throat with a 'bonti'.P.W. 6 is the I.O. who has stated that he along with force and some club members went near the room and noticed that the door was closed from inside and a window was open.He has stated that a boy was lying with the bleeding injuries and noticed that a man was standing inside the room with a 'bonti' in his hand.It is in his evidence that an electric bulb was burning inside the room.He has stated that he arrested Ram Chandra after breaking open the door.He made the seizure.The wife of the accused was examined as Court witness No. 1 and she has not supported the prosecution case and stated that at about 9.00 P.M. she was in the bed with three sons and her husband came and thereafter there was an altercation outside with a person.She noticed that 4/5 persons were assaulting her husband with fists and blows and she cried for help.She has stated that her husband ran towards the room and those persons also followed her husband.In the cross-examination she has stated that the neighbours assembled there on hearing cry.The seized wearing apparels and 'bonti' were sent to the FSL for examination and report.Exhibit No. 11 is the report of the FSL wherefrom it appears that blood was detected on the wearing apparels and 'bonti'.The report of the serologist (Exhibit - 11) also reveals that bloodstains were found on 'bonti' and human blood was there on the wearing apparels.He has stated that death was due to the effect of the injuries noted which were ante- mortem and homicidal in nature.He noted the following injuries:-" Cut throat injury in front of the neck 7" X 3" X cavity, with the cut of the trachea and oesophagus.The wound margins are irregular, bruised and started from downwards, then reached upwards, up to below the chin, reached up to below the ears of both sides"It follows from the evidence as discussed above that the occular version finds corroboration from the medical evidence.As regards the injuries appearing on the person of the appellant it appears from the injury reports (Exhibit 12, 12/1) that there were laceration and injuries which were simple in nature.On perusal of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure we find that as against question No. 3, the learned Judge had put the question to the accused stating that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 found the accused inside the room with a 'bonti' and his son was lying dead with bleeding injury and according to P.W. 5 the accused had killed his son.The learned Trial Judge rightly held that the boy was killed not by outsiders but by Ram Chandra Yadav.The absence of motive, as urged by Mr. Mallick and Mr. Mitra relegates to insignificance, in as much as, there is direct, independent, credible and convincing evidence against the appellant.In case of circumstantial evidence motive sometimes assumes importance, but, in the instant case, the point as to the lack of evidence on motive, becomes academic and is not significant.Considering the materials on record and having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel of both sides, we maintain the conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Judge.As regards the question of sentence, we find that the learned Trial Judge passed the sentence of imprisonment for life without recording any sentence as to payment of fine.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that justice will be sub-served if the charge is altered from 302 of Indian Penal Code to 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code and the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,987,661 |
1 This Petition takes an exception to the Judgment and order dated8th August, 2007 passed by the Learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Criminallgc 1 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtRevision Application No. 333 of 2007, thereby confirming the order dated03/07/2007 passed by the Learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8 thCourt, Esplanade, Mumbai.2 Brief facts leading for filing the present Petition are as under:It is the case of the Complainant that, Petitioner No. 1 is theDirector of the Petitioner No. 2 Company registered under the Companies Act,1956 and engaged in the business of Information and Technologies.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 23 rdCourt at Ballard Pier, Mumbai.It is stated in the complaint that, on or about 9 thApril, 1997 Petitioner No. 1 acting as a Director of Accused No. 2 Companyrepresented to 1st Respondent - Orig.Complainant that the Petitioners ownedand possessed an office premises on the 2nd floor together with mezzanine floorin the building known as Lawrence and Mayo, situated at 276, Dr. D.N. Road,Mumbai.Petitioner also made several representations that the said office couldbe sold to the Complainant Company.Petitioners further represented that theyhad clear title to the said premises.On such representations the Petitionersnegotiated the sale of the office premises to the Company of the Complainanti.e.Respondent No. 1 herein.iv) Upon the vendor making payment of full stamp duty in respect of the agreement of sale dated 29.01.1993v) subject to the simultaneous execution of Deed of Transfer and other relevant documents of vendor in favour of the Purchaser and Upon the Vendor simultaneously delivering the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises.It is also stated that in terms of clause 12 of the said Agreement, the partieshave agreed that in the event the purchaser fails to complete the transaction asper the MOU, then in that event the Vendor shall be entitled to terminate theagreement, and to forfeit the earnest money paid by the purchaser to theextent of 10% of the entire consideration i.e. a sum of Rs. 16,40,000/- andshall refund to the purchaser the balance of the earnest monies paid withoutlgc 3 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtinterest.The Complainant also stated in the complaint that except item no. (i)and (iii) listed above none of the other obligations that were to be performedby the Petitioners were performed by them.In fact, Petitioner No. 1 dishonestlyby misquoting the terms of the agreement has started pestering thecomplainant to shell out Rs. 1.2 Crores saying that he would otherwise forfeitthe earnest money to the extent of 10% of the entire consideration i.e. Rs.16.40 lacs, and would refund the balance without interest only when he founda buyer for the premises.By order dated 03/07/2007 the learnedMagistrate directed to frame charge against the accused under Section 406,420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::On 2 ndDecember, 1998 Respondent No. 1 herein filed a Criminal Complaint againstthe Petitioners before the learned Addl.Accordingly, an agreement was entered into onlgc 2 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odt9th April, 1997 between the Respondent No. 1 Company and Petitioners.RespondentNo. 1 paid Rs. 41,00,000/- to the Petitioners on 09.04.1997 itself on theexecution of the agreement.As per clause 2(b) of the Agreement i.e.Memorandum of Understanding (for sake of brevity hereinafter it will bereferred as "MOU").a sum of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- being the balance amount waspayable by the Complainant within one month from the receipt of thefollowing:-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::3 It is also the case of the complainant that, complainant was notguided by legally versed person and were influenced by the Petitionersterrorizing tactics.Therefore, Complainant made a counter proposal, that thePetitioners should return to the complainant the balance of Rs. 24,60,000/-forthwith, and if he was unable to do so then the amount should be paid backwithin a definite time frame with interest @ 24% p.a.with security for thepayment.It is further stated that the Petitioners never intended to return anypart of the amount, therefore they did not give any reply to counter offer ofComplainant.Time went by and M/s. Mulla and Mulla, Craige Blunt andCaroe, Advocates, issued an advertisement in newspaper which proclaimedthat the Petitioners intended to sell the office premises to their clients a 3 rdparty.By a letter dated 12th March 1998 addressed to the advertisingadvocates, Advocate of the Complainant set forth the correct state of affairs,lgc 4 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtobjecting to the said second sale.They also wrote a letter to the accused on16th April 1998 emphasizing that agreement entered into between thePetitioners and the complainant was still valid.Complainant learnt that MTNLhad filed a suit before this Court for recovery of over Rs. 64,66,582/- lacs fromthe Petitioners, and when the MTNL proceeded to seek attachment / CourtReceiver of the suit premises, a statement was made to the Hon'ble Court bythe Counsel of the Petitioners that the property was already mortgaged to IDBI.It is averred by the complainant that from the said information, it is clear, thatwhen the Petitioners made representations to the Complainant that thePetitioners had clear title and could sell the office premises to the complainant,the representations were false to their knowledge as the office premises wasalready mortgaged to IDBI.By such false representations, the Petitionersinduced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 41,00,000/- and have thuscommitted an offence of cheating.On 09.04.1997 the Petitioners entered intoan agreement of sale in respect of the office premises, they becameconstructive trustees in respect of the said premises and their subsequentattempt to sell the said premises to the 3 rd party amounts to Criminal Breach ofTrust by trustees under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.4 The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after goingthrough the complaints and evidence which was adduced before the Court andthe documents produced on record, came to a conclusion that the complainantlgc 5 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odthas made out a case under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code forframing of charge under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Byorder dated 07/03/2007 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,as stated herein above, directed the Accused Petitioners to remain present onthe next date for framing of charge.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::5 Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, the Petitioners filed a Revision bearing CriminalRevision Application No. 333 of 2007 before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.As stated herein above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombayby order dated 08.08.2007 rejected the application filed by the Petitioners.Hence this Writ Petition.6 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is nosufficient material produced on record by the complainant to frame chargeagainst the Petitioners.Clause 12 of the MOU providedthat in case of default by the Purchaser, vendor was allowed to forfeit Rs.16.40Lakhs.The complainant could not arrange the balance amount as agreed to bepaid as per MOU.In the letter of complainant dated 15/07/1997, thecomplaint has stated that he is unable to give the Petitioners the advancelgc 6 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtamount since the complainant is still in process of consolidating his funds.It isan admitted position that Respondent No.1 had no money to complete thetransaction in question.Thecomplainant has falsely alleged that the Petitioners intended to sell thepremises in question to third party.There was no dishonest intention on thepart of the Petitioners, and therefore, the Revisionary Court has committed anerror in holding that failure to return the amount constitute an offence underSection 406 of the IPC.There is no specific promise to return the property andtherefore no offence of cheating under Section 420 as alleged against thePetitioners is made out.The Revisionary Court failed to appreciate that failureto fulfill promise to make certain payment, even assuming to be true, does notamount to any criminal offence.There was no document produced on recordto support the case of the complainant that the property was mortgaged toBank, and therefore, there is no evidence adduced on record to support thecase of alleged offences.He submits that no false statement was made by theaccused Petitioners, none of the offences are disclosed against the Petitioner,and there is no evidence to frame charge against the accused.According tohim, at the most the contents of the complaint will disclose that it is a civildispute triable by the Civil Court, but definitely not by any criminal court.It istherefore submitted that order directing to frame charge against the accusedPetitioners is illegal and perverse.The learned counsel for the Petitionerslgc 7 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtsubmits that neither alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of the IndianPenal Code are disclosed, nor material on record is sufficient to frame thecharge, so also the allegations in the complaint at the most demonstrate thatthere was breach of an agreement/MOU for which civil remedy can be availed.7 The learned counsel for the Petitioners relying upon the relevantclauses of the MOU so also the cross examination of the complainant submitsthat all the requirements/clauses stated in the said agreement have beencomplied with by the Petitioners within the time stipulated therein.In the present case, the earnest money of Rs.41 lakhs was paid by thecomplainant to the Petitioners, and by a subsequent letter it was liable to belgc 8 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtrefunded to the complainant on finding a new buyer which had neveroccurred.He therefore submits that the learned SessionsJudge was erroneous on facts and laws while rejecting the Revision preferredby the Petitioners.The learned counsel relying upon Anand Kumar Mohatta'scase (supra) submits that mere failure to refund security deposit would notattract the offences under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.Thelearned counsel relying upon Anil Mahajan's case (supra) also submits thatmere failure to keep the promise at a subsequent stage, offence of cheatingcannot be made out.In support of the aforesaid contentions the learnedcounsel for the Petitioners accused sought to place reliance on the followingjudgments :- 1] Unreported Judgment of Apex Court in Criminal AppealNo.1395 of 2018 in the matter of Anand Kumar Mohatta and anr v/s.Of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and anr.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::8 Respondent No.1 Complainant has filed affidavit in reply.Thecomplainant reiterated his case in the said affidavit in reply.It is specificallystated in the said affidavit that Petitioner Accused No.1 assured thecomplainant that the title of the subject property was free hold and that, therewere no encumbrances thereupon.It is further stated that the matter at handpertains to outright cognizable criminal acts including cheating and criminalbreach of trust even ex facie with mens rea and clear intention to commit thecognizable criminal acts by the Petitioners/accused.9 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 complainantsubmits that the complainant has paid Rs.41,00,000/- to accused No.2 on09/04/1997 itself on the execution of the MOU and balance amount ofRs.1,23,00,000/- was to be paid within one month from the receipt of thecertain documents mentioned in the said MOU.It is also submitted that lateron the complaint learnt that MTNL had filed a suit for recovery of amount fromlgc 10 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtthe accused and, when the MTNL proceeded to seek attachment of the suitpremises, a statement was made before the Court by the advocate of theaccused that the property was already mortgaged.It is submitted that thePetitioners have falsely represented Respondent No.1 that, they had clear titleto the premises in question.The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 thereforesubmits that the accused induced the complainant to part with a sum ofRs.41,00,000/- and therefore committed an offence of cheating under Section420 of the IPC.It is also submitted that the complainant came to know by anadvertisement in Newspaper that the accused intended to sell the said premisesto third party.Therefore according to the learned counsel for RespondentNo.1, subsequent attempt to sell the premises to the third party, that toowithout returning the money entrusted by the complainant, amounts tocriminal breach of trust on the part of Petitioners accused, and therefore, theaccused committed an offence under Section 406 of the IPC.It is alsosubmitted that the Petitioners never intended to return any part of the amount.In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for RespondentNo.1 Complainant has placed reliance on the observations/ratios laid down inthe following judgments in 1] (1999) 3 SCC 259, Rajesh Bajaj v/s.State NCTDelhi 2] SLP (C) Nos. 25043-25045 of 2008; Kalabharati Advertising v/s.Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & ors.3]Civil Appeal Nos.4012-4013 of 2012SLP(C) Nos.14163-14164 of 2012; A Shanmugam v/s.Ariya K R K M N PSangam; 4] AIR 2001 SC 3846; Kamaladevi Agarwal v/s.State of West Bengallgc 11 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odt& ors.5] AIR 2000 SC 1869; Medchl Chemical & Pharma (P) Ltd v/sBiological E Ltd. & ors.6] Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2001; MKrishnan v/s Vijay Singh & Anr.7] High Court of HP, Cr.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::It is also an admitted position that as per clause 12 of the saidlgc 13 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtMOU, in case of default by the Purchaser, the vendors would be allowed toforfeit Rs.16.40 lakhs.If the averments in the complaint are carefully perusedand read in its entirety, the ingredients of offences are attracted, andconsequently the alleged offences have been disclosed.It would be apt toreproduce paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint which reads thus :-::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::"6 We learnt that MTNL had filed a suit in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for recovery of over Rs.64,66,582/- lacs from the Accused and when the MTNL proceeded to seek attachment/Court Receiver of the suit premises, a statement was made to the Hon'ble Court by the Counsel of the Accused/Defendants that the property was already mortgaged to IDBI.7 The above information brought to light the fact that when the accused made representations to us that they had clear title and could sell the office premises to us, the representations were false to their knowledge as the office premises was already mortgaged to IDBI.By such false representations, the Accused induced us to part with a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- and have thus committed an offence of cheating.On or about 9/4/97 the Accused entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the office premises, they became constructive trustees in respect of the said premises and their subsequent attempt to sell the said premises to the 3rd party amounts to criminal breach of trust by trustee u/s. 409 of IPC.8 Without prejudice to above and in any view of the matter, the Accused have no defence or justification, they have not preferred any - to retain Rs.25,00,000/- and wrongful retention of the same is conclusively, indisputably criminal breach of trust and/or misappropriation punishable u/secs.403, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.The amount was received and misappropriated by the Accused in their office.Hence the complaint is being filed in the Hon'ble Court."::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::A conjoin reading of paragraphs 6 to 8 would clearly disclose the allegedoffences.when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::intended to sell the premises in question to third party, by their advocate'sletter dated 12/03/1998 the complainant has objected the notice published inTimes of India dated 10/03/1998 in respect of the the sale of the premises inquestion.15 It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in cross examinationmuch store was laid on Exhibit D-1 which is a letter dated 15/07/1997addressed by the Complainant to the Accused company.By said letter dated15/07/1997 (Exhibit D-1) the complainant has informed the Petitioners thathe is unable to give the Petitioners the advance amount since the complainantis still in process of consolidating his funds.Though it is the case of the accusedthat the complainant had no money to complete the transaction, in the crossexamination, PW No.1 has clarified that mentioning about consolidating hislgc 17 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtfunds means to check his accounts, bank balances etc before making finalpayment to the accused.Thatmatter also needs to be considered by the Trial Court.Therefore it is notdesirable to undertake exercise of the aforesaid disputed question of factswhile exercising writ jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::charge, it may be appropriate to make a reference to the evidence adduced bythe complainant through one of the Directors Mr. Amarjitsingh Vidhyarathi(PW-1).In his examination in chief he has specifically stated that the accusednever informed him till date that, he had paid the stamp duty on the businesspremises when he acquired the said premises from his predecessor in title.PW No.1 has specifically stated in hisexamination in chief that he told the accused that first the accused shouldcomplete his part of deal and then the complainant will make the full payment,and also proposed that the accused could keep with them Rs.16,45,000/- outof the total amount of Rs.41,00,000/- and return the balance ofRs.24,60,000/-.It is stated that as per cancellation clause contained in MOU,the complainant was ready for cancellation of the MOU, however, the accuseddid not pay him back and made a false representation that the title was clear.PW No.1 has also stated that the accused had not given any reason as to whyhe was not returning the balance amount as per clause in MOU.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::attention of this Court to the plaint of Suit No.5361 of 1998 filed by ICICILimited against the accused company for recovery of amounts advancedand/or lent to the accused and the Defendant No.1 therein i.e. the accusedcompany agreed to mortgage/charge/hypothecate of the immoveable andmoveable properties mentioned in Exhibits A, A-1 and B thereto with thePlaintiff Bank.In Exhibit-A the description of the immoveable property hasbeen shown.It is clear from thereading of the averments made in the said plaint that on failure on the part ofthe accused to make payment of loans to the Plaintiff bank, the bank had filedthe said suit for recovery of the loans amounts and appointment of CourtReceiver and for injunction.Though the accusedlgc 20 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 ::: wp-1690.07.odtby their letter dated 13/10/1997 informed the complainant that they areterminating the MOU and, they shall forfeit the amount of total considerationand refund the balance of earnest amount, the accused did not act accordingly.This act of the accused therefore shows that the accused never intended toensure execution of MOU or to return the said amount.The averments made inthe complainant prima facie demonstrate that since inception the accused hadan intention to cheat the complainant.The learned Additional ChiefMagistrate has properly appreciated the evidence adduced on record and aftergoing through the evidence, material and documents produced on record, hasrightly come to a conclusion that the complainant has made out a case forframing the charge for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 ofthe Indian Penal and accordingly directed the accused to remain present forframing charge.The Revisionary Court did not deem it appropriate to interferewith the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.TheRevisionary Court has recorded a finding that, it can be safely said that whenthe accused executed MOU in favour of the complainant, he was well awarethat the premises in question was not fully free from encumbrance and bankcould have reasonbly claimed against the property in question.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::As already observed herein above, the Petitioners gaveimpression to the complainant that there is clear title to the subject property,however, prima facie it appears that since inception the Petitioners hadintention to cheat the complainant.In the facts of the present, it needs to benoted that till hearing of this Writ Petition, admittedly the Petitioners did notrefund the amount as mentioned in their letter dated 13/10/1997 which theyagreed to pay to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::Allcontentions raised on merits are kept open for being agitated before the TrialCourt.The question as to whether the Petitioners accused committed breach oftrust and/or cheated the complainant would be decided only during trial aftergiving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in that regard.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 02:58:47 :::
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,000,542 |
Hence, this appeal.Prosecution case, emerged from surface on record, was that "F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-1) written by Ritesh Verma, son of Prem Narayan Verma, resident of EWS-738, Awas Vikas No. 3, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar, dated 26.3.2016, was presented at Police Station Kalyanpur, by Ritesh Verma by appearing at above police station, at 18:30 hours of 26.3.2016, with this contention that on 26.3.2016, at about 3:30 P.M., when informant Ritesh Verma was inside his room, at House No. EWS-738 Awas Vikas No. 3, Kalyanpur, he heard some noise at third floor, he came out and saw that his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Smt. Seema Verma, (present convict appellant) wife of Sri Neeraj Verma, was throwing her sons Suryansh and Ansh, who were nephews of this informant, from roof.He attempted to forbid but both nephews were thrown.He made alarm call and took both of them under unconscious situation, straight away at B.M.C. Hospital, Panki, where they were got admitted.But younger one Ansh was serious.Seema Verma was under mental ailment.This occurrence was reported at above police station for taking legal recourse.This report was lodged as Case Crime No. 311 of 2016, under Section 308 I.P.C. at chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-4), by way of entering this registration of case crime number at Report No. 49 of P.S. Kalyanpur at 18:30 hours and this G.D. entry was Ex.Ritesh Verma submitted report (Ex.Ka-10) at Police Station Kalyanpur, that an occurrence of throwing Suryansh and Ansh Verma by their mother Smt. Seema Verma on 26.3.2016 and injury to both of them and their admission at B.M.C. Hospital at Panki was reported at police station in the evening of 26.3.2016 at 6:30 P.M. Ansh Verma, being serious, was referred at Hallet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, where he died during the course of treatment.Upon this information, inquest proceeding was got conducted, over dead body of Ansh Verma, by inspector in-charge police station Kalyanpur, in between 27.3.2016, 10:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. at mortuary of L.L.R Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, in which opinion of witnesses Neeraj Verma, Ashish Verma, Manish Shukla, Vaibhav Gupta, Ranveer Singh was of death owing to above antemortem injuries, caused by throwing from roof, during the course of treatment at Hallet Hospital and this Inquest Report (Ex.Ka-5) was prepared by Investigating Officer with a need for getting autopsy examination conducted, for which requisite papers, letter to Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar (Ex.Ka-6), specimen seal put over dead body, kept under intact and sealed position (Ex.Ka-7), photo dead body (Ex. Ka-8), Challan dead body (Ex. Ka-9), were got prepared by Investigating Officer.Autopsy examination over dead body of deceased Ansh Verma, was got conducted in between 12:40 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. of 27.3.2016 by Dr. Anil Kumar and autopsy examination report (Ex.Ka-2) was got prepared under handwriting and signature of above witnesses, with mention of antemortem injury of contused swelling 30cm X 25cm over whole skull with underlying right frontal and left temporal, parietal and occipital bone fractured, resulting death of deceased.She has not thrown her child.She was very loving to her both sons.Elder son Suryansh was playing outside and Neeraj for saving himself got her falsely implicated.Prashant Kumar son of Indrapal Singh, her next door neighbour, used to sit in her room very often and take liquor in the sharing of her husband.He made a rescue call and took them under unconscious position to hospital at B.M.C. Hospital, Panki, where got them admitted and this occurred when his sister-in-law was of ill mental health.Meaning thereby, convict appellant was suffering with mental ailment and owing to it, she had thrown her both sons from roof to road and he, immediately, took them to hospital.But he has categorically said:-"ml fnu eS vius edku dh rhljs eafty esa cus vius dejs esa cSBdj [kkuk [kk jgk Fkk blh nkSjku eq>s cPpks ds jksus o fpYykus dh vkokt lqukbZ nh rHkh eSus [kkuk NksM+dj vius dejs esa cus NTts ls ft/kj ls vkokt vk jgh Fkh] m/kj Åij dh vksj >kWd dj ns[kk fd esjh HkkHkh lhek oekZ vius cPps lw;kZa'k oekZ dks /kDdk nsus dh dksf'k'k dj jgh FkhA vkSj cPpk fpYyk jgk Fkk fd eSa uhps fxj tkÅaxk eEeh /kDdk u nhft, esjs fpYykus ij o jksdus ij tks ckr gks uhps crkvks vkdjA blh nkSjku mUgksus cM+s csVs lw;kZa'k dks /kDdk ns fn;k ftldh otg ls og fctyh ds rkjks esa fyiVrk gqvk uhps [kM+h eksVj lkbfdy dh lhV ij fxj x;kA blh nkSjku eSa cPps dks cpkus ds fy, uhps Hkkxk rFkk uhps vkdj ns[kk rks nwljk cPpk Hkh fxjk iM+k gqvk FkkA nwljk NksVk cPpk va'k oekZ tks uhps tehu ij fxjk iM+k Fkk vpsr voLFkk esa Fkk rFkk mldh gkyr xEHkhj FkhA""At about 3:30 P.M. of 26.3.2016 while I was present in my room situated at third floor and was to have meal, I heard weeping and noise of children, I left my meal, I peeped over portico of room from where noise was coming, I saw my brother Smt. Seema Verma was attempting to push her son Suryansh Verma and he was crying that he will fell down.Mother don't push me.I asked her to come down and tell the problem, in between, she pushed Suryansh Verma, who after falling over electric wire, fall down over a motorcycle seat.I came down for suffering him and found next son Ansh was lying thereat.He was unconscious and under serious condition".Both of them went inside the room where she took them over roof and she asked them to be in tin shade.They went over it and their mother was accompanying them.She has also thrown him then after his younger brother.He fell over motorcycle after hanging over electric wire from porch whereas his younger brother has fallen over the road, having injury over his person."esjh eEeh ?kj esa [kq'k jgrh Fkh mnkl ugh jgrh Fkh ?kj dk lkjk dke eeh djrh Fkh ge edku ds rhljh eafty ij jgrs Fks Åij Nr gS Nr ij Vhu vkxs okys dejs esa gS Vhu ij ge nhokj idM+ dj p<+ tkrs gS Vhu ij dksbZ lh<+h ugh iM+h gS Vhu vkxs okys dejs esa iM+hA""My mother remained very happy at home.She never remained under depression.But her mother was annoyed and she, under above stress, did this act.But she was caring, doing her household affairs by her own.She had never beaten her sons and she was very affectionate.This testimony has further been corroborated by PW-10 Dr. Rajiv Kainth that on 26.3.2016 Ansh Verma was admitted at Brij Medical Centre.He was serious and got examined under C.T. Scan, some drugs were prescribed and owing to non-availability of I.C.U. At B.M.C., he was referred for treatment at Hallet Hospital.Prescription was written under his handwriting and signature, proved and exhibited as Ex.Ansh Verma was having injury over his head.But this cannot be told that who brought patient Ansh Verma.In Ex.Ka-15 no entry of injury was there.This Ex.It was not complained by informant that patient was thrown from up side to road resulting these injuries.Inquest report was prepared by PW-8, S.S.I. Puspraj Singh, who has said on oath that while being posted at Police Station Kalyanpur on 26.3.2016, he was deputed for investigation of Case Crime No. 311 of 2016, under Section 308 I.P.C. and he got F.I.R., G.D. Entry, entered in case diary.Then after, constable Gandharv Singh was examined and his statement was recorded in case diary.Statement of Ritesh Verma was recorded at B.M.C. Hospital and then after it was found that injured Ansh Verma was referred to L.L.R. Hospital where he succumbed to injury, a report from informant was of this fact.Age of deceased was 8 years.Inquest report and related papers, letter to Chief Medical Officer, specimen seal, photo dead body, police form No. 33, were got prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness and dead body under sealed and intact position was delivered for getting it examined under autopsy examination.She used to cook meals for family and was doing household affairs.This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by convict appellant Smt. Seema Verma against the judgment of conviction and sentence made therein, by Court of XI, Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, Session Trial No. 434 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2016, under Sections 304, 323 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'), Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby convict appellant has been convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting murder, punishable under Section 304 read with Section 323 I.P.C. and has been sentenced with imprisonment of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of making payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one year under Section 304 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of making payment of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 323 I.P.C., with a direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjustment of previous incarceration, if any, in this case crime number, with this contention that the trial Court failed to appreciate facts and evidence, placed on record.Appellant was innocent and prosecution failed to bring on record any injury report of alleged eye-witness Suryansh Verma.Prosecution failed to produce medical report of any kind with regard to mental faculty of appellant, showing her ailment whereas injury found over person of appellant, could not be explained by prosecution.Though, the injury was proved by defence witness Dr. Anurag Rajauriya posted at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar.Convict appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) I.P.C. whereas she was sentenced with excessive punishment i.e. maximum punishment provided under Section 304 (Part-II) I.P.C. ten years whereas no minimum sentence was provided under above Section, but she was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine.Offence of culpable homicide was exclusively triable by Court of Session, hence, file was committed to Court of Session Judge, vide order dated 15.6.2017 of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.File was made over to Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar.Learned Additional Session Judge after hearing public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for defence, leveled charge against Smt. Seema Verma as follows:"मै, पुनीत कुमार गुप्ता, अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश, न्यायालय कक्ष सं०13, कानपुर नगर आप श्रीमती सीमा वर्मा को निम्न आरोपों से आरोपित करता हूँ-प्रथम- यह कि दिनांक 26.03.2016 को समय लगभग 3.30 पी०एम० पर स्थान मकान नं० ई०डब्लू०एस० 738 आवास विकास नं०3 कल्यानपुर, कानपुर नगर में आपने अपने सामान्य आशय के अग्रशरण में अपने बेटे सूर्यांश व अंश को छत से नीचे फेक दिया, जिन्हे बेहोशी की हालत में अस्पताल ले जाया गया, किन्तु अंश की मृत्यु हो गयी। इस प्रकार आपने हत्या की कोटि में न आने वाला आपराधिक मानव वध किया। इस प्रकार आपने धारा 304 भा०दं०सं० के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध कारित किया, जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान मे है।द्वितीय- यह कि उपरोक्त दिनांक, समय व स्थान पर आपने अपने पुत्र सूर्यांश व अंश को छत से नीचे फेंक कर स्वेच्छ्या उपहति कारित किया। इस प्रकार आपने धारा 323 भा०दं०सं० के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध कारित किया, जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान मे है।एतद्द्वारा आपको निर्देशित किया जाता है कि आपका विचारण उक्त आरोप में इस न्यायालय द्वारा किया जाएगा।""I, Punit Kumar Gupta, Additional Session Judge, Court Room No.13, Kanpur Nagar, do hereby charge you Smt. Seema Verma, with the following charges:-That on 26.3.2016 at about 3:30 P.M. at House No. EWS 738, Avas Vikash No. 3, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar, you with furtherance of your intention had thrown your son Suryansh and Ansh from roof who were taken under unconscious state at hospital where Ansh died.Thereby, you committed offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court.That you on above date time and place thrown your sons Suryansh and Ansh from roof, thereby, voluntarily caused hurt to them, punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court."Charges were read over and explained to accused Smt. Seema Verma, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.Prosecution examined PW-1 Ritesh Verma, PW-2 Prem Narayan Verma, PW-3 Suryansh Verma, PW-4 Prathima Verma, PW-5 Ashish Kumar, PW-6 Dr. Anil Kumar, PW-7 Head Constable Gandharva Singh, PW-8 Investigating Officer Puspraj Singh, PW-9 Constable Ashish, PW-10 Dr. Rajiv Kanth, PW-11 Dr. Brij Mohan.With a view to obtain explanation, if any, and version of accused person, her statement was got recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which Smt. Seema Verma replied that Ritesh Verma has given false evidence, she had never thrown her sons, she was implicated with a view to save his brother Neeraj.After injury to her son Ansh, she was separated from him and was locked in a room, hence, she is not aware of remaining facts.She was falsely implicated by PW-1 for having saved his brother Neeraj.She was taken by police from her home and this injury to Ansh was owing to Neeraj Verma.She was not aware of PW-11 Dr. Brij Mohan and this charge-sheet was filed under connivance of informant and his brother Neeraj i.e. husband of convict appellant.The testimony of PW-3 Surayansh was tutored one.Other witnesses were under connivance of her husband Neeraj and they have given a false statement.She has categorically said:-"On the date of occurrence I along with my son Ansh was present at the stairs of house in question, this was without railing.My husband did assault at my neck and my son Ansh was left from my lap who fell down, suffered injuries.My elder son Suryansh was not there, he was playing out of the home and witnesses gave false statement with a view to save Neeraj Verma"While asked for her version, she said:-"esjs ifr eq>ls o esjs ek;ds okyks ls ukjkt jgrs Fks vk, fnu esjs lkFk ekjihV djrs FksA ?kVuk okys fnu esjs lkFk esjs ifr uhjt us esjs lkFk tc eSa NksVk csVk va'k xksn esa fy, Fkh] ifr uhjt us esjk xnZu ij okj dj fn;k cPpk gkFk ls NwV x;kA /kDds dh otg ls 5&6 lh s xyr Qalk;k iz'kkUr dqekj ,l@vks- bUnziky flag esjk iMkslh gS] esjs ifr ds lkFk esjs ?kj esa esjs dejs esa cSBdj vk, fnu 'kjkc ihrk FkkA esjs ifr dks 'kjkc fiyk fn;k FkkA bl dkj.k eSus dfFkr ?kVuk rkjh[k ls djhc Ms< ekg igys mls csbTtr djds vius dejs ls Hkxk;k FkkA bl dkj.k og eq>ls jaft'k ekurk gSA""My husband remained annoyed with me and my family members, very often used to assault me.On the date of occurrence I was with my younger son Ansh, in my lap, when my husband Neeraj gave a blow over my neck resulting Ansh fall from my la, and owing to it he fell down straight away 5 to 6 stairs down.In defence, lady constable Mithlesh as DW-1, Dr. Anil Rajoria as DW-2 and Neeraj Verma (husband of convict appellant) as DW-3, were examined.Learned Additional Session Judge, after hearing argument of learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for defence, passed impugned judgment of conviction and after hearing over quantum of punishment passed order of sentence as above, against which this appeal.Ka-1, at police station for above occurrence.He, in his examination-in-chief, has said that on 26.3.2016 at 3:30 P.M., when he was inside his room he heard some noise at third floor, he came out of it and found his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Smt. Seema Verma, wife of Neeraj Verma, throwing her son Ansh and Suryansh from roof.He tried to intervene but till then both were thrown.Meaning thereby, this witness was the witness of attempt to push Suryansh from porch of room situated at third floor, which was being protested by Suryansh but he was pushed by Seema Verma, resulting his fall over the road and when he came the down side, he also found second son Ansh lying at road under serious condition and Suryansh was fallen over seat of a motorcycle.Both of them were taken to hospital where they were got admitted.But no medical treatment or any documentary evidence of any Medical officer regarding admission or injury of Suryansh is there, on record.Though, he was said to be admitted at the B.M.C. Hospital, but neither medical officer of B.M.C. Hospital admitted this fact nor any documentary evidence regarding it, was filed on record to show that Suryansh was having any injury, because of pushing down and falling on road.This witness has not seen throwing of Ansh by Seema Verma.Because as per his examination-in-chief, when he came down, he found that Ansh was lying on the road who caused to fell him, was not perceived by this witness because he in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that:-"lhek oekZ tc lw;kZa'k dks uhps Qsad jgh Fkh rc eSus mUgs fpYykdj jksdk esjs jksdus ds ckotwn mUgksus lw;kZa'k dks /kDdk ns fn;k tc cPpk rkj ls my> dj uhps fxjk rks eSa 'kksj epkrk gqvk cPps dks cpkus uhps nkSM+k tc eSa uhps xsV ds ckgj igaqpk rks NksVk Hkrhtk va'k Hkh tehu ij fxjk iM+k FkkA ""Seema Verma, while throwing Suryansh, was prohibited by me but in spite of participation, she pushed Suryansh and when he after falling over electric wire came down to the road side, I while making noise run down to save child, when I reached there outside the door of lower floor, found Ansh lying thereat.I, myself, have not witnessed throwing of younger nephew though both of them were taken by me and got admitted at hospital".When asked as to whether any documentary evidence of admission or treatment at hospital regarding Suryansh is there? This witness has categorically replied "मैंने पुलिस को सूर्यांश के भर्ती कराने का कोई कागज दाखिल नहीं किया" (I did not give any paper of admission of Suryansh to police or filed it on record).He has categorically answered in examination-in-cross that accused i.e. convict appellant was mentally ill.Though he was not aware as to what type of decease she was suffering.But his brother Neeraj Verma has narrated about mental ailment of convict appellant.Though she used to cook meal and look after her family prior to this occurrence.This was narrated by this witness to Investigating Officer that his bhabhi was suffering with mental ailment and was under treatment for it.This witness has categorically said that this house EWS-738 Avas Vikash, was an economically weaker section's house of about 36 to 40 square yard, over which first and second floor were built up, in which two brothers of father of this witness, were residing with their family members and father of this witness along with his three sons and their family members and wife including present convict appellant were residing at third floor, which was built up of tin shade, having no stairs for its roof, but wooden stair was temporarily used by this convict appellant, her husband and sons.Meaning thereby, the paucity of space for residence to convict appellant along with her family members, was there and this whole family of more than ten persons were residing in that economically weaker section's house.Both minor sons uses wooden ladder for coming to above tin shade roof, in which convict appellant along with other family members was residing.This has specifically been said by this witness that there occurred no quarrel, no assault prior to this occurrence or after this occurrence.But this witness could not reply about the injury, found on the person of convict appellant, which was medically examined upon the pretext of police and was found to be of corresponding time of occurrence.Though this was pleaded by her in statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as well as by way of leading questions to prosecution witnesses that her husband slapped her, as a result, her son fell from her lap.She has not thrown him and her husband used to physically torture her, very often.This witness was given substantive question that this occurrence was a result of family quarrel but the testimony of this witness regarding Ansh who died in this occurrence was not of this fact that he had personally seen throwing of same by convict appellant and he saw convict appellant while pushing her elder son Suryansh from roof and he fell down, sustained injuries, got admitted but no documentary evidence of any treatment or admission at any hospital regarding Suryansh have been filed on record.19. PW-2 Prem Narayan Verma, is father of husband of convict appellant and he categorically has said that he was not present on spot rather he rushed at spot after having information of occurrence and this, too, has said that convict appellant was ailing with mental illness and was under treatment.Meaning thereby, this throwing was result of mental ailment.This witness, too, has said in cross-examination that no document regarding treatment of Suryansh at any hospital including his admission, was seen by this witness nor he can reply the bed number etc. where he was treated i.e. no document of treatment of Suryansh could be explained by this witness.He along with his younger brother was taken to hospital where they got treatment and younger brother Ansh died.In cross-examination this witness has admitted that there had been birthday party celebration of this witness on 25.3.2016 and it was participated by his family members.His mother was very caring for both of them.She never beaten them and she used to take care of them.She used to cook meal for them and was very affectionate to them.But on that day, she was bit angry and annoyed.But why she was annoyed and why she did so, was not under his knowledge.But there occurred no quarrel amongst his parents.He has been asked about assault made by his father to his mother, resulting injury over her neck, which has been denied by this witness."It is wrong to say that his younger brother was left from lap and fell down to road because of assault made by his father to his mother over neck".This witness has categorically said:-She used to work household affairs.We were residing at third floor having roof of tin over front room, there is no stair for going over roof but we used to go through wall.There was no ladder over it."This witness is a child witness and has proved the occurrence of the day and upon over all appreciation of his testimony, it is apparent that there had been a celebration of birthday on that very previous night, in which family members participated and this witness could not perceived the reason of annoyance.This witness has visited her in jail where she asked about his well being and his studies.Though he told a lie about his studies.This act was under anger, for which an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was charge-sheeted.PW-4 is Smt. Pratima Verma, one of the family member of husband of convict appellan.She in her statement has said that she was living in that house EWS-738, which was of three brothers and Prem Narayan Verma along with his three sons and their families was residing at third floor and on the date of occurrence i.e. 26.3.2016 at about 2:30 Seema Verma came to her and apprised that her sons are hungry and she took both Suryansh and Ansh right in her room for giving them meal and after thirty minutes, this was occurred.This witness was not present on spo.Rather she had heard noise of people that Seema Verma has thrown her both sons, one of the Ansh died in hospital and Suryansh too had suffered grievous harm.But no document of his treatment was there.She had not witnessed the occurrence by her own senses.The previous conduct of convict appellant was that she was a caring lady, doing all her household affairs and look after her family, residing separately in above paucity of residence, which was proved by this witness.23. PW-5 Sushil Kumar, is the next door neighbour and he has said that Seema Verma had thrown her two sons from roof to road.Suryansh fell over motorcycle whereas Ansh fell on road but both of them were under treatment.In his cross-examination, he has said that he is not aware of the accommodation of house in question and portion of residence of convict appellant.He is not aware of convict appellant since one day before the occurrence.Rather he came to know her on the day of occurrence, and after the occurrence he saw Seema Verma for the first time.He said that:-"lhek oekZ dk uke eSa igys ugh tkurk Fkk ?kVuk okys fnu uke irk pyk FkkA ?kVuk ds le; gh eSaus lhek oekZ dks ns[kk FkkA ckn esa ugh ns[kk FkkA ""I was not aware about the name of Seema Verma prior to this occurrence.It was brought in the knowledge on the date of occurrence.Meaning thereby, this witness was not personally aware by Seema Verma.Though he has said that both of the sons of convict appellant were admitted in hospital when he reached at hospital.Whereas no documentary evidence of treatment or oral evidence by medical officer of any hospital was there regarding the treatment of Suryansh.Though his testimony is challenged on the ground of being a friend of husband of convict appellant, for which the leading question has been put in cross-examination, which has been answered in negative.This witness was not aware of Seema Verma prior to this occurrence.Rather he saw her on the day of occurrence.25. PW-6 Dr. Anil Kumar is the medical Officer, who has proved autopsy examination of deceased Ansh Verma but in his testimony, he has said his age to be of 8 years whereas in F.I.R. as well as testimony of Medical Officer who treated Ansh, he was of 2 years.PW-11 Dr. Brij Mohan, in his testimony, has said that Ansh was brought at 3:50 P.M. under serious condition at hospital with a complaint from falling of upper stair having injuries over his head and he was got admitted and after some treatment, he was discharged at 7:50 P.M. from hospital for specialized treatment.In between he was attended by child specialist Dr. J. S. Narang and Dr. Rajiv Kainth, neurosurgeon, then after he was referred to Hallet Hospital.He was having serious injuries over his person.Bed head ticket was brought by this witness, at the time of his examination, which was proved and exhibited as Ex.Ka-16 on record, in it, it was written that patient was brought with complaint from failing from high side.It was not complained that mother of Ansh Verma i.e. Seema Verma has thrown him.Neither it was told nor it was written.Case under Section 308 I.P.C. was converted under G.D. Entry at 12:30 P.M. of 27.3.2016, in case under Sections 323 and 304 I.P.C. and this was entered in case diary and then after Seema Verma was got arrested at 14:05 P.M. Her statement was recorded.Spot map was inspected and prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness.Other witnesses were examined and all these papers have been formally proved by this witness.This witness has categorically admitted that no documentary evidence of treatment of Suryansh at any hospital was either filed by informant or collected by this witness or any medical officer said about treatment of Suryansh.Accused applicant was examined at Jail regarding her mental ailment.But no report of same was either taken or made part of investigation.Though no other reason except her mental ailment was found to be cause of this throwing of deceased by his own mother from roof to road. "बच्चो को मुल्जिमा द्वारा छत से फेकने में उसकी मानसिक अस्वस्थता के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई कारण दर्शित नहीं होता" "No other reason could be shown except mental ailment of accused because of which sons were thrown by their mother from roof to road".(English translation by this Court).This Suryansh was crucial witness.But admittedly he was examined after 27 days of the occurrence and this witness has not mentioned reason for this delay in case diary.Though family members could not produce this witness before I.O., for getting his statement recorded in case diary and no documentary or medical evidence for his admission or his alleged injury or his alleged treatment at any hospital, was produced.This witness has corroborated testimony of Dr. Anil Kumar PW-6, in which death owing to antemortem injury, because of falling from high side to low road, was held to be the cause of death of Ansh Verma.Hence, the same being the cause of fracture of skull bone.PW-2, is also not eye-witness account.PW-4 and 5 are also not eye-witness account of alleged crime.It was only PW-3 Suryansh Verma, who was eye-witness account and who, by his cogent evidence, has proved the occurrence, for which there is no material contradiction, variation or exaggeration including embellishment, except minute variation which makes this witness, as natural witness, as has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant.But Apex Court has repeatedly held that such variation makes witness natural and worth believable witness and conviction can be based on sole eye-witness account.This witness has proved charge leveled against convict appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt, for throwing Ansh Verma and death of Ansh Verma, owing to above throwing.Regarding injury and treatment to Suryansh Verma, no documentary medical evidence was there on record.Hence, appeal on the point of conviction fails.Learned counsel for the applicant argued that quantum of punishment awarded for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C., was excessive i.e. highest of ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, provided under Section 304(Part II) I.P.C. whereas no minimum punishment is provided by legislature and trial Court itself has held offence proved for punishment under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. against which there is no appeal.Hence, on the point of sentence, the same is apparently in excess i.e. highest.Wheres appellant a poor lady, who, right from initiation of criminal machinery in motion, was said to be under mental ailment.Her own son was dead in the occurrence.She under above pitiable condition, deserves to be released on period already undergone.Whereas learned AGA argued that convict appellant has thrown her two sons from roof to down stairs, in which younger one sustained injuries, including fracture of his skull bone and he succumbed to above antemortem injuries.The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles.Just before occurrence, she called her both of sons, including deceased, for taking meal, from road side where they were playing.They were taken in the room for taking meal.Hence, this appeal is being dismissed regarding assail over conviction.Order Date :- 03.5.2019 Kamarjahan
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,001,796 |
ou His first application for same relief had been dismissed by this Court by order dated 25.04.2017 passed in C M.Cr.C.No.2006/2017 as withdrawn.His second application h for bail was dismissed by order dated 17.07.2017 passed in ig M.Cr.C.No.9942/2017 as withdrawn.Therefore, this third H application is bieng decided on merits.As per the prosecution case, first informant Sunil Mishra runs a Middle School at Harpalpur.When he got admission in a college at Gwalior, he associated petitioner Shyamakant Sharma as partner in the venture.Two minor girls who were sisters and were aged 10 years and 6 years respectively also studied in the school.There was a complaint that biscuits and snacks were being stolen from the school.In order to catch thief, one student of the school namely Sanjay Rajput placed his mobile phone in video recording mode after taking out its sim-card.Thereafter the students of the school went out to play.At that time, petitioner Shyamakant and two minor sh victims were in the hall.When Sanjay Rajput returned, he found that the mobile contained video recording of sexual e ad acts between petitioner Shyamakant on one hand and two minor victims on the other.In the video clip, the minor Pr victims were seen masturbating Shyamakant.This video went a viral and found its way to Sunil Mishra, who lodged the first hy information report.ad Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.It has been mentioned M by the first informant in the FIR that petitioner Shyamakant of owed Rs. 85,000/- to him, which he did not pay.It has also been submitted that so far statements of 15 witnesses have rt been recorded and all of them including two minor victims ou and their guardians have turned hostile.The girls did not C support the prosecution at all.Sanjay Rajput has also turned hostile and has stated that no mobile phone was seized from h ig his possession.It has been issued by the professional videographer namely Dharmendra who has merely stated that he had seen the video clip on mobile phone; wherein, two girls are seen playing with the private part of a man.First informant Sunil Mishra has also turned hostile and has stated that the video clip he had seen was foggy and no one could be identified therein.By its order dated 25.05.2017, the trial Court has declined to frame a charge under section 376 (Jha) or 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and 5/6 of the POCSO Act and only a charge under Section 11(1)/12 and 7/8 of the sh POCSO Act has been framed.The petitioner has been in custody since 10.01.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that e ad the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on Pr the other hand has opposed the application stating that the a SD card installed in the mobile phone is primary evidence of hy the offence; therefore, it requires no certification under ad Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. It was sent to FSL Chandigarh and as per the report, the video has not been M tempered with.Likewise, the guardians of the girls have of admitted in their evidence that the girls had told the police about the incident in their presence.rt Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in ou their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by the C learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.h ig Consequently, this third application for bail under Section H 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Shyamakant Sharma, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2017.12.04 21:30:05-08'00' H b ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e JUDGE sh (C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,002,960 |
to file their affidavits.Let this matter appear under the heading "Contested Application" two weeks after ensuing Puja Vacation.(Sahidullah Munshi, J)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,005,551 |
The accident dated 22nd November, 2005 resulted in the death of Vinay Dutta.The deceased was survived by his widow and a minor son who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.The deceased aged 34 years at the time of the accident, was running an ice-cream factory.According to the claimants, the deceased was earning `20,000/- per month.The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as `6,000/- per month, added 50% towards the future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 1 of 10 expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency at `10,08,000/-.`30,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium, `20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/- towards funeral expenses.(i) The driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling, was not negligent and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.(ii) There was collusion between the claimants and the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling.(iii) The future prospects be reduced from 50% to 30%The learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 had urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-(i) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.However, even if the composite negligence of the driver of the car is taken to be 45% as held by the Claims Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to the entire compensation from the appellant and deduction of 55% of the compensation by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous.The rate of interest is, therefore, enhanced from 7% per annum to 9% per annum.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 4 of 10MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 5 of 10The claimants are entitled to total compensation of `10,68,400/- as per break-up given hereunder:-The Registrar General is directed to endorse/transfer the FDR to UCO Bank.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 7 of 10The enhanced award amount along with up to date interest be deposited by the appellant with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Sonika Dutta.UCO Bank is directed to release 10% of the total amount (amount received from the Registrar General as well as the enhanced award amount deposited by the appellant) to Sonika Dutta by transferring the same to her Saving Bank Account.The remaining amount be kept in fixed deposit in the following manner:-(iii) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of three years.(iv) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of four years.(v) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of five years.(vi) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of six years.(vii) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of seven years.(viii) Fixed deposit in respect of 5% of the amount in the name of respondent No.1 for a period of eight years.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 8 of 10(ix) Fixed deposit in respect of 50% of the amount in the name of respondent No.2 till he attains the age of majority.Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to the beneficiary to facilitate identity.No cheque book be issued to the beneficiary without the permission of this Court.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in the safe custody.However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the beneficiary along with the photocopy of the FDRs.The Claims Tribunal computed the total compensation as `10,68,000/-.The Claims Tribunal held the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling, to be negligent to the extent of 45% and deducted 55% of the compensation.The Claims Tribunal awarded `4,81,000/- to the claimants.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 1 of 10The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-(ii) The income of the deceased be taken as `20,000/- per MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 2 of 10 month.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 2 of 10(iii) The multiplier be enhanced from 14 to 16(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of estate.(v) The rate of interest be enhanced from 7% per annum to 9% per annum.There is no merit in the first contention of the appellant that the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling, was not negligent.The driver of the car appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that an unknown trailer took a u-turn due to which his car hit the trailer from behind resulting in the accident.He admitted in cross-examination that the accident occurred due to his mistake.The compensation cannot be denied merely because the occupants travelling in the car are related to the insured as in the present case.MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 3 of 10The deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident and was running ice-cream factory.The partnership deed relating to the ice-cream factory run by the deceased was proved as Ex.The Claims Tribunal presumed the income of the MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 4 of 10 deceased to be `6,000/- per month and added 50% towards future prospects.`10,000/- is awarded for loss of estate.The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @7% per annum whereas the appropriate rate of interest according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra) is 9% per annum.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.On the request of the beneficiary, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch according to their convenience.The beneficiary shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 9 of 10 Mr. M.S. Rao, AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09871129345).MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 9 of 10The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be refunded back to the appellant through counsel after deposit of the award amount.Copy of this judgment be sent to Mr. M.S. Rao, AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi (Mobile No.09871129345).J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 10 of 10MAC.APP.No.256/2008 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,008,579 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2020, the petitioners and other persons were unlawfully assembled and protested in 2/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.11059 of 2020 the public road without any prior permission to withdraw NRC and CAA and also raised slogan against the State and Central Government.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.11059 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, uma Crl.O.P.No.11059 of 2020 and Crl.M.P No.4539 of 2020 24.07.2020Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners and others.More over, the petitioners are an habitual offenders by committing this kind of crimes.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Heard Mr.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C.as against the petitioners and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.O.P.No.11059 of 2020 Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.11059 of 2020Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.07.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no uma To1.The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Pernampet Police Station, Ambur.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,360,161 |
JUDGMENT Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This criminal revision is directed against an order made by Shri C. G. Suri the then District Judge, Delhi, (now Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. G. Suri of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that no such appeal was competent under section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.(2) The facts are nto in dispute.There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 aut the petitioner's tenancy in respect of a barsati on the terrace of the building.Respondent No. I who challenged the right of the petitioner to use and occupy the said barsati instituted a suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Court of a Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, valuing the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 130.00 During the course of the trial both the respondents appeared as witnesses against the petitioner.They also filed certain affidavits in support of an application for grant of a temporary injunction.On 18-4-1966 one other document which purported to be a schedule to Exhibit P2 and was claimed to have been executed on the same date i.e. 5-5-1963, was also produced and was marked Exhibit P2/A.(3) During the course of the trial of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for filing a complaint against the respondents for offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 471 Indian Penal Code.The trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 and also refused to file a complaint against the respondents although it was held that the documents Exhibits P2 and P2/A were suspicious and unreliable.Against the decree of the trial Court the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge which was heard by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge and was dismissed.The Additional Senior Subordinate Judge also refused the petitioner's prayer for filing a complaint against the respondents under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 471 IPC.(4) The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge under section 476-B Cr, P.C. which, as stated above, was dismissed by the learned District Judge holding that no such appeal was competent.(5) As the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on a purely legal objection with regard to its maintainability the arguments in revision before me were confined to that aspect alone.According to the learned District Judge both the respondents had appeared as witnesses in a civil proceeding in which the offences were alleged to have been committed.It was submitted that the suit filed against the petitioner by respondent No. 1 had been decreed by the trial court and an appeal against the same had also been dismissed by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge.In the judgments of both the courts there is no positive finding about the documents Exhibits P. 2 and P. 2/A being false documents.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
136,016,378 |
One Mohiruddin Sk.untraceable and the doctor performing the Post Mortem Examination over the dead body was dead and for those reasons the contents of the F.I.R. and the Post Mortem Report could not be proved properly during trial.He further argued that there was the dying declaration of the victim immediately prior to the victim's death before P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 and the evidence otherwise produced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the Appellants and as such learned Trial Court had rightly found the Appellants guilty of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. framed against them.The F.I.R. maker, i. e., P.W.-1 had put his L.T.I. on the F.I.R. It is interesting to note that the F.I.R. maker, i. e., the P.W.- 1 had put his signature on his deposition sheet during trial.The Post Mortem Report had been admitted in evidence on 04.11.2009 during the examination of the I.O. But in the order No. 22 dated 04.11.2009 it is recorded that the I.O. (P.W.-10) proved the Post Mortem Report.But the I.O. (P.W.-10) during his evidence stated only that he had collected the Post Mortem Report from the Hospital during the course of his investigation.So, it cannot be said that the Post Mortem Report has been admitted in evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C. In fact, it cannot be ascertained under what provision of law the Post Mortem Report has been admitted in evidence in the case.The doctor performing the Post Mortem Examination might have died before the commencement of trial, but still then the Post Mortem Report could have been legally proved by other ways calling for any competent person who knew the hand writing and signature of the doctor performing the Post Mortem Report, as a witness in the case.Similarly, opinion of another doctor on the basis of the injuries recorded in the Post Mortem Report could have been obtained by calling him as a witness.But no such attempt has been made by the prosecution during trial.The victim Mosu Sk.happens to be his maternal uncle.P.W.-1 stated that on the day of the occurrence, at about 10 a.m. while he was returning to his house from Dhulian then he met his maternal uncle on the way who was also returning home in a bicycle carrying Bidi leaves, tobacco and rice and after about 10 minutes somebody reported him that his maternal uncle had been killed and the dead body was lying inside a mango orchard.P.W.-1 stated further that immediately after getting such information he rushed to the place of occurrence where he found his maternal uncle lying seriously injured and on his asking his maternal uncle stated that his maternal uncle was assaulted by the present Appellants and two others and within a very short period after saying so, his maternal uncle died.P.W.-1 stated further that in the afternoon of the very day of the occurrence he reported the incident to the local Police Station.Israil Sk (P.W.-2) stated that on the day of the occurrence at about 10 a.m. while working in the field he noticed the present Appellants and two others chasing the victim and watching it he chased the Appellants, but out of fear he ultimately retreated.P.W.-2 stated further that within a few minutes after he had thus retreated, he found P.W.-1 moving towards the P.O. and on seeing P.W.-1 the Appellants fled away after which he along with P.W.-1 rushed to the victim and the victim reported to them that the victim had been assaulted by the Appellants and others.It should be noted here that P.W.-1 during his evidence had not stated that while moving towards the P.O. or after reaching the P.O. he found P.W.-2 either on the way or at the P.O. On the contrary during his cross-examination he stated that he got the news of the death of his maternal uncle 10 minutes after he had met his maternal uncle on the road and after a search for about half an hour he could trace out his maternal uncle lying in a mango orchard by the side of the road.From such statement it is clear that P.W.-1 met the victim about 40/45 minutes after the assault on the victim but as mentioned above, P.W.-2 claimed that he had chased the Appellants and thereafter he watched from a short distance the Appellants assaulting the victim and thereafter fleeing away having noticed P.W.-1 moving towards the P.O. and thereafter he and P.W.-1 together went to the victim and the victim named, the Appellants before them as the assailants.So, the versions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are contradicting each other and because of such contradictions it cannot be ascertained as to who had reached the P.O. first and at what point of time after the incident of assault.(P.W.-4) was the father of the victim.He stated that on the day of the incident at about 10.10 a.m. he came to know about the incident from one Jiten after which he rushed to the P.O. and found his son lying injured.He stated further that at the P.O. his son reported that the Appellants and others had assaulted his son.But P.W.-2 categorically stated that the victim was not in a position to talk while victim's father met the victim.P.W.-2 stated during his cross-examination that he told the I.O. that within a few minutes of their arrival at the P.O. the victim died.P.W.-1 also stated that the victim died within a short period after his arrival at the P.O. In the circumstances it looks to be doubtful whether the victim was in a position to talk when P.W.-1, 2 or 4 went to the P.O.Abdul Jabbar (P.W.-5) stated that sometime before the incident he met the Appellants and others on the road near the place of the occurrence and that the Appellants had arms like 'Cheni' (a mansion's instrument) and due to threatening by the Appellants he had left the place immediately and subsequently he found P.W.-1 and P.W.-6 crying at the P.O. and on being asked they told him that the Appellants had killed the victim.His story of seeing the Appellants moving on the road with arms like 'Cheni' and threatening him does not attract much credence.Khazir Hossain (P.W.-6) stated in his evidence that hearing a hue and cry he went to the P.O. and found the victim dead and on asking Isril (P.W.-2) reported him that the Appellants along with others had killed the victim.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,549,487 |
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.Heard Shri Dev Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chitrakoot in Bail Application No.1128 of 2019 (Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui Vs.The F.I.R. was lodged with the allegations of misbehaving with the opposite party no.2 by the accused-appellant.Submission is that in earlier version of the F.I.R. the allegation of misbehaving was levelled against the appellant but later on when she was examined u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has drastically changed her version and has made the allegation of committing rape upon her.Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure No.7, wherein the statement of Doctor is self revealing the conduct of the victim, in which the doctor has categorically stated that the victim has insisted to convert the case from Section 354 I.P.C. to Section 376 I.P.C. This is obnoxious state of affair whereby the victim is itself choosing the section in which the appellant has to be prosecuted without having any medical examination in that regard.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant-Mohd.Tahir Siddiqui, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated order dated 28.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chitrakoot, is hereby set aside.The concerned Trial Judge is at the liberty to take suitable punitive action against the opposite party no.2 who is using her caste and profession of journalism just to choose more severe sections of I.P.C. against the appellant.Order Date :- 3.1.2020 M. Kumar
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,564,366 |
The factual matrix in short is that the complainant is a practising advocate and he complained to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad about commission of offences under Section 379, 504 and 505 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').His statement was recorded as per Section 200 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') and that of the witness under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Court issued summons to the accused.Unfortunately, the learned Judge predecessor to the one who passed the order on 13.8.2018 had even sent notices to the higher authorities to procure the presence of the accused which went in vain.The respondents accused shall be forthwith dealt with by the learned Magistrate and their presence shall be procured even if it has to be procured by way of non bailable warrant to be served through Superintendent of Police.(Ref : Civil Misc.Delay Condonation Application)This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,008,318 |
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Velmurugan.P.Ws.1 to 3 are his friends.On 27.04.2012, at about 09.45 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased went to Anna Nagar, Kurinchippadi, in a motorcycle.When they were passing through Anna Nagar, these 3 accused along with few others, who were having wooden logs in theirs hands, intercepted them and they all attacked the deceased.Then, the accused and others fled away from the place of occurrence.The deceased wanted P.W.3 to get his supporters from Kurinchippadi.Therefore, P.W.3 Manikandan left for Kurinchippadi in the motorcycle.The deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 went to a nearby Panchayat Union Office and concealed themselves behind the said office.After the accused left the place of occurrence, the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 came to Perumal Temple.P.W.3 had just returned to Perumal Temple.It was around 10.45 p.m. The deceased enquired with P.W.3 as to whether his supporters had come.P.W.3 told that their supporters were not available.Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were sitting at Perumal Koil for about 2 hours.(b) Thereafter, all the four were proceeding towards Anna Nagar.When they were nearing Anna Nagar, again these 3 accused came there.They intercepted the deceased.Again, the deceased wanted P.W.3 to go to Kurinchippadi and get his supporters there.Accordingly, Manikandan-P.W.3 left the place.The accused gave a chase to P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased.P.Ws.1 and 2 ran ahead of the deceased.The accused 1 to 3 surrounded the deceased.The 3rd accused took out a Vitchu Aruval from his Two Wheeler and gave the same to the 1st accused.The 1st accused cut the deceased on his head and hand.The 2nd accused snatched the Aruval from the 1st accused and cut the deceased on his neck.The deceased fell down in a pool of blood.The accused 1 to 3 were still standing near the deceased.At that time, P.Ws.4 and 5 came from Kurinchippadi.When they tried to rescue the deceased, the 1st accused intimidated him with brandishing the Aruval.Then P.W.1 went to Kurinchippadi and informed his supporters.P.11 is the Postmortem Certificate.He gave opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 Aruval.He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries found on his body.Then, all of them came to the place of occurrence.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.(c) P.W.13, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.273 of 2012 under Section 302 of IPC against all the three accused.(d) P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He recovered 2, Hundred Rupee Currency Notes, found near the place of occurrence under a Mahazar.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 06.30 a.m. and 09.30 a.m. on 28.04.2012 and forwarded the body for postmortem.(e) P.W.9 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 28.04.2012 at 09.20 a.m. He found the following injuries:''External Injuries :Laceration - clean edge on left side neck of mandible measuring 6 x 1 x 1 c.m.Laceration in the parietal region left side to right side measuring 6 x 1 x 1 c.ms.3. Laceration in right hand measuring 5 x 1 x 1 c.ms.Laceration in right elbow measuring 3 x 1 x 1 c.ms.Laceration in left fore arm 4 x 1 x 1 c.m.Laceration in right chest 1 x 1 x 1 c.ms.Laceration in midlim measuring 1 x 1 x c.m.Heart - Empty.Lungs - Pale.Hyoid bone- Preserved.Stomach and contents : Empty.Liver Pale.Spleen pale.Head - Laceration measuring 6 x 1 x 1 c.ms.from right peritoneal to left peritoneal bone.Skull - Fracture at peritoneal bone.Membrane injured.(f) When the investigation was in progress, on 28.04.2012, at 10.00 a.m., the accused 1 and 2 appeared before P.W.8, the then Village Administrative Officer of Ellanpettai Village.On such appearance, they want to confess.P.5 is the Extra judicial confession given by the 1st accused and Ex.P.6 is the Extra judicial confession given by the 2nd accused.On such arrest, they gave independent voluntary confessions.P.W.14 recovered the blood stained lungi which the 1st accused was wearing.Then, in pursuance of the confession statements, the 1st accused took the police and the witnesses to a place, near a Veternity Hospital in Kurinchippadi-Bhuvanagiri Road and produced M.O.1 Aruval in the presence of the same witnesses.P.W.14 recovered the same under a Mahazer.Then, from his house, he produced a Motorcycle M.O.8 and P.W.14 recovered the same also.Then, he arrested the 3rd accused on the same day and recovered a full hand shirt from him.Then, he forwarded the accused to court and also handed over the material objects to court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination which revealed that there were blood stains found on all the material objects including the M.O.1 Veetchu Aruval.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above, the trial court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same as false.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as we have already pointed out, 14 witnesses were examined and 19 documents and 14 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.3 has spoken only about a part of the occurrence, because, according to him, on two occasions, he was sent by the deceased to go to his street to get his supporters to the place of occurrence.P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.P.W.8 has spoken about the extra-judicial confessions given by the accused.P.W.9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death.P.W.10 is the Forensic Expert who has stated about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects.P.W.11 has spoken about the arrest of the 3rd accused.P.W.12 has spoken about the motive for the occurrence.P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1 and P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done and his final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on their side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 and 2/appellants herein as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.We have heard Mr.G.Hariharan, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.599 of 2013 and Mr.M.Senthamizh Selvan, the learned Counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.593 of 2015 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.3, who accompanied the deceased to the place of occurrence, has narrated only about a part of the occurrence.Since he was sent to his street to bring the supporters of the deceased, he could not witness the actual occurrence.The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the lower court has rejected the evidences of these witnesses as against the 3rd accused.Applying the same, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the trial court ought to have acquitted these accused also.We are not persuaded by the said argument.The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, has not been recognised by Indian Courts.It is the law that if the Court is able to separate the grain from the chaff, then, there should be no legal impediment for the Court to act upon the grain.In the instant case, all these witnesses have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.Though they have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to doubt their credibility.The evidence of P.W.3 also duly corroborates the eye-witness account.Therefore, according to him, these two accused would not have made any such voluntary confessions as it is projected by the prosecution.But, we find it difficult to accept the said contention.These two accused, from the narration of the facts, would go to show that are not new to the criminal cases.For their own reasons, they have gone to P.W.8 to confess.P.W.8 is a Village Administrative Officer.He is a very responsible Government Officer, who has got no act to grudge against these accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,008,337 |
There is a long standing dispute between these two family membersin respect of a boundary dispute of the respective lands situated by the sideof their houses.It is alleged that the deceased measured the said propertyand fixed the boundary.As per the said measurement made unilaterally by him,on 12.12.2010, around 01.00 p.m., the deceased was digging a pit to put up aboundary stone on the allotted properties.The first accused noticed thesame.EDH present over both parietal region.P.4 is the extra-judicial confession.Then, P.W.9prepared a special report under Ex.Along with Exs.P.4 and P.5, P.W.9took the first accused to P.W.15 and produced him before P.W.15 on 14.12.2010 at 12.30 p.m. On such production, P.W.15 arrested the first accused.While incustody, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, hedisclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval and in pursuance of thesame, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out at 02.45pm.He produced the crow-bar.P.W.15 recovered the same under a mahazar.While in custody, on21.12.2010 the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, hedisclosed the place where he had hidden the weapon.In pursuance of the same,he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and producedthe aruval and a wooden log.He recovered the same under a mahazar and on returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court andforwarded the material objects also to the Court.************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] This is an appeal against acquittal.The respondents 2 to 4 were theaccused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.140 of 2011 on the file of the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.The first accused stoodcharged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of theIndian Penal Code, the second accused stood charged for the offencespunishable under Sections 324 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thethird accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Challenging the saidacquittal, the wife of the deceased, who is the defacto complainant in thiscase, has come up with this appeal.The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.He was a residentof South Street, Rajakulathur in Pudukkottai District.The first accused isthe father of the second accused and the third accused is the wife of thesecond accused.They were all residing in the same Village and they wereneighbours.He went out of the house, reached the place of occurrence andquestioned the deceased as to how he was justified in putting up a boundarystone without properly measuring the property.This resulted in a quarrel.It is further alleged that suddenly, the first accused took out acrow-bar lying there and attacked the deceased on his head and back side.Thesecond accused came to the place of occurrence, took out an aruval and cutthe deceased on his head once.It is further alleged that the third accusedalso came to the place of occurrence, took out a wooden log and gave a singleblow on the head of the deceased.Thereafter, when P.W.1 questioned, shealleged that the third accused attacked her on the right forehand.Then, allthe three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased has fainted at the place of occurrence.Thereafter, on hearing the alarm raised,the neighbours rushed to the place of occurrence.They took P.W.1 and thedeceased to the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai.P.W.1 was admitted as inpatient.The deceased was given first aid treatment and since his conditionwas serious, he was advised to be taken to the Thanjavur Medical CollegeHospital.Accordingly, he was taken to the said Hospital and admitted thereas inpatient.On receiving intimation from the Government Hospital atPudukkottai, P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam PoliceStation went to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, recorded the statementof P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, she registered a case inCrime No.486 of 2010, under Sections 341, 323, 506(2) and 307 of the IndianPenal Code against all the three accused.She forwarded both the documents to the Court.The investigation was taken over by P.W.15, the then Inspector ofPolice.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazarand a rough sketch at 05.45 p.m., on the same day in the presence of thewitnesses.Then, he examined few more witnesses at the said place ofoccurrence.On 13.12.2010, around 08.10 a.m., the deceased, who was undergoing treatment in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, succumbed tothe injuries.On receiving the death intimation, P.W.15 altered the case intoone under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Then, between 11.30 a.m., and 01.30 p.m., on 13.12.2010, he conductedinquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for post-mortem.P.W.12 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 13.12.2010 at 03.00 p.m., He found the following injuries:"External Injuries:A sutured wound 22 cm right parito temporal region.Nasal bleeding seen.Laceration 3 x 1 cm x bone depth left parietal region.Internal Injuries:Sub-scalp contusion over frontal, parietal, occipital-both sides.Multiple fracture over frontal, parietal, temporal left side.Craniotomy on right temporal bone done with 3 burr holes.Cerebal Hemorrhage present in both parietal lobes."P.10 is the post-mortem certificate.He opined that the deathof the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the head injury.P.W.15, during the course of investigation, collected the clothsof the deceased found on the body.When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that thefirst accused appeared before P.W.9, the then Village Administrative Officeron 14.12.2010 at 11.00 a.m., On such appearance, the first accused wanted togive a confession orally.P.W.9 allowed him to confess and he reduced thesame into writing.On 14.12.2010, the second accused surrendered before the learned JudicialMagistrate at Devakkottai.On 20.12.2010, P.W.15 took police custody of thesecond accused on the orders of the learned Magistrate.On his request, thematerial objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed thatthere was bloodstain on the dhoti alone.He collected the medical records, examined the doctorand on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all thethree accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16witnesses were examined, 17 documents and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the said 16 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the wife, daughter and aneighbour of the deceased, have spoken about the entire occurrence as eyewitnesses.They have stated that the first accused attacked the deceased withcrow-bar on the head and back side, the second accused attacked the deceased with aruval on the head and the third accused attacked the deceased as wellas P.W.1 with a wooden log.P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by her to the police.P.W.4 has not stated anything incriminating against theaccused.He has stated that he came to know about the occurrence later.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and the rough sketchand the recovery of material objects at the place of occurrence.P.W.6 hasspoken as though he witnessed the occurrence.P.W.7 also has stated that he witnessed the occurrence.These two witnesses have also stated about theindividual overt acts of the accused.P.W.8 has stated that on 12.12.2010, at02.05 p.m., when he was on duty as Assistant Surgeon, at the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, P.W.1 was brought to him for treatment.He found noexternal injuries on her body.P.3 is the accident register.P.W.9, theVillage Administrative Officer, has stated that the first accused appearedbefore him on 14.12.2010 at 11.00 a.m., and made extra-judicial confession.He has further stated about the confession made by the first accused to thepolice and the consequential recovery of M.O.2 ? crow-bar at his instance.P.W.10 has spoken about the confession made by the second accused and the consequential recoveries of M.Os.1 and 3 on his confession.P.W.12 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and given his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.14, a ScientificAssistant from the Forensic Lab, has stated that she examined the materialobjects and found that there was bloodstain only on M.O.4-dhoti. P.Ws.15 and16 have spoken about the investigation done by them and the filing of finalreport.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them, they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.Their evidence was a total denial.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Courtacquitted all the three accused.Aggrieved over the same, the defactocomplainant, namely, the wife of the deceased, is now before this Court withthis Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learnedcounsel appearing for the accused.We have also perused the recordscarefully.He would furthersubmit that the medical evidence duly corroborates with the eye witnessesaccount.But the Trial Court has, on unreasonable grounds, acquitted theaccused.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appeal deserves to beallowed.He would further point outthat P.W.2 has admitted that the first accused sustained injury in the verysame occurrence and he was in the very same Hospital, when the deceased was also taking treatment.He would further state that the Investigating Officer-P.W.15 has admitted that the first accused, in his confession, has statedabout the treatment given to him in the hospital.He would, further, statethat the second accused also sustained injury in the same occurrence.The true version has not been placed before the Courtby the prosecution.We have seen considerable force in the said argument ofthe learned counsel appearing for the accused.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, themedical records pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased at theGovernment Hospital, Pudukkottai as well as at the Thanjavur Medical CollegeHospital, have been suppressed by the prosecution.Therefore, it is not knownas to whether the deceased was conscious, and whether he made any statement to the doctor or to the police, when he was undergoing treatment in the saidhospital.Certainly, the injuries should have been mentioned in the accidentregister maintained at both the Hospitals.So far as the injuries found on the body of the deceased areconcerned, it is stated by all the eye witnesses that the second accused cutthe deceased with arvual on his head.These aspects have been elaborately dealt with by the Trial Court.Unfortunately, the deceased died.P.W.1survived and accused Nos.1 and 2 also survived.But the prosecution hasprojected as though the accused were the aggressors and the deceased party did not cause any injury at all on the accused.For these reasons, in our considered view, the Trial Court wasright in acquitting the accused.Thus, we find no reason to interfere withthe acquittal of the accused.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.The acquittal of theaccused is, hereby, confirmed.1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai.2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,085,196 |
Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that, Mathura Kewat committed suicide by consuming pesticides.The postmortem report dated 05.10.2014 reveals that there is suspected poison.Viscera was sent for examination.The report dated 05.01.2015 confirmed presence of zinc phosphide.It was found that Mathura Kewat applied for loan for repairing his "Medh" through the Gram Panchayat and the same was sanctioned.But the sanctioned amount was embezzlement by the accused persons including petitioner Bhaiyalal Singh, sub-engineer, Khetram Yadav, Nanheram Yadav employment assistant and Sarpanch Kapasiya Bai and her husband Dhan Singh.Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at the motion stage.This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime No.73/2015 registered at Police Station, Gohparu District Shahdol, for offence under Sections 409, 306 r.w. 34 of the IPC.Police Gohparu lodged merg and inquest was made.Subsequently, FIR at crime No.73/2015 has been lodged.No such amount could have been sanctioned.Perused the record.On the above analysis of fact and legal aspects, the petition is allowed partly.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,400,905 |
ORDER S.S. Dwivedi, J.The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2007 passed by II ASJ, Mhow, in ST No. 45/2007, whereby ordered for framing of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC.Briefly stated facts of the case are that deceased Jagdish had borrowed a loan from the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh and he was paying the loan in instalment.Jagdish had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 29-3-2006 in Mhow in his house.The matter has been reported to the police Mhow on which basis the police had registered inquest and started inquiry, sent the dead body of the deceased Jagdish for postmortem examination and during inquiry the statement had been recorded.The deceased had also written a suicidal note which has been seized by the police wherein he stated that because of repeated demand of money by the accused Paramjeetsingh he had committed suicide.After the inquiry the police had registered a case under Section 306 against the present applicant Paramjeetsingh and after investigation filed charge-sheet before the trial Court.The trial Court, by impugned order dated 15-2-2007 came to the conclusion that prima facie a charge under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly made out against the applicant therefore ordered for framing of the aforesaid charge against the applicant.Feeling aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred this revision.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record.On perusal of the entire facts of the case and documents filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, the main document is the suicidal note alleged to be written by the deceased Jagdish wherein he stated that he borrowed some money from Paramjeetsingh, the accused and also paid considerable amount and the accused is demanding money from him and due to which he committed suicide.Same is the statement of daughter of the deceased who stated before the police that her husband (father) deceased Jagdish was paying the loan amount to the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh but instead of that the accused Paramjeetsingh repeatedly demanding loan amount from her husband.Same is the statement of wife of the deceased.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,009,074 |
As such, they be released on the period already undergone.The prosecution case in brief is that on 20 th September, 2010, an information was received at Police Station Aman Vihar regarding a new born baby lying abandoned at A-123, Balbir Vihar, Aman Vihar which was recorded vide DD No. 6A. The same was entrusted to ASI Nand Kishore, who along with Constable Om Prakash reached the spot and came to know that a new born baby has been removed to hospital by PCR.No eye-witness was found at the spot.ASI Nand Kishore along with Constable reached at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and collected the MLC of the child.As such, endorsement was made on DD No.6A and the case was got registered.After the registration of the case, the baby expired in the hospital on the same date.As per the allegations, accused Prem Lata, Vandana and Rahul hatched a criminal conspiracy as a result of which on 20th September, 2011 Prem Lata gave birth to a female child and the said female child Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 2 of 7 was thrown in a vacant plot by accused Rahul and Vandana.Malti, PW4-Raas Bihari and PW9-Dr.Kirti Vijay Kumar Verma.PW1-Malti was the owner of the house in which the accused Vandana and Prem Lata were residing as tenants along with one Kamal.When they came to reside in her house, at that time, Prem Lata was pregnant.She made inquiry from Vandana and Prem Lata about husband of Prem Lata but no satisfactory reply was given.On 20th September, 2010 at about 6:30 am, on hearing some noise she went outside her house and found one female child lying in the vacant plot who was alive at that time.Someone informed the police and the child was removed to the hospital.After 2-3 days Vandana was Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 3 of 7 cleaning the floors and stairs of rented house.She noticed some red substance in the water and on suspicion went to the room of accused and found Prem Lata lying on a cot.She enquired from Prem Lata about her pregnancy and that one female child was found in the plot, thereupon Prem Lata started weeping and confessed "mujhse galti ho gai".Prem Lata further informed her that the new born female child was hers.She told this fact to her neighbour Raas Bihari who went to the Police Station.Thereafter police officials came but by then accused persons were found missing.A.1451/2012 Page 3 of 7PW4-Raas Bihari was residing in front of house No.D-137, First Floor where Prem Lata, Vandana and Rahul were residing as tenants.According to him, many a times inquiry was made regarding husband of Prem Lata because she was pregnant but no proper reply was given.He further deposed that on 20th September, 2010, at about 6:30 am, a female girl child was found lying in a vacant plot.Someone informed the police who removed the child to the hospital.He further deposed that he was informed by Malti that the child which was found in the morning of 20th September, 2010 belonged to Premlata.Thereupon he went to Police Station and informed the Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 4 of 7 police who came to the house of accused persons but all had fled away.A.1451/2012 Page 4 of 78. PW9- Dr. Kirti Vijay Kumar Verma examined Prem Lata on 15th October, 2010 and deposed that patient was having history of delivery two months back as given by her.She further deposed that the patient told her that she delivered a female child at night.In order to conceal this fact and to save their reputation in the society, they came to Delhi where Premlata gave birth to a female child.In order to get Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 6 of 7 rid of illegitimate child, she was left in the open plot and ultimately she died.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th October, 2012 in Sessions Case No. 67/2011 arising out of FIR No.283/10 u/s 317/304/120B IPC whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, u/s 317 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and 120 B IPC and order on sentence dated 24th November, 2012, whereby they were sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default three months SI u/s 304 Part I IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, 5 years RI u/s 317 IPC r/w 120B IPC and 7 years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- each u/s Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 1 of 7 120B IPC in default three months SI, the present appeal has been preferred.A.1451/2012 Page 1 of 7During the course of investigation all the three accused were arrested and charge sheet was submitted against them.Charge u/s 120B IPC, S.304 r/w S.120B IPC and S.317 r/w Section 120 B IPC was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A.1451/2012 Page 2 of 7During the course of trial, accused Prem Lata was declared a juvenile and she was sent to face trial before learned Juvenile Justice Board.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom material witnesses were PW1-Smt.On examination vitals were stable, breast engorged veins present, stretch marks plus milk secretion from nipple present.As per abdomen examination linea nigra present stria gravidarum present.On per speculum healed mid line scar present, hymen torn, white discharge present.Pursuant to a Court question, as to what does she mean by engorged veins, linea nigra and stria gravidarum, she answered that they are all signs of postpartum, i.e., after delivery.After examining the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that pregnancy of Prem Lata was duly proved.There was extra judicial confession made by Prem Lata to PW1 Malti.Moreover she refused to undergo DNA Test.Complicity of the appellants in the crime was also proved by the fact that Prem Lata along with her sister Vandana and brother-in-law Rahul came to reside in the tenanted Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 5 of 7 premises about 10 days prior to the incident.After delivery, the child was found lying in a plot.The accused persons did not disclose about the husband of Prem Lata which they were supposed to disclose because this fact was within their special knowledge.The factum of paternity of the child was kept secret by the accused persons which points towards illegitimacy of the child from which the accused persons wanted to get rid of.At the time of delivery, only the accused persons were present and, as such, they conspired together in throwing the child in the plot which resulted in her death.No fault can be found in the findings of learned Trial Court.As such, conviction of the appellants is upheld.A.1451/2012 Page 5 of 7Needless to say, offence committed by accused persons is grave and serious in nature but the mitigating circumstances in which it was committed cannot be ignored.The appellants and co-accused Premlata belongs to poor strata of society.They were resident of village Vijay Devpur, PS Aliganj, Distt.Etah, UP.Premlata was minor and unmarried.Premlata was subjected to rape by one boy namely Brijesh as a result of which she conceived.Premlata even refused to undergo DNA Test.As per the nominal roll, the appellants have undergone sentence for a period of 4 years 3 months and 13 days besides earning remission of 6 months and 16 days; their antecedents are clean and their conduct has been reported to be satisfactory.They are having one minor child who is without the company of her parents for the last more than four years.With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.A.1451/2012 Page 6 of 7A copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information to the appellant.Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of the judgment.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 30, 2015 rs Crl.A.1451/2012 Page 7 of 7A.1451/2012 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,098,378 |
4: The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.3.2013 at about 9:00 PM, Ajit Pal @ Boby, aged about 15 years, had gone to see "Holika" and thereafter he did not return to home.Thereafter, the mother of Ajit Pal @ Boby, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), her brother Mitthu @ Amarjeet and neighbourer, accused/appellant Om Prakash Yadav went Gurudwara at Gwarighat and searched about Ajit Pal @ Boby, but they did not find Ajit Pal @ Boby.Thereafter, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) lodged a missing report Ex.The caller identified himself as 'Khan' and stated that Boby is in his custody.The caller demanded a ransom of Rs.50 lacs and also asked him to have a talk with the mother of Boby.The caller threatened that in case of non-payment of ransom or in case of disclosing the incident to police, he will cut the neck of Ajit Pal @ Boby.Consequently, the mobile phone was disconnected.When Amarjeet @ Mitthu (PW/2) was receiving call, at that time, accused/appellant Om Prakash was present with him.Thereafter, Amarjeet @ Mitthu (PW/2) went to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) and stated about that call and when he was stating about said call, again another call came, then the brother of Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), Amarjeet (PW/2) gave his mobile phone to her.When she was talking with that caller, the mobile phone fell down, which was picked up by accused/appellant Om Prakash.Accuased/appellant Om Prakash was talking with that 4 caller and asked him where the said ransom has to be brought.Thereafter, Monu alias Taranjeet Singh Gujral (PW/10) by his own mobile had taken that mobile phone and started to talk with the said caller, but mobile was disconnected.Monu alias Taranjeet Singh Gujral (PW/10) himself has dialed again and asked the caller and requested to have a talk with the Boby, then Boby talked with him and consequently mobile phone was disconnected.Said Monu alias Taranjeet (PW/10) told that Boby shouted ''Mammi Main Boby Main Boby" and started weaping.Monu has further stated that the said sound was not that of Boby and he gave the number of that caller in writing to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) and suggested her to lodge a report in the police Station.Thereafter, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) informed the police.6: During the course of investigation, SHO Shri R.S. Parmar (PW/16), on the basis of aforesaid facts, appeared from caller of kidnapper of Boby, demand of ransom from mobile No.8305650342 and on the basis of enquiry report Ex.P/35 submitted by Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel Limited, Indore, Sai Datt Bohre (PW/15) and Santosh Jatav (PW/17), Nodal Officer of Reliance Company, on the basis of call details of said mobile number took appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh into custody and recorded his memorandum statement Ex.As per memorandum on the denotation of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh reached along with the witnesses, namely, Jitendra Singh(PW/8) and Malkit Singh, near Khandari Nala and got prepared the spot map vide Ex.Thereafter, the dead body of Ajit Pal @ Boby, which was in the well, contained in a plastic bag was got taken out and from the said dead body, certain flock of hair antangle of handful of the deceased, gunny bag and shawl roped in neck, were seized and for that Seizure Panchnama Ex.P/12 was prepared.On the indication of accused/appellant Rajesh in presence of same witnesses, one knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Spot map was prepared as Ex.During investigation, after giving notice Ex.P/2, inquest memo of dead body of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was prepared by Shri R.S. Parmar (PW/16) in presence of witnesses, as Ex.Soft tissues, blood vessels (carotids, veins and arteries), nerves, trachea essophagous upto vertebra.Deep infilteration of clotted blood present in the surrounding tissues .(ii) superficial cut throat wound (incised) measuring 7 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm present just below the the above injury.The margins of the above two wounds are clear cut.Deep infilteration of clotted blood present.On interior examination of dead body of deceased, he found following injuries :-Scalp, craniel & vertebrae are healthy.Sillo, brain and spinal cord were found semi-liquified (half were melted), ribs and pneumonia were healthy, already stated about throat and breath vessels, both lungs were blackish, perchornium and trachea, spleen, galbladder and kidneys were found melted.There were no blood in big vessels.He opined that the death of deceased was caused within 3 to 5 days of his examination.The cause of death was haemorrhagic shock which was caused due to cut of neck by sharp cutting object.According to him, the cut wound on the neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was likely to be homicidal in nature.7: The cloths of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby were packed and sealed by Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW/7) and handed over the same to the concerned Constable.The seized knife was also examined by doctor Vivek Shrivastava (PW/7) and opined that the knife was stained by some rusty spot and death of deceased can be caused by that knife.After examination, he packed and sealed that knife and handed over to the concerned Constable for its examination by FSL.One mobile (Intex) and one mobile (Micromax) were also seized from the accused/appellant Raja Yadav vide Ex.All these articles were taken into custody by Investigating Officer R.S. Parmar (PW/16) and handed over to the concerned Constables vide Ex.Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), mother of deceased Ajit Pal @ boby, Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu (PW/2), who is brother of Rajwant Kaur and maternal uncle of deceased, Pooran Singh (PW/3), who is 9 father of sister-in-law of Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), Jitendra Singh (PW/8), who is son of brother of mother of deceased, Taranjeet Gujral @ Mullu, who is neighbour of deceased, in a voice and soundhave stated that deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby had died.They had seen the dead body of the deceased.They had stated in one voice and sound that dead body of the deceased was taken out from the well contained in a plastic gunny bag.They have also stated that they had seen cut injury on the neck of dead body of deceased.Certain flock of hair entangled with the finger of deceased, gunny bag, shawl roped in neck were seized and panchnama was prepared.Spot map vide Ex.P/13 was prepared.Investigating Officer, R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has stated that he discovered the dead body of deceased on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh on 29.3.2013 at about 13:45 PM and has prepared inquest memo Ex.P/3 of dead body of deceased in presence of witnesses after giving notice Ex.P/2 to them.Soft tissues, blood vessels (carotids, veins and arteries), nerves, trachea essophagous upto vertebra.On interior examination of dead body of deceased, he found following injuries :-Scalp, craniel & vertebrae are healthy.Sillo, brain and spinal cord were found semi-liquified (half were melted), ribs and pneumonia were healthy, already stated about throat and breath vessels, both lungs were blackish, perchornium and trachea, spleen, galbladder and kidneys were found melted.There were no blood in big vessels.20 : Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu (PW/2), has stated that on 28.3.2013, he with appellant Om Prakash went to Gurudwara, Gwarighat to search Ajit Pal @ Boby, but they did not get him.He further stated that at 9:28 AM, he received a call on phone of a person introducing himself as a Khan, who was telling that Ajit Pal @ Boby was in his possession and asked him to send Rs.50 lacs.He further stated that number of his mobile is 9300434520 and he received the call of number 8305620342 on his above mobile phone number.He has supported the statement of Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) that he went to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) with appellant Omprakash and at the same time, he received call from same mobile phone.He gave his mobile phone to his sister Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) and at the time of conversation, the mobile phone fell from her hand, thereafter 13 appellant Omprakash picked up cell phone and started talking and he was asking that where he should come with alleged ransom.Appellant Omprakash was abusing on phone.He further stated that thereafter Taranjeet Gujral @ Monu (PW/10) dialed the same number by his own number and asked to have a talk with Boby.Thereafter, he heard the a voice and then Taranjeet Gujral @ Monu (PW/10) said that said voice is not that of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby.Taranjeet Gujral @ Monu (PW/10) noted down the above mobile phone number and gave the same to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1).Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) has stated that she had given the above mobile number to police.Taranjeet Gujral @ Monu (PW/10) has supported the version of Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) and Amarjeet Singh (PW/2) and stated that on 28.3.2013, when he was going to his dairy farm, then he saw that mother of Boby was talking on phone and during conversation, she started weaping.Thereafter, appellant Om Prakash took that mobile phone and started conversation with kidnapper and asked where he should bring the money and abused the said kidnapper.He further stated that he took that mobile phone, but the same got disconnected and then he dialed that number by his own mobile phone.In his statement, Taranjeet Singh @ Monu (PW/10), had stated the above facts to police at the time of recording of his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and if that version was not written by the police, then he cannot say anything.21 : Investigating Officer, R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has stated that he had collected the call details of mobile phone number 8305620342 by which ransom was demanded.From cyber cell, he got information that said sim was used from mobile phone of IMIE number 358327028551270 and on that mobile phone, sim number 9993135127 was being used, which was in the name of appellant Om Prakash Yadav.22 : Santosh Jadhav (PW/17), posted as Assistant Nodal Officer of Reliance Company, at Reliance Communication, Mansarowar Complex, Bhopal, since February 2011, has stated that on asking by Superintendent of Police Jabalpur, he provided call details of mobile number 8305620342 through e-mail taken out by using software of computer of Call Details Company, which is in his possession and control.The user I.D. And password thereof is also with him.The call details Ex.P/35-A, containing two pages and relates to the mobile number 8305620342 for the period w.e.f. 6.3.2013 to 28.3.2013 and produced in the Court.He further states that mobile phone of IMEI No.358327028551270 is used in the aforesaid call details.The aforesaid call details have been duly signed as per provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act vide certificate Ex.P/36, which was produced in defence and when defence counsel had raised the question in respect of Ex.D/6, then it revealed that mobile phone No.8305620342 was handed over to Bhuraji, S/o Deepu, R/o House No.433, Gandhi Ward, Tehsil & District Jabalpur.It is clear from Ex.P35-A that on 28.3.2013 from 9:35 to 9:50 hours, there were calls from mobile phone No.8305620342 having IMEI No.358327028551270 on the mobile phone No.9300434520 which belongs to Amarjeet @ Mitthu.24 : Sai Datt Bohre (PW/15), posted as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd. Indore, has stated that he is authorised to provide call details of mobile number 9993135127 from 1.3.2013 to 28.3.2013 to Superintendent of Police Jabalpur through E.mail.The aforesaid call details were procured by him by using software through computer provided by the company and he is authorised to do so by 15 the company.On demand by the police by using I.D. Password, he provided call details IMEI detail to police or other investigating agency through E.mail.He has stated that mobile number 9993135127 was issued in the name of appellant Om Prakash R/o 1200/CH Gwarighat, Jabalpur.During recording of his statement, he has produced application form which was produced by consumer Om Prakash along with his I.D. Call details sent by him to Superintendent of Police Jabalpur is present on record.He further stated that he had appeared along with the record.The certificate of call details of mobile number 9993135127 is Ex.P/33 and certificate of IMEI 358327028551270 is Ex.P/34 and same were duly signed by him.In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the name of holder of sim number 8305620342 and police had not inquired about this number, but inquired about call details and IMEI Number of above sim number.25 : Investigating Officer, R.S. Parmar (PW/16), has further stated that on this information, he took Rajesh @ Rakesh in his custody and on interrogation before Jitendra Singh alias Sonu (PW/8) and Malkit Singh, he gave information that he will get recovered the dead body of the deceased from the well and knife from the Nala situated behind his house.He wrote down his memorandum statement as Ex.P/8 and took signature and thereafter on his information, he reached at the well from where dead body of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was taken out contained in a plastic gunny bag after cutting the rope by which that gunny bag was tied.After giving notice to the witnesses, he prepared inquest memo of the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.He further stated that dead body was identified by mother of the deceased, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) as body of Ajit Pal @ Boby.Panch witnesses of memorandum and seizure of dead body, namely, Jitendra alias Sonu (PW/8), who has supported the statement of Investigating Officer R.S. Parmar (PW/16) and stated that on 29.3.2013, police has interrogated appellant Rajesh, who has stated that dead body of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was found in the well of Narmada Nagar.Thereafter, his memorandum was prepared vide Ex.P/8 duly signed by him.It is further stated by Jitendra alias Sonu (PW/8) that they reached near well with appellant Rajesh where appellant Rajesh told about the said well.In the well, dead body wrapped in gunny plastic bag was seen in the water, which was taken out and recovered.On interrogration by Town Inspector of Police, he has stated that dead body is in the well at Narmada Nagar, Gwarighat.27 : R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has stated that he had prepared spot map Ex.P/13 on 29.3.2013 at 15:15 before witnesses Jitendra and Malkit Singh, which was supported by Jitendra Singh (PW/6).R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has deposed in his deposition that on the basis of information given by accused/appellant Rajesh, he gave notice vide Ex.P/2 to Panchas and in presence of panchas, he prepared inquest memo vide Ex.The dead body was kept in white coloured sack tied from by black coloured rope.The said sack was cut and opened by Dashrath Barman.The neck and face of dead body was wrapped with shawl.Half of the neck was shown to be cut towards right side by sharp edged weapon.In the finger of right hand, some hairs were found and putrid smell was coming out from the dead body.This witness has put his signature on Ex.Jitendra Singh (PW/8) in his deposition has stated that search memo, about sim from the house of accused/appellant, is Ex.He stated that on 30.3.2013, the sim could not to be traced out by R.S. Parmar (PW/16).30 : Bambam @ Shaiwal (PW/9) is the witness of Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16 and Ex.On 31.3.2013, accused Brajesh was taken into custody by R.S. Parmar (PW/16) for interrogation, who has stated about concealment of mobile of his brother in a room and on the basis of Ex.P/17, intex mobile having duel sim and micromax mobile containing sim No.9993135127, were stated to be seized from the possesion of accused Brajesh vide Ex.Accused Brajesh has been arrested vide Ex.P/21 duly signed and confirmed by R.S. Parmar (PW/16).Bambam @ Shaiwal(PW/9) have supported the statements of R.S. Parmar (PW/16) and signed to be proved the version mentioned in Ex.P/17, Ex.P/19 and Ex.31 : Invesigating Officer R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has deposed that he had written a letter Ex.32 : It is clear from para 3 of cross-examination of Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) that blood samples of accused/appellants were taken by technician, but who has taken the blood samples, his name is not mentioned in Ex.P/5 and Ex.This witness has not taken blood samples of accused/ appellants.From para 4 of his cross- examination, it is clear that persons from whom blood samples were taken, their identity has not been mentioned.There is no mention about handing over of blood samples to the police constable and in para 5, name of constable to whom the blood samples were given, has also not been mentioned.33 : Shiv Prakash (PW/4) is the brother of accused/appellant Raja Yadav.This witness has not supported the assertion of Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) and signatures put on Ex.P/5 and Ex.He has been declared hostile and in his cross-examination by prosecution, he denied the suggestion of prosecution that he is not giving true statement with a view to save his brother.Shaiwal @ Bambam (PW/9) had accepted his signatures on Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 and stated that on 2.4.2013 at 6:00 PM in the evening at Victoria Hospital Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) had taken blood samples of appellants Raja and Rajesh vide Panchnama Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 and at that time, brother of appellant Raja and uncle Shiv Prakash (PW/4) were present.This version is contradictory to his statement mentioned in para 17, wherein he has stated that blood samples of appellant Raja and Rajesh were taken by Dr. Pramod Sharma in a syringe, but this anomaly does not make doubtful about taking of blood samples of appellants Raja and Rajesh.34 : R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has deposed that he had sent all articles seized during investigation to FSL Sagar through Superintendent of Police Jabalpur.He also deposed that he sent other seized articles as per draft Ex.He further deposed that he had received the report from FSL Sagar as Ex.P/43 and DNA report as Ex.From perusal of Ex.Male DNA profile found on hair stuck, found in the finger of the deceased Ex. A (1D7905) and DNA found on the blood of appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh Ex. B (ID-7906) are similar but, male DNA profile found on hair stuck, found in the finger of the deceased, Ex. A(1D-7905) and DNA found on the blood of appellant Raja Yadav, Ex.C ID-7907 are not similar.Per H.P. Singh, J :-The instant Criminal reference No.1/2016 has been referred by the learned III Addl.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No.560/2013, against which the accused/ Om Prakash Yadav and Rajesh @ Rakesh have preferred Criminal Appeal No.83/2017 and Criminal Appeal No.84/2017, respectively, therefore, all these matters are being decided by this common judgment.2: The learned III Addl.Special Judge vide judgment dated 29.12.2016 in S.T.No.560/2013 convicted the accused/appellant Omprakash for offence punishable under Sections 364-A r/w Sec. 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default R.I. For two months, whereas, appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 364-A r/w 120-B of IPC and they are sentenced to death sentence each, and fine amount of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, they are sentenced to R.I. for two months each.They have been further convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 120-B of IPC, and sentenced to undergo death sentence each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, they are sentenced to R.I. for two months each and convicted under Section 201 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of fine, R.I. for one month each.Since death sentence was passed by the Court below, therefore, the death reference is referred to this Court.After completing inquiry about missing person report, SHO Shri R.S. Parmar (PW/16), of Police Station Gorakhpur, recorded the FIR on 28.3.2013 vide Crime No.273/2013 Ex.P/35 for offence punishable under Sections 364-A & 365 of IPC.Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination vide Ex.P/11 through Constable Sushil (PW/12).The postmortem of dead body of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was conducted by Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW/7), vide Ex.On outer examination of dead body of deceased, he found following injuries :-(i) incised wound (cut throat wound) measuring 12 cm x 0.2 cm x 4 cm present over frond of neck just below thyroid cartilage, cutting the underlying skin.P/40 and Ex.8: Blood samples of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh Yadav and accused/appellant Raja Yadav were taken, preserved and sealed packets of seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar.As per the report of FSL Sagar Ex.P/44, DNA profile of hair stranded in the finger of right hand of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby of male profile i.e. Ex.A(ID 7905) is similar to that of DNA Profile of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh Yadav i.e. Ex.B(ID-7906) whereas the DNA Profile of accused/appellant Raja Yadav i.e. Ex.C(ID-7907) is different.9: After investigation police filed charge sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge.A charge was framed against them under Section 302, 364-A, 120-B and 201 of the IPC.The accused/appellants abjured the guilt.they took plea that they have been falsely implicated in the case, they were brought to trial.Appellant Om Prakash also plaeaded an alibi and claimed that he had been admitted at Rohaniya Varansi for treatment.They have also taken defence that police had taken their blood samples by creating pressure and thereafter, false case 7 has been made against them.In his defence, the appellants examined Dr. Ajay Bhandari(DW/1), Princy Thakur (DW/2) and Dr. Sandeep Kumar (DW/3).10 : Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above.11 : We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.12 : Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has submitted that there is enough clinching material evidence to hold guilty the accused/appellants for commission of offence.Learned Govt. Advocate, further submitted that as per the DNA profile test done by FSL Sagar, it is clearly proved that there is cogent evidence against the accused/appellants, and they are found guilty of commission of the offence, because DNA of accused/appellants and DNA profile of the hair stranded in the finger of right hand of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby, which clearly indicates that accused/appellants had committed murder of the deceased in brutal manner.No ingredients are available in the present case, which connect the accused/appellants in the crime.Learned counsel for appellants has drawn our attention to the statements of prosecution witnesses and tried to convince us that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu (PW/2) has also supported the statement of R.S. Parmar (PW/16) and stated that proceedings of inquest memo was conducted before him.Above all witnesses have stated that they have seen the cut injury on the neck of the deceased and as per their opinion deceased had died due to that injury and other injuries caused on the neck of deceased.The dead body of deceased was sent to Medical College Jabalpur for postmortem by R.S. Parmar (PW/16).He has stated that as per his report Ex.P/7, he found following injuries :-(i) incised wound (cut throat wound) measuring 12 cm x 0.2 cm x 4 cm present over frond of neck just below thyroid cartilage, cutting the underlying skin.Deep infilteration of clotted blood present in the surrounding tissues .(ii) superficial cut throat wound (incised) measuring 7 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.3 cm present just below the the above injury.The margins of the above two wounds are clear cut.Deep infilteration of clotted blood 10 present.He opined that the death was caused within 3 to 5 days of his examination.The cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock which was caused due to cut of neck by sharp cutting object.According to him, the cut wound on the neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was likely to be homicidal in nature.Accordingly, cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage and shock due to cut of neck by sharp cutting object.The appellants have shown their ignorance on this point, which does not rebut the prosecution case.Thus, it is well proved that deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby had died an unnatural death during the period 9:00 PM of 26.3.2013 to 1:45 PM of 29.3.2013 and his death was homicidal.17 : Now, the questions arise are whether appellants conspired to kidnap the deceased for ransom ? and in compliance of conspiracy whether the appellants had kidnapped the deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby for alleged ransom and they had killed Ajit Pal @ Body for that ransom ?18 : The mother of deceased, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) has stated that deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was her son, aged about 15 years and he studied upto 5th Class.She has further stated that she had sold her house for a sum of Rs.60 lacs on 22.5.2013 to one Kirti Tiwari.She has further stated that on 26.5.2013, at about 9:00 PM in the night his son, deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby, had gone 11 somewhere out of the house to see 'Holika' and thereafter he did not return to home.She thought that he went to the house of his maternal uncle.On the next day, i.e. 27.3.2013, her daughters after enquiring the matter informed her that deceased did not go to the house of his maternal uncle, then she asked about her son from her relatives on phone.She went to Gurudwara, near Gwarighat, and searched about her son, but she could not get him and thereafter lodged missing report of her son in Gwarighat outpost of Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur vide Ex.P/1, which was duly signed by her.19 : Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) has further stated that on 28.3.2013, her brother Amarjeet @ Mitthu (PW/2) and her neighbour appellant Om Prakash Yadav went to Gurudwara of Gwarighat to search the deceased, but they could not get her son.When they were returning to home, Amarjeet @ Mitthu (PW/2) received a phone of a person, who was introducing himself as Khan and told that deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby was in his possession, asked him to send Rs.50 lacs and thereatened that if the said money is not sent to him, he will kill Ajit Pal @ Boby by cutting his neck.On reaching house, when Amarjeet Singh was stating above conversation to her, then again said Khan called him, which was received by Amarjeet Singh in the meantime, he gave the phone to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1).She further stated that at that time, that person was stating as follows:-4. ....." , , ( , ,- l ,- l 0 l 8 , l 8. 0 , 8 , l 0 , 8 , 8 , 8 8 8 8 , 8 l5. 0 8 8 8 8 12 8 8 - , - - ,In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not state above statements to the police in her statement Ex.Upto that date, it was not known to her that appellant Rajesh was involved in that crime, but appellant-Om Prakash and her son accused Rajesh were pretending to help him and due to that she had not stated the role of appellant Om Prakash and his son.She was understanding them as her aspicious thinker.In this circumstances, her above statement cannot be said to be unreliable.Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) has stated in her cross-examination that appellant Rajesh was his neighbour and she knew him from his childhood.At the time of taking on phone, she had recognized the voice of Rajesh, but she did not disclose his name because the life of her son was in danger.She has not explained why did she not state the above facts in her statement before police, if all these were in her personal knowledge.Perusal of Ex.D/1 also reflects that these statements are not there.The statements of these witnesses cannot be denied.26 : In support of the prosecution case, Investigating Officer R.S. Parmar (PW/16) has stated that after receiving the information that alleged mobile phone No.8305620342, operated from the mobile phone of appellasnt Om Prakash i.e. 9993135127, he went to Narmada Nagar, Gwarighat to the house of accused/appellants and had taken accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh into custody, taken him to police station, interrogated him before witnesses Jitendra @ Sonu and Malkit Singh on 29.3.2013 at 13:45, then he disclosed about seizure of dead body from the well and knife from Nala.The memorandum of Rajesh @ Rakesh was recorded by this witness vide Ex.P/8 duly signed by him and accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh.Jitendra Singh (PW/8) has also supported the version of R.S. Parmar (PW/16) and stated about his arrest at P.S. Gorakhpur.P/3, 17 confirmed the stuck hair in the right hands' finger of dead body which were taken out and sealed.Plastic sack and shawl were also sealed vide seizure memo Ex.P/12, duly singed and confirmed the same.The dead body was said to be of Ajit Pal @ Body.On the basis of information given by appellant Rajesh, one bottle of Mc.Dowell No.1 was also seized vide Ex.P/10, which was duly signed and confirmed.On the same day, on the basis of memorandum statements of appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh Ex.On showing the knife mentioned as Article 'A', he said that this is the knife which has been seized by the police.He further stated that on 29.3.2013, on the basis of information of appellant Rajesh, spot map Ex.P/14 was prepared.Jitendra Singh (PW/8) has also stated that arrest memo Ex.P/36A, of accused/appellant Rajesh, was prepared and signed by R.S. Parmar and this fact cannot be denied during cross-examination of Jitendra Singh (PW/8).On 31.3.2013, Jitendra (PW/8), who was on police remand during interrogation at P.S. Gorakhpur, in the 18 presence of witnesses Bambam and Surjit, has stated in his memorandum statement that said mobile was kept with his brother Brajesh and he shall get it seized.On the same day, at 15 hours, Ex.P/16 was prepared in which appellant Rajesh has said that he shall get seized blood stained cloths which were kept in the dairy under Khali-Chuni in a room.It is also stated by this witness that on the basis of information given by appellant Rajesh vide Ex.P/16, T-shirt, blood stained black colour Jeans were seized vide Ex.P/18 duly stated to be written and signed by said R.S. Parmar.It is also stated to be confirmed that on 31.3.2013, in the presence of witnesses accused/ appellant has been arrested vide Ex.P/39 dt. 2.4.2013, duly signed by him to Chief Medical Officer, Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur for taking the blood samples of accused appellants-Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav.Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) has deposed in his deposition that on 2.4.2013, the accused/appellants were brought for the said purpose in the hospital.He further stated that in presence of witnesses 19 Bambam @ Shaiwal(PW/9) who was of deceased side and Shiv Prakash, who was the witness of accused/appellants side, their blood samples were taken out, sealed and handed over to the police for DNA test.Blood sample of accused/appellant Rakesh @ Rajesh was taken and Panchnama vide Ex.P/5 was prepared and blood sample of accused/appellant Raja was taken and Panchnama vide Ex.P/6 was prepared.Thereafter, Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) has deposed, that he had signed Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6, which were signed by other witnesses also, clearly show that on 2.4.2013 at 18:55 hours, the blood samples of accused/appellants Rajesh and Raja Yadav were taken on the same day and Panchnama was prepared in presence of witnesses.This witness could not state in his statement in para 7 that on what time he had come to take blood samples, but he has stated that it is true that blood samples Ex.P/5 & Ex.P/6 were collected by him at about 10-10:30, because on that day police personnel had came to him at 10-10:30 to 11:00 andhe had completed the proceedings within half an hour.It is also denied by Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW/5) that blood samples were not taken by him or before him by the technician.On the basis of not mentioning each and every particulars in Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/43, it is clear that on 22.4.2013, 10 sealed packets and on 29.3.2013 seized articles A-soil, B-Chappal, C-Chappal, D-Plastic sack, E -Shawl, F- cloth, G-knife from possession of accused appellant Rajesh, T. Shirt of Ajit Pal @ Boby, Lower, Handkerchief, as Article H1, H2, H3 & Full pant of Raja Yadav, T-Shirt, I-1 and I-2, Lower, T-shirt, underwear of appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh, as Article J1, J2 and J3 were produced and the same were chemically examined.Blood 21 stained Articles A, C, D, E, F,G, H1, H2, H3, I1, I2, J1 & J2 were also chemically examined.As per report Ex.Due to decomposition, blood found on on Articles A, D, E, F, H1, H2 & H3, their blood group could not be ascertained.No sufficient blood was found on Article C. From above reports it is clear that on Article G-knife seized from accused appellant Rajesh Yadav, his cloths Article I1, I2 and cloths of appellant Rajesh, Article J1, J2 and J3, human blood was found.It can be read without proving of its contents.Its truthness has not been challenged.As per report Ex. P/44, on examination of blood of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav and hairs stuck found in the finger of right hand of deceased Ajit Pal @ Bobby, it was found that DNA source found on hair Ex. A (1D-7905), DNA profile of male was found.Thus DNA profile of stuck of hairs found in the finger of the deceased was same as the DNA profile of blood of Rajesh @ Rakesh.36: The DNA test report maching the DNA profile of blood of appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh as well as hair found in the finger of dead body of deceased or the curcumstances, which definitely and unerringly indicate towards the guilt of the said appellant/accused.The maching of DNA profile with the dead body or hair found in the finger of the deceased cannot be termed as co-incidence.This is the important piece of evidence, which is on maticulous examination or corroborative evidence and cannot be overlooked.37: Pooran Singh (PW/3), knowing the identity of appellants on the basis of name and face, has stated that deceased Boby was the son of his daughter's sister-in-law.Previously the appellants had visited his house.He went to the house of Rajvinder Kaur (PW/1) at Narmada Nagar to give the sweet on Holi Festival in the evening hours after performing his duty at Guru Govind Singh Khalsa School.When he was going to his house and reached near railway crossing at 9:00 PM from her daughter's house, then on way, he met with appellants Raja, Rajesh and deceased Ajit @ Boby and asked Boby that it is 9:00 PM and why he did not go to home, then Boby replied that he is going to see Holika.Thereafter, Pooran Singh (PW/3) went to bus-stand by an auto-rickshaw to go to his house at Saliwada.On 28.3.2013, his daughter had called him alleging that Boby was kidnapped and ransom of Rs.50 lacs is demanded.On the next day i.e. 29.3.2013, again he received call of his daughter that dead body of Boby was found in a well; which was being taken out at the instance of appellants Raja and Rajesh.38: Further, Pooran Singh (PW/3) has stated that when he went to attend the cremation of deceased Boby, then near railway crossing he met with Town Inspector and told that on 26.3.2013 deceased was with appellants Rajesh and Raja.In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter is the aunt (Mami) of deceased Boby and her house is situated at a distance of 15-20 kms where he went by an autorickshaw along with other passengers.He went alone to his daughter's house.During cross- examination, he has also stated that he received the information about kidnapping of deceased Boby on 28.3.2013, but at that time, he did not give this information to the police.In para 7, he further stated that deceased Boby was seen with appellants Raja and Rajesh on 26.3.2013, but he has not stated this fact to anyone except police.Pooran Singh (PW/3), in para 8 of his cross- examination, he deposed that in morning hours at 10:30 AM, he met with Town Inpsector and on the same day in the evening at 5:00 23 PM, his statement was recorded in the police station, but he denied to become a witness in respect of the fact that deceased Boby was seen by him last time along with appellants Raja and Rajesh.He also denied that he gave the statements as per Town Inspector's version.Thus, looking to the aforesaid aspects, the statement of Pooran Singh (PW/3) is contradictory and, therefore, cannot be believed.Accordingly, prosecution is failed to prove that deceased was lastly seen with appellants-Raja and Rajesh.Thus, there is no evidence of last seen of deceased with appellants-Raja and Rajesh.39 : The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants on the merits of the case was, that the prosecution had ventured to substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellants only on the basis of circumstantial evidence.In so far as the instance aspect of the matter is concerned, reference may be made to the statements of Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), her brother Mitthu @ Amarjeet (PW/2) and Taranjeet Gujral @ Monu (PW/10) wherein they affirmed that on 25.3.2013 at about 9:00 PM deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby had gone somewhere out of the house to see Holika, but he did not return.Thereafter, during search, when Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu PW/2 was returning from Gurudwara, then Mitthu received a call on mobile phone.The caller was introducing himself as Khan and he was telling that Ajit Pal @ Boby was in his possession and he asked him to send Rs.50 lacs towards ransom.Thereafter, when Amarjeet Singh (PW/2) was stating about conversion to her sister, namely, Rajwant Kaur (PW/1), then again said person introducing himself as Khan, called on mobile No.9300434520 then he handed over the mobile phone to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1).Thereafter, said Khan had talked to Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) and stated that her son was in his possession and demanded Rs.50 lacs as ransom.During conversation, the mobile pone fell down from her hand, thereafter appellant-Om Prakash picked up that mobile phone and started talking and asked that where he should come with said ransom.Appellant-Om prakash was abusing on phone.Appellant Om Prakash suggested Rajwant Kaur (PW/1) for immediate release of Rs.1 lakh for liberation of Ajit Pal @ Boby.Thereafter, on collecting call details of mobile number 28 8305620342, by which ransom was demanded from cyber cell, it was found that the said sim was used from phone of IMIE number 358327028551270 and on that mobile phone sim number 9993135127 was being used which was in the name of appellant Om Prakash Yadav.It is also clear from EX.P/35-A that on 28.3.2013 from 9:35 to 9:50 hours, there were calls from mobile phone number 8305620342 having IMEI No.358327028551270 on mobile No.9300434520 which belongs to Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu (PW/2) and by the statement of Sai Datt Bohre (PW/15), Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, mobile number 9993135127 was issued in the name of appellant-Om Prakash.Seizure of dead body of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby from the well, kept in a plastic sack, murder of the deceased, seizure of knife stained with human blood, on production of appellant-Rajesh Yadav, recovery of cloths of appellants-Raja and Rajesh @ Rakesh Yadav, stained with human blood, which have been established beyond reasonable doubt, itself prove that accused-appellants had committed the offence.State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 wherein it was held as under :Persons are kidnapped in the sight of others and are forcibly taken out of the sight of all others and later the kidnapped are killed.If a legal principle is to be laid down that for the murder of such kidnapped, there should necessarily be independent evidence apart from the circumstances enumerated above, we would be providing a safe jurisprudence for protecting such criminal activities.India cannot now afford to lay down any such legal principle insulating the marauders of their activities of killing kidnapped innocents outside the ken of others."A perusal of the aforesaid determination would reveal, that having proved the factum of kidnapping, the inference of the consequential murder of the kidnapped person, is liable to be presumed.Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 places the onus on them.In the absence of any material produced by the accused/appellants, it has to be accepted, that the custody of Ajit Pal @ Boby had remained with the accused/appellants, till he was murdred.The motive/reason for the accused/appellants, for taking the extreme step was, that ransom as demanded by the accused/appellants, had not been paid.When the accused/appellants Rajesh @ Rakesh was detained on 29.3.2013, he had made a confessional statement in the presence of Jitendra Singh @ Sonu (PW/8) stating that his uncle Raju had caught hold deceased and he committed murder by cutting his neck, whereupon his body was put into gunny bag and thrown into the well and he had hidden the knife near the drain.It was, thereafter, on pointing out of him the dead body of deceased was recovered from the aforesaid well kept in a gunny bag as stated by accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh.Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW/7) concluded, after holding the postmortem of the dead body of deceased, that he had died due to haemorrhagic shock, which was caused due to cut of neck by sharp cutting object.On pointing of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh, blood stained knife was seized.Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW/7) opined, on perusal of seized knife that injury found on the neck of dead body of deceased would 31 be caused by said knife.Accused/appellant Raja was also detained on 31.3.2013 and he had made a confessional statement in presence of witness Bambam @ Shaiwal, stating that he caught hold the hands of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby and accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh by cutting his neck, caused murder of deceased and whereupon his body was put into a gunny bag and thrown the same in the well.He further stated that during commission of murder, his cloths were stained with blood of deceased.He further stated that he had concealed that cloths in his dairy under the 'Khali-Chuni'.On the pointing out of him, blood stained cloths were seized.The instant evidence clearly nails all the accused/appellants to be the perpetrator of kidnapping of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby for alleged ransom and also nails the accused/appellants Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav as perpetrator of murder of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby, due to not receiving the alleged ransom.In view of the factual and legal position dealt with herein above, we have no doubt in our mind that the prosecution has produced substantive material to establish not only the kidnapping of deceased Ajit Pal @ Boby at the hands of all accused/appellants Om Prakash, Rajesh @ Rakesh & Raja Yadav, but also his murder at the hands of accused/appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav.48 : Trial Court convicted the accused/ appellant Om Prakash for offence punishable under Section 364-A r/w Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default R.I. for two months whereas appellant Rajesh @ Rakesh and Raja Yadav have been convicted for offence under Section 364- A r/w Section 120-B of IPC and they are sentence to death sentence each and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default R.I. for two months each.They have been further convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo death sentence each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment, R.I. for two months and they have been also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each, with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of fine, R.I. for one month each.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,101,236 |
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to allow this application and quash the impugned charge-sheet No. 76/14 dated 28.9.2014, Police Station Naraini, District Banda in connection with Case No. 328/IX/16, under Section 379 IPC, 3/70 Mines and Minerals Act & 4/21 Environment Protection Act, P.S. Naraini, District Banda on the basis of which learned Court below has taken cognizance on 26.4.2016 and issued summons to the applicants.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,893 |
(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased, while P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased.Prior to the incident, there was a panchayat election in which one Elankumaran contested for the president post.The deceased worked in his support in which, the said candidate also succeeded.Both the accused/ appellants were supporting the rival side candidate.From that time onwards they were in inmical terms.On the earlier occasion, when the deceased was fishing, he was beaten by both the appellants and since they were all having support of the important persons, no complaint was given to the police.(b) On the date of occurrence viz., on 05.07.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 to 4 were standing near a tea stall.At that time P.W.1's husband was near a shop which is situated in the opposite direction.Immediately, when they were hearing a cry, they went and looked, where A1 was attacking him on the front and A2 was attacking him on the back with wooden sticks.She fell down and sustained simple injury.The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 4 and also by number of persons who were standing nearby.Both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 thereafter went to the respondent Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.On the strength of Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 308 IPC.A copy of the Express FIR Ex.P.9 was sent to the Court along with Ex.(d) Immediately P.W.14 Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to the spot and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P.11 and also Ex.P.10 Observation Mahazaar.The material objects were recovered from the place.(e) P.W.1 was sent to the hospital for giving treatment.P.W.13 attached to the Government Hospital gave her treatment and the injuries are noted in the Accident Register Ex.(f) Pending the investigation, both the accused were arrested on 06.07.2007, when A.1 gave confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of eye witnesses, the admissible part of which is Ex.P.14 and pursuant to the same he produced M.O.1 wooden log.Equally A.2 also came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded, the admissible part of which is Ex.He also produced M.O.2 Wooden log.They were recovered under the cover of Mahazars.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the Judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur in S.C.No.178 of 2007, whereby both the appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC; and also under Section 323 IPC in respect of the first accused and under Section 323 IPC r/w 109 IPC in respect of the second accused; convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and convicted and sentence to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 323 IPC in respect of the first accused and under Section 323 IPC r/w 109 IPC.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Criminal Appeal can be stated thus:The accused were sent for judicial remand, witnesses were taken before the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.Section 164 statement of witnesses were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and they were placed before the Court.(g) All the Material objects were sent for chemical analysis and reports were received.P.16 and P.17 are the Chemical Analysis and Serologist reports.(h) On completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police filed a final report.(i) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 18 documents and 8 material objects.(j) On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and they denied them as false.(k) On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and 6 documents were marked.(l) After hearing the submissions made on either side and also on scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found them guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above.Thus, the appeal is filed at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at about 10.00 a.m. on 05.07.2007 and the gist of the prosecution case was that at that time A.1 attacked the deceased on the front side and A.2 on the back side and when he fell down, not satisfied with the earlier attacked, A.2 stabbed him on his head, as a result of which he died.In the same transaction, P.W.1 was kicked by A.1 and she sustained simple injury.The learned counsel would further point out the evidence of Post Mortem Doctor.As could be seen from the contents of the post mortem certificate Ex.P.7, there are only two injuries found on the head and no more injuries are noticed and hence P.Ws.1 to 4 could not have seen the occurrence at all.The other witnesses who are independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.All the witnesses who have spoken about the prosecution case invariably have stated only the prosecution case referred to above.But there are only two injuries noticed on the head by the Doctor and hence they could not have seen the occurrence at all.Insofar as P.W.1 was concerned, she did not sustain any severe injury and she complaint of only pain to the Doctor who had given treatment to her, which is noted in Ex.P.8, Accident Register.Hence, it would be quite clear that the only evidence of P.W.1 that he was attacked again is false.4. Added further the learned senior counsel in the instant case the occurrence had taken place at about 10.00 a.m. on 05.07.2007, but in all the documents Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.9, FIR and other corresponding documents viz., Observation Mahazaar, inquest report and documents relating to registration of the case, the time of occurrence has been corrected as 12.00'o clock.Added further, the learned senior counsel pointing out the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur that the documents were corrected and all would clearly indicate that the documents have been created to the advantage of the prosecution and the occurrence could not have taken place at the time as putforth by the prosecution, but at a different time.While there were so many independent witnesses available and also examined before the Court, no one had supported the prosecution case.The evidence of all the four witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 viz., Wife, father-i- law and the sisters of the deceased respectively, would clearly indicate that they came with versions in order to implicate the appellants/accused who were innocents and in view of previous enmity which prevailed and under such circumstances, they are entitled for acquittal.Added further, learned senior counsel, in the second line of argument that P.Ws.1 to 4 were actually sitting on the other side of the road, when according to P.W.1, she noticed A.1 and A.2 actually attacking him, as that of happened earlier, and she had no occasion to notice such an occurrence.It is the own case of the prosecution that both the accused armed with sticks when they came to the spot which would clearly indicative that they should have picked up sticks which were lying near by, and it should have been preceded by a quarrel and there was no need for them to pick up the sticks to attack him.8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants accused, the prosecution examined four eye witnesses out of whom P.W.1 was an injured witness.In the instant case, P.W.1 herself went to the police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1, following which the case came to be registered directly and as she sustained injury, she was sent for medical treatment to the Government hospital where she was given treatment by P.W.13 Doctor.He has also prepared Accident Register Ex.Now the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellants that no external injury was noticed and hence the complaint made by her that she was also attacked at the time of occurrence cannot be accepted as the Court is unable to see the merit.On scrutiny the Court is satisfied that she is actually a witness to the occurrence.Further, the ocular testimony projected tnrough P.Ws.1 to 4 stood corroborated by medical evidence.In the instant case both the accused were arrested and on giving voluntary confessional statements from both of them material objects were recovered which would indicate the involvement of the accused with the crime and thus the prosecution had sufficient evidence to indicate that the accused under such circumstances had caused the death.If it is to be so, there should have been injuries on the front and back.But the post mortem certificate reveals that only two injuries were noticed and they were on the head.Thus both on the front and back of the deceased there were no injuries noticed.Thus it is clear that this first part of occurrence P.Ws.1 to 4 have not witnessed at all and under such circumstances it would clearly be indicative that there should have been a quarrel between them because the accused were in the circumstances one side and the deceased on the other side, which should have been culminated in the attack by both the accused.It is not the case of the prosecution that both the accused have come with sticks to the place of occurrence.P.Ws.1 to 3 witnessed that they picked up sticks from the place of occurrence and all would clearly be indicative that there should have been quarrel between them as a result of which accused have picked up sticks and attacked him.Under such circumstances in the considered opinion of the Court, the act of the accused cannot be intentional and cannot be termed as Murder, but culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attracting the penal provision of 304 Part I r/w 34 IPC and awarding punishment of 7 years RI would meet the ends of justice.15.Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court on the appellants is modified and instead, the appellants are found guilty and convicted under Section 304 (Part I) r/w 34 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo 7 years RI.The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be given set off.The fine imposed by the trial Court will hold good.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in respect of other charges are confirmed.With the above modification, the criminal appeal is disposed of.1. Principal District and Sessions Judge, PerambalurInspector of Police, Meensurutti Police Station, Ariyalur DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,895,166 |
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 14A-2 of SC/ST Amended Act, 2015 to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.Nos.4282 of 2017 and 4283 of 2017 respectively on the file of the learned Principal Districtand Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, dated 14.12.2017and enlarge the appellants on bail in connection with Crime No.471 of 2017 onthe file of the second respondent police.On the complaint lodged by one Baskaran, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.471 of 2017 on 21.11.2017 under Sections 302,201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of theScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 against Kannaiyiram (A-1) and his son Udayakumar(A-2).It is thecase of the defacto complainant that the deceased Thilagaraj is his ownbrother; that on 20.11.2017 he along with the deceased Thilagaraj, deceasedGnanasekar and others from the Village were illegally lifting sand in Arjunariver; that when police came, they all ran away; that the deceased Thilagarajand the deceased Gnanasekar ran in the northern direction; that the defactocomplainant reached his home, but, his brother Thilagaraj did not reach homeand that on the next day, the body of Thilagaraj and the body of Gnanasekarwere found in the field of the accused having been electrocuted.Both theaccused were arrested by the police on 22.11.2017 and were remanded to custody.The case was altered from 302 IPC to 304 IPC on 25.11.2017, since itcame to light that the accused had not committed the murder of the deceasedand that the deceased had died on account of electrocution.Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed fresh bail applicationsin Cr.M.P.Nos.4282 of 2017 and 4283 of 2017 respectively before the SpecialCourt and after the dismissal of the same, they have preferred the presentappeals.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first and secondrespondents.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even accordingto the case of the defacto complainant, the deceased were sand thieves and onseeing the police, they have fled and they came into contact with theelectrified fence that is said to have been put by the accused and had died.The learned counsel submitted that the widows of the deceased Thilagaraj andGnanasekar had filed individual Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.22069 of 2017and 22070 of 2017 disputing the version of the police and contending that thedeceased were illegally arrested by the police and they had died in policecustody and afterwards, the police had thrown the body into the field of theaccused as if the deceased had died out of electrocution.In fine, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the Appellants/Accused Nos.1and 2 are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the followingconditions:(i) each of the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a bond fora sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of whom,one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction ofthe learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar;(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression inthe surety bond and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure theiridentity.(iii) the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 shall report before therespondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks andthereafter, as and when required.(iv) the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not tamper with evidence orwitness either during investigation or trial.(v) the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against thepetitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 released on bailby the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.3.The Inspector of Police, Vatchchakarapatti Police Station, Vatchchakarapatti, Virudhunagar District,4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,897,119 |
(14.02.2017) The applicants have called in question the judgment dated 17.8.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2016, by which the appellate Court (Addl.Sessions Judge), Seondha, District Datia has modified the judgment of sentence passed against the applicants, however judgment of conviction has been affirmed.Briefly stated the facts are that on 19.12.2008 at about 9.30 am the present applicants are alleged to have dumped waste material in the drainage canal in front of the complainant's house for the purpose of making it convenient to cross the said drainage canal.On account of this act of the applicants, the complainant objected by stating that it will cause stench making it difficult for him to reside in the house.Due to this, a confrontation occurred between the applicants and the complainant leading to scuffle in which the complainant Matadeen and his son Lakhan sustained injuries including the injury on the head of complainant Matadeen caused by applicant No.3-Gopal by sharp cutting object.This incident was witnessed by Laxman Bundela, Balram Bundela and-( 2 )- CRR No. 1026/2016 several other persons in the locality and eventually the police report was lodged which is Ex.After completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet before the competent Court.The charges were framed against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34 and 506-B of IPC.Consequently, the prosecution witnesses were examined, although one of the witnesses, namely, Balram did not support the prosecution story and testimony of complainant Matadin was not recorded.Further, the applicant No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.1500/- with a default stipulation of one month additional imprisonment.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,900,890 |
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the bail application of applicants no.5 to 10 and prays for withdrawal of the same.In such premises, the bail application on behalf of applicants no.5 to 10 stands dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.This is first bail application filed by the applicants no.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants no.1 to 4 are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.257/2014 registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 323, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC read with section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)As per the prosecution case, the complainant has lodged a complaint and averred that earlier he has made a complaint to Sarpanch and the Secretary of the Village Panchayat in which he has given the statement that near Janjali Police Chowki when he is returning back to his house, at that time M.Cr.C.No.9053/2014 (Niranjan Dhakad and others Vs.State of M.P.) applicants and other co-accused persons met him and abused him and thereafter committed maarpeet with him.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed any offence.They have falsely been implicated in the case.In such premises, prayed for anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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.
|
135,903,981 |
Shri G.R. Deshmukh, counsel for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 03.07.2015 relating to Crime No. 158/2015 registered at Police Station Kanhiwada, Distt.Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 24 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against her.The deceased was the sister-in-law of the applicant, who died within one year of her marriage.In the dying declaration recorded by the police officer, the deceased did not say anything against the applicant.After her death, the parents and relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations mainly against the husband of the deceased that he demanded a motorcycle and in consequence of that demand, he was in the habit to assault the deceased.There was no allegation against the applicant that she demanded any dowry etc. A false complaint of misbehaviour has been made against the applicant, which does not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC.Prima-facie no offence under Section 304-B or 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The remaining offences are not so grave.If the applicant is not released on bail, then her marital as well as educational future shall go away.Under these circumstances, she prays for bail.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,909,199 |
(i) At the relevant point of time, complainant Deshraj Singh (PW8) was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Kolgawan.:: 2 ::(ii) On 7.3.2008 at about 11.45 a.m., while patrolling in Tikariya Tola Beat, Deshraj Singh received information to the effect that a quarrel had ensued near the office of Delhi- U.P. Transport.He immediately proceeded to the spot along with Constable Pradeep Singh (PW6) and Sainik Vijay Singh (PW5).At the time when he was making inquiry from Samar Bahadur Singh (PW1), Manager of the Delhi-U.P. Transport, and Ashok Shukla, a truck driver, about the quarrel, co- accused Raju came there hurling filthy abuses.After a while, the appellant, being armed with a sword, arrived there along with his mother Meera and Lavkush Gautam.On being informed by Raju that the Head Constable viz. Deshraj had come there to save Samar, the appellant rushed at Samar and as Deshraj tried to snatch the sword, the appellant, intending to kill, dealt a blow therewith on his neck but he was able to absorb it on his left palm.(iii) In a seriously injured condition, Deshraj Singh was taken to Govt. Hospital at Satna by Samar Bahadur.Noticing incised wound and abrasion on left palm, Dr. S.K. Jain (PW4) referred the case to the radiologist.However, no bony injury was seen in the X-ray examination.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.11.2010 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T.No.60/09, whereby the appellant, though charged with the offences punishable under Sections 294, 353, 332 and 307 read with 34 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, to further suffer S.I. for 2 months.By that judgment only, co-accused Raju and Meera, respectively the elder brother and mother of the appellant, and Lavkush Gautam were acquitted of all the offences.Prosecution case may briefly be stated as under -(iv) During investigation, the appellant was apprehended on 12.10.2008 and at his instance, weapon of offence i.e. sword was also recovered.Deshraj's clothes and ordinary and blood stained soil seized from the spot were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination.Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity with Samar Bahadur Singh (PW1) in view of a dispute arising from refusal to part with the provident fund :: 3 ::APPEAL NO. 2431/2010 money payable to Meera upon death of his father Awadh Nath, who was working in the office of Delhi-U.P. Transport at Satna.Dr. S.K. Jain (PW4), who had the occasion to examine Deshraj, described the injuries, in his report (Ex.P-4), in the following words -(i) Incised wound 7 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm deep on left palm, lateral aspect, 1st web space (left) muscle vessel cut, active bleeding injury.(ii) Abrasion x 1/6 cm on left palm.According to the medical expert, the injury no.(i) could by caused by hard and sharp object and its nature could be determined only after X-ray examination and observation.He denied the suggestion that Deshraj could have sustained injuries due to fall from a running motorcycle in a drunken condition.Injured Deshraj Singh (PW8) reiterated the allegations as recorded by SHO Vimal Shrivastava (PW7) in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) at his instance only.According to him, the sword injury caused by the appellant ultimately resulted in amputation of the left thumb.His evidence drew support from the eyewitness account given by Samar Bahadur (PW1).As per Samar's statement, it was he who had informed the police about the assault on Ashok by co-accused Raju.Chowkidar Ram Pratap (PW2), Sainik Vijay Singh (PW5) and Constable Pradeep Singh (PW6) also proved existence of bleeding injury on the left thumb of Deshraj.According to Vijay and Pradeep, this message was received on wireless that the appellant had assaulted Deshraj with a sword.Nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of :: 4 ::APPEAL NO. 2431/2010 Deshraj so as to suggest that he was, in any way, interested in securing conviction of the appellant on absolutely false grounds.ASI A.K. Shukla (CW1) corroborated the fact that he had recorded the FIR (Ex.P-12) on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) brought by Constable Pradeep Singh (PW6) from the place of occurrence.In the light of the overwhelming evidence on record, learned trial Judge did not commit any error in holding that the incised injury was authored by the appellant only.As such, his conviction under Section 324 of the IPC deserves to be affirmed as well merited.Coming to the question of sentence, it may be observed that the appellant, having criminal antecedents to his credit, has already suffered imprisonment for a period of more than 7 months in this case.Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and the background facts and circumstances of the case, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to 1 year.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,914,268 |
ECIR/KLZO/01/2013/2301, dated 7.9.2016 and summons having Ref.ECIR No.KLZO/01/2013/AD/AKS, dated 7.9.2016 issued by the second respondent in purported exercise of powers under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and quash the same.W.P.No.32849 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from taking any coercive steps or action or proceeding against the petitioner under any provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in connection with the professional fees received by the petitioner by cheques from (M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd) on behalf of her client, after deduction of tax and which fees has been subjected to maximum rate of income tax at the hands of the petitioner.The petitioner had been an assessee under the Income Tax for many years.In the course of her professional work in or about August, 2009, the petitioner was engaged by one Ms.Manoranjana Sinh as a Senior Counsel instructed by Mr.Krishna Kumar, Advocate on record, New Delhi to appear in CP No.46(ND) of 2009 before the Company law Board, Delhi.Further, Ms.Manoranjana Sinh also engaged the petitioner as a Senior Counsel instructed by Mr.Positive Television and its group companies.Manoranjana Sinh identified a Kolkata based businessman by name Mr.Sudipto Sen, who wanted to enter the media business in a big way.Sudipto Sen had agreed to invest in M/s.GNN Pvt Ltd and commenced negotiations with Ms.Manoranjana Sinh as a prelude to taking over M/s.Positive Television and its group companies as and when Ms.Positive Television and its group companies had good potential.On 6th June, 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between M/s.GNN Pvt Ltd and M/s.Bengal Media Pvt Ltd, a company owned by Mr.Sudipto Sen. Under the said agreement, M/s.Bengal Media Pvt ltd., agreed to invest in M/s.GNN Pvt Ltd on the terms and conditions set out in the MOU.This was a framework agreement to be followed by a detailed shareholders agreement to be entered into between Ms.Bengal Media Pvt Ltd will assist Ms.Manoranjana Sinh in the ongoing litigation with Matang Sinh by coordinating with herIn June, 2010, an agreement was signed between Ms.Manoranjana Sinh of M/s.5) Rights and Obligations of Buyer:Investor (M/s.Bengal Media Pvt Ltd) hereby commits that it will professionally and legally assist Manoranjana in her personal litigation with Positive and other cases as the Investor wants to ensure 100% effective involvement of Manoranjana for the success of the business of the company.As part of the agreement between Ms.Sudipto Sen stopped funding the TV business of Ms.This is confirmed by Ms.Manoranjana Sinh in her press statement dated 23.4.2013 in which she stated as follows:-I requested my lawyer and standing counsel Madam Nalini Chidambaram to do a due diligence on Saradha Group of Companies.She came back to me with a legal opinion which was sent to him as well in which she has asked him to close all collective investment schemes and seek a consent order from the SEBI.The professional services rendered by the petitioner were only vis-a-vis Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and her TV related businesses.Manoranjana Sinh in her statement to the press dated 25.4.2013 and in an email stated as follows:-Since my lawyer was Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram since long, I asked her to draft the agreement between Saradha and us.Chidambaram is my standing counsel and has worked as a legal advisor in her professional capacity.As per our agreement, her payment was made by Mr.Sen since in our agreement it was mentioned that all expenses towards legal fees and other litigation would be paid by him.Meanwhile, it transpired that Mr.Studipto Sen started defaulting in payment of principal and interest to his depositors.Hence, it is learnt that the CBI registered a case against Mr.In the course of its investigation, the CBI took a statement from the petitioner on 20.9.2014 under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code at her office in Chennai.CBI also sent letter dated 28.10.2014, directing the petitioner to produce under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the following documents:-Income Tax Returns of M/s.N.C.Associates and Smt.Details of amount received from Saradha Group of Companies with dates, mode of receipts and reason for receipt.The petitioner had submitted all the documents sought for by the CBI.The CBI issued another order dated 19.10.2015 to the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C to produce further documents in connection with the fees received from M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd., and documents pertaining to cases relating to Ms.Manoranjana Sinh in which the petitioner had appeared.Again another letter dated 5.11.2015 was sent to CBI providing further details.While matters stood thus, on 3.2.2016, the second respondent issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA" or the Act) and sought the following documents to be produced either personally or through authorised representative within seven days of receipt of the letter:-i) Copies of agreements entered between you or M/s.NC Associates and Smt.Manoranjana Sinh or her entities,ii) Copies of agreements entered between you or M/s.NC Associates and Shri Studipto Sen or his entities,iii) Particulars of services rendered to Smt.Again another letter dated 18.2.2016 was given to the second respondent by the authorised representative in person along with documents.He submitted that no agreements had been entered between the petitioner or M/s.Further, the authorised representative submitted the details of professional services rendered by the petitioner to Ms.Manoranjana Sinh/her entities.It was further stated that no services rendered by the petitioner to Mr.Sudipto Sen/his entities.The details of payments received by the petitioner from Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and from Mr.The documents produced before CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement clearly establish that the amounts received from M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd., by the petitioner were purely professional fees for the legal services rendered by the petitioner to Ms.After a lapse of 4-1/2 months, the petitioner received another summons dated 17.8.2016 from the second respondent under Section 50 (2) and (3) of the Act. Unlike in the two earlier summonses when the petitioner was given the option to appear in person or through authorised representative, in the instant summons, the petitioner was directed to appear in person at the Kolkata Office on 2.9.2016, a Friday.The petitioner through her authorised representative, wrote to the second respondent by letter dated 29.8.2016, once again explaining all the submitted documents and also drew the attention of the second respondent to Section 160 Cr.P.C under which no woman may be called for questioning except at her place of residence.In fact, several persons accused of offences that are scheduled offences under PML Act, 2002 are presented by eminent lawyers.None of them had been investigated under PML Act, 2002 in respect of the professional fees received by him/her.Pleadings of the respondents:Saradha Group of Companies, represented through its Director Shri Sudipto Sen, was a Chit Fund Company, collecting deposits from public at large in the States of West Bengal, Assam and Orissa.However, its business spread across 14 States of India.The modus operandi of business of this Company was to cheat the public at large during the years 2008-2009 to 2013-2014, by making a false promise of very lucrative returns against their investments.The quantum of total money collected by this group of company is about Rs.2,459/- crores out of which nearly Rs.1,983/- crores remains unpaid to the depositors till date excluding the interest amount.Although this group consists of 225 numbers of companies, but the proceeds of crime have been mobilised by four companies of the Group, namely, M/s.Saradha Realty India Limited, Saradha Tours and Travels Pvt Ltd, Saradha Garden Resort and Hotels Pvt Ltd., and Saradha Housing Pvt Ltd., and the details are as follows:-Name of the companyFY in which funds have been mobilisedTotal amount credited (in crore of Rs.)Total amount outstanding (in crore of Rs.)[Excluding Interest]Saradha Realty India Ltd (SRIL)2008-2009 to 2012-2013774569Saradha Tours and Travels Pvt Ltd (STTPL)2009-2010 to 2012-20131,260 989Saradhagarden Resort and Hotels Pvt Ltd (SGRHPL)2012-2013 to 2013-2014 (till April, 2014)294294Saradha Housing Pvt Ltd2012-2013 to 2013-2014 (till April, 2014)131131TOTAL2,459 1,983By failing to return the money due to the depositors, they committed offences under Section 420 of IPC, for which various cases were registered by the police across the State of West Bengal.Offences under Section 420 of IPC is a scheduled offence under the PML Act, 2002 and thereby a case of money laundering was initiated against them by Enforcement Directorate at Kolkata vide ECIR No.During the course of the said investigation in Saradha Group of cases, it was learnt that certain payments were made by Shri Sudipto Sen out of funds of Saradha Group of Companies to Smt.Nalini Chidambaram.To ascertain the same, enquiries were caused with Smt.Nalini Chidambaram vide letter dated 3.2.2016 asking her to produce details regarding transaction with Sudipto Sen. Vide letters dated 18.2.2016, 14.3.2016 and 31.3.2016, Shri N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the authorised representative of Smt.Nalini Chidambaram submitted his reply along with certain documents, which, inter alia, revealed that Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was engaged as a Senior Counsel to appear on behalf of Mrs.Manoranjana Sinh in C.P.No.46(ND) of 2009 pending before the Company Law Board, Delhi and C.S. (O.S.) No.290 of 2009 pending before Delhi High Court in the cases filed by Mrs.Manoranjana Sinh against her estranged husband Mr.Matang Sinh relating to M/s.Positive Television Pvt. Ltd., and its group companies.It would not be out of place to state that this case has no relation with Saradha Group of Companies.No agreement was entered between Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram or M/s.NC Associates with Smt.Manoranjana Sinh or her entities or Sudipto Sen or his entities.Under Clause 13 of the agreement dated June 2010 between GNN India Pvt Ltd., represented by its Director Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and Bengal Media Pvt Ltd., represented by its Director Mr.Sudipto Sen, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was appointed as an Arbitrator in case of dispute between Ms.Accordingly, statement of Shri N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the authorised representative of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was recorded on 1.4.2016, wherein, he reiterated the facts already submitted vide his above mentioned letters.During the course of statement, several new facts came out and certain contradictions emerged in the information provided on behalf of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram and the statement given by Ms.Manoranjana Sinh.Manoranjana Sinh.The documents do not show any rates to be charged and any bills raised by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram for which she claims to have received the amount totalling to Rs.1,24,90,000/- as professional fees and charges for drafting the agreements.Thus, it is necessary to question Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram to seek clarification on the above which could not be explained by her authorised representative.Manoranjana Sinh and her TV related business.This needs clarification from Mrs.Submissions made by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram (Petitioner-in-Person) :The writ petitioner in person after the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Satish Parasaran, made further submissions.Investigation disclosed that Saradha Group also paid for the hotel bills and air tickets of Smt.Manoranjan Sinh on a number of occasions.The recommendations were classified under various heads.(c) Assistant Director, andW.P.No.32848 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the letter having Ref.For Petitioner in both Wps : Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondents in both Wps : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms.G.Hema, Special Public Prosecutor, Enforcement Directorate.The relief sought for in WP No.32849 of 2016 is to direct the respondents to forbear from taking any coercive steps or action or proceeding against the petitioner under any provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in connection with the professional fees received by the petitioner by cheques from (M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd) on behalf of her client, after deduction of tax and which fees has been subjected to maximum rate of income tax at the hands of the petitioner.Pleadings of the petitioner:The petitioner is a Senior Advocate having an active practice in the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Madras and other High Courts.The petitioner was the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for 17 years.She had appeared in almost all the High Courts across the country.The petitioner has extensive practice and is practicing for almost 45 years uninterruptedly.The above cases were filed by Ms.Manoranjana Sinh against her estranged husband, Mr.Matang Singh, relating to a dispute concerning M/s.Manoranjana Sinh succeeded in the proceedings before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and the Delhi High Court in the above mentioned cases as he believed that M/s.GNN Pvt Ltd and M/s.Bengal Media Pvt Ltd. The said agreement, inter alia, contained the following clause.of the June, 2010 agreement reads as follows:-Manoranjana Sinh and Mr.Sudipto Sen, wherein Mr.Sudipto Sen agreed to fund the legal expenses of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh in contesting the cases against her husband, it was mutually agreed between Ms.Sudipto Sen/his company.Accordingly, Mr.Sudipto Sen, through his real estate company, M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd paid, from time to time, the professional fees of the petitioner on behalf of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh amounting to Rs.1 crore over a period of two accounting years.Every payment was made by means of cheque after deducting TDS and was made on behalf of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh for conference and advice, from time to time, in the ongoing litigation and for appearance on behalf of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh in the above mentioned cases.It is relevant to state that the fees of Mr.Krishna Kumar, the counsel on record was also paid by M/s.Saradha Realty India Ltd on behalf of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh.The professional fees thus received was accounted for in the books of account of the petitioner and applicable income tax at the maximum rate of 30% plus surcharges was paid on the said fees while filing the income tax returns.It was decided that a detailed shareholders agreement will be entered between Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and Mr.Sudipto Sen. However, serious differences arose between Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and Mr.Manoranjana Sinh.No agreement could be reached on the terms to be incorporated in the proposed shareholders agreement.Discussions were held by and between the two parties in the presence of the petitioner on several days, but no agreement could be arrived on the terms of the proposed shareholders agreement.At the request of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh, a Consultant, Mr.Mahadevan of Bengaluru, did a due diligence of some of the companies belonging to Mr.Sudipto Sen. Based on the said due diligence report, the petitioner gave her opinion and handed it over to Ms.Manoranjana Sinh.Sudipto Sen/his entities, who had agreed to pay the fees of the petitioner on behalf of Ms.Manoranjana Sinh, were also submitted.The petitioner further states that another order dated 4.3.2016 was issued to the petitioner by CBI under Section 91 Cr.P.C to produce certain documents either by the petitioner or through a responsible person.1.His/her passport, Adhaar Card, Voter ID Card, Pan Card or any other documents for identification.3.Particulars of her bank A/c (s) showing transactions between Ms.Manoranjana Sinh and Mr.4.Explanation of documents submitted on 19.2.2016.The third respondent also leaked the information to the Press even before the petitioner received the summons.The schedule to the summons dated 17.8.2016 had asked the petitioner to explain the submitted documents. Till the summons dated 17.8.2016, the petitioner was always asked to produce the documents and explain the submitted documents either in person or through authorised representative and the authorised representative had always appeared before the second respondent and produced all the documents and explained them.In response to the summons dated 4.3.2016, he had explained the submitted documents.He even offered to appear in Kolkata once again to explain the submitted documents on behalf of the petitioner.Thus, it is strange that the respondents continue to ask the petitioner to appear in person and explain the submitted documents.The petitioner further states that the repeated summonses seeking explanation of submitted documents when the authorised representative had already explained the submitted documents in writing, is uncalled for.Further, the direction to appear in person and not through an authorised representative and that too in Kolkata each time on a Friday (2.9.2016 and 23.9.2016 are both Fridays), reveal that the respondents are hardbouring a malicious motive and a sinister design against the petitioner in violation of her fundamental and legal rights.It is significant to note that the summons dated 3.2.2016 and 4.3.2016 gave the petitioner the option of appearing through an authorised representative.The petitioner further states that by no stretch of imagination can a lawyer be investigated under the PML Act, 2002, in connection with fees received for professional services.Such an investigation against a lawyer in respect of fees received by cheques and duly accounted for and disclosed in the returns of income tax is an unprecedented assault on the rights of lawyers and a grave threat to the independence of the profession.The petitioner is a Senior Advocate, who has been a practicing lawyer for the past 48 years.The petitioner is aggrieved that despite co-operating in the investigation and producing all the documents that were summoned, both to CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement, and conclusively establishing that the amounts received by the petitioner by cheques after deduction of tax were only professional fees for legal services, which have been duly disclosed in the returns of income and tax paid, the respondents are continuing to harass the petitioner with ulterior motives and malice, in fact, and malice in law by issuing repeated summonses.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Nalini Chidambaram was instructed to appear in C.P. No.46 (ND) of 2009 before the Company Law Board, Delhi and C.S. (O.S.) No.290 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court by Ms.Manoranjana Sinh with Mr.Krishna Kumar, Advocate, who was the counsel on record.Manoranjana Sinh paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh by cheque to Smt.Nalini Chidambaram as retainer and informed that she does not have funds to pay fees of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram and assured Mrs.Chidambaram that she would pay the fees of Mrs.Chidambaram as and when she mobilised the funds.Shri Sudipto Sen was introduced to Ms.Manoranjana Sinh by a mutual friend and after discussion between the parties, Mr.Sudipto Sen decided to invest in the company M/s.Manoranjana Sinh running a private Satellite TV Channel from Guwahati.Based on the negotiations held between the parties, an MOU was signed between the parties dated 6.6.2010, which was a framework agreement to be followed by a detailed shareholders agreement.Manoranjana Sinh in the ongoing litigation with Matang Sinh by coordinating with her lawyer. Clause 5.2 of the June agreement reads as Investor (M/s.Bengal Media Pvt Ltd) hereby commits that it will professionally and legally assist Manoranjana Sinh in her personal litigation with Positive and other cases as the Investor wants to ensure 100% effective involvement of Manoranjana Sinh for the success of the business of the company.Sudipto Sen, through his companies, paid to the petitioner Rs.1 crore spread over a period of 10 months by 10 cheques after deducting TDS of Rs.10 lakhs to Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram on behalf of Ms.Nalini Chidambaram authorised Shri N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Advocate to appear on her behalf.In view of the above factors, summons dated 17.8.2016 was issued to Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram for her appearance at Kolkata on 2.9.2016 to explain the document submitted.In reply, vide letter dated 29.8.2016, Shri N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the authorised representative of Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram reiterated that the payments received by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram from Shri Sudipto Sen were towards her professional fees and also submitted that he was fully competent to explain the documents and also requested that as per Section 160 of Cr.P.C., 1973, a woman cannot be required to attend an investigation at any place other than the place in which she resides.Under these circumstances, summons under Section 50(2) and (3) were issued for her appearance in person.In respect of the activities of Ms.Manoranjana Sinhof Saradha Group of Companies, when Shri Sudipto Sen was advised to close all collective investment schemes and seek a consent order from SEBI and the said opinion was given by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram.From this legal opinion, it appears that Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram had prior knowledge of the activities of Shri Sudipto Sen and his entity when she accepted payments from him also needs clarification from her.The professional fees of Rs.34,90,000/- received on various dates for negotiating and drafting the terms of the proposed shareholders agreement and for advising Ms.Manoranjana Sinh on several dates during the negotiation/discussions between the two parties needs clarification from Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram.Manoranjana Sinh dated 25.4.2013 wherein she had been allegedly stating that her lawyer Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram's payment will be made by Shri Sudipto Sen, since in their agreement, it was mentioned that all expenses towards legal fees and other litigation would be paid by Shri Sudipto Sen. However, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram have no such information.Manoranjana Sinh in her statement dated 19.5.2016 had stated that she did not have any idea that Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was paid by Shri Sudipto Sen until she was told about this fact by CBI during the course of investigation.The Directorate of Enforcement had been charged with a duty to investigate the offence of money laundering.The main object of "PMLA" is to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, emphasized that the respondents cannot insist for the personal appearance of the writ petitioner.By relying Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Senior Counsel contended that women cannot be compelled to appear in person for investigations and this apart, the authorised representative of the writ petitioner had already submitted the explanations and all the relevant documents sought for by the respondents.Thus, the personal appearance of the writ petitioner is unnecessary and the respondents are now acting with an ulterior motive in order to harass the writ petitioner or to arrest her.The impugned summons issued directing the writ petitioner to appear in person is in violation of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, categorically enumerates that no women shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such women resides.If at all, the respondents intend to get some clarification, then it is left open to them to approach the writ petitioner in a place where she resides.The intention of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to grant exemption and such an intention expressly made in the Code, cannot be interpreted otherwise.At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel is of an opinion that if at all such an exemption to be diluted on account of the developments occurred in our Nation, the same is to be done only through the Parliament, this Court is bound by the exemption granted in the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Senior Counsel is of an opinion that the impugned summon states that the writ petitioner should appear on Friday.This creates a doubt in the mind of the writ petitioner and this apart, the respondents have fixed the date of investigation on Friday, there is a possibility of arrest and therefore, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.The respondents are acting on certain personal motives and on certain political considerations.Thus, the impugned summon deserves to be quashed.Prima facie, the authorities competent under the PMLA, lack jurisdiction for invoking the provisions of the PMLA against the writ petitioner.The party in person urged this Court to look into the provisions of Section 2(u) of PMLA, which defines proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offence of the value of any such property (or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country).Thus, the authorities have no jurisdiction to issue any summons.The party in person argued about the offence of Money-Laundering, which defines in Section (3) of the Act. Thereafter, the charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), Special Crime Branch, SIT, Kolkata dated 04.01.2016 was referred.Relying on the said charge sheet filed before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, Kolkata, West Bengal, the petitioner in person contended that the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), revealed that M/s.Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd., will professionally and legally assist Smt.Manoranjana Sinh in her personal litigation with Positiv Television and Other personal cases.Investigation disclosed that Saradha Group paid Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Only)to Smt.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Smt.Manoranjana Sinh towards her legal expenses.Apart from the above, another Rs.34.90 lakhs were paid by Saradha Group to Smt.Nalini Chidambaram towards drafting the agreement.She was to answer certain queries.Such persons summoned are duty bound to respond to the summons and in failure, they are empowered to initiate further prosecution against the person, to whom the summon was issued.However, there shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,359,218 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Babukhan, Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) were posted as choukidars in the forest of Sangramghat Barrier.On 16-8-1987, when Khadim Hussain (PW 6) was sleeping in the hut situated near the barrier and deceased Babu Khan and Ranglal were sleeping out of the hut on separate cots, at about 1.00 a.m. in the night, four persons came there and started beating Babukhan and Ranglal.Babukhan and Ranglal shouted for help.Due to cries, Khadim Hussain, who was sleeping inside the hut awoke and saw that four persons were assaulting Ranglal and Babukhan.At the time of incident, a lantern was burning outside the hut.In the light of the lantern, Khadim Hussain identified present appellants Hari Maharaj and Nana @ Basantilal amongst assailants.Seeing one motor cycle, passing by the side, the appellants and their companion fled away from the spot.Immediately thereafter, Khadim Hussain came out of the hut and saw injuries of Babukhan and Ranglal.Babukhan sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body and Ranglal sustained injuries on his chest and other parts of the body.Khadim Hussain (PW6) rushed to Bhanpura and informed Deputy Ranger Sukhpalsingh (PW5) about the incident.On information received from Khadim Hussain, Sukhpal Singh proceeded to Police Station, Bhanpura and informed the police about the incident.Thereafter, Sukhpal Singh along with one constable Billu @ Faryaz (PW20) reached the place of incident by a truck.Injured Babukhan and Ranglal narrated the incident to Deputy Ranger, Sukhpal Singh and also disclosed the names of the appellants Hari Maharaj and Nana @ Basantilal as the assailants.Injured Babukhan and Ranglal were brought to Police Station Bhanpura where FIR Exh. P/12 was lodged by Khadim Hussain (PW6).After registration of the report, statements of injured Babukhan and Ranglal were recorded by the police and they were sent for medical treatment in the hospital, Bhanpura.Both were admitted in the hospital.The information about the death of Babukhan was sent to Police Bhanpura on the basis of which merg report, Ex.P/2 was prepared.During the course of investigation, Police Bhanpura inspected the spot and prepared the spot map.JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J.Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination.Police also recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses.Both the appellants along with acquitted accused Mangilal were arrested and on completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhanpura.The trial Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 302, 307, Indian Penal Code.Accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.The trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution convicted the present appellants Harishankar and Nana @ Basantilal for! the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above whereas other accused Mangilal was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence the aforesaid appellants have filed these appeals.We have heard Shri Jaisingh and Shri Amit Agarwal for the appellants and Shri Vijayvargiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.It was contended on behalf of the appellants that alleged eye witnesses of the incident Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case.The statement of deceased Babukhan recorded by the Investigating Officer, D. K. Jain (PW 22) though admissible as dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, is not sufficient and as such cannot be considered as reliable for convicting appellants for the charges levelled against them.In oppugnation, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the Judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence of the prosecution and therefore, it cannot be interfered with.We have carefully perused the record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.According to the prosecution case, Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) are alleged to be eye witnesses of the incident.Both the witnesses in their statements, to some extent corroborated the case of the prosecution on the point of incident but have stated that the did not identify any of the assailants at the time of incident.Khadim Hussain (PW 6) in his statement stated that in the night of the incident, himself, deceased Babukhan and Ranglal were posted as Choukidar at Sangramghat forest and they were sleeping at Sangramghat barrier.The witness further deposed that he was sleeping inside hut whereas deceased Babukhan and Ranglal were sleeping outside of the hut on separate cots and that in the night at about 1.00, on hearing the cries of Ranglal, he awoke and from inside the hut saw that four persons armed with lathis and farsi were beating Ranglal and Babukhan.The witness also stated that one of the assailants had kept beard.This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution on the point of identification of the accused/appellant Basantilal.On being cross-examined by the Government Pleader in paragraph 6 of the cross-examination, he stated that one lantern was burning outside the hut and that in the light of the lantern he did not identify the accused Nana @ Basantilal and Hari Maharaj.The witness specifically stated that at the time of incident, he did not see Basantilal, at the same time, he stated that he only saw one of the assailants, who had kept beard.Ranglal (PW 7) has stated in his statement that in the night of the incident at about 12.00 to 1.00, some persons came at the place of incident and inflicted blows on his head.The witness also stated that one of assailants had kept beard.He also stated that after the incident, when the assailants ran away from the place of incident, he fell unconscious.The witness also stated that he could not identify the assailants.In the cross-examination of Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) no substantial facts were found on the basis of which it can be concluded definitely that present appellants Basantilal and Hari Maharaj were amongst the assailants, who inflicted injuries to Babu Khan and Ranglal (PW 7).No doubt, it is true that in the cross-examination of these witnesses, certain facts were found on the basis of which suspicion can be attributed to the appellant, Hari Maharaj.The witnesses in their cross-examination have admitted that prior to the incident of 14-8-1987, some persons came at the hut at about 10.00 p.m. in the night and injured one Prabhulal with an axe.Injured Prabhulal lodged the report, Ex.P/28-A at Police Station Bhanpura of this incident, wherein it was stated that present appellant, Hari Maharaj was the person who inflicted axe blows to Prabhulal.From the statements of Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) it cannot be held beyond doubt that at the time of incident, present appellants were amongst the assailants who inflicted injuries to the deceased Babu Khan and Ranglal (PW 7).As witnesses Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) are declared hostile by the prosecution, the fact stated by the witnesses can only be believed when the facts stated by these witnesses are corroborated from other independent evidence available on record.The Court should therefore be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence."The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."In view of the above principles as laid down by the Supreme Court, the facts stated by witnesses, Khadim Hussain (PW 6) and Ranglal (PW 7) can be used against the appellants only when the facts stated by witnesses get corroborated from other evidence available on record.The other evidence against the present appellant is that deceased Babukhan before his death gave statement before Sukhpal Singh (PW 5) in which he named the appellants as assailants and thereafter, when he was taken to Police Station, Bhanpura, he gave the statement before Investigating Officer, D. K. Jain (PW 22).In this statement also deceased, Babu Khan named the appellants as assailants.No doubt, it is true that Sukhpalsingh (PW 5) in his statement, has stated that in the night of incident, on receiving information from Khadim Hussain (PW 6) when he reached the place of incident, he saw the deceased Babu Khan and Ranglal (PW 6) lying inside the hut they sustained injuries on their person from which blood was oozing, at the same time, Babu Khan stated that he was badly beaten by the assailants.Babu Khan also stated him that Hari Maharaj was one of the assailants to whom he recognized, whereas three other persons accompanying him were unknown to him.19. D. K. Jain (PW 22) has also stated in his statement that on 17-8-1987 at about 4.50 in the morning deceased Babu Khan gave his statement with regard to the incident when Babu Khan was taken to Police Station Bhanpura.In the statement, deceased Babu Khan had narrated the incident in detail and had also stated that at the time of incident, in the light of the lantern, he recognized Hari Shankar and Basantilal.According to the statement of Babu Khan, appellant Hari Shankar was armed with Farsi whereas Basantilal and other unidentified appellants were armed with lathis.The statement (Exh. P/14) can be considered as evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act but it is essential to see that how much reliance can be placed on the statement recorded by the Police Officer.It bears thumb impression of deceased Babu Khan, no explanation given for not taking his signature.In the statement deceased Babu Khan has stated that at the time of incident, appellant Harishankar was armed with Farsi and assaulted him.Dr. Verma (PW 4), who performed autopsy on the dead body of Babu Khan, in the post mortem report has not stated that any incised wound was found on the body of the deceased.Learned counsel also stated that it is not disputed that it was a dark night and only lantern was burning outside the hut.Ranglal (PW 7) in para 16 of his cross-examination has stated that lantern was lighted dim to avoid nuisance from insects.When Ranglal (PW 7) and Khadim Hussain (PW 6) could not identify any of the assailants in a dim light of the lantern then the question arises as to whether deceased Babu Khan was in a position to identify the accused at the time of incident.The attesting witness of the statement, Exh. P/14, Khadim Hussain (PW 6) has stated that his signature was obtained on Exh. P/14 at Police Station on 17-8-1987 at about 12.00 in the noon.The witness specifically stated that the statement, Exh. P/14 of deceased Babu Khan was not recorded in his presence.He has also mentioned that the appellants assaulted him with Kassi.In view of the detailed and extremely coherent nature of the dying declaration, we find it impossible to believe that the deceased even if conscious would have made such a detailed statement."On perusal of the statement of Dr. Verma (PW 4) and the facts stated in the post mortem, Exh. P/8, no incised wound was found on any part of the body of the deceased, Babu Khan whereas in Exh. P/14, deceased Babu Khan had stated that appellant Harishankar was armed with Farsi.In view of this also, the statement, Exh. P/14 has become doubtful.If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon."In view of the aforesaid facts, the statement of Sukhpalsingh (PW5) also becomes doubtful on the point that after the incident when he reached the spot, deceased Babu Khan verbally told him that Harishankar and Basantilal were amongst the assailants and they assaulted Babu Khan.It is pertinent to note that Sukhpalsingh (PW 5) in para 1 of his statement has stated that on receiving information about the incident from Khadim Hussain (PW 6) firstly, he went to Police Station, Bhanpura along with Khadim Hussain and lodged the report of the incident there and then along with one constable, he went to the spot by a truck.The prosecution has not filed alleged report lodged by Sukhpalsingh at Police Station, Bhanpura, as stated by him in his statement.No explanation on behalf of the prosecution was submitted for not filing of the alleged report.The trial Court has convicted the accused persons on suspicion only and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside.Consequently, all aforesaid three appeals are allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,933,198 |
It is because of this the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
989,335 |
Shakereh, the deceased victim of the crime, came from a highlyreputed and wealthy background.She was the grand daughter of SirMirza Ismail, a former Dewan of the Princely State of Mysore and thedaughter of Mr. Ghulam Hussain Namaze and Mrs. Gauhar Taj Namaze.She held vast and very valuable landed properties in her own right.Among her various properties was a bungalow at No.81, RichmondRoad, Bangalore, constructed over nearly 38000 square foot of land that 5she had got in Hiba (oral gift) from her parent's side.Another was a largepiece of land measuring 40,000 square foot on Wellington Street that shehad got in dowry at the time of marriage.Shakereh was married to Mr.They had fourdaughters from the marriage.Soon thereafter Akbar Khaleeli wasposted as a diplomat to Iran.In those days Iran was not a family-stationfor Indian diplomats and hence, he went alone leaving Shakereh behindin Bangalore.The appellant then came to Bangalore and started living ina part of her house, 81 Richmond Road, purportedly to assist in theproper management of her properties.Apparently, more than helping inproperty matters he worked on her suppressed though strong desire for ason and was able to convince her that with his occult powers he couldmake her beget a son.In 1985, Shakereh and Akbar Khaleeli gotdivorced.Shakereh then proceeded to marry the appellant.She paid no 6heed to the opposition from family and friends and finally got married tothe appellant on 17 April, 1986 under the Special Marriage Act and themarriage was registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Mayo Hall,Bangalore.After marriage they lived together at 81 Richmond Road.Fordomestic chores they engaged a couple, a man called Raju to work asgardener-cum handyman and his wife Josephine to work as maid servant.They lived in the servant's quarter of the bungalow.The daughters from the first marriage were most of the timestaying abroad.After marriage Shakereh not only showered her love and affectionon the appellant but also her material wealth.She executed atestamentary will in his favour besides a general Power of Attorneyappointing him as her agent and attorney.She opened a number of bankaccounts jointly with the appellant and also took several bank lockers intheir joint names.They also started together a private company called S.S. Housing Private Limited of which they alone were the partners.Notwithstanding her matrimonial adventures Shakereh's relationswith her daughters and her parents continued to be more or less asbefore.They met from time to time and kept in touch by speaking on thetelephone at regular intervals.Then by the end of May 1991, Shakereh suddenly andmysteriously disappeared.Thereafter, Shakerehwas not seen or spoken to by anyone.At that time she was about fortyyears old.When Sabah did not receive any call from her mother nor was sheable to get through to her on telephone she enquired about her from theappellant who said that she had gone to Hyderabad.In June 1991, whenshe contacted again he told her that her mother had gone to Kutch toattend the wedding of a wealthy diamond merchant.A week later he toldher that Shakereh was keeping a low profile due to some income taxproblems.Exasperated by the evasive and vague replies by the appellant,Sabah came down to Bangalore but found no trace of her mother in herhouse.The appellant then said that Shakereh was pregnant and she hadgone to the United States of America to deliver the child.He also saidthat she had got herself admitted in Roosevelt Hospital.Sabah madeenquiries and came to learn that Roosevelt Hospital records did not showadmission of anyone by the name of Shakereh or matching herdescription.She confronted the appellant and accused him of givingfalse information about her mother.He tried to explain that Shakereh 8had, in fact, gone to London but she wanted to keep her whereaboutsconfidential.However all stories fabricated by the appellant about hermother lay totally exposed to Sabah when she called on him in a hotelroom in Bombay and chanced upon the passport of her mother lyingaround.A glance at the passport made it clear that its holder had notgone to the United States or the United Kingdom or as a matter of factanywhere out of the country.The search for the `missing' woman started in a rather lukewarmway but the appellant thought that the time had come to start covering hisflanks.He went to the court seeking anticipatory bail.In the bail petitionhe declared his total innocence and stated that perennial litigation withclose relations drove Shakereh to acute depression and in that state,while he was away from Bangalore, she left the house in a fit of angerwithout leaving any signs as to where she was headed.He was able toobtain anticipatory bail, initially on certain condition that was later ongreatly relaxed.The investigation by Ashok Nagar police station did not yield anyresults but the persistence of Sabah paid off.In March 1994, the CentralCrime Branch (C.C.B.), Bangalore took over the investigation of the 9complaint about the `missing' Shakereh.The case came under the chargeof C. Veeraiah, CPI, CCB (PW 37) who, suspecting the role of theappellant in the disappearance of Shakereh, subjected him to closeinterrogation.Under intense interrogation the appellant broke down andowned up to having killed Shakereh.He narrated in detail the manner ofher killing and disposing of her body.He stated that he put the body ofShakereh inside a large wooden box (that he had earlier got made for thepurpose) and got the box dropped into a pit (that he had got specially dugup) in the grounds of 81 Richmond Road just outside their common bed-room.He then got the pit filled up by earth and the ground-surfacecemented and covered up with stone slabs.He volunteered to take theInvestigating Officer (IO) to the place and identify the exact spot whereShakereh lay buried inside the wooden box.The box had inside it, on top, a foam mattress, apillow and a bed-sheet.Under the mattress was a skeleton with a sleepinggown around it.The bones had all become disjointed.The skeleton andthe long hair tufts lying around the skull were taken out and the forensicexperts rearranged the bones and also fixed the skull and the mandibles.There was no doubt that it was a human skeleton.Mrs. Gauhar TajNamaze identified a red stone ring and two black rings found in thewooden box (that must have slipped down the fingers after the fleshdecayed away) as belonging to her daughter Shakereh.The sleeping 11gown that was around the skeleton was identified by the maid asbelonging to her mistress Shakereh.The post mortem examination was held on the same day from 4.45to about 6 p.m.The skull along with an undisputed photograph of Shakereh wassent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for matching and identificationby Photo Superimposition method.The skeletal remains were subjectedto D.N.A. fingerprinting.On 31 March, 1994 the IO once again took the appellant to 81Richmond Road.This time the appellant took the IO to the bedroom andshowed the window that opened on the enclosed space from where theskeleton of the deceased was recovered on the previous day.He alsoexplained that he had got the lower part of the room's wall broken downto make a clearing through which the wooden box containing Shakereh'sbody was pushed out of the room and into the pit.It came to light during investigationthat after Shakereh disappeared (or, in retrospect, was killed by theappellant) he went about selling off her properties as fast as possible.On 1230 and 31 March, 1992, in two days, the appellant sold 34 plots carvedout of Shakereh's properties to various people under registered sale-deeds using the General Power of Attorney executed by her in his favour.The joint bank accounts were simply used to deposit large sums beingthe sale proceeds of the lands sold by him and to withdraw the amountsas soon as those were credited to the account.Needless to say that fromMay 1991, it was the appellant alone who operated the joint bankaccounts.He also literally cleaned out the bank lockers that Shakereh hadtaken in their joint names.In all the meetings of the S. S. Housing Company, he representedthe presence of Shakereh and signed the proceedings for himself and forher as holder of her General Power of Attorney.AFTAB ALAM,J.1. Death to a cold blooded murderer or life, albeit subject to severerestrictions of personal liberty, is the vexed question that once againarises before this court.What is the surety that the sentence awardedto the convict after painstaking and anxious deliberation would becarried out in actuality? The sentence of imprisonment for life, literally,shall not by application of different kinds of remission, turn out to be theordinary run of the mill life term that works out to no more than fourteenyears.How can the sentence of imprisonment for life (till its full naturalspan) given to a convict as a substitute for the death sentence be vieweddifferently and segregated from the ordinary life imprisonment given asthe sentence of first choice? These are the questions that arise forconsideration in this case.It is thus on the limited, though very important and intractable questionof sentence that this appeal has come before us.It has a man's vile greed coupled with the devil's cunning; awoman's craving for a son, coupled with extreme credulity andgullibility and a daughter's deep and abiding love for her mother coupledwith remarkable perseverance to see through the lies behind her mother'smysterious disappearance."If I am taken I will show the place where the wooden box was prepared and the person who prepared it, the persons who transported the box and the people who helped in digging out the pit and the crow bar, spade, pan used for digging pit, the cement bags and the spot where Shakereh is buried and I exhume the dead body of the deceased and show you.The statement what all I had earlier given to Ashok Nagar police was a false statement given intentionally just to escape myself."The IO then obtained an exhumation order from the Magistrate and aftercompleting the other legal formalities, on March 30, 1994 brought the 10appellant to 81 Richmond Road along with the exhumation team.Theywere taken by the appellant to the rear of the house passing through thedinning hall and the kitchen.The place was open to the sky but wasenclosed on all the four sides by high walls; the floor was made ofkadapa slabs cemented at the joints.The place had no other access apartfrom the entry through the kitchen.As pointed out by the appellant, first the stone slabs were removedand the cemented portion below the slabs was broken up.Then theground below was dug up and sure enough a large wooden box wasfound lying deep under.Both the tests gave the same result and left noroom for doubt that the skeleton was of Shakereh.The proceedings of themeetings were regularly sent to their Chartered Accountant.The appellant also gave regular replies to the queries of the IncomeTax authorities, one of which, of the year 1993 contains his signature andthe signature of Shakereh which is apparently forged.In light of the large amount of evidences unearthed against theappellant he was charged with the commission of murder of his wifeShakereh.As is evident, the case against the appellant was completelybased on circumstantial evidence.But the prosecution proved its case tothe hilt by examining 39 witnesses and producing before the court a large 13number of exhibits, both material (MOs.1 to 33) and documentary (P1 toP267).These are, in brief, the facts of the case.On these facts, Mr.Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka, supported theview taken by Katju J. (as indeed by the High Court and the trial court)and submitted that the appellant deserved nothing less than death.Inorder to bring out the full horror of the crime Mr. Hegde reconstructed itbefore the court.He said that after five years of marriage Shakereh'sinfatuation for the appellant had worn thin.She could see through hisfraud and see him for what he was, a lowly charlatan.The appellantcould sense that his game was up but he was not willing to let go all thewealth and the lavish life style that he had gotten used to.He decided tokill Shakereh and take over all her wealth directly.In furtherance of hisaim he conceived a terrible plan and executed it to perfection.He got alarge pit dug up at a `safe' place just outside their bed room.The personwho was to lie into it was told that it was intended for the construction ofa soak- pit for the toilet.He got the bottom of one of the walls of thebedroom knocked off making a clearing to push the wooden boxthrough; God only knows saying what to the person who was to passthrough it.He got a large wooden box (7x2x2 feet) made and brought to81 Richmond Road where it was kept in the guest house; mercifully outof sight of the person for whom it was meant.Having thus completed all 14his preparations he administered a very heavy dose of sleeping drugs toher on 28 May, 1991 when the servant couple, on receiving informationin the morning regarding a death in their family in a village in AndhraPradesh asked permission for leave and some money in advance.However, before giving them the money asked for and letting them go,the appellant got the large wooden box brought from the guest house tothe bedroom by Raju (with the help of three or four other persons calledfor the purpose) where, according to Raju, he saw Shakereh (for the lasttime) lying on the bed, deep in sleep.After the servants had gone awayand the field was clear the appellant transferred Shakereh along with themattress, the pillow and the bed sheet from the bed to the box, in allprobability while she was still alive.He continued to live, like aghoul, in the same house and in the same room and started a massivegame of deception.To Sabah, who desperately wanted to meet hermother or at least to talk to her, he constantly fed lies and represented tothe world at large that Shakereh was alive and well but was simplyavoiding any social contacts.In Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 296, theappellant, who was 20 years old at the time of commission of the offence,had come to this Court, condemned to death by the trial court and theHigh Court.According to prosecution, he had killed five members of afamily by mercilessly battering them to death.The manner of killing wasbrutal and the circumstances of the crime exhibited crass ingratitude onthe appellant's part.The motive was theft of gold ornaments and otherarticles belonging to the victim family.In Ram Anup Singh & others V. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 686,there were a father and his two sons before this court.To throw light on the question Mr. Hegde submitted a note onremission of sentences of imprisonment as followed in the State ofKarnataka, with specific reference to the facts of this case.Chapter XII of the Karnataka PrisonManual deals with the remission system; Rule 215 defines remission ofsentence and provides for three kinds of remissions, namely, ordinaryremission, special remission and remission by the State Government."In addition to what is stated in para 3.1, it may be added that cases of life imprisonment pass through the Advisory Board and their recommendations are examined by the Head of the Department viz., Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons who later forwards them to the Government for passing final orders.That is how the sentence of life imprisonment is commuted for a term of 20 years or less as per provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the IPC and Section 433A Cr. P. C."It is further stated in the note as follows:"Experience shows that in respect of life convicts an assumption can be made that the total sentence is 20 years and if the convict earns all categories of remissions in the normal course it may come to 6 years which is less than one third of 20 years.This is also in consonance with Order 214(C) of the Prisons Manual which for the purposes of the rules deems a sentence of imprisonment for life to be a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years."The Board shall 51then make its recommendation in light of the instructions contained inChapter XLIV of the Karnataka Prisons Manual.The recommendationof the Board will be examined by the Head of the Department andthereafter the State Government will pass appropriate orders regardingcommutation of his sentence.We also got some enquiries made on the issue of premature releaseof a life convict in the State of Bihar and came to learn that the processfollows basically a similar pattern.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,942,345 |
Heard on I.A. No.1546 of 2018, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.6--Sandeep Yadav.Also heard on I.A. No.1547 of 2018, 2nd/repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant-- Aakash.They have been convicted under Sections 148, 307/149(Eleven count) and 302/149 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., 5 years R.I, life imprisonment, 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Learned Senior Counsel for both the appellants has drawn our attention to the statements of (PW-1) to (PW-12) and submitted that as per seizure memo Ex.P-48, appellant No.6 Sandeep was armed with Sword, whereas no recovery of Sword has been made from appellant No.12--Aakash.The allegation against them of causing injury to (PW-5) Jagdish and (PW-3) Ravi.As per statement of Doctor Sumit Sisodiya (PW-20), their injuries are not dangerous to life.He further submitted that the case would fall under 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A. No.1534 of 2015 Section 326 of IPC and submitted that in identical circumstances number of appellants, their applications for suspension of jail sentence have been allowed and prayed that both these applications be allowed and their jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the application and prays for its rejection.On due consideration of the statements of (PW-3) Ravi and (PW-20) Dr. Sumit Sisodiya and other material evidence available on record so also the fact that both the appellants have not caused any injury to the deceased, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.1546 of 2018 and I.A. No.1547 of 2018) are allowed.The substantive jail sentences of the appellants- Sandeep Yadav and Aakash are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 05/09/2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,942,674 |
4] The prosecution case is that the victim, who is an orphan and is residing with her uncle and aunt, was sleeping in the courtyard of the house.Her aunt and grand-mother were sleeping on separate cots.The accused entered the courtyard and caressed the breast of the victim who awoke and shouted.The victim saw the accused.The victim disclosed the incident to her aunt, who also awoke hearing the shouts of the victim.The victim accompanied by her aunt, uncle and grand-mother went to the residence of the accused.The accused was not home and the incident was disclosed to his mother and then police::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 3 apeal171.19.J.odt report was lodged by the victim (Exhibit 17).Heard Shri S.K. Sable, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.R. Chutke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.With consent the appeal is finally heard.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::Investigation ensued, the statements of witnesses were recorded, the birth certificate and school leaving certificate of the victim were collected and the charge-sheet was submitted in the Special Court.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::6] The Special Court framed charge (Exhibit 2) for offence punishable under Section 354A and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused abjured guilt.The defence of the accused is of false implication.In response to question 14 in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code'), the accused stated that PW 2 - Sau.Savita Ingole who is the aunt of the victim was asking the accused to do her work, the accused was not inclined and Sau.Savita threatened the accused of false implication.However, in the cross-examination of PW 2 Sau.Savita the suggestion is that PW 2 runs a gambling den and since the accused lodged a complaint, he::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 4 apeal171.19.J.odt is falsely implicated.The suggestion given to the victim - PW 3 is that there was a dispute between the accused and her uncle and aunt.Inconsistent defences are discernible from the cross-examination of the two material witnesses PW 2 Sau.Savita and PW 3 - the victim and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code.The accused did not step into the witness box nor did he examine any witness in defence to bring on record that he did lodge a complaint as regards the gambling den allegedly run by PW 2 Sau.In the cross-examination of the child victim, it is brought on record that her uncle had an altercation with one Sujatabai.However, how Sujatabai is related to the accused and how the alleged dispute between the uncle of the victim with the said Sujatabai would be a motive for false implication of the accused is not brought on record.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::7] It would be necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the two material witnesses PW 2 Sau.Savita and PW 3 - the victim in order to ascertain whether the foundational facts are established by the prosecution as would trigger the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. If the foundational facts are established, and the presumption triggered, the burden to rebut the presumption::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 5 apeal171.19.J.odt would be of the accused, albeit on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.The accused can discharge the burden by effective cross-examination and by bringing on record material to create serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version or to render the prosecution version improbable.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::8] The report is lodged with promptitude.PW 3 - the victim has deposed that the accused entered the courtyard between 04:30 a.m and 05:00 a.m. on 31.05.2016 and caressed her breast.The victim has deposed that she woke up and shouted and saw the accused near her cot.The other members of the family including Sau.Savita awoke and then after going to the house of the accused and disclosing the incident to his mother the police report was lodged.The testimony appears to be truthful and natural.Nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the victim.The victim was suggested that the accused is falsely implicated, which suggestion is denied.Similarly, the testimony of PW 2 Sau.Savita corroborates the evidence of the victim.PW 2 Sau.Savita has disclosed that the::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 6 apeal171.19.J.odt victim immediately narrated the incident.PW 2 has denied the suggestion that the accused lodged the complaint that PW 2 was running a gambling den.Be it noted, that there is no material produced on record by the accused to fortify the defence that PW 2 runs a gambling den and that since the accused complained, he is falsely implicated.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::9] The evidence of PW 2 Sau.Savita and PW 3 victim is confidence inspiring.I have already noted supra, that different suggestions are given to different witnesses and the defence which is put to the witnesses in the cross-examination finds no place in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code.In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in concurring with the view of the learned Special Judge that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.10] It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child as on the date of the incident.A suggestion is given that the date of birth is not correct.However, there is no further cross-examination on this::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 7 apeal171.19.J.odt aspect.The prosecution has proved the certificate issued by Municipal Council, Digras (Exhibit 20).The certificate is issued under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder.In the examination under Section 313 of the Code, it was put to the accused that the date of birth of the victim is 14.10.2000 and the answer of the accused is "I do not know".The prosecution has examined PW 4 Ashok Chukekar who has proved the school leaving certificate (Exhibit 24).However, since the school leaving certificate Exhibit 24 is issued on the basis of the transfer certificate issued by the previous school, and the primary material or source of information on the basis of which the entry is taken in the record maintained by the previous school is not proved, I would discard the evidence of PW 4 Ashok Chukekar as of no evidentiary value.However, the evidence of PW 3 which is corroborated by the birth certificate is sufficient to hold that the victim was child within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d) of the POCSO Act as on the date of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::11] Shri Sable, the learned counsel for the accused did make a valiant effort to persuade me to hold that it would be::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 ::: 8 apeal171.19.J.odt unsafe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of the victim.According to the learned counsel, the only other material witness Sau.Savita has not seen the incident.I have found the evidence of the child victim trustworthy and there is no reason why her evidence cannot be the basis of conviction.The disclosure made by the victim to her aunt PW 2 Sau.Savita is immediately after the incident.The disclosure is contemporaneous with the fact which is in issue.Section 6 is clearly attracted and the evidence of Sau.Savita that the victim disclosed to her the incident is relevant and admissible.::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::12] The appeal is without substance and is dismissed.13] The fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at Rs.5000/-.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2019 23:02:53 :::
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,946,891 |
Both the appeals are against the common judgment dated 18 th October, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 271/2005 by Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Hoshangabad (M.P.), hence they have tagged together, heard together and decided by this common judgment.2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that brother of the complainant Guddu was arrested by the Railway Police in some offence 3-4 days before the incident.He was sent to jail.His wife Kanti was alone in the house 2 -3 persons had gone to her house in the night when deceased came to know about the said fact he objected about the aforesaid act to Gappu Dhobi, Motu Gond and Guddu Chamar.There was some altercation took place between them at about 7: 30 in the morning.Thereafter Guddu Chamar and Gappu Dhobi caught hold of deceased Sanjay and said that who are you to prevent us from going into the house of Kantibai.They abused him and thereafter appellant- Motu Gond had taken out a Gupti from his vest and inflicted a blow on the stomach of the deceased.PW-4/Sangeeta Bai, is wife of PW-1/ Totaram.She deposed that I heard the sound of quarrel thereafter my husband Guddu and Devrani Neeta came out from the house The appellants had been beating the deceased Sanjay.Gappu had knife and Motu Gond had Gupti.There was injury of Gupti on the stomach of deceased and injury of knife on the thigh of Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 5 deceased.Appellants ran away from the spot.Deceased died in the hospital.PW/5 Neeta Bai is the wife of deceased.She deposed that I heard the sound save me, save me when I was cooking food in the house thereafter I came out from my house along with Guddu and Sangeeta.She deposed that appellants had been beating the deceased.Motu had Gupti whereas rest of two persons had knife.There were two injuries of Gupti on the stomach of my husband and one injury of knife.When she reached the hospital she came to know that deceased has died.9. PW-15/ R.S.S. Rathore, D.S.P deposed that I prepared spot map Ex.P-5 and seized the blood stained earth and plain earth from the spot and prepared seizure memo Ex.He recorded the statement of witnesses.This witness has seized the Gupti and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-16 whereafter, it was sent to forensic examination.Articles were sent for forensic lab(Pronounced on 05 /07/2018) Per S.K. Gangele J Criminal Appeal No. 2437/2007 has been filed by appellant Gappu @ Jagdish and Criminal Appeal No. 217/2009 Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 2 has been filed by appellant Motu @ Ashok.Deceased fell down on the ground.The deceased was taken to J.S.R. Hospital, Itarsi where he was declared dead.A report was lodged at the police station.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.Appellants abjured their guilt during trial Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 3 and pleaded innocence.Appellant Guddu @ Omprakash was tried by Juvenile Court.Trial court held the appellant Motu @ Ashok guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and appellant Gappu @ Jagdish under Section 302 /34 IPC and awarded sentence of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default another six months imprisonment.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Motu @ Ashok has submitted that alleged eyewitnesses are related witnesses.There are major contradictions and omissions in their deposition.Hence the evidence of aforesaid witnesses is not reliable.In alternate, learned counsel has also submitted that the offence committed by appellant Motu @ Ashok would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of appellant Gappu @ Jagdish has submitted that as per evidence of three eyewitnesses, two persons namely Gappu and Guddu were armed with knife.No witness has deposed that appellant Gappu had inflicted injury by knife.Dr. who performed postmortem of the deceased deposed that all the three injuries were caused by Gupti.Apart from this, in the FIR which was lodged promptly within 5 hours of the incident, it is mentioned that present appellant and another co-acused Guddu @ Omprakash had beaten the deceased by feet.The trial court has committed an Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 4 error in holding the appellant Gappu guilty for commission of offence with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.There are three eye witnesses in the case.PW-1/ Totaram is the brother of the deceased.He deposed that at around 7-8 in the evening there was a quarrel I have heard the sound and I noticed that Gappu, Motu @ Guddu had been beating my brother Sanjay.I tried to save him at that time, Sanjay was lying there.The accused persons ran away from the place.PW-1 had taken the deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead.In his cross-examination, he admitted that it has not been mentioned in the FIR that Gappu was armed with knife.PW-3/ Rajesh is another witness.He deposed that my wife Reena was cooking food and I had heard the sound of quarrel and subsequently I came to know that deceased has died.He had taken the deceased to the Hospital.10. PW/17 Sunil Kumar Jain, deposed that he inquired from Motu @ Ashok in which he informed about the weapon Gupti.He prepared the memo of Motu vide Ex.P-15 and signed the same.PW-14/ Dr. Arun Kumar Shivani, performed the postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that he noticed Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 6 following injuries on the person of the deceased:-(1.) Penetrating wound on the lower side of stomach measuring 2 x 1 x 10 cm.In para 4 of his examination, he further deposed that after examining the Gupti, I noticed that injuries No.1 to 3 sustained by the deceased could be caused by aforesaid Gupti.Three witnesses deposed that appellant Motu @ Ashok was armed with Gupti and he had caused injury on the person of the deceased.The report was lodged by PW-1 vide Ex.P-1. PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he lodged the report.In the aforesaid report, it is mentioned that the appellant Motu inflicted a Gupti blow.It is further mentioned that other accused persons Guddu and Gappu had beaten the deceased from legs.There is no mention that these persons were armed with knife and they had inflicted injuries on the person of deceased with knife.Aforesaid report was lodged on 11 pm in the night i.e. after 4 hours of the incident.State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52 has observed that evidence of interested witness has to be examined carefully.Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 7PW-1/ Totaram did not depose specifically that the present appellant had caused injury to the deceased by knife.PW-4 / Sangeeta Bai deposed that Appellant Gappu was armed with knife and all the accused persons had beaten the deceased.PW-5 / Neeta Bai deposed that Motu had Gupti and other two persons had knife.It is also the fact that knife has not been seized from the appellant Gappu.No explanation has been putforth by the prosecution that why knife was not seized from the appellant Gappu.Doctor, who performed the postmortem, deposed that all the three injuries could be caused by Gupti.In the FIR lodged by PW-1 it has not been mentioned that appellant - Gappu was armed with knife and he had inflicted blow of knife.In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, in our opinion, the evidence of related eyewitnesses is not sufficient to hold the appellant Gappu @ Jagdish guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Sec. 34 of the IPC.In regard to appellant Motu @ Ashok there is a specific evidence that he was armed with Gupti and he had inflicted blow by Gupti.The Doctor has also deposed that injuries could be caused by Gupti which was seized from the possession of appellant Motu @ Ashok.Hence, in our opinion, the trial court Cr.A. No. 2437/2007 & Cr.A. No. 217/2009 8 has rightly held that appellant Motu @ Ashok is guilty and killed the deceased.The appellant had inflicted a major blow on the stomach of the deceased due to which urinary bladder was cut and there were two other injuries also.The deceased was died on the spot.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
9,894,744 |
C.C. as per rules.(MOOL CHAND GARG)It is directed that the applicant Jagdish Mehra shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Shahdol for his appearance before the trial Court on each and every dates as may be fixed by the Court concerned during the trial.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
98,952,662 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 21/09/2016 relating to Crime No.265/2016, registered at Police Station Bahodapur, Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable Sections 307, 386, 506/34 of IPC, Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 23 years of age, who has no criminal past against him as such.One case was registered against the applicant in the past but he was not convicted in that case.Initially, it was alleged against an unknown person that he fired with a gun, however, none sustained any injury.No Test Identification Parade has been arranged after arrest of the applicant.The case depends on the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded of the applicant giving information about the firearm and, thereafter, the firearm was recovered.However, looking to the limited admissibility of memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, prima facie, no offence under Section 307 or 386 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The Mcrc.11344.2016 Gaurav @ Goldi Shukla Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh applicant is in custody without any substantial reason.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the 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.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,997,854 |
(29/06/2017) This revision petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment 19/08/2010 passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No.26/2010 arising out of judgment dated 10/03/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajaygarh, Distt.Panna in Criminal Case No.336/2007 whereby learned appellate court affirmed the order of conviction recorded under section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and reduced the sentence to one year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation.In brief, the facts of the case are that on 05/07/2007 at 11.00 a.m. when victim-Chhotelal along with his son namely Sarman was going from Dera then the applicants/accused persons assaulted Chhotelal with sticks and caused several injuries on his body.Chhotelal sustained grievous injuries on his left ulna bones.On reporting the matter to Police, the Police Station, Dharampur registered Crime No.66/2007 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under Sections 325 read with section 34 and 294, 506-B of IPC against the applicants/accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajaygarh, Distt.Panna where the applicants/accused persons abjured guilt and claimed to be tried, therefore, the learned trial Court conducted trial and after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the applicants/accused persons for the offence under Sections 325 read with Section 34 and 506 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine amount each and also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine amount each respectively, however, acquitted them for the charge under Section 294 of IPC.Being aggrieved thereby 3 the applicants preferred a criminal appeal No.26/2010 before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna.The learned appellate court by the impugned judgment acquitted the applicants/ accused persons for the charge under Section 506 Part-II of IPC, however, affirmed the conviction under Section 325 of IPC but reduced the sentence from three years to one year RI each and fine amount remains unchanged.This order of conviction and sentence has been assailed in this revision petition.The present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the findings of learned trial Court and the appellate Court are not in accordance with law.Both the Courts below have not considered the evidence available on record in right perspective.It is a history of enmity amongst appellants/accused persons and the complainant and there is omission and contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses which are not reliable without corroboration of independent evidence.The findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to the material available on record and not sustainable, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and the applicants/accused persons be acquitted of the 4 charge.During arguments, learned counsel for the applicants, in view of the evidence on record against the applicants, with all fairness, stated that the applicants/accused persons are not pressing this revision against conviction, however, they want only modification in the sentence.In this regard, it is prayed that the applicants are belonging to one family and the incident is of ten years old.The victim did not receive injury on any vital part of the body.The applicants/accused persons are on bail and earlier they have remained in custody from 19/08/2010 to 03/09/2010 i.e. about 15 days and they are first offender.Hence, their sentence of imprisonment may be reduced for the period already undergone by them and fine amount be enhanced reasonably.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has also with all fairness expressed that in part of modification of sentence, he has no objection.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the Courts below with regard to conviction of applicants is based on the evidence of victim-Chhotelal (PW-1) and his son namely Sarman (PW-3) which is corroborated with the evidence of Dr. S.K. Yadav (PW-5) and Dr. Mahesh Pahadiya (PW-10).According to the statement of Dr. S.K. Yadav (PW-5) and Dr. Mahesh Pahadiya (PW-10), victim- Chhotelal received injuries in which he sustained fracture on left ulna bone.According to victim-Chhotelal (PW-1) and Sarman (PW-3), the aforesaid injury was caused by the applicants/accused persons by beating victim-Chhotelal with sticks.The aforesaid evidence has remained unimpeachable after cross-examination and there is nothing on record to doubt on correctness of the statement of the witnesses, hence, the finding with regard to conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.So far as the sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the applicants are the first offender, they belong to one family, incident is of 10 years old, the applicants have remained 15 days in imprisonment and the injury was not 6 caused on the vital part, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone and the ends of justice would be achieved by enhancing the fine amount.Consequently, the revision is partly allowed.(J.P.Gupta) Judge ts 7
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,979,872 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2017 the petitioner along with some of the college students were gathered in front of the Thiru.Ka Government Arts College and locked the entrance gate and prevented the College students from entering into the college without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 to call for the records vide FIR dated 01.02.2017 in Crime No.37 of 2017 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as against this petitioner.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Government Arts College and locked the main entrance gate and prevented the college students from entering into thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 college without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,986,024 |
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") has been preferred against the judgment dated 23/12/2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, District Neemuch, in Cri.As per prosecution story, complainant Nandkishore is elder brother of applicant-Rakesh residing at village Barodiyakalan and there was a land dispute in between the brothers.On 02/12/2014 at about 6.45 am when the complainant was irrigating Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 14/02/2020 10:34:49 Cr.R. No.40/2020 2 his field with the well water, at that time his brother and sister-in- law(bhabi) (the present applicants) came there and applicant no.1- Rakesh stopped the motor.When the complainant denied him, then the applicant no.1 hurled abuses and assaulted the complainant on his right hand and leg by iron rod.Applicant No.2-Sangeeta knocked the complainant down and bite him on his throat.The applicants threatened the complainant to kill if he enters the field in future.Thereafter Gopalsingh and Dilipsingh belonging to the same village informed the complainant's son Chandraprakash and Deepak about the incident, who came to village Barodiaykalan and admitted their injured father at District hospital, Neemuch.The aforesaid incident was intimated to Police Station -Neemuch City by duty Physician Dr. Mahendra Patil.Police got prepared Dehati Nalisi from the complainant in the hospital.During the investigation prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, police visited the spot, drawn spot map (Ex.P/2), recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the applicants.Cr.R. No.40/2020 2It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in applicants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the applicants are facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than five years and have served more than 1 months of jail sentence therefore, he prayed that the applicants' jail sentence be reduced suitably.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have rightly found guilty the applicants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 14/02/2020 10:34:49 Cr.R. No.40/2020 4 applicants, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.Cr.R. No.40/2020 4Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.The jail sentence awarded to applicant no.2-Sangeeta for offence under Sections 325/34 and 323 of IPC, 1860 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by her, subject to depositing additional fine amount of Rs.5,000/-.In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, each of the applicants shall suffer 2 months R.I. Out of the fine amount of a sum of Rs.7,500/- shall be paid to injured-Nandkishore as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.Cr.R. No.40/2020 5The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against applicants Rakesh and Sangeeta.A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance.With the aforesaid modification the criminal revision No.40/2020 stands partly allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 14/02/2020 10:34:49
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,988,094 |
Case diary is available; however, no dying declaration is attached with the case diary.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted copy of charge-sheet in which dying declaration of deceased Ramwati Bai recorded on 16.03.2018 is attached.He has requested to take it in consideration.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has not raised any objection.Case diary and copy of charge-sheet perused.Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant in connection with Crime No.63/2018 registered at Police Station Ghansor, District Seoni for offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 16.03.2018 at about 11:00 am in Village Badam under the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghansor, District Seoni deceased Ramwati Bai was set on fire.She was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghansor in burnt condition.From where she was referred to Medical Hospital, Jabalpur; where she succumbed to her burnt injuries.Marg intimation have been recorded and during the course of enquiry it was found that applicant, who is elder brother-in-law (Jeth) of deceased Ramwati Bai along with other co-accused set ablaze the deceased by pouring kerosene oil upon her.At the initial stage, offence under Sections 307, 498-A and 34 of IPC has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.45812/2018 (Shobharam Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 persons.Later on, when the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries, offence under Section 302 of IPC has been added in the crime.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.On perusal of the complete charge-sheet along with dying declaration and on going through the 164 statements of prosecution witnesses namely Baliyabai, Dani Prasad Bhalavi and Devendra Kumar Bhalavi, it seems that there is no active participation of the applicant in setting ablaze the deceased.There is an allegation of harassment only against the applicant.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.45812/2018 (Shobharam Vs.The State of M.P.) 3 Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Shobharam, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy today.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2018.11.30 13:48:52 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,989,395 |
hy It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that ad according to the prosecution case on 27/3/2018 at about 5:30 pm, the applicant and other co-accused persons demanded M money for purchasing liquor and when the complainant of refused to do so, then he was beaten by the applicant and the co-accused persons by fists and blows and co-accused Mukki rt Sengar took out a knife and caused injury on his face.It is ou further submitted that so far as the allegation of demand of C money for purchasing liquor is concerned, it has been falsely made in order to make the offence non-bailable.The h ig applicant did not know that the co-accused Mukki Sengar is H carrying knife and he would cause any injury to the complainant.Even otherwise, only simple injuries have been sustained by the complainant and, therefore, the police has registered the offence under Section 323 of IPC which is a bailable offence.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself available for sh interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when e required.Certified copy as per rules.Pr a hy (G.S. AHLUWALIA) ad JUDGE M of AKS rt Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR ou Date: 2018.05.15 16:08:48 +05'30' C h ig H
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,990,453 |
MCRC.5618/2016 The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 325 or in the alternative 325/34, 323(5 counts) or in the alternative 323/34(5 counts) and 500-Part II of IPC.The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined Kailash (PW/1), Golu (PW/2), Devendra(PW/3), Ashok(PW/4), Kamla Bai(PW/5), Chain Singh(PW/6), Dr. Yogesh Dwivedi(PW/7), Rakesh Shivhare(PW/8), Virendra Kewat(PW/9), Kamla Bai(PW/10) and Dr. Sitaram Raghuvanshi(PW/11).The accused persons did not examine any witness.The Trial Court after recording evidence and appreciating the material available on record, convicted the co-accused Ramdas for offence under Section 325 of IPC and acquitted the respondents from all the charges.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.Kailash(PW/1) has stated that Vinod gave a lathi blow which landed on his left shoulder and Ashok gave a lathi blow which caused injury on his waist.Ashok(PW/4) has stated that because of injuries caused by Vinod and Ashok, he had sustained injuries on his back and right shoulder, whereas according to Dr. Yogesh Dwivedi(PW/7), no external injury was found and Ashok had merely complained of pain on left side of scapular region and pain in right arm.Thus, it is clear that the evidence of Ashok is also not corroborated by his medical evidence.Similarly, Kamla Bai(PW/5) has stated that she was assaulted by Lalta Bai causing injury on her right leg and right hand, however, according to Dr. Yogesh Dwivedi(PW/7), no external injury was found on the body of Kamla Bai, wife of Chain Singh and she had merely complained of pain in right arm and in right thigh.The MLC report of Kamla Bai, wife of Chain Singh is Ex.Thus, the evidence of this witness is also not supported by medical evidence.Similarly, Virendra Kewat(PW/9) had stated that he was assaulted by Vinod and Ashok by lathi causing injury on his shoulders and on left leg.Dr. Yogesh Dwivedi(PW/7) has not found any injury on his shoulder or on his left leg.On the contrary, in his MLC report Ex.P/4, he had found one abrasion 4 MCRC.5618/2016 on the right side of his arm, one bruise on left arm and one lacerated would on his upper lip of 0.5x0.5cm.Thus, the statement of Virendra also does not find corroboration with medical report.Kamla Bai(PW/10), wife of Late Kallu Sharma had stated that Lalta Bai had caused injury by lathi on her chest and knee.It is merely mentioned that she had complained of pain on left side of her chest and knee joint.If an injury was caused by means of lathi, then there is bound to be some external injury.Thus in the light of the fact that the injuries as alleged by the victims were not found by the doctor and when their evidence is contrary to the medical evidence, then their statements become doubtful.The Trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, have considered the evidence available on record and has given a finding that it might be the case of over-implication.The application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,199,995 |
JUDGMENT P.N. Khanna and S.N. Andley, JJ.(1) Mewa Lal accused, respondent, in this appeal, was charged to stand trial un- der section 326 Indian .Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Miss Gita daughter of Mr. B.N. Lal by means of acid, a corrosive substance.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi, giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused of the offence charged.(2) According to the prosecution, on the night 18th and 19th May, 1966 at about 1.30 A. M. Kumari Gita was sleeping along with Kumari Soni, Public Witness , her cousin, on the same cto on a raised platform at the back of quarter No 613 Sarojini, Nagar New Delhi.Her grand-mother, maternal grand-mother, H. /uncle .Sham.Lal, Public Witness , and Sham Lal's wife were also Sleeping on other charpoys around her.Her parents were sleeping on the front side of the quarter.At about 1.30 A.M., being aroused by the sound of approaching footsteps, Gita saw the accused Mewa Lal standing on the leftside of her cto and before she could raise a cry, the accused threw acid on her face.Kumari Gita felt a burning sensation and raised an alaram.Soni Public Witness , her cousin, also felt a burning sensation on her feet.This attracted her uncle Sham Lal, Public Witness The accused ran away and Sham Lal and B N. Lal, who tried to give a chase, were unsuccessful in catching him Gita was removed to Safdarjang Hospital where she was medically examined and admitted.B.N. Lal, her father thereafter, went to the Police Station, Vinay Nagar and lodged the report Ex. P. W. 7/A, at about 5 A M., upon which formal F.I.R., Ex. P. W. 10A, was recorded by Jai Lal Singh A S. I. Investigation was completed by P. W. 10, Ram Narain, A. S. I., who recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and challaned the accused under section 307 Indian Penal Code.The accused was arrested on 19th May, 1966 from his Sadar Bazar Shop by Inspector Ajmer Singh between 6 and 7 P. M.(3) The accused was committed and ultimately charged under section 326 Indian Penal Code.Whether Kumari Gita sustained grievous hurt as a result thereof ? 3 Whether the said liquid was thrown by Mewa Lal accused on her face ?(5) On the first question, he came to the conclusion that the liquid thrown on the face of Gita was acid The question, as to whether the injuries sustained amounted to grievous hurt, was answered by him in the affirmative.In respect of the third question, he concluded that the accused appeared to have been implicated on suspicion and that the prosecution version was nto proved by any reliabl and unimpeachable evidence to be true.He, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the charge.508 (8) How, then, is the accused Mewa Lal conneoted with the occurrence of throwing the liquid on Gita? For this purpose, the prosecution placed reliance on three eye-witnesses, Soni, P, W. 5, Sham Lal.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has dischrgded the statement of Soni, P. W. 5, as she, although declared hostile and confronted with her statement recorded in the Police Station, which too, remained unproved, stated that she saw a boy running away, whom she could nto identify nor did she know his name.She has stated that she does nto know Mewa Lal accused at all.According to her, the occurrence did take place but she cannto say as to who was the culprit.we are left with the statement of Gita P. W. 4, the only remaining eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge recognises that section 134, Evidence Act. enshrines the well-known maxim that "evidence is to be weighed and nto counted" and further notes that as held in Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab and various other authorities, the conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is credible.He, however, held that the statement of Gita P. W. 4 fell short of the standard and could nto safely be relied on.Her version has been discarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on two grounds :- (1) She, in her statement at the trial, has made improvements in material points over her statement before the Committing Court ; and (2) her version of having seen the accused is nto supported by medical evidence.(10) The learned Assistant Sessons Judge, while dealing with ground No. 1, says-"BESIDES,cross-examined.That her uncle and Soni had seen the accused at her bedside.That the accused was from their Briadrai and a frequent visitor.That on 2nd May, 1966, he came to their house and misbehaved.That she could nto see anything with the accased because she was sleeping on a raised platform and only the upper portion of the accused was visible.That she remained in the hospital from 19th May, 1966 to 9th June.That she might have stated before the committing Magistrate that the accused along with 2 or 3 other persons came to her on 2nd May, 19 6 and misbehaved Which facts appear nto to have been stated by her in her statement before the committing Court, with which she was confronted.For the prosecution it was contended that these were mere ommissiand the confrontation with the previous statement was nto permissible and these could nto be read in evidence as she could be contradicted with her previous statement only if the same were different from the statemement made by her daring trial.Reliance was placed for it on 1959 S. C 1012 and 1962 Sc 1821 which support the contention of the prosecution and as such it cannto be said that on account of these confrontations she is a liar.(11) To me, the objection to the credibility of the witness, on this ground, appears to be hardly justified The six instances of so-called improvement on her earlier statement can hardly be said to be material points.Gita P. W. 4 is definite that it was the accused who had thrown the liquid on her.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
120,002,769 |
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.4.1984at about 12 hours the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly withdeadly weapons and took along with them Amrita Dome and Sultan Khan througha kuchha road in village Pechaliya and, in the process, assaulted bothAmrita Dome and Sultan Khan.Some of the witnesses, who are relatives ofthe deceased Amrita Dome, tried to save him but they were also assaulted bythe accused persons and the informant Sadananda Dome (PW1) was shot at by apipe-gun and he sustained injuries.While the accused persons wereproceeding as such, Amrita Dome managed to escape from their clutches andtook shelter in the house of Monohar Mondal @ Manu Mondal (PW2).Theaccused persons, however, chased Amrita Dome and brought him out of thehouse of Manu Mondal and killed him in the passage or pathway lying betweenthe house of Manu Mondal and his nephew Sahadeb Mondal.Accused personsafter murdering Amrita Dome left the spot to chase Sultan Khan, who wasleft injured in front of Durga temple which was close to the house ofMonohar Mondal.Sultan Khan was also murdered by them and they carriedaway his death body to the grazing field and left it there.Sadananda Dome (PW1) then passed this information, which was recordedin writing by PW 15 on 26.4.1984 at 6.05 PM and the same was treated as theFIR.The same was sent to the police station and was received there at7.25 PM and on the basis of that FIR a case was registered against theaccused persons and they were charge-sheeted for the offences, alreadymentioned earlier.PW 12 Dr. S. Nath, conducted the post-mortem on both the dead bodiesand opined that the death was due to effect of head injury and associatedinjuries which were anti mortem and homicidal in nature.K. S. Radhakrishnan, JThe appellant, the 10th accused in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986, wascharge-sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under Section147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 ofthe Arms Act. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the oral anddocumentary evidence vide its judgment dated 22.4.1987 acquitted all theaccused persons, except Accused No.3 Tarun Mondal, who was convicted forthe offences punishable under Section148 and 302 of IPC for causing themurder of Amrita Dome and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for lifeunder Section 302 IPC.The State of West Bengal, aggrieved by the order of acquittal,preferred G.A. No.22 of 1987 before the High Court of Calcutta.The HighCourt vide its judgment dated 28.11.2006 partly allowed the appeal andconvicted the appellant along with four others, while maintaining the orderof acquittal passed by the trial Court, in respect of rest of the accusedpersons.Tarun Mondal, 3rd accused, was further found guilty of the murderof Sultan Khan.PW 15 on13.5.1984 arrested various accused persons including the appellant and werebrought before the trial court.On the side of the prosecution 16witnesses were examined.PW 1 Sadananda Dome, the first informant is thebrother of the deceased Amrita Dome.On theside of the defence, Joydev Garian DW1 was examined.Dr. S. Nath was examined as PW12, who conducted the post-mortem onthe dead bodies on 27.4.1984 deposed that on the dead body of Amrita Domehe found (1) one incised wound on right lateral aspect of forehead 2.5” x2” x .5” (2) one incised wound in mid-region of forehead 3” x 2” x .5” (3)one incised would 3” below the midpoint of chin 4” x 2” x 2.5” laryns andtranches cut off.He also noticed fracture of 4th, 5th ^ 6th ribs on theright side (2) fracture of 4th and 5th ribs on the right side (3) rightlung was found ruptured.Further, it was also noticed a fracture offrontal bone.PW 12 has opined that the death was due to the effects ofhead injury and associated injury was ante mortem and homicidal in nature.PW12 conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of Sultan Khan and found(1) one incised would 3” x 2” x 1” on back portion of head (2) one incisedwould on left lateral aspect of neck 2” x 1.5” x 1” and (3) one incisedwould 4” x 3” x 5” x4” aspect of neck 2” x 1.5” x 1”.He also foundfracture of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib of the right side and fracture of4th, 5th and 6th ribs of the left side.He found fracture of occipitalbone and both the lungs were ruptured.In his opinion, death was due tohead injury and associated injury ante mortem and homicidal in nature.PW 1, the brother of the deceased Amrita Dome, who is also an injuredwitness, had clearly and unequivocally supported the prosecution case andstated that he had seen the accused persons armed with deadly weapons likebhojali, axe, pipe gun and dragger etc. catching hold of his brother AmritaDome and one Sultan Khan.Amrita Dome had managed to escape from theclutches of the accused persons and took shelter in the house of MonoharMondal.PW1 also deposed that Sultan Khan in that process was half deadand lying in front of Durga Temple.PW 1 deposed that the accused personstook Amrita Dome out of the house of Monohar Mondal and assaulted withlathi, dagger, bhojali etc. PW 1 stated that he tried to save his elderbrother but was shot at by a pipe-gun which caused injury on his shoulder.PW 1 also noticed that Kristo Gorain cut the throat of Sultan Khan andthereafter brought Sultan Khan to a grazing field and left the body there.We have also gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs 2, 3,4, 8 and 11 and their versions corroborate fully the version of PW 1, thefirst informant and eye-witness, relating to the incident of assault andmurder of Amrita Dome and Sultan Khan.The specific part played by thevarious accused persons, including the appellant, has been narrated bythose witnesses.PW 2 had deposed that on the date of the incident he wasin the cow-shed and as soon as he heard a hue and cry, he came out andfound that some persons, including the appellant, forcibly taking awayAmrita Dome from the house of Manu Mondal.PW 2 had also requested theaccused persons to not to assault Amrita Dome but was pushed away by theaccused persons.Later he found Amrita Dome dead and the body was lying onthe path-way between his house and the house of Sadananda Mondal.PW 3, the wife of Amrita Dome, also fully supported the prosecutioncase and also PW8, the mother of the deceased Amrita Dome and P.W.11, thewife of the brother of the deceased.The details of overt acts neednot be recorded in the inquest report.The High Court has rightly heldthat the manner and approach of the trial court in disbelieving theprosecution story by placing reliance on the inquest report was erroneousand bad in law.Appeal was initially dismissed on 17.9.2007 since they had not compliedwith the orders of this Court dated 19.4.2007 for surrendering.Later, theappellant herein was arrested and his case was restored on 28.11.2008 bythis Court.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
428,942 |
JUDGMENT A. PACKIARAJ J.This revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl.The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition stating that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner.Against the said order the present criminal revision petition has been filed.I have no hesitation to hold that this petition should not have been really to be entertained since the earlier order was passed to the effect that the accused was entitled to raise all these contentions at the time of framing charges.When notice was issued to the accused, he had made a request for reassessment and reassessment notice was also served.But though two years had lapsed, there were no orders from the Department and hence prosecution was launched.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,918,861 |
The facts of the case briefly stated are as hereunder:On the basis of the oral report lodged by informant P. W. 1 Gaffar on 19.2.1985 at P. S.-Sahibabad, district-Ghaziabad at about 11.00 A. M. in respect of an incident which had taken place earlier on the same day at about 9.00 A. M. in Sanjay Colony which was at a distance of about five kms.from the police station, Case Crime No. 49 of 1985 under Section-302 I. P. C. was registered against A 1 Smt. Kanti deceased and A 2 Suman, chek F. I. R. and relevant G. D. entry vide rapat No. 31 time 11.00 A. M. dated 19.2.1985 were prepared by P. W. 6 Head Constable Ishwar Chandra (Exts.Ka 1 and Ka 6 respectively).As per the prosecution story spelt out in the chek F. I. R., Qamarjahan, sister of P. W. 1 Gaffar who was a resident of Sanjay Colony had come to his house about fifteen days before the incident.A drain was flowing in front of houses of the informant, his neighbour Dharampal and other houses in the locality.An altercation had taken place between the wife of Gaffar, Bano with Smt. Kanti, wife of Dharampal and his daughter Suman over the cleaning of the aforesaid drain.On the date of the occurrence while P. W. 1 had gone somewhere in connection with some work and his sister and his wife Bano were sitting on his shop, an altercation again took place between Qmarjahan, Kanti and Suman over the cleaning of the drain, on which Kanti and Suman started abusing Qmarjahan, came in front of his shop, and both started grappling with Qmarjahan in front of his shop.In retaliation Qamarjahan also hurled abuses at them.On which, Smt. Kanti told Suman that since Bano was a very sharp tongued woman, they should finish her.Uttering the aforesaid words, both of them made Qamar Jahan fall on the ground by pushing her and thereafter Suman mounted herself on her chest and in the meantime Smt. Kanti brought a "danda" from her house, then both Suman and Smt. Kanti pressed "danda" against the neck of Qamar Jahan.When Bano tried to save her, they beat her also.On the noise made by them, P. W. 1 Gaffar, his neighbours Sirajuddin, Aziz and Radheyshyam etc. arrived at the place of incident and pulled away Suman and Kanti from Qamar Jahan who by that time had become unconscious.They took her to Mohan Nagar Hospital where the doctor after examining her, declared her brought dead.The investigation of the case was taken up by P. W. 7 Inspector M. L. Ghai, who after registration of the case reached the place of occurrence accompanied with S. I. Mulayam Singh, two other sub-inspectors and four constables.He also seized the "danda" which was allegedly used by the accused in committing the offence and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka 5 on the spot.On the same day, he arrested both the accused, deceased A 1 Smt. Kanti and A 2 Suman from the house of Maharajsingh, the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Smt. Kanti in Arthala.After completing the inquest proceedings, he got the dead body of Qamarjahan sealed and dispatched to the District Hospital, Ghaziabad for post mortem examination.Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of Qamar Jahan :-(1) A contusion round the neck centerially and slight on sides also with petichial haemorrhage.(2) An abrasion 1 x ½ cm on the left side cheek, right side lower llip, right knee and left hand.Bano was medically examined on the same day at 1.20 P. M. by P. W. 2 Dr. Akhilesh Gautam who noted multiple abrasion on her right neck, right ear lobule, back of elbow joint and left knee joint and sides.The F. I. R. is absolutely silent about the circumstances under which deceased A 1 Smt. Kanti had also received injuries in the incident.He deposed that he had found the eyes congested and pupils dilated with blood coming out from the mouth.The brain as well as its membranes were congested with petichial haemorrhage.The hyoid bone was very much congested and loose but not fractured.Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A. G. A.-I for the State.This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 24.2.1987 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 45 of 1986; State Versus Smt. Kanti and another by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections-302/34 and and six months' R. I. under Sections-323/34 I. P. C.Both the accused appellants were also sent for medical examination through Constable Madan Pal.P. W. 3 Dr. S. C. Sharma who had medically examined A 1 Smt. Kanti (deceased) at 2.35 P. M. had found a faint contusion on left side of her face and an abrasion on her right knee joint.He also examined A 2 Suman on the same day at 2.45 P. M. but did not find any external mark of injury on her person.After completing the investigation he filed charge-sheet Ext. Ka 14 against both the accused appellants before the C. J. M., Ghaziabad.Since the offences mentioned in the chargesheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, C. J. M., Ghaziabad committed both the accused-appellants to the Court of Sessions for the trial where Case Crime No. 49 of 1985 was registered as S. T. No. 45 of 1986, State Versus Smt. Kanti and another and made over for trial from there to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who on the basis of the material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused appellants framed charge under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and 323/34 I. P. C. against both the accused appellants who abjured the charge and claimed trial.The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P. W. 1 informant Gaffar, the brother of the deceased Qamarjahan, P. W. 4 Sirajuddin and P. W. 5 Smt. Bano, wife of the complainant as witnesses of fact while P. W. 2 Dr. Akhilesh Gautam, who had examined the injuries of Bano, P. W. 3 Dr. S. C. Sharma who had medically examined the two accused appellants, P. W. 6 Head Constable Ishwar Chandra who had scribed the chek F. I. R. and prepared G. D. entry and P. W. 7 Inspector M. L. Ghai, the Investigating Officer of the case and P. W. 8 Dr. R. L. Saraswat who had conducted autopsy on the corpse, were produced as formal witnesses.Formal link evidence of Constable Sukhram Singh who had taken the corpse for autopsy to the mortuary was tendered on affidavit.Both the accused-appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied their participation in the crime and alleged false implication.A 1 Smt. Kanti further stated that her daughter had come to Arthala to the house of her aunt (mausi) where she had gone to meet her.According to her, both of them were arrested from there.The same plea was adopted by A 2 Suman by stating that one day before the incident she had come to the house of her Mausi in Arthala and when her mother had gone to meet her there, both of them were arrested by the police.The accused-appellants did not however adduce any evidence in defence.The III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by the impugned judgement and order convicted both the appellants under Section-302/34 I. P. C. and 323/34 I. P. C. and awarded the aforesaid sentences to them.Hence, this appeal.It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even if the entire allegations made in the F. I. R. of the incident Ext. Ka 1 and the facts testified by the three eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution during trial are taken to be true and accepted on their face value, even then, the offence, if any, committed by the surviving appellant A 2 Suman, which emerges out from the evidence on record, does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II I. P. C. in view of the admitted fact that the incident was neither premeditated nor pre-planned but was committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion as a result of sudden provocation and no deadly weapon was used by the accused-appellants and further that there is no evidence that A 2 Suman had taken any undue advantage or treated the deceased in a cruel or unusual manner and both the accused-appellants had also received injuries in the incident which the prosecution had failed to explain, neither the recorded conviction of the appellants nor the life imprisonment awarded to her can be sustained and her conviction is liable to be converted under Section 304 Part II I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded palliated to a lesser period of imprisonment.Per contra, Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A. G. A.-I appearing for the State has submitted that it is proved from the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, that the accused had pressed the neck of the deceased by putting a "danda" against her neck, fully conscious of the fact that their act was likely to cause death of the deceased and hence, no interference either with the recorded conviction of the appellant or the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to her is required.This appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record.The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction of A 2 Suman recorded by the court below under Section 302 I. P. C. and life sentence awarded to her is liable to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II I. P. C. and the sentence of life palliated to a lesser period of imprisonment.It is borne out from the record that a few days before the incident, quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her sister-in-law Bano, wife of P. W. 1 Gaffar and the accused over the cleaning of the drain which was flowing in front of their houses.They were somehow pacified on that day but an altercation between them again started on the date of the occurrence over the same issue and A 1 Smt. Kanti started abusing the deceased Qamarjahan, the sister of complainant, P. W. 1 Gaffar who had come to visit his house while she was sitting in the shop of P. W. 1 in his absence along his wife Bano.In retaliation deceased also uttered some objectionable words, on which, A 1 Smt. Kanti exhorted that Qamarjahan was a very sharp tongued woman and she should be finished.Both the accused-appellants thereafter pushed Qamarjahan as a result she fell in the lane while A 2 Suman sat on her chest, A 1 Smt. Kanti brought a "danda" from her house and both of them pressed the "danda" against the neck of Qamarjahan and when Bano tried to save her, she was also beaten.On the alarm raised by them, the complainant along with his neighbours arrived there and rescued the victim.By that time, Qamarjahan had become unconscious.She was rushed to Mohan Nagar hospital where she was declared brought dead.The incident is alleged to have taken place on 19.2.1985 at about 9.30 P. M. The F. I. R. of the incident registered on the oral report of P. W. 1 informant Gaffar at P. S.-Sahibabad was given promptly on the same date at 11.00 A. M. The injured Bano as well as both the accused-appellants were medically examined on the same day.We have already taken note of the injuries found on their persons by P. W. 2 Dr. Akhilesh Gautam and P. W. 3 Dr. S. C. Sharma.He had deposed that it was possible that the injuries which he had noted on the person of Bano, were caused to her on the same day in the morning possibly at 11.00 A. M. He further opined that the injury nos. 2 and 3 of Bano could be caused if the injured lady was grappling with some other person.P. W. 3 Dr. S. C. Sharma who had examined the injuries of A 1 Smt. Kanti (deceased) and A 2 Suman on 19.2.1985 at 3.35 P. M. and prepared their injury reports and proved the same as Ext. Ka 4, deposed that the injuries received by A 1 Sm.t Kanti could be caused at about 11.00 A. M. by a "danda".As regards A 2 Suman, he has stated that upon her medical examination, he had not found any external marks of injury on her person.Thus, from the evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 it is established that apart from Bano, deceased A 1 Smt. Kanti had also received injuries in the occurrence which could have been caused by a "danda".Larynx and trachea were congested and crushed.Both the lungs were congested and crushed.Both the lungs were congested with petichial haemorrhage and dark blood was noticed on cutting.Both the cartoids were crushed.The tongue was swollen.Thus, upon the perusal of medical evidence on record, it transpires that the deceased had died as a result of shock due to asphyxia from ante mortem injuries.Her post mortem report indicates two ante mortem injuries, one contusion around the neck and abrasion on the left side cheek, right side lower lip, right knee and left hand.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,921,128 |
As per the grounds of detention dated 23.11.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1R.3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Cr. No.1149/2012120(b), 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 449, 450, 336, 427, 506(ii) and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.F.3 Nungambakkam Police Station Cr.(V.D.P.,J.) (G.C.,J.) 17.06.2014Index:Yes/No sbiTo2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison No.II, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,921,560 |
070.08.13 Item No. 99 Court No.17 A.B .Item No. 99And In the matter of: Birendra Nath Sasmal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kalipada Chakraborty For the Petitioner Mr. Saikat Kundu For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Patashpur Police Station Case No. 149 of 2013 dated 07.07.2013 under sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
429,270 |
Though all the three accused were convicted, only A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan have preferred the present appeal.A.1 Munusamy, A.2 Raja, A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan and the deceased Manickkam were friends.They used to play cards in an old dilapidated hospital building at Thiruvayarpadi in Ponneri.P.W.1 Masthani is the wife, P.W.2 Mari is the brother, P.W.5 Arputham is the mother and P.W.6 Chandran is the brother-in-law of the deceased Manickkam.Manickkam came down to his house at Balaji Nagar, Ponneri, at about 4.00 p.m. on 25.7.2006 after completing his work.After taking a bath, he set out informing P.W.1 Masthani, his wife, that he was proceeding to the market.P.W.4 Babu, one of the friends of Manickkam, spotted Manickkam playing cards with all the three accused at about 8.00 p.m. on 25.7.2006 in an old dilapidated hospital building.On 25.07.2006 at about 12 midnight P.W.1 Masthani, on the door being tapped, opened the same and shocked to see her husband Manickkam arrived there with burn injuries.When she enquired, Manickkam informed her that A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan caught hold of him and A.1 Munusamy on his part poured kerosene and set fire to him.P.W.5 Arputham, mother of the deceased Manickkam, was informed by P.W.1 Masthani about the burn injuries sustained by Manickkam.P.W.5 Arputham called P.W.6 Chandran to accompany her.P.W.2 Mari also accompanied P.W.5 Arputham to the house of P.W.1 Masthani to see the injured Manickkam.Manickkam disclosed to P.W.5 Arputham that all the three accused jointly set fire to him.P.W.2 Mari was present at the time when such an information was passed on by the injured Manickkam to P.W.5 Arputham.Manickkam also disclosed to P.W.6 Chandran, when he went over there to see him, that A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan caught hold of him and A.1 Munusamy poured kerosene and set fire to him.P.W.1 Masthani made arrangement to take the injured Manickkam to Government Hospital, Ponneri.One Rahim Basha took the injured Manickkam to Government Hospital, Ponneri.Thereafter, the said Rahim Basha, P.W.6 Chandran and P.W.2 Mari took him to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, through an Ambulance.On 26.7.2006, at 5.00 p.m., the injured Manickkam died.P.W.1 Masthani proceeded to Ponneri Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 Complaint with P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu.He having received the complaint at 10.00 p.m. on 26.7.2006, registered a case in Crime No.241/2006 under Section 302 IPC.He prepared Ex.P11 First Information Report and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate and copies thereof to the Higher Officers concerned.P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu rushed to the scene of occurrence and having found that it was impossible to prepare any sketch during night, came down at 5.00 a.m. on 27.7.2006 and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 Kumar and another witness by name Velu.He drew Ex.P12 Rough sketch in the presence of the very same witnesses.He examined those two witnesses and recorded their statements.He also enquired P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.2 Mari, P.W.5 Arputham and other witnesses who were present over there and recorded their statements.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants/Accused 2 & 3 in Sessions Case No. 251 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, are set aside and the Appellants/Accused 2 & 3 are acquitted of the charge and the fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to them.The Appellants/Accused 2 & 3 are directed to be released forthwith if their custody is not required in any other case.The Prl.P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu proceeded to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, and held Inquest on the dead body of Manickkam between 8.45 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on 27.7.2006 and prepared Ex.P13 Inquest Report in the presence of Panchayatars and witnesses.P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar having received Requisition from P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu through P.W.10 Head Constable Thirunavukkarasu, commenced the post-mortem examination on the body of Manickkam at 1.25 p.m. on 27.7.2006 and found the following:-"INJURY:EPIDERMO-DERMO EPIDERMAL BURNS WITH DENUDED CUTICLE EXPOSING THE REDDISH AREA SEEN OVER THE CHEST AND ABDOMEN, FRONT OF LEFT UPPERARM, SCATTERED AREA OVER BACK OF BOTH UPPER LIMBS, FRONT AND BACK OF BOTH LOWER LIMBS AND PART OF BACK OF THE TRUNK (70% Burns).No other external or internal injury is made out.Both thumbs are spared.Gentian violet ink mark seen over left big toe.Part of left palm involved.7. P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manickkam.Having thoroughly conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manickam, he has given an opinion that 70% burns were found on the Chest, abdomen, front portion of left upper arm, back of both upper limbs, front and back of both lower limbs and part of back of the trunk of the deceased Manickkam.Of course, both thumbs were spared without any burn injury.He has given an opinion that the deceased died of HYPOVOLEMIC SHOCK DUE TO BURNS.Therefore, we have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that Manickkam had died due to burn injuries.The prosecution will have to establish that the appellants, ranked as A.2 and A.3, authored the crime as alleged by the prosecution.Let us first take up the alleged oral dying declaration given by the deceased Manickkam to P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran.The learned counsel for the appellants/A.2 and A.3 would vehemently submit that P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.2 Mari, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran would not have been present at the time when the injured Manickkam was admitted to the hospital inasmuch as one Rahim Basha had admitted the injured to the hospital.It is his further submission that the injured Manickkam, who sustained 70% burn injuries, would not have travelled about one kilometre to reach his house to inform P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran about the occurrence.Further, there is some contradictory version in the evidence of P.W.1 Masthani and P.W.5 Arputham as to the time at which the injured Manickkam arrived at the house and disclosed about the occurrence.Therefore, he would submit that it is totally unsafe to rely upon the alleged oral dying declaration given by the injured Manickkam to P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.2 Mari, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran have spoken in one voice about the dying declaration given by the injured Manickkam to P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran.Therefore, there is no reason to reject the testimonies of close relatives who have come out with a version that the injured Manickkam, gripped with the apprehension of death, disclosed the reason for the injuries he sustained.10. P.W.1 Masthani would state that the injured Manickkam arrived at her house at 12 mid-night on 25.7.2006 and informed her that A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan caught hold of him and A.1 Munusamy poured kerosene and set fire to him.P.W.6 Chandran, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased Manickkam, would state that P.W.5 Arputham, the mother of the deceased Manickkam, came down to his house and woke him up at 10.00 p.m. on 25.7.2006 and informed him of the injuries sustained by the deceased.Therefore, we find that there is a lot of variation with respect to the time at which the injured Manickkam gained entry into his house after the occurrence.11. P.W.1 Masthani has not spoken about the arrival of P.W.2 Mari, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran when her husband came to her house with a lot of burn injuries on his person.P.W.1 Masthani has categorically deposed that it was only Rahim Basha who took the injured Manickkam to the local Government Hospital at Ponneri for treatment.Had P.W.2 Mari, brother of the deceased Manickkam, P.W.5 Arputham, mother of the deceased Manickkam, and P.W.6 Chandran, brother-in-law of the deceased Manickkam, been present at 10.00 p.m. or 12 mid night, as the case may be, in the house of P.W.1 Masthani, they would have definitely accompanied the injured Manickkam to the hospital.Rahim Basha, a third person, would not have taken the injured and admitted him to hospital for treatment.It is the admitted position that the scene of occurrence, namely, an old dilapidated hospital building, is located about one kilometre from the house of P.W.1 Masthani.It is on record that the injured Manickkam had sustained 70% burn injuries.On 26.7.2006, the next day, at 5.00 p.m., the injured Manickkam had died in the hospital itself in spite of the treatment given to him.It is totally unbelievable that a person, who sustained 70% burn injuries, walked about one kilometre during midnight on his own without anybody's help and reached his house to inform his wife and other relatives about the occurrence.P.W.1 Masthani and P.W.2 Mari would state that immediately after giving water to the injured Manickkam, he slipped into coma.In the above circumstances, we very much doubt the conscious state of mind of the injured Manickkam.The investigating agency also had not taken any step to produce the medical records to establish that the injured Manickkam was conscious at the time when he was admitted to the hospital for treatment.13. P.W.6 Chandran would state that it was only P.W.5 Arputham who called him to accompany her to the house of P.W.1 Masthani to see the injured Manickkam.But, P.W.5 Arputham had not supported such a version of P.W.6 Chandran.As already pointed out, the presence of P.W.2 Mari, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran at the house of P.W.1 Masthani was not at all spoken to by P.W.1 Masthani.The very fact that none of them accompanied the injured Manickkam to the local hospital for treatment, would strengthen the case of the defence that no one was present when the injured Manickkam arrived at his house.The above facts and circumstances throw doubt on the alleged oral dying declaration given by the injured Manickkam to P.W.1 Masthani, P.W.5 Arputham and P.W.6 Chandran.Therefore, it is totally unsafe to record conviction based on the alleged oral dying declaration given by the injured Manickkam to them.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Manickkam had illicit affair with the wife of A.1 Munusamy.On account of such a motive, A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan caught hold of Manickkam and A.1 Munusamy set fire to him and caused his death.No one has spoken to such an illicit relationship the deceased Manickkam developed with the wife of A.1 Munusamy.Coming to the "last seen" theory projected through P.W.4 Babu, a friend of the deceased Manickkam, we find that he has spoken to before the trial Court that when he was proceeding to attend to his work at about 8.00 p.m. on 25.7.2006, he spotted the deceased Manickkam playing cards with the accused at an old dilapidated hospital building.P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu, Investigating Officer in the case, has deposed that P.W.4 Babu during the course of examination during investigation had not informed him that he spotted the deceased Manickkam playing cards with the accused while proceeding to attend to his work.Therefore, we have every reason to be reluctant to place reliance upon the "last seen" theory projected by the prosecuting agency through P.W.4 Babu.Coming to the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the Material Objects, we find that P.W.8 Punniyakotti and P.W.9 Lakshmanan have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution that it was only in their presence A.1 to A.3 were arrested and recoveries of the Material Objects were made based on the admissible portions found in the confession statements of A.1 Munusamy and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan.Of course P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu has spoken to the recovery of M.Os.1 to 5 from the scene of occurrence.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ A2 and A.3 would straight away draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu, who would admit that at about 6.00 a.m. on 27.7.2006, he rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and at that point of time M.Os.1 to 5 were not found over there.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecuting agency has come out with an artificial version that at about 5.00 p.m. on the very same day these Material Objects were found at the scene of occurrence.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we find that P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu has categorically admitted that he had not referred to the presence of M.Os.1 to 5 in Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar prepared by him as those Material Objects were not at all available at 6.00 a.m. on 27.7.2006 when he paid a visit to the scene of occurrence.Artificially, he has come out with a version that when he paid a visit along with A.1 to A.3, P.W.8 Punniyakotti and P.W.9 Lakshmanan to the scene of occurrence at 5.00 p.m. on 27.7.2006, he found M.Os.1 to 5 over there.Firstly, P.W.8 Punniyakotti and P.W.9 Lakshmanan, the witnesses concerned, have completely turned hostile to the version of the prosecution that in their presence M.Os.1 to 5 were recovered on the basis of the admissible portions in the confession statements given by A.1 Munusamy and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan.Therefore it is totally unsafe to rely upon the alleged arrest of the accused and the recovery of M.Os.1 to 5 in the above facts and circumstances of the case.With heavy heart we will have to make a comment on style of investigation done by the Investigating Officer, who had not chosen to collect the relevant medical records from Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.Of course, he came out with some explanation as to why he could not collect any medical record from the Government Hospital, Ponneri.It is his version that there was no record available with Government Hospital, Ponneri, regarding admission of the injured Manickkam for treatment.But, no explanation was furnished by P.W.11 Inspector Thirunavukkarasu as to why he had not taken any step to collect the relevant medical records from Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.The evidence of P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar would disclose that he was armed with the copy of the Accident Register at the time when he deposed before the trial Court.Of course, the investigating agency had not taken care to mark even that document which surfaced.But quite unfortunately, the trial Court also had not taken care to mark that document through P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar, who chose to refer to that document before the trial Court.If the investigating agency had seized those medical records, it would definitely throw light on the state of mind of the injured Manickkam and the first version about the occurrence divulged to the doctor by the person who brought the injured to the hospital for treatment.Those two vital materials were not available before the trial Court on account of the laxity exhibited by the investigating agency.He would also refer to the evidence of P.W.6 Chandran, who would categorically speak to the fact that a statement was, in fact, recorded from the injured Manickkam before his demise and his thumb impression as well as his toe impression was obtained.The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is found to be well founded.We carefully scanned Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate issued by P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar.He has recorded the fact that some ink mark was found on the left toe of the deceased Manickkam at the time of conducting autopsy.The evidence of P.W.7 Dr. C.Manohar given by him in the back ground of Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate has lent corroboration to the version of P.W.6 Chandran that a statement from the injured Manickkam was obtained with his thumb impression as well as toe impression.No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the prosecuting agency as to how the left big toe of the injured Manickkam was found with ink mark.The aforesaid version of P.W.6 Chandran also was not controverted by the prosecuting agency.We find that some material aspect of the case inconvenient to the prosecution has been suppressed in this case for reasons best known.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was only these appellants/A.2 Raja and A.3 Venkateshan @ Sultan who caught hold of the injured Manickkam facilitating A.1 Munusamy to pour kerosene and set fire to him and as a result of which, the injured Manickkam was done to death.and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.The Inspector of Police, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur Dist.The District Collector, Thiruvallur.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 104
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,929,300 |
The lands are used for cultivation, and they abut Karur to Erode State Highways.She has three sons and one daughter.Therefore, she has decided to construct residential houses for them.Her elder son is engaged in cultivation of 1.60 acres.There are 150 coconut trees.He submitted that the remaining 40 cents have been earmarked to construct a dwelling house for her sons.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 20.09.2012, officials of the 2nd respondent, inspected her lands, without any intimation.Subsequently, she came to know that the original schedule of transmission lines were not passing through her lands.According to him, due to the objections raised by adjacent landowners, the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., K.R.Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO), Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam (Via), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem, 2nd respondent herein, has changed the alignment.The present proposal of erecting the tower, and passage of HT Electricity Line over the lands owned by the petitioner, would cause serious hardship.According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the total width of the petitioner's land is 184 feet, and the proposed HT Electricity Line would pass through the middle of the land, by which, 70% of the land utility would be lost.Whereas, if the lines are drawn 80 ft., away, on the Eastern side, the damage would be less.It is also the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel, by the proposed laying of HT Electricity Lines, the entire market value of the land would be diminished.He further submitted that the petitioner sent a representation, dated 24.09.2012, to the Deputy General Manager and Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the respondents 2 and 3, respectively to consider shifting of HT Electricity Lines on the eastern side of the petitioner's land.The representations remained unanswered.Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send another representation to the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, the 1st respondent.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without waiting for the orders from the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the respondents 2 and 3, have proceeded with the work.While rejecting the request of the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent has also stated that if the HT line has to be shifted by 80 feet, it would affect houses and lot of coconut trees.If the case of the Petitioner has to be accepted, then it would result in maximum damage, being caused to the inhabited houses, in and around the area.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the 1st respondent has described the property as a vacant land, since there is no permanent building in the property.Only in that context, the 1st respondent has stated that the land is vacant.18/10/2012/ 2/jp-s;/ gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;,e;jpah ypl;/. foj ehs; 08/01/2013 3/khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;g[yj;jzpf;if ehs; 01/03/2013 4/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspd;tprhuiz ehs; 11/03/2013?????Miz <nuhL khtl;lk;.<nuhL tl;lk;.bfhLko cs;tl;lk;.278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikg;gij epy chpikahsu; jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; Ml;nrgid bjhptpj;J brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12 jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L ghu;it 1?d;go jPu;g;g[iu tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;nghpy; gtu;fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;,e;jpah Kjd;ik nkyhsu; nkw;go g[yj;ij jzpf;if bra;J Ml;nrgid ePf;fp jUkhW ghu;it 2?y; fhQqk; fojj;jpy; nfhhpapUe;jdu;/ ,t;tpdj;jpy; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytuhy; tprhuiz kw;Wk; g[yj;jzpf;if bra;ag;gl;lJ/ <nuhL tl;lk;.278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j kpd;ghij bray;tij Ml;nrgpj;J jpUkjp/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12?d;go tHf;F bjhlu;e;J 18/10/2012?y; ,t;tHf;fpw;F jPu;g;g[iu tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpy; tprhuiz bra;J ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; gphpt[ 16?d; fPH; Kot[ bra;J Mizapl bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjdog;gilapy; tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ tprhuizapy; Ml;nrgidjuhuhd jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; 11/03/2013 md;W jdJ tHf;fwp"u; K:yk; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspk; mspj;j jdJ thJiuapy; (Affidavit) gpd;tUkhW bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ <nuhL khtl;lk;.<nuhL tl;lk;.bfhLko cs;tl;lk;.278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fspy; jkf;F 2/02 V/g{kp cs;sJ vd;Wk; mjd;tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j ghij eLtpy; bfhz;L bry;fpd;wdu;/ ,g;g[yj;jpy;; 40 brz;l; g{kpapy; k";rs; gapu; bra;J tUfpnwhk;/ ,g;g{kpahdJ fhsp';fuhad; tha;f;fhy; ghrd trjp bfhz;lJ/ ,g;g{kp <nuhL Kjy; fU:u; tiuapyhd khepy beL";rhiyapy cs;sJ/ ,g;g{kpapy; vdJ kfd;fSf;F FoapUg;g[ fl;l cj;njrpj;Js;nsd;/ ,e;epiyapy; gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah jdJ cau; kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f cj;njrpj;Js;sdu;/ mt;thW mikj;Jtpl;lhy; vd;dhy; tPL fl;l ,ayhJ/ nkYk; gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/ jdJ cau; kpd; mGj;j ghijia tist[ besthf bfhz;L bry;yhky; neuhf fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; cau; kpd; mGj;j ghij vdJ g{kpapd; fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf mika[k;/ nkYk; rhiy g[wkhf 140 Kjy; 150 mo tiu ,lk; xUg[wkhf fpilf;Fk;/ mt;thW mike;jhy; vdJ g{kpapd; xU ghfj;jij vd;dhy; gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s ,aYk;/ mjpy; jd; kfd;fSf;F tPL fl;l VJthf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ nkYk; ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) ? d;go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ epy chpikahsu;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; gtu;fpnul; fhu;g;nuc&d; ghpt[ 10(o)?d;go epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwthd ,Gg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy; bray;glhky; vdJ g{kpapy; kpd; ghijia tist[ bespthf bfhz;L brd;W mjpf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sdu;/ vdnt ,e;jp je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17(2)?d;go kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyiz bra;J gphpt[ 17(3)?d;go khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; Miz tH';FkhW bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ ,J bjhlu;ghd tprhuizapd; nghJ gtu;fphpl; fhu;g;gnurd; Kjd;ik nkyhsu; nehy; M$uhfp Ml;nrgizf;F fPH;f;fz;lthW gjpy; mspj;Js;shu;/ kpd;ghij mikg;gJ bjhlu;ghf gphpt[ 10?19gp ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; 1885 kw;Wk; gphpt[ 164 ,e;jpad; vyf;hprpl;o rl;lk; 2003?d;go muRbtspaPL S.O.1463(E) ehs; 24/12/2003?d;go gpuRhpf;fg;gl;lLs;sJ/ J}j;Jf;Fo Kjy; jUkg[hp tiu 765 kpd;ghij mikg;gJ bjhu;ghf kj;jpa kpd;rhu Jiw fojk; 11-4-2007-PG ehs; 23/06/2010?d;go mDkjpaspj;Js;sJ/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghijia 80 mo fpHf;F g[wkhf khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; m';F jw;nghJ epiyapy; cs;s tPLfspd; nkyhf kpd;ghij mika[k;epiy Vw;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; epiwa bjd;id ku';fis btl;lntz;oa fl;lhak; Vw;gLfpwJ/ ,jdhy; ,d;Dk; gy gpur;ridfs; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ/ epiwa egu;fs; Ml;nrgid bjhptpf;Fk; tha;g;g[s;sJ/ ,e;jpa kpd; tpepnahfr;rl;lk; kw;Wk; xG';FKiw rl;lk; 2010 gphpt[ 60(1)?d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPl;od;kPJ kpd;ghij jlk; bry;fpd;w tifapy; jpl;lk; mikf;f ,ayhJ/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; ,e;jpa je;jpr; rl;lk; gphpt[ 17?y; 2?d;go kpd;ghijia 80 mo fpHg[wkhf khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyid bra;J gphpt[ 17(3) ?d;go khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; Miz tH';Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhz;Ls;shu;/ ,e;ja je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17 vd;gJ Vw;fdnt kpd;ghij mikf;fg;gl;oUg;gpd; mjid ghprPyiz bra;J khw;wp mikf;f cj;jutpLtjw;fhd rl;lkhFk;/ ,e;neu;tpy; kpd;ghij VJk; mikf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt ,g;gphptpy; Ml;nrgizjhuu; nfhhpf;if Vw;f ,ayhJ/ jw;nghJ mikf;fg;gl cs;s kpd;ghij Techo Economical Considerations?d; mog;gilapy; Kgj;jpl;lkhdJ epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwtha ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; gl;rj;jpy; ru;ntbra;J jpl;lk; mikg;g[ Kot[bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ,e;neu;tpy; Ml;nrgizjhuu; xUtuJ nfhhpf;ifapd;go kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ,ayhJ/ mt;thW fpHg[wk; 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk; ,Hg;gPl;iltpl mjpf ,Hg;gPL muRf;F Vw;gLk; epiy cs;sJ/ nkYk; kpd;ghij nfhg[uk; AMK 10/10 (152/0) mLj;jjhf mika[k; AMK 9-0 kpd; nfhg[uj;jpw;F Vw;whw;nghy; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jw;nghJ mjid khw;wpdhy; AMK10-0 nfhg[uk; ,of;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW ,of;fg;gl;L kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikj;jhy; muRf;F nkYk; mjpf ,Hg;g[ Vw;gLk;/ ,jdhy; Vw;fdnt ru;nt bra;J mikf;fg;gl;l ghijia rpwpJk; khw;wp mikf;f tHptifna ,y;iy/ kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk; ,Hg;gpw;F ,Hg;gPL tH';f ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) ?d;go nghJkhd tpjpKiwfs; cs;sd vdt[k;.vdnt jw;nghJ cs;s jpl;lj;jpd;gona cau;kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f cj;jut[ tH';FkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;lhu;/ Ml;nrgizjhuhpd; nfhhpf;if gtu;fphpl; fhu;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. Kjd;ik nkyhsu; tpsf;fk; kw;Wk; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; g[yj;jpzf;if kw;Wk; tprhuizapd; mog;gilapy; fPH;f;fz;l tpgu';fs; mwpatUfpwJ/1 jw;nghJ kpd;ghij mikf;f Ml;nrgiz bra;a[k; jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtuJ g{kp fhypaplkhf cs;sJ/2/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghij khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; tPLfs;.epiwa bjd;id ku';fs; Mfpait ghjpf;Fk; epiy cs;sjhy; epiwa egu;fs; Ml;nrgiz bra;a tha;g;g[ cs;sJ/3/ kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; ghy tpiuak;.BghUs; tpiuak; Vw;gl;L bghJ eyd; ghjpf;Fk; epiy Vw;gLk;/4/ kj;jpa kpd;rhu ghJfhg;g[ kw;Wk; tH';Fjy; xG';FKiw rl;lk; 2010?d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPL kw;Wk; epiyahd fl;Lkhd';fSf;F nkyhf cau;kpd;dGj;j ghij bfhz;L bry;y rl;lj;jpy; tHptif ,y;iy/5/ ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) ?d;go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ epy chpikahsu;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gK; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk;/ vdnt ,itfspd; mog;gilapy; bghJ eyd; fUjpa[k; epy chpikahsuJ Ml;nrgidapid epuhfhpj;J <nuhL khtl;lk;.<nuhL tl;lk;.bfhLko cs;tl;lk;.278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikj;jpl ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; 1885 gphpt[ 16?d;go gtu;fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. epWtdj;jpw;F mDkjp tH';fp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/Xk;/-? nt/f/rz;Kfk;.khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;-cz;ik efy; - cj;jut[g;go-khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;fhfTranslated version of the above contents are as follows:Proceedings of the District Collector, Erode DistrictPresent: Dr.V.K.Shanmugam, I.A.S.R.C.354/2013/K4 Dated:Letter dated 08.01.2013 of M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.ORDERS :-One Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari has filed a W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras objecting to lay an Electric Line passing through the land in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and orders were passed under reference 1st cited.Accordingly, the Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India has requested in his letter under reference 2nd cited to inspect the aforesaid land and to set right the objections.The District Collector enquired and conducted the Spot Inspection in the said place.One Tmt.Bhuvaneshwari, filed W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras and objected to the laying of High Tension Electric Line through the lands in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 at Chennasamudram Village, Erode Taluk and orders were passed on 18.10.2012, in this case.Moreover, on the road side, there would be place 140 to 150 feet, available on one side.If it is set up like that, she could utilise a portion of the land.In that place, she would be able to construct houses for her sons.The Central Electricity Department in its letter dated 23.06.2010 has granted approval for laying 765 KV, electrical line from Tuticorin to Dharmapuri.As has been informed by the objector; in the event of changing the electricity line by 80 feet on the eastern side; there is a situation in which the electricity line would be crossing over the houses, which are there presently.The land belonging to Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, who has presently raised objection to set up the electricity line; is a vacant land.In the event of the objector seeking for altering the electricity line route; since the houses, a lot of coconut trees would be adversely affected; there is possibility of many individuals who would raise objection.In case the electricity line route is changed, there would be waste of time and money; as a result of which the Public Welfare would be affected.In Maharastra State Electricity Board v. Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai reported in AIR 1988 Bom.However, the notification did not specifically state that the Board is empowered to enter upon any property for placing wires, erect poles, etc. By a resolution, the Board framed the scheme for established of 110 KV, EHV sub-stations at Shiroli and other places in Kolhapur District.The case of the Board was that for the execution of the said Scheme, the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was vested in it, as provided under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 and thereby, the Board was empowered to enter upon any land, to erect poles and lay wires, cables, etc., for transmission of electricity.The Board has chartered the route of the said transmission line.Electrical energy has become a commodity of ordinary and daily use in homes, factories and offices, in fact everywhere.The demand for this is growing day by day.The need for generating more and more electricity and the system to provide for its easy, quick and economic supply to every person requiring it has become indispensable for the needs of the community.2. Establishment, operation or maintenance of dedicated transmission lines:-The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time.Mr.R.Gandhi, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the owner of lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9, measuring an extent of 2.08 acres.She has purchased the property under two sale deeds, dated 23.01.1982 and 20.06.1988, bearing Regn.Nos.41/1982 and 308/1988, respectively, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodumudi.Hence, she was constrained to file W.P.No.28337 of 2012, for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents therein, from in any manner erecting or drawing High Tension Electricity Line, 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, over the petitioner's lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9, Solakalipalayam, Chenna Sumuthram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.By order dated 18.10.2012, W.P.No.28337 of 2012, was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 therein, to refer the matter to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the 1st respondent therein, to consider the objections of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders.Pursuant to the same, the District Collector, sent a notice directing the petitioner to appear and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted her detailed written objection and written arguments on 25.02.2013 and 11.03.2013, respectively.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without considering her objections in proper perspective, the District CollectorcumDistrict Magistrate, the 1st respondent, vide impugned proceedings in Na.No.354/2013/k4, dated 13.06.2013, has rejected her request.In the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this writ petition, for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.No.354/2013/k4, dated 13.06.2013 and to forbear the respondents 2 and 3, from in any manner, erecting or installing, High Tension Electricity Line 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, over her lands, in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9, Solakalipalayam, Chenna Sumuthram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has passed an order, dated 24.12.2003, vide Gazette of India No.1148, authorising the respondent-Corporation, to exercise all the powers vested in the Telegraph Authority, under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in respect of Electrical Lines and Electrical Plants established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for Transmission of Electricity or for the purpose of Telephonic or Telegraphic communication, necessary for proper co-ordination of the works.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, relates to power to place Telegraph Lines and Posts.Under Section 10 thereof, the telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain telegraph lines under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property, provided that the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along across, in or upon which the Telegraph Authority places any Telegraph Line or Post.Section 11 empowers the telegraph authority, at any time, for the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any telegraph line or post, to enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or post has been placed.The statutory provisions, referred to supra, clearly empower the respondent Corporation, to place and maintain Transmission Lines under, over, along or across and Posts/Towers in or upon any immovable property.Erection of towers numbering 125 had also been completed.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the transmission line passes through the petitioner's property, connection Location Nos.Foundation work in respect of Location No.AMK 10/0 was completed, six months ago.Foundation work in respect of Location No.It is further submitted that 33.5 meters on either side of the alignment line, between two towers (along the route), is the electrical safety zone, wherein, trees beyond a particular height and permanent structures, beyond safety clearance are prohibited.In case of interference or interruption of trees to the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, they are required to be cut and removed.It is submitted that route of the transmission line, as well as tower positions have been finalized, purely, on the merits of techno-economic consideration.It is further submitted that on 24.09.2012, the Petitioner's husband addressed a letter to the Corporation to erect the transmission line, without affecting the Petitioner's land.On 08.10.2012, the Petitioner addressed a letter to District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode District, 1st respondent herein, objecting to erection of HT lines, over her land and requested for taking the same, to the eastern side of her land, leaving 140 to 150 feet width approximately.The petitioner has filed W.P.No.28337 of 2012, for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Corporation from erecting of installing High Tension electricity line over her properties.This Court, by an order, dated 18.10.2012, has directed the Corporation to refer the matter to the 1st respondent herein, for consideration of the objections of the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the 1st respondent was directed to issue notices to the parties concerned, hear them and to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders, on merits, particularly, considering Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within a period of four weeks, thereafter.It is further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 08.01.2013, the Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India, Erode, 3rd respondent, addressed a letter to the 1st respondent herein, seeking of right of way, for erection of HT line, over the property of the Petitioner.On 01.03.2013, the 1st respondent inspected the land in question, and conducted an enquiry on 11.03.2013 and that the Petitioner was represented by her Learned Counsel.During the enquiry, the petitioner requested for shifting the HT line from the original alignment by 80 feet towards eastern side of her property, so as to cause minimum damage to her lands.It has been represented on behalf of the Corporation before the 1st Respondent that, if the request of the Petitioner to shift the HT line by 80 feet, has to be acceded to, then the lines will have to pass through inhabited house sites and it would also result in cutting of more number of coconut trees.It was also contended by the Corporation that as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, an overhead line shall not cross over an existing building, as far as possible.It was also contended by the Corporation that the original alignment has been finalized, on the basis of techno economical consideration.The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, 1st Respondent, after taking into consideration the materials placed before him, by impugned order, dated 13.06.2013, granted permission, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to the Corporation, for laying of HT lines over the Petitioner's property.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate issuance of any notice, for the purpose of carrying out its works, as empowered.It is further submitted that the request of the petitioner for shifting the HT line from the original alignment by 80 feet was considered by the 1st Respondent, at the time of enquiry and rejected by the 1st Respondent, by a detailed speaking order.It is further submitted that the google map would show that three houses, would be get affected, if the line has to be shifted by 80 feet, towards the eastern side, as requested by the petitioner.The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the alignment of the route was finalized, on the basis of techno economical considerations, the dwelling houses, on either side of the transmission line and other factors, like road crossing, canal and the coconut grooves, in the particular area.The project is envisaged for a public purpose.The 1st respondent has rightly concluded that the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act will apply only in respect of the existing lines, and that the same will not apply to new lines, as in the case on hand.With regard to coconut trees, the Corporation has submitted that the petitioner would be paid compensation for the same, as they have to be cut, for the purpose of laying of transmission line.In so far as turmeric plants are concerned, the Corporation has submitted that the Petitioner can continue to grow the same, and damage, if any to the same, during the execution/construction would be suitably compensated.Reiterating the above, Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent made submissions and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.Denying the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and based on the averments in the reply affidavit, Mr.R.Gandhi, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the market value of the said land is more than Rs.3 Crores.Since the lands are abutting Erode-Karur Highways Road, the value of the subject land, is on the rise.Drawing High Tension (HT) transmission line in the middle of the land would affect the petitioner's land.The land will be unfit for human habitation/dwelling.Income from the lands would be reduced.He further submitted that the third respondent herein, without following the law, rules and regulations, has deviated the route, in order to fulfill the interest of the petitioner's adjacent land owner, by deviating the original alignment in a zig zag manner, which is evident from the picture taken from the google map.Only for extraneous consideration, deviation has been made, to avoid the value of adjacent land, being affected.He further submitted that the power and license conferred by the Central Government, as per the documents relied on by the respondent Corporation have been misused by the Power Grid Corporation.They have misused the words, Techno-economic consideration, as a shield to safeguard the illegality, for deviating the original alignment and the specific allegation raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has not been properly denied or explained by the third respondent.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the foundation work in respect of AMK 10/0 was completed six months ago.But it is evident that, after filing of the earlier Writ Petition before this Court, after receiving the objection from the petitioner and without getting the permission from the District Collector, Erode, 1st respondent herein, respondents 2 and 3, in a hurried manner, have completed the foundation, insofar as location AMK 9/0 is concerned.Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has requested the authorities to shift the transmission lines from the proposed alignment to 80 feet, on the eastern side, along the boundary of the property and that she has not asked for shifting of the lines, affecting the interest of any third party.He further submitted that the 1st respondent has not considered the valid objections raised by the petitioner for shifting the line 80 feet, on the eastern side of the petitioner's land and not given proper reasons, for rejecting the petitioner's claim.He further submitted that Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, specifically emphasizes that while exercising the power conferred by the authorities, they shall do little damage, by laying line or post, in a particular property and it does not empower them to alter the entire route alignment.For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to set aside the impugned orders.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.The impugned order of the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, dated 13.06.2013, reads as follows:<nuhL tl;lk; ? bfhLko cs;tl;lk; ?8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs;tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j kpd;ghij mikj;jy; ? Ml;nrgpj;J jpUkjp/ o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; hpl; kD jhf;fy;bra;jJ ? khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;tprhuiz bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jy;? bjhlu;ghf ghu;it: 1/brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz kD vz;/28337-2012 jPu;g;g[iu ehs;Sub: Laying of High Tension Electrical Line through lands in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in Chennasamudram Village - Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District - one Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, filed a Writ Petition before the Chennai High Court stating for objections District Collector enquired and issued orders - regarding.Order dated 18.10.2012 in the Writ Petition No.28337/2012 on the file of High Court, Madras.In that Order, it was directed to enquire and decide U/s.16 of Indian Telegraph Act and to pass orders.Based on that, enquiry was conducted.In the enquiry, one Tmt.She has stated that she owned a land of 2.02 acres in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 at Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and that high tension electrical line has been laying in the middle of her land.They cultivate turmeric in the said land of 40 cents.The said land has the facility of being irrigated through Kalingarayan canal.The said land is situated in the State High Road from Erode to Karur.She has proposed to construct a residential building in the said land for her sons.In this situation, the Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India has proposed to lay a High Tension Electric Line in the middle of her lands.If such Electric Line is laid, she could not construct a house in the said land.Further, if the Power Grid Corporation of India, lays a High Tension Electric Line without curves and bends but straightly on the margin of the eastern boundary by 80 feet on the alternate way, the High Tension Electrical Line, would be on the eastern boundary of her land.Therefore, the District Collector has stated that after examination as per section 17(2) of Indian Telegraph Act and directed to pass order as per section 17(3).The Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation appeared in person during the enquiry regarding this and replied to the objection, which is as follows :-The Government publication in S.O.1463(E) dated 24.12.2003 has been published as per section 10-19B, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and section 164 of Indian Electricity Act 2003, regarding the laying of electrical line.Thereafter, the land owners filed a suit for a perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.The said suit, after trial, has been decreed, as aforesaid and that the appeal preferred by the Board, has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court, giving rise to second appeal, before the Bombay High Court.Therefore, the Electricity Board has to decide the compensation amount payable to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of application from them.Now that the Electricity Board is given permission to take the high power tension line through the lands of the petitioners in the interest of public, the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and other Municipal and public authorities are directed to consider the applications, if any, filed by the petitioners for planning permission, etc., and sanction the same as per Rules except on the ground of passing of the high tension power line."The contentions raised in the appeal, as formulated by the Hon'ble Division Bench, are as follows:Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment, with a specific purpose of providing electricity to a large number of people, across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development in all walks of life.Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right has to yield to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals, enshrined in the basic structure of the Constitution of India.Telegraph Act authorises entry into any land, for the purpose of erection of poles or posts and drawing transmission lines over the property.In the instant case, the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate has passed the orders, after considering the objections of the petitioner in proper perspective, in consonance with the legal position.The contentions of the petitioner that due to objections raised by the adjacent land owners, alignment has been changed, is not substantiated.While considering the right of the land owner or any person interested to claim compensation, in the light of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the orders passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, reduction in time, utility of the land and diminution in the value, can be raised, as a ground, while making a claim on the adequacy of compensation and the District Collector would consider the same, subject of course to the entitlement of such land owner.The impugned order is sustained.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.No costs.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode District.The Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., K.R.Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO), Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam (Via), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,943,471 |
I, Karur.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.80 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, pursuant tothe amicable settlement effected between the parties.It is seen that a case in Crime No.17 of 2015 for the allegedoffences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 406, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act, has been registered against the petitioners.Aftercompletion of the investigation, the 1st respondent has filed a charge sheet,which was duly taken on file in C.C.No.80 of 2016 by the Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Karur.I, Karur.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, this Court isof the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matterspending.Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2016 pending onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, in respect of thepetitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.The Judicial Magistrate No.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) 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.
|
83,953,988 |
M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 1 of 15 emanating therefrom.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 1 of 15"Firstly- That you Mithlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma in year 1979 entered into criminal conspiracy with Om Prakash Godara (posted as SDM, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, public servant) with unlawful object to procure a false and forged Scheduled Tribe certificate giving false information to the effect that you belong to Sonkatkari caste and resided at Ward no. 1, Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Crl.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 2 of 15 Rajasthan and belong to Scheduled Tribe despite the knowledge that you do not belong to Scheduled Tribe.In furtherance of same you Mithlesh Verma also procured a false certificate of Scheduled Tribe dated 16.12.1979 through your husband Tarsem Lal Verma, purportedly under the signatures of Om Prakash Godara, SDM, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan which was used for seeking employment in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education to the post of PGT and thereby you all committed offence punishable u/s 120 (b) r/w Sec 420,468,471 IPC and 13 (2) r/w/ 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 within my cognizance.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 2 of 15Secondly, you Mithlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma in conspiracy with Om Prakash Godara and despite the knowledge that Mithlesh Verma does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, dishonestly used domicile certificate dated 26.09.1979 under signature of Sh.RPS Chauhan to procure false ST certificate dated 06.12.1979 purportedly issued from the office of SDM, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan under signature of Om Prakash Godara and the aforesaid Scheduled Tribe Certificate was used as genuine by you Mithlesh Verma for procuring employment with Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi for selection to post of PGT and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Sec 120 (B) IPC within my cognizance.Thirdly, that you Mithlesh Verma in conspiracy with Tarsem Lal Verma fraudulently and dishonestly used false Scheduled Tribe certificate as genuine for claiming privileges of ST category for procuring employment with Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi for selection to the Crl.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 3 of 15 post of PGT and thereby you both committed offences punishable u/s 471 r/w Sec 120B of IPC within my cognizance.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 3 of 15Fourthly, you Mithlesh Verma furnished false information with the concerned authorities to fraudulently obtain the Scheduled Tribe certificate and further job in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for the post of PGT and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 177 IPC within my cognizance.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 4 of 15 Govt. of NCT, Delhi which was reserved for SC/ST category candidates only.It is further alleged that the petitioner, Sh.Tarsem Lal verma (husband of the petitioner, Smt. Mithlesh Verma) fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate purportedly issued by the SDM, Juhunjhunu for which a separate case has been registered against him.The certificate procured by Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma, was also stated to have been issued by him for procuring recruitment in 1984 as Photographic Officer in Armed Forces Films and Photography Division, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi as Scheduled Tribe candidate.It is also alleged that the petitioner Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma also fraudulently arranged a domicile certificate dated 26.09.2009 in favour of his wife Smt. Mithlesh Verma purportedly issued by Sh.RPS Chauhan, the then Officer, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 4 of 15The case of the prosecution is that the said Scheduled Tribe Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner Smt. Mithlesh Verma by Sh.Om Prakash Godara, the then SDM, Jhunjhunu (public servant) and he misused his official position by falsely mentioning the accused Mithlesh Verma as person belonging to Sonkatkari Scheduled Tribe and a resident of Pilani, Distt.1. Vide these petitions; the petitioners seek quashing of FIR /RC No. DST/2007/S/004 registered by P.S. CBI/STF/New Delhi under Section 120-B r/w.Sections 420/468/471 IPC and the proceedings Crl.Vide Order on Charge dated 13.07.2011, the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-8, Central District, after considering the submission of the parties, held as under:-On perusal of the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., contents of the record seized by the CBI during investigation and after considering the detailed submissions made by the counsels, I am of the considered view that prima facie that there is enough material on record to frame charges for commission of offences punishable U/s 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Sec 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Sec 13(2) PC Act, 1988 against all the accused.Accused Tarsem Lal Verma and Mithlesh Verma are also liable to be charged for offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC.Accused Mitlesh Verma be further charged u/s 177 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accused Om Prakash Godara be also charged for offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988."Thereafter, vide order dated 16.07.2011, the learned trial judge framed charges on the petitioners as under:-Further, you Om Prakash Godara while posted as SDM, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan in the year 1979 abusing your official position as Public Servant and in conspiracy with Mithlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma intentionally issued a false certificate of Scheduled Tribe in the name of Mithlesh Verma which was also filled in the handwriting of Mithlesh Verma , thereby showing undue favour without any public interest and committed offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Sec 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the same.The case of the prosecution is that Scheduled Tribe (ST) Certificate dated 06.12.1979 in the name of the petitioner Smt. Mithlesh Verma w/o Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma declaring her to be a resident of Pilani, District-Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and belonging to the community of 'Sonkatkari', notified as a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Rajasthan was submitted by her for appointment to the Post of Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) in the Directorate of Education, Crl.Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.The contentions of the petitioners before the trial judge were that the present proceedings have been fabricated against them since petitioner Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma was involved in active litigation in his office and prosecution was actuated with malafides.He had been a resident of Pilani even in 1972 and had the proof of residence by way of rent agreement available with him and even name of the said petitioner was also mentioned in the voter's list for the period 1978-M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 5 of 15The caste certificate of the petitioner Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma had also been verified by his office as reflected vide letter dated 18/12/1988 issued by office of District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and found to be correct.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioner Sh.Tarsem Lal Verma had got issued a caste certificate of his wife viz., Smt. Mithlesh Verma from the then SDM, Jhunjhunu.The purported certificate dated 06.12.1979 showing her status as Sonkatkari, a Scheduled Tribe.After an expiry of more than over 28 years, case R.C. No. DST/2007/S/0004 dated 29.06.2007 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC.After the investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet on 18/08/2009 for the offences publishable under Section 120 B r/w.Tarsem Lal Verma has already been verified by the Superintendent of police, Jhunjhunu as well as the SDM who verified that the caste certificate was genuine.The said certificate was also verified by the erstwhile employer of the petitioner i.e. Ministry of Defence after thorough investigations.Thus, once it is verified that the said certificate of the petitioner was true and correct, there was no reason to further lodge the FIR.Again, prior to the working of the petitioner in the Ministry of Defence, he had worked with other Government Departments, who has verified the caste certificate of the petitioner and found that genuine.It is submitted by ld. Counsel that the said certificate is a genuine document and the presumption is also that the said document Crl.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 8 of 15 is a genuine document as per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 8 of 15The petitioner would not be able to prove his case as the charge sheet itself has recorded that the documents pertaining to the issuance of the caste certificate had been weeded out.c. He should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person."Therefore, there was no necessity to take sanction for prosecuting the petitioners.He submitted that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and at the stage of charge, the truth, the veracity and facts of the prosecution offences has not to be meticulously judged, nor any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and it is not obligatory on the court to consider the evidence relied upon by both sides in detail or to weigh it in a sensitive balance.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 9 of 15In order to establish the case against the petitioners, the prosecution has relied upon the following pieces of evidence during investigation:-Pyare Lal Verma R/o Village Jawal, Prakahnd-Arnia, Tehsil- Khurja, Distt-Buland Shahar, Uttar Pradesh was the grandfather of accused Smt. Mithlesh Verma.In the year 1950, Pyare Lal Verma alongwith his family members shifted from Jawal to khurja.Pyare Lal Verma had four sons and two daughters namely Brij Lal Verma, Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Late Sh.Pritam Singh Verma, Raghuvar Dayal Verma happens to be daughter of Late.Pritam Singh Verma and was brought up at khurja under the guardianship of Mahavir Prasad Verma (elder brother of Pritam Singh Verma) who had no issue of his own.The witnesses categorically stated that accused did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category as claimed."ii.The investigation also revealed that accused Mithlesh Verma got her primary education at Khurja, Uttar Pradesh and as per school records, the caste was reflected as "Sunar".It is also in evidence against the accused that accused Mithlesh Verma was married to Tarsem Lal Verma (S/o Sh.Madan Lal Verma) in the year 1977-78 who also happened to be "Sunar" by caste and the marriage was solemnized at Chandigarh.At the aforesaid time in 1978 accused Tarsem Lal was service as photographer of General category in Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab.Tarsem Lal Crl.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 10 of 15 Verma is further alleged to have procured a Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by SDM, Jhunjhunu on 24.01.1979 for which a separate case has been registered and was asked to resign from the institute.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 10 of 15Evidence has been further collected by the prosecution to the effect that both the accused Mithlesh Verma and Tarsem Lal Verma did not belong to Sonkatkari Scheduled Tribe and wwere rather "Sunar" by caste.It is also alleged that Tarsem Lal Verma also frauedulently arranged a domicile certificate dated 26.09.1979 in favour of his wife Mithlesh Verma purportedly issued by Sh.R.P.S. Chauhan, SDM, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) wherein accused Mithlesh Verma has been shown as R/o Ward no. 1, Pilani, Tehsil CHirawa, Distt.Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan though she was not resident of aforesaid address."Therefore, the statement of the witnesses reflecting the family background of the petitioner which clearly show that the petitioner prima facie fraudulently procured the Scheduled Tribe Certificate which was further used for recruitment.The mere correspondence exchanged for purpose of verification of ST certificate produced by petitioner Tarsem Lal Verma for his employment, as reflected in letter dated 18.12.1988 issued by Office of District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (produced by petitioner Tarsem Lal Verma) does not lead to the conclusion that he belongs to Scheduled Tribes category as the detailed investigation by the investigating agency has prima facie revealed that the Scheduled Tribes status had been fraudulently claimed by the petitioners.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 11 of 15This type of defence can actually be assessed after the documents are proved on record in the evidence to be led by the accused persons.Merely on the basis of the aforesaid contention, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe Category contrary to the investigation.I heard learned counsel for the parties.I found no merit in the instant petitions.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 14 of 15Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.M.A. Nos. 10443/2011 and 10440/2011 are dismissed as infructuous.M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 15 of 15M.C Nos.2956 & 2957 of 2011 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,395,472 |
On 31.05.2010, the second respondent lodged first information report (FIR) No.88/2010 alleging offences punishable under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) with CAW Cell having been committed against her by the persons against whom the said accusations were made, including the petitioner herein.The investigation was completed and report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) Crl.M.C. No.2698/2016 Page 1 of 4 was submitted on which the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance summoning, amongst others, the petitioner as accused.It may be added here that the son of the petitioner had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender on 29.08.2011 in the said criminal case.M.C. No.2698/2016 Page 1 of 4On 17.02.2013, the second respondent gave an interview to the third respondent, whereby a video footage was telecast on the television channel network in which the latter was employed.In these facts and circumstances, this court agrees with the submissions on the both sides that the impugned order of revisional court be set aside and the matter be remitted to the revisional court for fresh consideration and fresh adjudication after hearing all sides and taking into consideration the material on record in entirety.Ordered accordingly.The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
8,395,568 |
P.36, the printed First Information Report.He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials and then reached the crime scene at about 6.30 a.m. P.W.14 is the Head Constable in the investigating police station, who carried the Express Records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.In the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8, P.W.16 prepared Ex.P.11, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.37 the rough sketch.At 7.30 a.m. in the presence of the same witnesses, from the crime scene, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth under a Mahazar.At 8.00 a.m. in the spot itself in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body of Punk Kanagaraj (deceased No. 1) and prepared Ex.P.38, the inquest report.Then he sent the dead body to the Salem Government Head Quarters Hospital for post-mortem with a requisition through a police constable.Pleural Peritoneal cavities empty.Heart: Empty, Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys C/s.pale.Stomach 50 gms.Partly digested greyish Chyme present.No smell, mucosa pale.The Doctor opined that death would have occurred 6 to 18 hours prior to autopsy, as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries.He also deposed that the weapons shown to him in court could have caused the injuries found on the dead body.At 11.00 a.m. P.W.16 conducted inquest over the dead body of Sundaravelan (deceased No. 2) in the hospital in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses.P.39 is the inquest report.Plueral peritoneal cavities empty.Heart empty, Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys, C/s.Pale, Stomach empty.No smell Mucosa, Pale intestines normal.Brain C/s. pale.The Doctor opined that death would have occurred 6 to 18 hours prior to autopsy as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries.At 5.30 p.m. on the same day in Five Roads Junction at Salem P.W.16 arrested A.3, A.4, A.7 and A.9 in the presence of the same witnesses and examined them.At that time A.3 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.4., pursuant to which M.Os.7, 18, 26, 27, 28, 9, 8, 29, 30 and 31 came to be recovered under Ex.P.5 attested by the same witnesses.Under Ex.The arrested accused and the case properties were brought to the police station.The accused were sent for judicial remand and the case properties were sent to the court.P.W.16 was searching for the remaining accused.On prior information P.W.16 arrested A.10, A.14, A.11 and A.13 in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and examined them.P.42 to the court to take A.2 and A.8 in to police custody.On that, the Court passed an order on 7.11.2000/Ex.P.43 giving police custody of A.2 and A.8 and accordingly he took them into police custody.On 8.11.2000 when he examined A.2 in police custody in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8, he confessed and the admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.He then sends Ex.P.16 the intimation to the police.P.W.10 during the relevant time was working in the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital.Therefore it is clear Sundaravelan died within five minutes after his admission.At the foot of Ex.P.35 an endorsement is found made in Tamil signed by one Radhakrishnan stating that the duty Doctor informed him that his brother Sundaravelan died.Therefore it is clearly seen that the said Radhakrishnan might have been only in the hospital by the bed side of Sundaravelan.P.W.10 also examined P.W.1 at 3.50 a.m. on 26.10.2000 and issued Ex.P.15, the intimation to the police.On the reverse of Ex.P.15, we find an endorsement that by 4.25 a.m. on 26.10.2000, a police constable had received it.This police constable is informed to be attached to the police out post.P.15 and P.16 also contain a writing on the reverse of it as hereunder:The said constable had not been examined.We presume from the entries found in Exs.P.15 and P.16 that the intimation received by the police constable attached to the police out post from the hospital was handed over to Grade I Police Constable 216, belonging to the investigating police station.He would state in his evidence that he received information over telephone early in the morning of 26.10.2000 (he does not specify the exact time of receipt of such information) and proceeded to the Government Medical College Hospital, where he collected the intimations Exs.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.All the fourteen accused in S.C. No. 105 of 2001 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court No. II), Salem are before this Court in these multiple appeals questioning their conviction.The conviction includes offences under Sections 302 direct and 302 with the aid of 149 I.P.C. Heard Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellantS in C.A. No. 1058 of 2002 and C.A. No. 1360 of 2002; Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.2 in C.A. No. 1462 of 2002; other learned Counsel on record for the other appellants in these multiple appeals and Mr. C.T. Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.and 26.10.2000 at about 01.30 hours, during which time two persons were done to death and P.W.1 came to be injured.The charges are as hereunder:P.Ws.1 to 5 and 9 are examined as eye witnesses to the crime, out of whom, P.W.4 turned hostile.P.W.1 knows Punk Kanagaraj (deceased No. 1) and Sundaravelan (deceased No. 2).At the occurrence time, P.Ws.1,2,3, deceased No. 1 and deceased No. 2 were standing and talking in a public place and at that time a red colour Yamaha Motor-cycle came and stopped opposite to the saloon near Chinnappa Gounder colony at Kasakkaranur.P.W.5, who had been a convict prisoner was acquitted and a few days prior to the occurrence, he came out of jail.The first accused was not happy in the way P.W.5 was received by the above mentioned persons.This was conveyed by deceased No. 2 to others.Deceased No. 2 was attacked by A.3, A.6, A.4 and A.14 with various weapons; deceased No. 1 was attacked by A.2, A.10, A.11 and A.8 with various weapons and P.W.1 himself was attacked by A.5, A.7 and A.14 using various weapons.A.1 wielding a log of wood was intimidating the witnesses not to near them.A.2 and A.13 were similarly intimidating, each armed with a knife.The shop owners pulled down their shutters.M.O.1 is the motor-cycle, in which the accused came.In the hospital, P.W.16 examined him and recorded his statement.The said statement was read over to P.W.1, in which he had signed.P.W.12 is the police constable, who accompanied the dead body of Punk Kanagaraj (deceased No. 1) along with Ex.P.31 to the Government Hospital for post-mortem.During post-mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.33, the post-mortem report.The symptoms noted by him are as hereunder:1) 6 gaping cut injuries presenting as a single injury present on the front of middle of neck 18 c.m. x 7 c.m.x bone deep.All the structures like hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, trachea, muscles, blood vessels, cervical vertebra C3, 4, 5 are found cuts.The head is found almost cut except for a tag of skin and muscles on the back.2) An oblique gaping cut injury on the right side of mouth 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.3) Two oblique gaping cut injuries on the lower jaw aspect on right side measuring 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm and 2 x 1 x 1/2 cm.4) A gaping cut injury present on back of right index finger 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.5) A gaping cut injury present on left clavicle x2 x 1 cm x bone deep.6) A linear superficial incised wound over right shoulder 7 cm in length.7) A linear superficial incised wound, over left shoulder 6 cm in length.8) A gaping cut injury present above right knee 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.9) A gaping cut injury below right knee 2 x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.The above cut injuries are ante mortem in nature.Other finding:P.W.13 accordingly took Ex.After post-mortem he removed M.O.23 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer.P.W.15 did post-mortem on the dead body of deceased No. 2 at 1.30 p.m. on 26.10.2000, during which time he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.34, the post-mortem report.The symptoms noted therein are as hereunder:1) A gaping oblique cut injury present on left side of upper part of neck measuring 15 cm x 5 cm x bone deep.All the muscles blood vessels are found cut, cut fracture of C3-C4 vertebrae present.2) A gaping cut injury present on lower 1/rd of right forearm measuring 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep with cut fracture of radius and ulna present.3) A gaping cut injury present on back of right hand 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm.4) A gaping cut injury present on right index finger 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm.5) A gaping cut injury present on left index finger 2 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm.6) An abrasion over left big toe 3 cm x 1 cm.The above injuries are ante mortem in nature.Other findings:He had also deposed that the weapons shown to him in court could have caused the injuries found on the dead body.Injury No. 1 found on the dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2 are on vital parts of the human body and the rest of the injuries are on the non-vital parts.Injuries on non-vital parts are not sufficient to cause death.P.W.16 arrested A.1, A.5, A.6 in the bus stop in the bypass road of Thiruvakaudanur in the presence of P.W.7 and 8 and examined them.At that time A.1 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.2, pursuant to which M.Os.1, 24, 2, 3, 5, 4, 25 and 6 came to be recovered under Ex.P.3 attested by the same witnesses.At that time, A.10 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.40, pursuant to which M.Os.30, 32, 33, 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 came to be recovered under Ex.P.W.16 continued his investigation by examining further witnesses and recording their statements.On 31.10.2000 P.W.16 gave a requisition to the court to subject the case properties to the laboratory for examination.On 4.11.2000 P.W.16 came to know that A.2 had already surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri on 30.10.2000 and A.8 had surrendered on 31.10.2000 before Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sangagiri.On 7.11.2000 P.W.16 gave an application Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P.7, M.Os.11 and 12 came to be recovered under Ex.P.44 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of A.8, pursuant to which M.O.38 came to be recovered under Ex.A2 and A.8 were re-surrendered in court for continuation of their judicial remand.P.W.9's evidence is also on the same lines.As noted earlier, P.W.4 examined as an eye witness to the occurrence turned hostile.She was examined to prove that she went to the hospital on coming to know about the crime.He witnessed the arrest of various accused; their examination; recording their confession statements leading to the recovery; examination of A.2 and A.8 when they were in police custody and recording their confession statements leading to the recovery.P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer of Zahir Ammalapalayam, who was examined for the same purpose turned hostile.P.W.10 was the duty Medical Officer in the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Salem.At 3.50 a.m. on 26.10.2000, Kanagaraj - P.W.1 appeared before him along with his friend Srinivasan.P.W.10 examined Kanagaraj and at that time Kanagaraj told him that "unknown" assailants attacked him with sticks and unidentifiable other weapons at about 1.30 a.m. near Thiagaraja Polytechnic.P.W.10 found him to be conscious.On him P.W.10 found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.17, the Accident Register.The symptoms noted therein are as hereunder:1) Incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over right axilla.2) Incised wound 17 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm over medial aspect of left arm.3) Incised wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over left elbow.4) Incised wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over lateral aspect of left arm.5) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over left forearm.P.W.10 admitted P.W.1 in the hospital and issued Ex.P.15 the intimation to the police.P.18 is the Radiologists report, which shows that at the lower end of left elbow, there was a chip fracture.P.16 is the intimation given by P.W.10 to the police on the medico legal case of Sundaravelan (deceased No. 2).P.W.11 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties along with the requisition given by the investigating officer to subject the same for chemical examination; sending the case properties to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court's letter and receipt of Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologists Report.P.W.16 was continuing his investigation by examining further witnesses and recording their statements.Accordingly, he took A.12 into police custody and examined him in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 and at that time A.12 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P.9, M.O.13 came to be recovered under Ex.P.10 attested by the same witnesses.P.48 is the certificate given by the Electricity Board to show that there was no power disruption at the time of occurrence in the crime scene.M.Os.40 and 41 are the shirt and blood stained trousers of P.W.1 recovered by P.W.16 under Ex.After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report in court against the accused on 31.12.2000 for the offences referred to earlier.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, they totally denied their involvement.P.1, the complaint and P.36, the printed First Information Report.It is his further contention that long before Ex.P.1 had come to be registered there was another written complaint about the incident given by P.W.2 and that has been suppressed.At the reverse of Ex.P.16, we find that a police constable by name Balachander had made an endorsement that he received it at 2.10 a.m. on 26.10.2000 (during one of the earlier hearings in these batch of appeals, the police officer present in court informed us through Public Prosecutor that the person, who signed on the reverse of Ex.P.16 is a police constable by name Balachander attached to Medical College Police Outpost).P.35 is the death intimation and it shows that Sundaravelan admitted in the hospital at 02.05 a.m. on 26.10.2000 died at 2.10.a.m.on the same morning.P.16, P.15 and death intimation Ex.We find on the reverse of Ex.P.35 also the same endorsement as found in Exs.P.15 and P.16 namely "Soolamangalam Police Station - Grade I P.C.216".Therefore the evidence of P.W.16 that he collected Exs.P.15, P.16 and P.35 from the hospital at the face of it appears to be incorrect.In other words, we have no doubt at all that Exs.P.15, P.16 and P.35 were received from the police out post only by Grade-I Police Constable 216 from the investigating Police Station and not by anybody else.P.W.16's evidence that he only collected Exs.P.15 and P.16 stands ruled out from the endorsement found made on the reverse of Exs.P.15 and P.16 namely, "Soolamangalam Police Station, Grade I Police Constable 216".P.W.16 would state that he reached the hospital after he received information over telephone about the crime, where after collecting intimation for P.W.1, Ex.P.15 and death intimation Ex.P.35 for Sundaravelan (deceased No. 2) he examined P.W.1 in the ward by recording his statement.He would depose that thereafter he came back to the police station and registered that statement of P.W.1 as Ex.P.1 in Crime No. 1181 of 2000 for various offences.P.36 is the printed First Information Report.Since the very attack on the prosecution case centres around the genuineness of Ex.P.1, we examined with care and caution Ex.At the end of page 3 in Ex.P.1 we find an endorsement that P.W.16 recorded the said statement in the hospital at 4.15 a.m. Regarding the time at which the said complaint had come to be recorded in the hospital, there is definitely a correction.When P.W.16 was pinpointedly cross examined drawing his attention that the complaint was actually recorded only at 5.30 a.m. but it stands corrected as 4.15 a.m., he denied there is any such correction.It is not disputed even by the State counsel that the correction on the line indicated above is visible to the naked eye.We do find on a cursory perusal that there is correction regarding the time at which the complaint had come tobe recorded in the Government Hospital at Salem.Still to be sure as to what exactly the correction means, we used a magnifying glass.Through the magnifying glass we see that the time at which the complaint is shown to have been recorded at the hospital is indicated as 5.30 hours.The numerical "30" representing the minutes has been painted with a white paint and on such white painted portion the numerical "15" had been written.In fact he had denied that there is any such correction.To find out whether the correction as noted above was made in the hospital itself by P.W.16 or later in the police station, we find that there is no material.Normally white paint could be used on a written material to see that what was written earlier to the application of white paint is not readable by others.But in this case, in so using the white paint, the police officer had not taken care to see that the written material had been completely white painted.P.36 is the printed First Information Report.Column 3(a) of Ex.P.36 relates to the date and time of occurrence.We find from Ex.P.36 that the time of occurrence namely, 01.30 hours is definitely overwritten and using a magnifying glass we found that originally it was written there as "02.30" hours.We find that in the important records namely, Exs.P.1 and P.36 there are corrections and those corrections go to the root of the matter.As noted earlier, the police officer/P.W.16 had totally denied any such correction in Ex.P.1 at all.It may be true that the said complaint had reached the Magistrate at 7.00 a.m. itself.The shortcomings in the prosecution case namely, the recording of the complaint as indicated above are not the end of woes for the prosecution case and still there are many more.P.W.10 had stated that when he examined P.W.1 at 3.50 a.m. on 26.10.2000 he was conscious and P.W.1 told him that he was attacked by "unknown" persons by the use of sticks and other unidentifiable weapons.P.W.10 had issued the wound certificate.He had admitted when he was cross examined that he issued Ex.P.16 the intimation for Sundaravelan (Deceased No. 2) at 1.55 a.m. itself and there is every possibility of Sundaravelan being admitted in the hospital much earlier.He had also admitted when he was examined by the investigating officer that he gave details based on the contents of the accident register.When he was questioned as to whether Sundaravelan informed him that the assailants are shown to be "unknown", he answered that he did not remember.But however P.W.16, the investigating Officer had admitted when he was cross examined by A.1 to A.9, A.11 to A.14 that P.W.10 during investigation told him that when Sundaravelan was admitted in the hospital P.W.10 was informed that Sundaravelan was attacked by "unknown" assailants with unidentifiable objects.Therefore not only by the time when Sundaravelan came to be admitted in the hospital, which may be earlier to 1.55 a.m. on 26.10.2000 but also at 3.50 a.m., by which time P.W.1 appeared in the hospital, the assailants are "unknown".In this context, if we go back to our discussion on the genuineness of Ex.P.1 it is not possible to brush aside the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that till 3.50 a.m., on 26.10.2000 none of the prosecution party had any clue as to who the assailants are and then only after deliberation, the complaint by way of Ex.P.1 was brought into existence.According to him he had seen the occurrence.P.W.2 is also the elder brother of Sundaravelan, one of the deceased in this case.As noted earlier, he claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence.P.W.2's evidence is that he travelled along with his brother Sundaravelan to the hospital where his brother died at 2.10.a.m.This goes with the endorsement found in Ex.P.35, the death intimation that Sundaravelan's death was informed to the kith and kin in the hospital itself.When P.W.2 was cross examined at the instance of A.5, he had deposed as hereunder:My mother and my elder brother were taken to Soolamangalam Police Station (the investigating police station); at 3.00 a.m. in the morning, the Assistant Commissioner of Police came to the hospital; along with the Assistant Commissioner of Police my mother and my elder brother also came; the Assistant Commissioner examined me and I told him what happened; the Constable present along with the Assistant Commissioner of Police reduced in to writing what I narrated; my statement was read over to me and I found it to be correct and then singed in it; the Assistant Commissioner of Police sent away the constable asking him to register a case.This witness has not been re-examined at all by the State nor was he treated as hostile even at that stage.Therefore we have to take the above referred to evidence also into consideration.P.W.9 is also examined as an eye witness to the crime.He knows both the deceased as well as the accused.His evidence is that his house is half a furlong away from the house of Sundaravelan and he knows Sundaravelan for the past three years.Then he deposed that after the occurrence he did not go to the police station but only to his house.He told everybody in the village that Sundaravelan had been cut and he went to the house of Sundaravelan also and informed the inmates about the crime.He would admit that when he reached the house of Sundaravelan it was exactly 2.30 a.m. and on hearing the news, Sundaravelan's mother and elder brother left the house stating that they are going to the crime scene.Therefore if the above referred to evidence of P.W.9 is read in the context of the evidence of P.W.2, which we have already referred to earlier, would definitely lead us to conclude that Sundaravelan's mother and elder brother would have reached the investigating police station and from there along with the Assistant Commissioner of Police they had reached the hospital by about 3.00 a.m. where by examining P.W.2 a statement had been recorded.If that is so, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, there is definitely an earlier complaint given by P.W.2 to the police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police had directed the police constable to go and register that complaint.We searched in vain to find out whether there could be any material from which we could conclude that the evidence of P.W.2 is only an inadvertent error or due to ignorance of things that existed on that night.But we found none.When admittedly there is bitter enmity between the two groups, the Court must be in a position to find out with confidence, where lies the truth.In the face of our conclusion that prior to Ex.P.1 another complaint had already been given and Ex.P.1 is not the true version but appears to be a fabricated version, it is not possible for us to find out from the present evidence based on Ex.P.1, where lies the truth.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,956,691 |
The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,966,795 |
Considering the allegation against the applicant and coupled with the fact that the applicant is an old lady and there is no likelihood of her absconsion, but without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court.The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and she will co-operate in the investigation.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.42/2014 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Datia, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B, 34 of IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.After marriage husband and mother-in-law started demanding dowry and harassed the complainant.They also gave beating to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant fell ill and she was taken to Delhi for treatment.Learned counsel submits that the applicant was residing separately while the complainant was residing at Bhopal.Case diary perused.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,969,413 |
Thereafter, applicant alongwith the co-accused by pulling the complainant, took her towards roadside and tied her mouth with the help of Dupatta and then tried to outrage her modesty.In the meantime, husband of the complainant reached there and objected them, then applicant gave beating to him.On making hue and cry by husband of the complainant, passerby gathered there, then applicant ran way by threatening that he is following the complainant for so many days and he will not leave her.Perused the case diary.This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.761/2014 registered at Police Station, Morar, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, 323, 506, 34, 394, 201 of IPC and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPKAs per prosecution case, the complainant was returning from the market.Near Sant Paul School applicant alongwith 4-5 persons surrounded the complainant and on the point of gun applicant snatched purse and Mangalsutra from the complainant.C.No.11298/2014 (Avinash Vs.State of M.P.) 2 neighbours and they were having love affairs and this fact came into the knowledge of husband of the complainant, hence, a false report has been lodged.In such premises, applicant prayed for bail.Hence, this bail application is hereby dismissed.(Sushil Kumar Gupta ) Judge ms/-
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,911,070 |
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant shall deposit Rs.5000/- in PM CARE Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Dy.Advocate General to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as the concerning Superintendent of Police, District Gwalior who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,911,223 |
The application is hereby allowed.The applicant - GANESH S/O MARUTI KATKAR in connection with Crime No.310 of 2020 registered with Shirdi Police Station, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions :-a] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till filing of charge sheet.c] The applicant shall not enter within the limits of village Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar till of the charge sheet, except for attending the police station as directed above.Application is accordingly disposed off.(V.K.JADHAV, J.) Sam...::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2020 03:37:06 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,913,843 |
M.A. No. 17926/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 421/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Ghazipur on 8th October, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.CRL.M.C. 5244/2014 Page 1 of 93. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Archana are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ SI Hasrat Ali, Police Station CAW Cell.At the same time, complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic ViolenceWhile the matter was being considered in the court below during the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, the same was referred to the Mediation Centre; and on 22nd April, 2014, a joint statement of complainant and her husband was recorded before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein it was noted that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and have decided to live together as husband and wife.Counsel for the petitioner also points out that earlier another similar petition was filed being Crl.M.C. 4797/2014 which came to be disposed off on 17th October, 2014 by quashing the aforesaid FIR and consequent proceedings only qua the complainant's husband, namely, Manoj Yadav who was arrayed as petitioner No.1 in that matter.However, the FIR and proceedings with regard to remaining accused persons, who are the petitioners in this matter also were not quashed.I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus, especially since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation in a matter arising largely out of domestic and matrimonial disputes; where the parties have decided to live together and continue with their marriage, thereby reducing the chances of success of the prosecution, if launched.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 421/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Ghazipur on 8th CRL.M.C. 5244/2014 Page 8 of 9 October, 2013 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 5244/2014 Page 8 of 9The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
849,288 |
Later at the instance of her mother-in-law, who was also made an accused, she was being maltreated and even abused by the accused persons including her husband.She further alleged that her husband often used to beat her and had been insisting that she should get another sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents for his business.Ultimately, the respondent married again and has got a second wife.The other accused persons have actively associated themselves with the second marriage.JUDGMENT N.P. Singh J.1. Leave granted.The validity of an order passed by the High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 492 of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), quashing the criminal proceeding which has been initiated against the accused-respondents, has been questioned in this appeal.The appellant filed a petition of complaint against her husband, accused-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"), alleging that she was married to the said respondent and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with gold ring and wrist watch, was given to him on the eve of the marriage.She filed the petition of complaint in the year 1990, alleging that she was married to the respondent, who subjected her to cruelty, details whereof were mentioned in the complaint aforesaid.She further stated that on 4.5.1990 he has married again, deserting the appellant.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,931,995 |
This is first petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.395, 365 of the IPC and 11/13 of of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (for brevity the Act, 1981) in connection with Crime No.35 of 2019 registered by by police station Ghatigaon, District Gwalior (M.P.).It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence.C.No.14168 of 2015 (Bharat Singh Vs.State of M.P) decided vide order dated 19.1.2016 wherein, under similar circumstances, anticipatory bail was granted.On these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer stating that 2 MCRC-38397-2019 anticipatory bail is barred under the provisions of MPDVPk Act. He further submitted that the name of applicant has been specifically taken by co- accused Dipesh and he has read over the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of Dipesh.But he fairly admits the fact that the applicant is a witness in the previous FIR registered at Crime No.301 of 2018 against complainant party.On these grounds, he prayed for rejection of this application.Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this petition u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms:Till conclusion of investigation, the applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station twice a week.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.R. K. SHARMA 2019.10.01 (VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE 10:47:34 +05'30' Rks
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.